Powers v. Department of Motor Vehicles

California Court of Appeal Apr 17, 1970 No. Civ. No. 12040Published

Before: Bray

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A forfeiture of bail constitutes a conviction for the purposes of driver's license suspension under the Vehicle Code, and a subsequent dismissal of the underlying charge does not negate that conviction.

Issues

Whether a plea of guilty and forfeiture of bail followed by a dismissal constitutes a conviction under Vehicle Code section 13103.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the moment petitioner forfeited his bail he was “convicted” of the charge filed.”

“regardless of what happens after forfeiture, the statute provides that for the purpose of license suspension the forfeiture is a conviction.”

“after conviction the court had no power to dismiss the complaint.”

[704]Opinion

BRAY, J.* The Department of Motor Vehicles appeals from a judgment granting a peremptory writ of mandate compelling the department to rescind an order of suspension and restore the license of petitioner.

Question Presented

The sole question herein is whether a plea of guilty and forfeiture of, bail followed by a dismissal is sufficient to constitute a conviction within Vehicle Code section 13103.

Facts

On April 7, 1962, petitioner was arrested for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. On April 9 a complaint was filed in the Justice Court of Anderson Judicial District, Shasta County, charging him with violation of section 23102, subdivision (a), of the Vehicle Code (misdemeanor drunk driving). The court record is most confusing and even contradictory. It indicates that on June 6 petitioner pleaded both guilty and not guilty. He forefited bail in the sum of $276. The same day the judge issued an order to the county auditor to draw warrants payable to the Anderson Justice Court for $276 and to petitioner for $39.

On June 25 the District Attorney of Shasta County filed a request for dismissal of the complaint against petitioner “in the interest of Justice in that bail has been forfeited.” (Italics added.) On the court docket appears an entry, appearing as made on June 6, “Case dismissed in the interest of Justice, in that bail has been forfeited.” (Italics added.) (Obviously this entry must have been made after June 25, the date of the district attorney’s request.) On July 5 an abstract of judgment showing bail forefit of $276 and “Case dismissed in the interest of Justice” was mailed to the Attorney General. On July 27 the judge wrote the Division of Drivers’ Licenses, Department of Motor Vehicles, stating that in reporting the disposition of this matter, the judge neglected “to inform your department that the Court had made a recommendation against any suspension of driving privileges.”

The Department of Motor Vehicles, pursuant to section 13352, subdivision (a), suspended petitioner’s operator’s license for six months, effective June 6, 1962. Subsequently, on receipt of the judge’s letter, the suspension was set aside.

On March 16, 1967, in the Justice Court of Redding Judicial District,

Powers v. Department of Motor Vehicles

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief