Court Opinion

ID: 9765543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:05:55.900627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:11.003377
License: Public Domain

on state’s motion for rehearing
WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.
*454Our holding that the state did not sufficiently prove notice of suspension of appellant’s commercial operator’s license is questioned in the State’s motion for rehearing argued and briefed by the District Attorney, and in Amicus Curiae Brief filed with leave of the Court by the Attorney General of Texas at the request of the Texas Department of Public Safety, because of the importance of the question involved in the administration of the Drivers License Law.
The argument is advanced that under the statute no notice of such suspension is required to make it effective; that if the Department orders such suspension it becomes effective immediately until such time expires or until the suspension is abated by the filing of an appeal, and if the licensee operates a motor vehicle on the highways of this state during the time the suspension is in effect the offense is complete, regardless of whether he had notice, either actual or constructive, of the suspension.
We are unable to agree with such contention.
■ As pointed out in our opinion an original submission, Sec. 22 (c) of Art. 6687b, V.A.C.S., authorizes the licensee who is not willing and does not consent to abide by the ruling or decision of the department suspending his license to file suit to vacate and set aside such decision. The 30 days allowed for the filing of such a suit does not begin to run until “the date of receipt of notice of the suspension of such license from the Department”, and if the licensee has not filed suit within 30 days “after the date of notice by registered mail of the suspension of such license, as provided herein, then the final ruling of the Department suspending such license shall become final.”
These references to notice are in addition to the requirement of Sec. 26 of the statute that the Department shall require that the license suspended be surrendered.
The further contention advanced by brief and oral argument is that “receipt for such certified mail”, as used in Art. 29(c) V.A.C.S., refers to a postoffice receipt showing mailing, not receipt showing that such mail had been delivered.
It is argued that the letter enclosing the order suspending appellant’s license, sent to his address by certified mail with return receipt requested, though not delivered, constituted service, the envelope bearing official postoffice postmark, and there being attached thereto “certification receipt”.
*455The Legislature has not provided simply that certified mail may be substituted where service or notice by registered mail is authorized, as has the Supreme Court in Rule 21b, Rules of Civil Procedure.
Art. 29(c) V.A.C.S. provides for the use of certified mail “with return receipt requested” in lieu of registered mail, and provides that the mailing of any required notice by such certified mail shall have the same legal effect as if sent by registered mail, provided receipt for such certified mail is validated by official postoffice postmark.
We understand that the receipt referred to and required is the return receipt to be signed upon delivery of the certified mail. To hold otherwise would be to disregard the proviso.
The state’s evidence showing that there was no notice by registered mail, and that the certified mail was not received but returned with the unsigned requested receipt attached thereto, and there being no evidence that appellant had notice otherwise that the Department of Public Safety had suspended his license, the conviction cannot stand.
The state’s motion for rehearing is overruled.