Opinion
Case No. 117,641
09-12-2019
David Shawn FRITZ, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma EX REL. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Defendant/Appellee.
David S. Fritz, Leon, Oklahoma, Pro se Mark E. Bright, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel., DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, For Defendant/Appellee
David S. Fritz, Leon, Oklahoma, Pro se
Mark E. Bright, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel., DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, For Defendant/Appellee
OPINION BY JANE P. WISEMAN, VICE-CHIEF JUDGE:
¶1 Appellant David Fritz appeals the trial court's denial of his request to renew his driver's license. After review of the record and applicable law, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 On July 5, 2010, while driving with a Louisiana driver's license, Fritz received a speeding ticket in Missouri. He failed to appear in Missouri traffic court on August 5, 2010. On November 2, 2010, Fritz received an Oklahoma driver's license. Five days later on November 7, the State of Louisiana suspended Fritz's license for failing to appear in Missouri. Although Fritz's Oklahoma license expired on November 30, 2014, he did not seek a renewal until recently. After being denied renewal of his license, Fritz met with Oklahoma Department of Public Safety employee Jackie Sites who is a Driving Compliance Hearing Officer in Ardmore. According to Sites' testimony at the hearing, DPS could not renew Fritz's license while his Louisiana license was suspended.
¶3 By petition to the trial court on October 1, 2018, Fritz appealed DPS's refusal to renew his driver's license. At the conclusion of the hearing held on December 4, 2018, the trial court "dismissed" his petition.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶4 Fritz questions whether he was provided due process in DPS's handling of his quest for renewal. "Whether an individual's procedural due process rights have been violated is a question of constitutional fact which is reviewed de novo ." Pierce v. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 2014 OK 37, ¶ 7, 327 P.3d 530.
¶5 Where the facts are not in dispute and the trial court's decision turns on the application of law, we conduct an independent de novo review. See Manning v. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 2003 OK CIV APP 57, ¶ 5, 71 P.3d 527. In a de novo review, we give no deference to the trial court's reasoning or result. See Justus v. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Safety , 2002 OK 46, ¶ 3, 61 P.3d 888.
ANALYSIS
¶6 Although Fritz lists five propositions of error, those propositions can best be categorized as two distinct claims: (1) he was not afforded due process by DPS, and (2) DPS's denial of his driver's license is not supported by the law. We first examine the procedural challenge.
I. DPS Procedure
¶7 The established procedure for this appeal is set out in the following provisions of Title 47 O.S.2011 § 6-211 :
A. Any person denied driving privileges, or whose driving privilege has been canceled, denied, suspended or revoked by the Department , except where such cancellation, denial, suspension or revocation is mandatory, under the provisions of Section 6-205 of this title, or disqualified by the Department, under the provisions of Section 6-205.2 or 761 of this title, shall have the right of appeal to the district court as hereinafter provided. Proceedings before the district court shall be exempt from the provisions of the Oklahoma Pleading and Discovery codes, except that the appeal shall be by petition, without responsive pleadings. The district court is hereby vested with original jurisdiction to hear the petition.
B. A person whose driving privilege is denied, canceled, revoked or suspended due to inability to meet standards prescribed by law, or due to an out-of-state conviction or violation , or due to an excessive point accumulation on the traffic record, or for an unlawful license issued, may appeal in the county in which the person resides .
....
E. The petition shall be filed within thirty (30) days after the order has been served upon the person, except a petition relating to an implied consent revocation shall be filed within thirty (30) days after the Department gives notice to the person that the revocation is sustained as provided in Section 754 of this title. It shall be the duty of the district court to enter an order setting the matter for hearing not less than fifteen (15) days and not more than thirty (30) days from the date the petition is filed. A certified copy of petition and order for hearing shall be served forthwith by the clerk of the court upon the Commissioner of Public Safety by certified mail at the Department of Public Safety, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
....
I. The court shall take testimony and examine the facts and circumstances, including all of the records on file in the office of the Department of Public Safety relative to the offense committed and the driving record of the person, and determine from the facts, circumstances, and records whether or not the petitioner is entitled to driving privileges or shall be subject to the order of denial, cancellation, suspension or revocation issued by the Department . The court may also determine whether or not, from the person's previous driving record, the order was for a longer period of time than such facts and circumstances warranted. In case the court finds that the order was not justified, the court may sustain the appeal, vacate the order of the Department and direct that driving privileges be restored to the petitioner, if otherwise eligible. The court may, in case it determines the order was justified, but that the period of the suspension or revocation was excessive, enter an order modifying the same as provided by law.
....
M. An appeal may be taken by the person or by the Department from the order or judgment of the district court to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma as otherwise provided by law.
(Emphasis added.) As provided in subsection A, Fritz has been denied driving privileges by DPS's refusal to grant him a license after his Oklahoma driver's license expired.
¶8 According to the record, Fritz met with DPS Hearing Officer Jackie Sites on more than one occasion to resolve his problem, but he was unsatisfied with the outcome of these meetings. Fritz then filed his petition in the trial court on October 1, 2018, and a motion for hearing on October 30, 2018. The trial court issued an order setting a hearing for December 4, 2018.
¶9 "The District Court's review of a driver's license denial is conducted de novo ." Trusty v. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Safety , 2016 OK 94, n. 17, 381 P.3d 726. At that December 4th hearing, the trial court heard testimony from Sites, asked questions of the witness and the parties, examined the facts and circumstances, and considered the parties' arguments and legal authorities to determine whether to grant Fritz's appeal. Although the trial court characterized its decision as a "dismissal," it is clearly not a dismissal, but an adjudication on the merits, and we will consider the nature of the decision by what it actually is, rather than the nomenclature given it by the trial court. "The meaning and effect of an instrument filed in court depends on its contents and substance rather than on the form or title given it by the author." Horizons, Inc. v. Keo Leasing Co. , 1984 OK 24, ¶ 4, 681 P.2d 757. When the trial court upheld DPS's decision to deny the license renewal, Fritz properly appealed that denial pursuant to subsection M of § 6-211. ¶10 The appropriate procedure for someone whose license renewal request was denied has been followed in this case. The Oklahoma Administrative Code provisions that Fritz cites do not apply to his situation, and the procedure set out there is inapplicable. Fritz's situation does not fall under any of the four categories to receive a hearing before DPS and he therefore is not entitled to such a hearing. Okla. Admin. Code § 595:1-3-3 (2004). Even if Fritz's case had fallen into one of these four categories, DPS's refusal to renew his Oklahoma license would not have been subject to further DPS review. Okla. Admin. Code § 595:1-3-4(e)(2017) ("A person is not entitled to a hearing when the action taken by the Department of Public Safety is made mandatory by law."). As discussed below, DPS could not issue Fritz an Oklahoma license while his license in another state was suspended. DPS's response to Fritz's license renewal application is mandated by state law, and no hearing to present evidence or explain the circumstances of his Louisiana license suspension would or could change the outcome as long as his Louisiana license remained suspended. This is equally true of the Missouri citation which may only be resolved by Missouri authorities. After his meetings with Sites, Fritz's only recourse in Oklahoma was to the trial court to test the validity of DPS's denial. He properly pursued this course by following 47 O.S.2011 § 6-211 when he filed this case.
Oklahoma Administrative Code § 595:1-3-3(b) (2004)provides:
A person has the right to request a hearing before the Department of Public Safety whenever he or she has been aggrieved or adversely affected by an act or refusal to act, or by the issuance of an order or decision by the Department which is subject to review under any applicable statute. Hearings before the Department fall into four categories:
(1) Hearings under Title 47. Hearings which are specifically provided for and follow those procedures set forth under Title 47 of the Oklahoma Statutes:
(A) Implied consent hearings. Implied consent hearings, involving driving privilege revocation for refusal to take or failure of a breath or blood test for alcohol concentration, are specifically provided for and follow the procedures of the Oklahoma statutes. [47 O.S. § 751 et seq . ].
(B) Impounded vehicle hearings. Impounded vehicle hearings follow the procedures specifically provided for under 47 O.S. § 903A.
(C) Parking violations on certain state property. Hearings involving parking violations on certain state property, as set forth under 47 O.S. § 11-1009, are conducted according to state law.
(2) Hearings under the Administrative Procedures Act—Wrecker or towing service hearings. Wrecker or towing service hearings resulting in wrecker license cancellation, revocation, or refusal to issue or renew the license, follow the procedures set forth under the Administrative Procedures Act [75 O.S. Art. II] except for those hearings related to vehicles impounded by public agencies which are specifically provided for and conducted according to 47 O.S. § 903A.
(3) Hearings under Department rules. Hearings provided for by specific rules set forth by divisions within the Department:
(A) Oklahoma Motor Carrier Safety and Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. Hearings involving penalties for violation of the Oklahoma Motor Carrier Safety and Hazardous Materials Transportation Act [47 O.S. § 230.1 et seq. ] are conducted as set forth in 595:35-1-9. [47 O.S. § 230.9(F) ]
(B) Oversize and overweight vehicles. Hearings involving the denial or suspension of a permit for oversize and overweight vehicles are conducted as set forth in 595:30-5-3.
(4) Hearings set forth in this Chapter. Hearings conducted according to the rules of this Chapter:
(A) Points violations. Hearings on points violations resulting in suspension of driving privileges [47 O.S. § 6-206 ].
(B) Medical aspects. Hearings on medical aspects relating to a driver's affliction with physical or mental ailments which may cause loss or partial loss of control of or incapability of properly controlling a vehicle [47 O.S. § 6-119 et seq. ].
(C) Financial responsibility hearings. Financial responsibility hearings involving the suspension of driving privileges for an owner or driver of a motor vehicle involved in a collision resulting in personal injury, death, or property damage of over three hundred dollars ($300.00) where there is no security (liability insurance) [47 O.S. § 7-101 ].
(D) Other hearings. Other hearings conducted within the discretion of the Commissioner of Public Safety [47 O.S. § 2-115 ].
¶11 Once in trial court, Fritz attended a hearing where he was able to present evidence, provide testimony, and counter DPS's arguments. We see no violations of Fritz's right to due process and reject his propositions of error on these points. II. State law prohibits DPS from issuing a license to a person suspended by another state
¶12 Fritz also challenges the trial court's decision to deny his appeal. The pertinent part of 47 O.S.2011 § 6-103 reads:
A. Except as otherwise provided by law, the Department of Public Safety shall not issue a driver license to:
...
3. Any person whose driving privilege has been suspended, revoked, canceled or denied in this state or any other state or country until the driving privilege has been reinstated by the state or country withdrawing the privilege ....
Fritz does not dispute the authenticity or validity of the DPS records offered and admitted at the December hearing which show the Missouri citation and failure to appear and the subsequent Louisiana license suspension. Fritz stated at the December 4th hearing, "I acknowledge that I don't have a license because I refused to pay a traffic ticket out of Missouri which in turn flagged my license through Louisiana after I had transferred my license to the State of Oklahoma." Tr., p. 4, lines 10-13. Section 6-103 prohibits DPS from issuing a driver's license to someone in Fritz's position. Louisiana suspended Fritz's driving privileges in 2010 based on his failure to appear for a speeding citation in Missouri. DPS may not override or circumvent this statutory restriction and grant Fritz a driver's license.
¶13 As DPS advised him, he must resolve his Louisiana license suspension before DPS may consider his application to renew his Oklahoma driver's license. Nor is there any mechanism for Fritz to challenge in Oklahoma the merits of the speeding ticket he received in Missouri. Based on Oklahoma's clear statutory mandate in § 6-103, no Oklahoma license may be issued or renewed until the underlying out-of-state suspension is lifted and his driving privileges restored in that state. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied Fritz's appeal.
Counsel for DPS stated at the December hearing: "I think I've had two conversations with Mr. Fritz and I've told him that he needs to go to Missouri and get this straightened out and get that hold lifted in Louisiana. That's the only remedy that he has. He wants to circumvent that and have the State issue him a license anyway. We can't do that."
--------
CONCLUSION
¶14 The trial court correctly determined that DPS did not err in refusing to grant or renew Fritz's driver's license.
¶15 AFFIRMED.
BARNES, P.J., and RAPP, J., concur.