Title: Texas Department of Public Safety v. King

State: texas

Issuer: Texas Supreme Court

Document:

366 S.W.2d 215 (1963) TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Petitioner, v. Freddie Lee KING, Respondent. No. A-9349. Supreme Court of Texas. April 3, 1963. *216 Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Dallas, John J. Orvis, Asst. Dist. Atty., for petitioner. Yarborough, Yarborough & Johnson, Dallas, Roger L. Turner, Dallas, with above firm, for respondent. STEAKLEY, Justice. On November 24, 1961, a corporation court of the City of Dallas made an affirmative finding that Respondent was an habitual violator of the traffic law. Pursuant thereto, on December 6, 1961, the Department of Public Safety ordered Respondent's driving privileges suspended for twelve months. Respondent appealed to the County Court at Law No. 2 of Dallas County pursuant to Section 22(c) of Article 6687b, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. Both Respondent and Petitioner filed motions for summary judgment. Petitioner's motion was granted and Respondent appealed. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded the case, holding that Respondent was entitled to a jury trial on the question of his guilt and, if found guilty, on the question of the length of time his license would be suspended. Tex.Civ.App., 362 S.W.2d 131. The Court of Civil Appeals recognized that our courts have upheld the applicability of the summary judgment procedure in appeals involving the habitual violator issue (citing Smith v. Texas Department of Public Safety, Tex.Civ.App., 352 S.W.2d 958, and cases cited), and said: We granted writ of error to review the holding that the appeal provisions of Section 22(c) require a determination by the court or jury of the license suspension period. As observed in the concurring opinion in the Court of Civil Appeals, the constitutionality of Section 22 as amended in 1959 is not raised by the parties. The Legislature in 1959[1] amended Section 22 of the Drivers' Licenses Act of 1941[2] by adding Section 22(c). Section 22(a) was re-enacted in full in the 1959 amendment. This was also true of Section 22(b), except for the addition of a definition of the term "habitual violator" and a ninth reason for license suspensions. *217 Sections 22(a) and 22(b) provide as follows: As relevant here, the appeal provisions of Section 22(c) added by the 1959 amendment are as follows: Section 31 of Article 6687b was unchanged by the 1959 amendment and for reference is quoted in the footnote.[3] We reserve the question of the effect, if any, of the addition of Section 22(c) upon Section 31. We construe Section 22(c) to afford a licensee an election between the appeal provisions of Section 22(a) and Section 22(c). He may appeal the affirmative finding of guilt by the hearing officer to the county court under Section 22(a) which does not require or contemplate an actual suspension of the license by the Department prior, or as a prerequisite, to the appeal. If the license is suspended on the basis of suspension reasons 3, 4, 5, 8, or 9 of Section 22(b), the appeal provisions of Section 22(c) are also available to him. In such cases, he can await the order of the Department *219 suspending his license on the basis of the prior affirmative finding of the hearing officer and, if unwilling to accept the decision of the Department, bring an appeal suit pursuant to Section 22(c). This suit is from the final ruling or decision of the Department; it is to vacate and set aside the decision suspending the license. The appeal court is to "determine the issues in such cause, instead of the Department" and the cause "shall be tried * * * as if there had been no prior hearing on the matter of suspension." The suspension order of the Department, however, is not nullified by the appeal but is itself suspended and stayed pending the appeal. The question is whether the Legislature intended that in the Section 22(c) appeal only the guilt or innocence of the licensee would be determined by the court or jury. Or, whether it was intended that the court or jury would have the duty of determining the length of the license suspension. There is basis in the language of Section 22(c) for both constructions. We are persuaded to the former. There is no express or specific provision in the 1959 amendment of Section 22 that the Department has the duty of determining the period of suspension in Section 22(a) appeals, which is clearly the case as shown earlier, but does not have the duty of doing so in Section 22(c) appeals. Section 22(c) provides no maximum period of suspension if it is construed that the court or jury is to determine the length of suspension. The result would be that the court or jury could suspend driving privileges for one year, five years, and so on, whereas the Legislature has expressly prescribed that the Department may suspend a license for no longer than one year. In specifying the nature of the Section 22(c) appeal, the Legislature provided that the trial shall be "as if there had been no prior hearing on the matter of suspension." The only "prior hearing" provided in Section 22 is held by the mayor, or police judge, or justice of the peace. The only affirmative finding of guilt is by such hearing officer. The Department does not conduct a hearing at any stage of the suspension procedure. The affirmative finding of the hearing officer is not upon, and does not include, the question of the length of suspension of the driving privileges. Without doubt the appeal under Section 22(a) in the 1941 Act, and as re-enacted in the 1959 amendment, is from the finding of guilt only. The Legislature delegated to the Department the sole responsibility of determining the period of suspension. There is no expressed legislative intent in the 1959 amendment adding Section 22(c) that this duty is to be performed by the court or jury in Section 22(c) appeals. To the contrary, it is expressly provided that the decision of the Department is itself suspendednot nullified or rendered naughtduring the appeal. The necessary inference from this provision is that if the guilt of the licensee is sustained on appeal, the suspension order of the Department thereupon becomes effective. We recognize that the problem of construing the statute to solve the problem at hand is not free from difficulties. The construction we have adopted is in keeping with the expressed intent of the Legislature in the original Act of 1941 to delegate to the Department of Public Safety the duty to determine the period of suspension of driving privileges, and the absence of any evident intent in the 1959 amendment to alter the suspension procedure in this respect. One other question is presented. In the appeal by Respondent to the County Court at Law, Petitioner was granted summary judgment upholding the previous affirmative finding that the Respondent was an habitual violator. Respondent recognizes that our courts have upheld the applicability of summary judgment procedure in appeals involving the habitual violator issue but contends that he was entitled to summary judgment because the four convictions established in the motion of Petitioner for summary judgment were not within a consecutive twelve-months period, although the four transactions upon which the four convictions were based were within *220 a consecutive twelve-months period. We overrule the contention. The definition of an habitual violator in Section 22(b) is quoted in the forepart of this opinion. It requires a minimum of four convictions, the transactions underlying which must have arisen in a consecutive period of twelve months. The definition does not require the convictions to have become final within the consecutive twelve-months period. The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is reversed and that of the trial court is affirmed. [1] Acts 1959, 56th Leg., 2d C.S., p. 161, Ch. 41, § 1. [2] Acts 1941, 47th Leg., R.S. p. 245, Ch. 173. [3] "Any person denied a license or whose license has been cancelled or revoked by the Department except where such cancellation or revocation is automatic under the provisions of this Act shall have the right to file a petition within thirty (30) days thereafter for a hearing in the matter in the County Court at Law in the county wherein such person shall reside, or if there be no County Court at Law therein, then in the county court of said county, and such court is hereby vested with jurisdiction, and it shall be its duty to set the matter for hearing upon ten (10) days written notice to the Department, and thereupon to take testimony and examine into the facts of the case, and to determine whether the petitioner is entitled to a license or is subject to suspension, cancellation or revocation of license under the provisions of this Act. "Provided the trial on appeal as herein provided for shall be a trial de novo and the licensee shall have the right of trial by jury and his license shall not be suspended pending the appeal. "Provided further in cases herein provided for suspension of license, the filing of the petition of appeal shall abate said suspension until the trial herein provided for shall have been consummated and final judgment thereon is had."