Brezina v. Iowa Department of Transportation, No. 6-527/05-0789 (Iowa App. 9/7/2006), 6-527/05-0789
| Decision Date | 07 September 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 6-527/05-0789,6-527/05-0789 |
| Parties | DORRANCE BREZINA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert J. Blink, Judge.
Dorrance Brezina appeals from a district court ruling affirming the Iowa Department of Transportation's revocation of Brezina's driver's license for driving while his license was suspended. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED TO THE AGENCY.
Robert A. Wright, Jr. of Wright and Wright, Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mark Hunacek, Assistant Attorney General, Ames, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Hecht and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
Dorrance Brezina appeals from a district court ruling affirming the Iowa Department of Transportation's revocation of Brezina's driver's license for driving while his license was suspended. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the agency.
Brezina has an extensive history of driving violations and a record of failure to pay child support. As a consequence of these violations and child support delinquencies, the Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) 1) revoked Brezina's license for O.W.I., third offense, 2) suspended Brezina's license for failure to pay child support, 3) suspended Brezina's license for status as a "habitual offender," and 4) revoked Brezina's license for driving while his license was suspended.
Brezina was arrested and charged with O.W.I., third offense, on January 30, 1998. On July 14, 1998, he was convicted of this offense. As a result, pursuant to Iowa Code section 321J.4 (2003), the IDOT revoked Brezina's driver's license for six years: from July 15, 1998 to July 15, 2004.
During the period of revocation, on April 12, 2002, the Department of Human Services (DHS) Child Support Recovery Unit notified the IDOT that Brezina was not in compliance with a child support order. Pursuant to Iowa Code section 252J.8, the IDOT issued a notice informing Brezina that his license to operate a motor vehicle was suspended until the IDOT received a withdrawal of the DHS's certificate of noncompliance. This suspension ended on July 10, 2002, when DHS withdrew the certificate.
During the duration of the revocation mentioned above, Brezina was also cited for three moving violations within a twelve-month period. The IDOT consequently classified Brezina as a "habitual offender" under Iowa's motor vehicle laws and notified him that his license to operate a motor vehicle would be suspended from July 4, 2002 until October 2, 2002 (90 days). The statutory basis for this suspension was Iowa Code section 321.210(1)(b).
On July 5, 2002, a police officer observed Brezina operating a motor vehicle. The police officer issued Brezina a citation for driving "while his license was revoked for being a habitual offender," in violation of Iowa Code section 321.218. The citation did not reference the suspension for failure to pay child support or the revocation for O.W.I., third offense, although Brezina's license to operate a motor vehicle was undisputedly still subject to these additional sanctions.
On January 8, 2003, Brezina pled guilty to violating Iowa Code section 321.218. On January 21, 2003, the IDOT sent Brezina a notice stating that the revocation of his license was extended for six years beyond July 15, 2004, the date when the prior revocation for O.W.I., third offense, was set to expire. The notice also stated the agency had imposed a civil penalty of $200 and notified Brezina that he was not entitled to appeal either the fine or revocation.1 The notice disclosed that these actions were taken pursuant to Iowa Code section 321J.21 and section 321A.17. On July 19, 2004, the agency issued a second notice that repeated the contents of the earlier notice, but disclosed that Iowa Code section 321.218 and section 321A.17 were the statutory bases for the extension of the revocation of Brezina's driver's license.
Brezina pursued administrative remedies challenging the extension of his revocation for a period of six years. On August 20, 2004, Brezina petitioned the IDOT for an order declaring that the six-year extension of his revocation was unlawful for two reasons: 1) the IDOT failed to provide Brezina an evidentiary hearing under the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act (IAPA), and 2) there is no statutory basis for a six-year extension of the license revocation under the circumstances of this case. On September 3, 2004, the IDOT notified Brezina of the denial of his petition.
Brezina filed a timely petition for judicial review of the final agency action. In its ruling dated February 3, 2005, the district court concluded: 1) Brezina was not entitled to an administrative hearing under the circumstances of this case, and 2) Iowa Code section 321J.21(2) required the IDOT to extend for six years the revocation of Brezina's license to operate a motor vehicle as a consequence of his conviction of driving while his license was suspended.
On February 14, 2005, Brezina filed a motion to amend or enlarge the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. On February 22, 2005, the district court filed an amended and enlarged ruling that is identical to its original ruling, with the exception of three footnotes. In the third footnote of the amended and enlarged ruling, the district court concluded Brezina's guilty plea to a violation of Iowa Code section 321.218 () did not preclude the IDOT from extending the revocation for a period of six years based on Brezina's violation of Iowa Code section 321J.21 (), given the legislature's "clear intent to protect the public from demonstrably dangerous drivers." The district court summarily denied on March 9, 2005 Brezina's motion to amend or enlarge the amended and enlarged ruling.
On May 6, 2005, Brezina filed a notice of appeal. This appeal was untimely. However, on May 22, 2005, the Iowa Supreme Court granted Brezina's motion to extend the time for filing an appeal and ordered that the permissible time for filing run from the date of its order.
On appeal, Brezina contends the district court erred in affirming the IDOT's six-year extension of his revocation for operating a motor vehicle while his license was suspended. He asserts that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing under IAPA section 17A.18(3) on the question of whether the period of his license revocation should be extended for six years and that, in any event, no statute authorizes an extension of six years as a consequence of his conviction under section 321.218.
We review agency action for errors at law. Locate.Plus.Com, Inc. v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 650 N.W.2d 609, 612 (Iowa 2002). We apply the standards of the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act (IAPA) to the actions of the agency to determine whether our legal conclusions are the same as those reached by the district court. Willet v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., Motor Vehicle Div., 572 N.W.2d 172, 174 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997). If our conclusions are the same, we affirm; if we disagree with the conclusions of the district court, we must reverse. Id.
Before reaching the merits, we must address the State's procedural arguments. The State first contends we should affirm the district court's ruling because Brezina's appeal is untimely. We believe this argument is foreclosed by our supreme court's grant of Brezina's motion to extend the time for this appeal. Accordingly, we reject the State's timeliness argument.
The State further contends Brezina failed to preserve error on his argument that no statute authorizes the IDOT's imposition of a six-year extension of the license suspension under the circumstances of this case. In particular, the State contends Brezina's petition for judicial review was insufficiently detailed to preserve error. The pleading requirements under Iowa Code chapter 17A are more stringent than those applicable to judicial review of non-agency action. Second Injury Fund of Iowa v. Klebs, 539 N.W.2d 178, 180 (Iowa 1995). Iowa Code chapter 17A requires a separate and distinct statement of each claimed error. Id. The pleading standard is met if an "opponent is sufficiently apprised of the alleged error so as to allow for adequate preparation and response." Id.
Brezina's petition separately and distinctly states: "the decision of the DOT, in suspending Petitioner's license for an additional six years is unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and not supported by statute." This statement clearly indicates to the State and to the court Brezina's position that no statute authorizes imposition of the six-year extension of Brezina's license revocation. We therefore conclude Brezina's petition for judicial review preserved error under the relevant standard.
We now turn to the merits of Brezina's claim that he was entitled to a hearing prior to the IDOT's six-year extension of his license revocation.
Brezina argues that Iowa Code section 17A.18(3) entitled him to an evidentiary hearing under the circumstances of this case. Although we acknowledge that Iowa Code section 17A.18(3) generally entitles a licensee to an evidentiary hearing prior to the revocation of a license, that statute does not control under the circumstances of this case. Iowa Code section 321.218(3) requires (except in instances not relevant here) the agency to extend the revocation of a license for "an additional like period" upon receipt of a record...
To continue reading
Request your trial