Fritz v. State, Case No. 117,641
Decision Date | 12 September 2019 |
Docket Number | Case No. 117,641 |
Citation | 466 P.3d 631 |
Parties | David Shawn FRITZ, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma EX REL. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Defendant/Appellee. |
Court | United 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.
¶7 The established procedure for this appeal is set out in the following provisions of Title 47 O.S.2011 § 6-211 :
(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) (). 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.
To continue reading
Request your trial