Opinion ID: 2581745
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Limitations on Judicial Review

Text: Farmer claims that the district court should have reversed or amended his revocation period because Farmer adduced evidence that, after the ADLRO decision, one of the prior convictions forming the basis for the lifetime revocation was set aside. The Director argues that: There is no statutory authority for the district court to alter the Administrative Director's revocation based on a prior conviction being overturned after the administrative decision is rendered because the overturning was not part of the original Administrative Director's record. HRS § 286-260(b) unambiguously limits the district court's review to the record of the administrative hearing without taking of additional testimony or evidence.  (Emphasis added). Thus, the district court was barred from considering the subsequent overturning [of one of Farmer's three prior DUI convictions]. (Emphases in original.) The relevant provisions of the License Revocation Act do not provide an opportunity to challenge a revocation decision at the administrative agency level if predicate prior convictions are later set aside. Although ADLRO suggested that Farmer may be entitled to request relief from ADLRO if he did not file an appeal and his conviction was later vacated, we have found no statutory authority under the License Revocation Act allowing ADLRO to consider new evidence and grant such relief. The question whether ADLRO should have the authority to reconsider or amend a revocation decision must be addressed by the legislature. An examination of the License Revocation Act reveals that filing a petition for judicial review by the district court pursuant to HRS § 286-260 (1993 & Supp.1999) [8] is the only avenue for post-revocation relief provided by statute, and judicial review by the district court pursuant to HRS § 286-260 is limited to the record before ADLRO. As the Director correctly points out, under the express language of HRS § 286-260(b), the district court did not have the authority to consider new evidence on a petition for judicial review of ADLRO's revocation decision. See also HRS § 286-260(c); District Court Rules of Civil Procedure (DCRCP) Rule 72(h) (1999); Gray, 84 Hawai`i 138 at 144, 931 P.2d 580 at 586 (judicial review is limited to the record at the time of the administrative hearing and the questions whether ADLRO exceeded constitutional or statutory authority, erroneously interpreted the law, acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner, committed an abuse of discretion, or made a determination that was unsupported by the evidence in the record). Once the petition is filed, ADLRO is divested of jurisdiction, the revocation may not be stayed pending review, and HRS § 286-260(d) prohibits the district court from remanding the matter to ADLRO. [9] Thus, on Farmer's petition for judicial review pursuant to HRS § 286-260, the district court was precluded from considering the fact that one of Farmer's prior convictions was set aside after ADLRO's decision. The foregoing provisions limiting judicial review and prohibiting remand to ADLRO were enacted to ensure that ADLRO make a simple, quick and efficient determination whether to revoke a person's driver's license for [DUI,] Sen. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 2630, in 1996 Senate Journal, at 1225, so that dangerous drivers are taken off the public roads as soon as possible. See id. ; Sen. Conf. Comm. Rep. No. 137, in 1990 Senate Journal, at 825-26. In promulgating these provisions, it appears that the legislature did not contemplate the situation presented here. If Farmer's record contained only two prior alcohol enforcement contacts, the maximum period of revocation ADLRO could have imposed would have been two years. HRS § 286-261(b)(3). Based on the revocation periods imposed by and the legislative history of the License Revocation Act, it is clear that the legislature intended to impose harsh penalties on repeat offenders with prior DUI convictions. See HRS § 286-261; see also Sen. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 2630, in 1996 Senate Journal, at 1225; Sen. Conf. Comm. Rep. No. 137, in 1990 Senate Journal, at 825-26. However, we do not believe the legislature intended to deny arrestees an opportunity to challenge or adjust a revocation period that is based upon an invalid conviction and, thus, no longer supported by the evidence. The District Court Rules of Civil Procedure (DCRCP) also fail to provide Farmer an avenue for relief. In most proceedings before the district court, DCRCP Rule 60(b) (1999) provides for relief from a judgment or order of the district court where, inter alia: (1) there is newly discovered evidence; (2) a prior judgment upon which the judgment is based is vacated; (3) it is no longer equitable that the judgment have prospective application; or (4) any other reason is present that justifies relief from the operation of the judgment. However, DCRCP Rule 60(b) relief from judgment is not available to Farmer because the DCRCP are not applicable to petitions for judicial review from ADLRO. DCRCP Rule 81(a)(3)(1999) (providing that provisions of the DCRCP are not applicable to judicial review pursuant to DCRCP Rule 72, which governs judicial review of agency actions). Nevertheless, [w]e have held that, `[a]mong courts' inherent powers are the powers to create a remedy for a wrong even in the absence of specific statutory remedies[.]' Carl Corporation v. Department of Education, 85 Hawai`i 431, 460, 946 P.2d 1, 30 (1997), reconsideration denied, 85 Hawaii 431, 946 P.2d 1 (1997) (holding that, where the legislature failed to provide any statutory remedy for bad faith conduct on the part of the purchasing agency and the purposes of the procurement code support a remedy, the supreme court has the inherent power to provide a remedy entitling a protestor of the purchasing agency's decision to recover attorney's fees incurred in prosecuting its protest under certain circumstances); see also Richardson v. Sport Shinko (Waikiki Corporation), 76 Hawai`i 494, 507-08, 880 P.2d 169, 182-83 (1994) (holding that the trial court had the inherent power to fashion a remedy to cure prejudice suffered by one party as a result of another party's loss of critical evidence and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to exercise that power). Discussing the nature of the inherent powers of the courts, this court has stated that Our constitution vests the judicial power of the State in the courts. Haw. Const. art. VI, s 1. Nowhere in that document is the exact nature of the judicial power defined, and we agree that the essentially inherent or implied powers of the court are by their nature impracticable if not impossible of all-inclusive enumeration. But speaking generally, the inherent power of the court is the power to protect itself; the power to administer justice whether any previous form of remedy has been granted or not; the power to promulgate rules for its practice; and the power to provide process where none exists. State v. Moriwake, 65 Haw. 47, 55, 647 P.2d 705, 711-12 (1982) (citations omitted) (holding that the inherent power of the courts is properly invoked when a trial court sua sponte dismisses an indictment with prejudice following the declaration of one or more mistrials even though the defendant's constitutional rights are not yet implicated). Further, the inherent power of the supreme court is codified in HRS § 602-5(7), which acknowledge's this court's jurisdiction and power [t]o make and award such judgments, decrees, orders and mandates, issue such executions and other processes, and do such other acts and take such other steps as may be necessary to carry into full effect the powers which are or shall be given to it by law or for the promotion of justice in matters pending before it. In this case, justice requires that Farmer be given an opportunity to challenge the lifetime revocation of his driver's license because one of the three predicate convictions on which his revocation is based has been set aside. Providing such a remedy to Farmer is consistent with the purpose of the ADLRO statute to ensure a fair but efficient administrative process. Therefore, we hold that Farmer is entitled to have the district court amend his revocation period pursuant to HRS § 286-261 upon the presentation of proof that his driving record no longer supports the revocation period imposed.