Beaudoin v. Petit

• Decision Date: 12 December 1979
• Docket Number: No. 77-438-M,77-438-M
• Citation: 409 A.2d 536,122 R.I. 469
• Parties: Peter J. BEAUDOIN v. Eugene P. PETIT, Jr., Registrar of Motor Vehicles. P.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 536

409 A.2d 536

122 R.I. 469

Peter J. BEAUDOIN v. Eugene P. PETIT, Jr., Registrar of Motor Vehicles.

No. 77-438-M.P.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Dec. 12, 1979.

[122 R.I. 477] F. Monroe Allen, Providence, for petitioner.

Stephen F. Mullen, Chief Sp. Counsel, Dept. of Transp., Providence, for respondent.

OPINION

WEISBERGER, Justice.

This case comes before the court on a petition for writ of certiorari, authorized by G.L.1956 (1977 Reenactment) § 42-35-16 of the Administrative Procedures Act. The petitioner seeks review of a judgment entered by the Sixth Division of the District Court. The District Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal from an order of the Registry of Motor Vehicles which revoked the petitioner's driver's license. We issued the writ and now have the pertinent records before us.

The registry revoked petitioner's license, after Mr. Beaudoin was convicted a second time of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The petitioner's initial offense occurred in February 1975; he pleaded nolo contendere to the resulting charge in the Seventh Division of the Rhode Island District Court. In October 1976, petitioner committed his second offense while driving in Connecticut. He pleaded guilty as charged in the Court of Common Pleas in Danbury, Connecticut. Connecticut enforced its mandatory suspension provision and revoked Mr. Beaudoin's Connecticut driving privileges on November 17, 1976. The petitioner does not question the validity of either conviction.

On March 1, 1977, the Rhode Island Registry of Motor Vehicles mailed a notice to petitioner requiring him to attend a hearing. The notice stated that Mr. Beaudoin must arrange for the hearing "for a Connecticut suspension." Mr. Beaudoin appeared before a hearing officer, who questioned him concerning the circumstances of the Connecticut conviction. The officer filed a report with the registrar, who then ordered revocation of petitioner's license for 1 year.

The petitioner received notice of the revocation dated April 4, 1977. The official order stated:

"You are notified that as of the effective date of this order your license is revoked for a period of: one year and thereafter until you give proof of financial responsibility for the future; and you are further notified that the above number registration(s) and all other registrations in your name as owner, are also suspended as of the effective date and until proof of financial responsibility for the future is given for such vehicle(s). "This order does not affect those registrations for which you have previously given and now maintain proof of financial responsibility for the future.

"Ordered pursuant to the Rhode Island General Laws, 1956, as amended Title(s) 31-11-6(3) & 31-32-4 & 5 and because of your 2nd conviction of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor."

The enforcement of the order has been stayed pending final disposition by this court.

The petitioner challenges the registry's action on two bases. He maintains that the order of revocation informed him inadequately in regard to the nature and cause of the revocation. He further contends the registry lacks the authority to revoke a driver's license without judicial recommendation.

Mr. Beaudoin equates the order of revocation with a criminal complaint, stating it must meet the standards set forth in art. I, sec. 10, of the Rhode Island Constitution. The petitioner misconceives the nature of a license revocation proceeding. The proceeding is administrative rather than criminal. The registry undertakes the proceedings to determine if the licensee should be allowed continued use of public highways, notwithstanding his violations. Campbell v. State of Colorado, Department of Revenue, Division of Motor Vehicles, 176 Colo. 202, 491 P.2d 1385 (1971); Ritch v. Director of Vehicles and Traffic of the District of Columbia, 124 A.2d 301 (D.C.1956). Thus the provisions of art. I, sec. 10, do not apply to license revocation proceedings. Moreover, an order is not to be equated with an initial notice of proceeding or hearing not challenged in the case.

We shall assess the sufficiency of the official order in light of the purpose that it serves. The order must inform a licensee of the status of his license and clearly mandate his future actions. The order must also state the grounds for the action taken against petitioner's license. However, such findings need not be set out in precise or specific language. Yellow Cab Company of Providence v. Public Utility Hearing Board, 79 R.I. 507, 511, 90 A.2d 726, 728 (1952). The essential purpose of these requirements is to ensure proper functioning of the review process. The requirements exist because the parties as well as the court are entitled to know and should not be required to speculate on the basis for an administrative decision. Hooper v. Goldstein, 104 R.I. 32, 45, 241 A.2d 809, 816 (1968); Coderre v. Zoning Board of Review, 102 R.I. 327, 230 A.2d 247 (1967); Hopf v. Board of Review, 102 R.I. 275, 230 A.2d 420 (1967).

The petitioner contends that failure to cite the registry's statutory authority, G.L. 1956 (1968 Reenactment) § 31-11-3, renders the order fatally defective. We do not agree. The registry made findings of fact sufficient to sustain the revocation of the license pursuant to § 31-11-3. Mr. Beaudoin does not dispute these findings, nor does he claim to be misled concerning the import of the order. He urges us to find the order deficient as a matter of law. We decline to do so in light of the clear, undisputed findings and the actual authority vested in the registry. Although the registry failed to cite § 31-11-3 in the order, it is reasonable to conclude as a matter of law that the registry relied thereon to revoke petitioner's license. In this respect, the omission is similar to the grammatical oversight discussed in DiSalvo v. Williamson, 106 R.I. 303, 309, 259 A.2d 671, 675 (1969). ¹

Mr. Beaudoin also challenges the basic authority of the registry to revoke a license as a result of an out-of-state conviction. The registry derives this authority from § 31-11-3, which reads as follows:

"The registry is authorized to suspend or revoke the license of any resident of this state or the privilege of a nonresident to drive a motor vehicle in this state upon receiving notice of the conviction of such person in another state of an offense therein which, if committed in this state, would be grounds for the suspension or revocation of the license of an operator or chauffeur."

If Mr. Beaudoin had committed his offense in Rhode Island, it would constitute grounds for revocation of his license. General Laws 1956 (1968 Reenactment) § 31-11-6, as amended by P.L. 1974, ch. 120, § 1, provides:

"The license of any chauffeur or operator shall be forthwith revoked upon receipt by the registry of a record of such operator's or chauffeur's final conviction for any of the offenses hereinafter stated and the term of revocation shall be for the periods hereinafter enumerated:

" * * *

"(3) Driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, such period of time, if any, as may be recommended in the final sentence imposed by a court having jurisdiction to impose such sentence."

Mr. Beaudoin's challenge focuses on the language of § 31-11-6(3) that requires judicial determination of the period of revocation. He contends the Legislature intended that resident licensees be treated equally for out-of-state and in-state convictions. Currently the registry sets the term of revocation for resident licensees convicted out of state.

We are not persuaded by Mr. Beaudoin's reading of the two statutes. As we read § 31-11-3, it is free from ambiguity. Where the language of a statute is free from ambiguity and conveys a definite and sensible meaning that does not contradict an evident legislative purpose, there is nothing to construe. Gomes v. Rhode Island State Board of Elections, R.I., 393 A.2d 1088, 1090 (1978); Statewide Multiple Listing Service v. Norberg, R.I., 392 A.2d 371, 373 (1978); Markham v. Allstate Insurance Co., 116 R.I. 152, 155-56, 352 A.2d 651, 653 (1976)....