Franklin v. Colorado Dept. of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Div.
| Decision Date | 25 September 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85CA1391,85CA1391 |
| Citation | 728 P.2d 391 |
| Parties | Daniel FRANKLIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION, Defendant-Appellant. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Harold M. Fielden, Boulder, for plaintiff-appellee.
Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Steven M. Bush, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant-appellant.
The Department of Revenue (Department) appeals from a district court judgment reversing the revocation of Daniel Franklin's driver's license. We reverse.
Franklin was arrested for driving a vehicle while intoxicated in violation of § 42-4-1202(1.5), C.R.S. . He agreed to take a blood test, and the blood sample was determined to contain 0.189 grams of alcohol per hundred milliliters of blood, subjecting Franklin's license to revocation pursuant to § 42-2-122.1, C.R.S. . Since the blood test results were not available until after Franklin was released from custody, the police forwarded a report to the Department in accordance with § 42-2-122.1(2)(a), C.R.S. (1984 Repl.Vol. 17). Based on this information, the Department revoked Franklin's license and sent a notice of revocation to Franklin at his last known address pursuant to § 42-2-122.1(3), C.R.S. (1984 Repl.Vol. 17).
Franklin timely requested a hearing, where he appeared with counsel to contest the revocation. The hearing officer made a final determination upholding the revocation and Franklin appealed. The district court reversed the hearing officer's final determination, holding that the notice sent to Franklin was deficient because it contained no indication of the specific reason for the revocation as required by § 42-2-122.1, C.R.S. (1984 Repl.Vol. 17).
The Department argues that the notice of revocation mailed to Franklin properly complied with the requirements of § 42-2-122.1(3)(c), C.R.S. (1984 Repl.Vol. 17), and thus, the trial court erred in reversing the hearing officer's final determination. We agree.
As Franklin admits on appeal, the notice he received contained all of the information required by § 42-2-122.1(3)(c). It stated the reason and statutory grounds for the revocation, the effective date of revocation, and the right to and procedure for requesting a hearing. Since it fully apprised Franklin of the nature of the proceedings against him and of the other information required by statute, the notice was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Casebolt v. Cowan, 91SC69
... ... No. 91SC69 ... Supreme Court of Colorado, ... April 6, 1992 ... Rehearing Denied May ... of an automobile to a borrower of that vehicle to prevent injuries to the borrower resulting ... as a duty of a person entrusting a motor vehicle to another "to exercise control at any ... Cain, 720 P.2d 152, 155 (Colo.1986); Franklin v. Wilson, 161 Colo. 334, 336, 422 P.2d 51, 51 ... ...
-
Alford v. Tipton
...to the Department is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Department in revocation proceedings. See Franklin v. Colorado Department of Revenue, 728 P.2d 391 (Colo.App.1986) (police officer's omissions in completing notice of revocation form did not invalidate revocation, as statutor......
-
Jansma v. Colo. Dep't of Revenue
...details, that the officer had probable cause to believe a driver's BAC exceeded the legal limit. Cf. Franklin v. Colo. Dep't of Revenue, 728 P.2d 391, 392-93 (Colo.App. 1986) (concluding the Department had sufficient information to revoke driver's license for excess BAC "[n]otwithstanding t......
-
Duckett v. Tipton, 91CA0383
...reliable character to permit the Department to make a revocation determination. Alford v. Tipton, supra; see Franklin v. Colorado Department of Revenue, 728 P.2d 391 (Colo.App.1986). Here, the arresting officer forwarded a completed notice of revocation form (which served as the required af......
-
ARTICLE 2 DRIVERS' LICENSES
...Dept. of Rev., 706 P.2d 10 (Colo. App. 1985); Kelln v. Colo. Dept. of Rev., 719 P.2d 358 (Colo. App. 1986); Franklin v. Dept. of Rev., 728 P.2d 391 (Colo. App. 1986); McClellan v. State Dept. of Rev., 731 P.2d 769 (Colo. App. 1986); Shafron v. Cooke, 190 P.3d 812 (Colo. App....
-
Negligent Entrustment of Guns and Other Dangerous Instrumentalities
...general understanding that driving while intoxicated presents an unreasonable risk of physical harm to the driver and others”); Butcher, 728 P.2d at 391 (reversing directed verdict and finding that plaintiff had stated a claim for negligent entrustment where he showed that defendant had gra......