Frazier v. Rhodenizer
| Docket Number | 20-0896 |
| Decision Date | 08 June 2022 |
| Parties | Everett J. Frazier, Commissioner, West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles, Petitioner v. Courtney Rhodenizer, Respondent. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Petitioner Everett J. Frazier, Commissioner, West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles ("DMV"), appeals the October 16 2020, order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County granting Respondent Courtney Rhodenizer's petition for judicial review and reversing the final order of the Office of Administrative Hearings ("OAH"). The OAH's final order had affirmed an earlier order of the DMV revoking respondent's driver's license for driving while under the influence of controlled substances or drugs.[1] The primary issue in this appeal is whether respondent sufficiently proved that she will suffer actual and substantial prejudice as a result of the delay of more than five years and six months between the administrative hearing and entry of the OAH's final order if the revocation were upheld.
This Court has considered the briefs, the record on appeal, and pertinent legal authority, as well as the oral arguments presented to this Court by the parties. Upon consideration of the same, we find no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the order of the circuit court is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Facts and Procedural History
Because the facts giving rise to the revocation of respondent's driving privileges are not at issue in this appeal, we need only briefly recount them. On April 18, 2013, Deputy W.K Nester of the Greenbrier County Sheriff's Department initiated a traffic stop of respondent's vehicle after responding to a Be on the Look Out ("BOLO") call for a possibly impaired driver who was seen running off the road in Lewisburg.[2] Deputy Nester located respondent's vehicle and observed it as it swerved, weaved, drove the tires on the center line marker, and traveled left of center. Deputy Nester spoke with respondent and observed her speech to be slurred and her eyes to be dilated; although she was unsteady while exiting her vehicle, she appeared normal while walking and standing. Respondent failed two of the three standardized field sobriety tests administered to her. The preliminary breath test showed a blood alcohol concentration of 0.00%. Respondent was lawfully arrested for driving while under the influence of controlled substances and/or drugs. No criminal charges in connection with respondent's DUI arrest were filed.
On June 6, 2013, the DMV entered an order revoking respondent's driving privileges for a period of ninety days and ordering that respondent successfully complete the West Virginia Safety and Treatment Program. Respondent timely requested an administrative hearing before the OAH, which was conducted on June 27, 2014. Respondent appeared pro se and testified on her own behalf. Deputy Nester also testified.
On January 23, 2020, five years, six months, and twenty-eight days after the administrative hearing, the OAH affirmed the order of revocation by its Decision of Hearing Examiner and Final Order of Chief Hearing Examiner.
On February 20, 2020, respondent filed a Petition for Judicial Review of the OAH's final order on the grounds that (1) the DMV failed to prove that respondent was driving while under the influence of controlled substances or drugs at the time of her arrest, and (2) respondent's constitutional due process rights were violated by the failure of the OAH to timely render a final order. Respondent requested an evidentiary hearing. She also filed a motion to stay the order of revocation pending the outcome of the petition for judicial review. Although a hearing on the motion to stay was scheduled, it was later canceled.[3]
Pursuant to the briefing schedule that was entered by the circuit court, on June 16, 2020, respondent filed her opening brief in which she argued that the DMV failed to satisfy its burden of proving that respondent was DUI and, further, that she suffered actual and substantial prejudice by the almost six-year delay in the issuance of the final order affirming revocation. On July 16, 2020, the DMV filed a response in which it argued that DUI was sufficiently proven and that because respondent failed to request a separate evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether she suffered actual and substantial prejudice from the delay, there was no evidence presented in support of that claim.[4]
On July 27, 2020, respondent filed a motion for evidentiary hearing "for the purpose of presenting [respondent's] testimony as evidence of irreparable harm and substantial prejudice on the matter of delay" and, thereafter, also filed a reply to the DMV's response brief as well as an affidavit outlining the substantial prejudice she will suffer as a result of the almost six-year delay in the issuance of the final order upholding revocation. The DMV filed an objection to the motion for evidentiary hearing on the ground that respondent failed to file a notice of hearing when she made the initial request for a hearing in her opening brief. The DMV argued that it is not appropriate to hold an evidentiary hearing after the parties have submitted their briefs. On July 30, 2020, the DMV filed a motion to strike respondent's reply brief and/or respondent's affidavit that was submitted therewith.
Without ruling on the DMV's motion to strike or objection to respondent's motion for evidentiary hearing, the circuit court scheduled an evidentiary hearing (hereinafter "Staffileno hearing")[5] on respondent's claim that she suffered substantial prejudice as the result of the delay. At the September 1, 2020, hearing, respondent presented evidence that she was told at the June of 2014 administrative hearing that she could expect a final order within three to six months. Respondent further testified that, at the time of the 2014 hearing, she was residing in Blacksburg, Virginia, and working at a restaurant called The Cellar as a waitress and bartender. She lived next to a bus stop and testified that having a valid driver's license was not then a necessity. Respondent married and had a child in 2015. In late 2017 or early 2018, respondent was offered a position as manager at The Cellar. She testified that when she accepted that position, she did not expect that her driving privileges would be revoked given that, by that time, more than three years had passed since the administrative hearing. In the meantime, respondent had moved with her family to the town of Christiansburg, Virginia, which is located approximately twenty minutes, by car, to her job at The Cellar. According to respondent, she moved her family to Christiansburg because housing was more affordable, "[i]t was away from the college students[, ]" and "[i]t was a better neighborhood for my family, for my child." Respondent testified that she needed a valid driver's license to get to and from her job in Blacksburg; that public transportation, ride sharing, and taxis were not viable options in that regard; and that part of her duties as manager at The Cellar required that she drive her vehicle to pick up liquor orders and other items as needed for the restaurant during the course of her shift. Respondent is the sole provider for her family. Respondent testified that she entered into a lease agreement on a home in Christiansburg beginning in 2018, and in 2019, entered into a lease agreement for a vehicle when the one she was previously driving broke down. Respondent testified that she would have stayed in Blacksburg near a bus route had she known her license could still be revoked after so much time had passed and that she would not have entered into a lease agreement for either the home in Christiansburg or the car. She stated that, without a valid driver's license, she would lose her job, [6] her car, and possibly her home.
Respondent also testified that she had a valid Virginia's driver's license that was due to be renewed in December 2020 and that the revocation of her West Virginia license would prevent her from renewing it because she had a DUI in Virginia within the previous ten years. Respondent's counsel advised the circuit court that the administrative charge in West Virginia of first offense DUI was, in effect, a clerical error that counsel believes will During oral argument, the DMV represented to this Court that respondent renewed her Virginia driver's license on October 28, 2020, which was after entry of the circuit court's October 16, 2020, order reversing the revocation order in West Virginia. Therefore, there was no DUI on respondent's driving record in West Virginia at the time she renewed her Virginia license.
In lieu of live testimony from OAH Director and Chief Hearing Examiner Teresa D. Maynard, the parties stipulated to the admission of her testimony via sworn affidavit. Without offering specific reasons for the delay in issuing a final decision in respondent's case, Director Maynard explained, more generally, that, over a course of years there were considerable delays in issuing OAH[7] final decisions. She attributed the delays to a significant backlog of unheard cases during that time, which was caused by a large number of administrative hearing requests, the liberal granting of...
To continue reading
Request your trial