Opinion ID: 1891425
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Civil License Suspension Proceeding

Text: Defendant first argues that the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the civil suspension proceeding. According to defendant, because the final hearing was not held within forty-two days of the date of the alleged offense, under 23 V.S.A. § 1205(h) the court should have dismissed the proceeding. Furthermore, defendant argues, the court erred in finding that there was good cause for the delay in the hearing. We agree with both contentions. Defendant's first argument is controlled by our recent decision in State v. Singer, ___ Vt. ___, 749 A.2d 614 (2000). There, we held that, under § 1205(h), if a final hearing is not held within forty-two days of the date of the alleged offense, the proceeding must be dismissed. See id. at ___, 749 A.2d at 618. Next, whether good cause exists is a mixed question of fact and law. See id. The court's findings of fact will be upheld unless they are unsupported by the evidence or clearly erroneous. State v. Zaccaro, 154 Vt. 83, 86, 574 A.2d 1256, 1258-59 (1990). Its conclusion regarding good cause will be upheld if supported by the findings. City of Burlington v. Davis, 160 Vt. 183, 184, 624 A.2d 872, 873 (1993). As noted above, the court found good cause based upon its assumption that the State had done all it could to bring the proceeding in a timely manner. However, there was no evidence to support the court's assumption. The State did not argue that it had good cause and thus presented no evidence regarding good cause. Therefore, the court's conclusion that the State had good cause for the delay is unsupported by the evidence and cannot be sustained. Because the final hearing was not held within forty-two days of the date of the alleged offense, and because the State did not demonstrate good cause for the delay, the civil license suspension proceeding should have been dismissed. [] Therefore, we need not address defendant's argument that, in the civil suspension proceeding, the court erred in denying his motion to suppress.