Opinion
111,583.
01-30-2015
Troy R. SIEBELS, Appellant, v. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee.
Daniel C. Walter and Andrew J. Walter, of Ryan, Walter & McClymont, Chtd., of Norton, for appellant. James G. Keller, deputy general counsel, of Legal Services Bureau, Kansas Department of Revenue, for appellee.
Daniel C. Walter and Andrew J. Walter, of Ryan, Walter & McClymont, Chtd., of Norton, for appellant.
James G. Keller, deputy general counsel, of Legal Services Bureau, Kansas Department of Revenue, for appellee.
Before POWELL, P.J., HILL and SCHROEDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
The district court affirmed the Kansas Department of Revenue's administrative suspension of Troy Siebels' driver's license for failing a blood alcohol test. Siebels now seeks reversal of that decision, claiming he did not receive a written copy of the Implied Consent Advisory (DC–70) form required by K.S.A.2012 Supp. 8–1001(k). In the alternative, Siebels argues that there was not substantial compliance with the written notice requirements under the statute. Finding that the officer gave Siebels the written advisory notice at the hospital as required by K.S.A.2012 Supp. 8–1001(k), we affirm the suspension of Siebels' driver's license.
Facts
In May 2013, Siebels was involved in a single-vehicle accident and transported to the emergency room in Norton County Hospital, where Deputy Robert Annon of the Norton County Sheriff's Department met him. Although Siebels named two other people as the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident, Deputy Annon determined Siebels was the driver.
At the hospital, Deputy Annon placed a copy of the DC–70 in Siebels' left hand before reading him the implied consent advisory. The audio recordings Deputy Annon made at the hospital reflect he told Siebels, “Here is a copy for you to read along with me.” Deputy Annon subsequently completed a DC–27 form (Officer's Certification and Notice of Suspension) which certified that he had provided Siebels with the oral and written notices required under K.S.A.2012 Supp. 8–1001(k).
In contrast to Deputy Annon's testimony, Siebels testified he had never seen a written implied consent advisory prior to the date of the trial and that he did not have the DC–70 when Deputy Annon asked him to submit to a blood test. Siebels testified he was not physically capable of receiving a written copy of the advisory because he was on his back with his arms strapped down. Siebels agreed the only way he would have been physically able to receive a written advisory would be if it “had somehow been placed in [his] fingers.” While Siebels admitted intoxication could affect his memory about certain facts, he did testify that Deputy Annon read the implied consent advisory to him right before he submitted to the blood test. Siebels admitted his blood alcohol content was 0.17.
At Siebels' administrative hearing, Siebels' license was suspended, and he sought review by the district court. The district court found Deputy Annon provided Siebels with the written notice pursuant to K.S.A.2012 Supp. 8–1001(k) and affirmed the suspension of his driver's license. Siebels timely appeals.
Was Siebels Given the Written Notice?
Siebels admits the DC–70 was read to him at the hospital, but denies a written copy of the DC–70 was given to him by Deputy Annon. Thus, the only issue presented on appeal is whether Deputy Annon actually gave the written copy of the DC–70 to Siebels.
This court generally reviews a district court's decision to suspend a driver's license using the substantial evidence standard. Swank v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 294 Kan. 871, 881, 281 P.3d 135 (2012). Whether substantial evidence exists is a question of law. Smith v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 291 Kan. 510, 514, 242 P .3d 1179 (2010). Substantial evidence refers to legal and relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as being adequate to support a conclusion. State v. May, 293 Kan. 858, 862, 269 P.3d 1260 (2012).
Siebels simply asks us to reweigh the conflicting testimony and find his testimony more credible. In determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support the district court's factual findings, we generally will not reweigh the evidence or the credibility of witnesses. State v. Hall, 292 Kan. 841, 859, 257 P.3d 272 (2011). Here, the district court found credible evidence that “the officer did in fact give [Siebels] a written copy of the DC–70.” Deputy Annon's testimony he gave Siebels the DC–70 at the hospital provides substantial competent evidence the written DC–70 form was given to Siebels.
The record reflects Siebels was given the DC–70 while listening to the oral notice and was sufficiently advised of the essentials of the Kansas Implied Consent Law. See Bamhart v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 243 Kan. 209, 213, 755 P.3d 1337 (1988). Because Deputy Annon completed the oral notices and provided the written DC–70 form to Siebels, there was full compliance with K.S.A.2012 Supp. 8–1001(k) and Siebels' argument about lack of substantial compliance becomes moot. We find no error by the district court and affirm the suspension of Siebels' driver's license.
Affirmed.