Fritz v. State, Case No. 117,641

Decision Date12 September 2019
Docket NumberCase No. 117,641
Citation466 P.3d 631
Parties David Shawn FRITZ, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma EX REL. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Defendant/Appellee.
CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma

David S. Fritz, Leon, Oklahoma, Pro se

Mark E. Bright, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel., DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, For Defendant/Appellee

OPINION BY JANE P. WISEMAN, VICE-CHIEF JUDGE:

¶1 Appellant David Fritz appeals the trial court's denial of his request to renew his driver's license. After review of the record and applicable law, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 On July 5, 2010, while driving with a Louisiana driver's license, Fritz received a speeding ticket in Missouri. He failed to appear in Missouri traffic court on August 5, 2010. On November 2, 2010, Fritz received an Oklahoma driver's license. Five days later on November 7, the State of Louisiana suspended Fritz's license for failing to appear in Missouri. Although Fritz's Oklahoma license expired on November 30, 2014, he did not seek a renewal until recently. After being denied renewal of his license, Fritz met with Oklahoma Department of Public Safety employee Jackie Sites who is a Driving Compliance Hearing Officer in Ardmore. According to Sites' testimony at the hearing, DPS could not renew Fritz's license while his Louisiana license was suspended.

¶3 By petition to the trial court on October 1, 2018, Fritz appealed DPS's refusal to renew his driver's license. At the conclusion of the hearing held on December 4, 2018, the trial court "dismissed" his petition.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶4 Fritz questions whether he was provided due process in DPS's handling of his quest for renewal. "Whether an individual's procedural due process rights have been violated is a question of constitutional fact which is reviewed de novo ." Pierce v. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 2014 OK 37, ¶ 7, 327 P.3d 530.

¶5 Where the facts are not in dispute and the trial court's decision turns on the application of law, we conduct an independent de novo review. See Manning v. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 2003 OK CIV APP 57, ¶ 5, 71 P.3d 527. In a de novo review, we give no deference to the trial court's reasoning or result. See Justus v. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Safety , 2002 OK 46, ¶ 3, 61 P.3d 888.

ANALYSIS

¶6 Although Fritz lists five propositions of error, those propositions can best be categorized as two distinct claims: (1) he was not afforded due process by DPS, and (2) DPS's denial of his driver's license is not supported by the law. We first examine the procedural challenge.

I. DPS Procedure

¶7 The established procedure for this appeal is set out in the following provisions of Title 47 O.S.2011 § 6-211 :

A. Any person denied driving privileges, or whose driving privilege has been canceled, denied, suspended or revoked by the Department , except where such cancellation, denial, suspension or revocation is mandatory, under the provisions of Section 6-205 of this title, or disqualified by the Department, under the provisions of Section 6-205.2 or 761 of this title, shall have the right of appeal to the district court as hereinafter provided. Proceedings before the district court shall be exempt from the provisions of the Oklahoma Pleading and Discovery codes, except that the appeal shall be by petition, without responsive pleadings. The district court is hereby vested with original jurisdiction to hear the petition.
B. A person whose driving privilege is denied, canceled, revoked or suspended due to inability to meet standards prescribed by law, or due to an out-of-state conviction or violation , or due to an excessive point accumulation on the traffic record, or for an unlawful license issued, may appeal in the county in which the person resides .
....
E. The petition shall be filed within thirty (30) days after the order has been served upon the person, except a petition relating to an implied consent revocation shall be filed within thirty (30) days after the Department gives notice to the person that the revocation is sustained as provided in Section 754 of this title. It shall be the duty of the district court to enter an order setting the matter for hearing not less than fifteen (15) days and not more than thirty (30) days from the date the petition is filed. A certified copy of petition and order for hearing shall be served forthwith by the clerk of the court upon the Commissioner of Public Safety by certified mail at the Department of Public Safety, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
....
I. The court shall take testimony and examine the facts and circumstances, including all of the records on file in the office of the Department of Public Safety relative to the offense committed and the driving record of the person, and determine from the facts, circumstances, and records whether or not the petitioner is entitled to driving privileges or shall be subject to the order of denial, cancellation, suspension or revocation issued by the Department . The court may also determine whether or not, from the person's previous driving record, the order was for a longer period of time than such facts and circumstances warranted. In case the court finds that the order was not justified, the court may sustain the appeal, vacate the order of the Department and direct that driving privileges be restored to the petitioner, if otherwise eligible. The court may, in case it determines the order was justified, but that the period of the suspension or revocation was excessive, enter an order modifying the same as provided by law.
....
M. An appeal may be taken by the person or by the Department from the order or judgment of the district court to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma as otherwise provided by law.

(Emphasis added.) As provided in subsection A, Fritz has been denied driving privileges by DPS's refusal to grant him a license after his Oklahoma driver's license expired.

¶8 According to the record, Fritz met with DPS Hearing Officer Jackie Sites on more than one occasion to resolve his problem, but he was unsatisfied with the outcome of these meetings. Fritz then filed his petition in the trial court on October 1, 2018, and a motion for hearing on October 30, 2018. The trial court issued an order setting a hearing for December 4, 2018.

¶9 "The District Court's review of a driver's license denial is conducted de novo ." Trusty v. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Safety , 2016 OK 94, n. 17, 381 P.3d 726. At that December 4th hearing, the trial court heard testimony from Sites, asked questions of the witness and the parties, examined the facts and circumstances, and considered the parties' arguments and legal authorities to determine whether to grant Fritz's appeal. Although the trial court characterized its decision as a "dismissal," it is clearly not a dismissal, but an adjudication on the merits, and we will consider the nature of the decision by what it actually is, rather than the nomenclature given it by the trial court. "The meaning and effect of an instrument filed in court depends on its contents and substance rather than on the form or title given it by the author." Horizons, Inc. v. Keo Leasing Co. , 1984 OK 24, ¶ 4, 681 P.2d 757. When the trial court upheld DPS's decision to deny the license renewal, Fritz properly appealed that denial pursuant to subsection M of § 6-211.

¶10 The appropriate procedure for someone whose license renewal request was denied has been followed in this case. The Oklahoma Administrative Code provisions that Fritz cites do not apply to his situation, and the procedure set out there is inapplicable. Fritz's situation does not fall under any of the four categories to receive a hearing before DPS and he therefore is not entitled to such a hearing. Okla. Admin. Code § 595:1-3-3 (2004).1 Even if Fritz's case had fallen into one of these four categories, DPS's refusal to renew his Oklahoma license would not have been subject to further DPS review. Okla. Admin. Code § 595:1-3-4(e)(2017) ("A person is not entitled to a hearing when the action taken by the Department of Public Safety is made mandatory by law."). As discussed below, DPS could not issue Fritz an Oklahoma license while his license in another state was suspended. DPS's response to Fritz's license renewal application is mandated by state law, and no hearing to present evidence or explain the circumstances of his Louisiana license suspension would or could change the outcome as long as his Louisiana license remained suspended. This is equally true of the Missouri citation which may only be resolved by Missouri authorities. After his meetings with Sites, Fritz's only recourse in Oklahoma was to the trial court to test the validity of DPS's denial. He properly pursued this course by following 47 O.S.2011 § 6-211 when he filed this case.

¶11 Once in trial court, Fritz attended a hearing where he was able to present evidence, provide testimony, and counter DPS's arguments. We see no violations of Fritz's right to due process and reject his propositions of error on these points.

II. State law prohibits DPS from issuing a license to a person...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT