Gardner v. State Dept. of Public Safety

• Decision Date: 26 April 1967
• Docket Number: No. 1983,1983
• Citation: 198 So.2d 184
• Parties: Gary GARDNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Defendant-appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 184

198 So.2d 184

Gary GARDNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Defendant-appellee.

No. 1983.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

April 26, 1967.

Shuey & Smith, by W. Gene Carlton, Shreveport, for plaintiff-appellant.

Steve A. Alford, Jr., Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee.

Before FRUGE , SAVOY and HOOD, JJ.

SAVOY, Judge.

Plaintiff has appealed from an adverse judgment rendered against him in the district court. After reviewing the record, the briefs of counsel, and reasons for judgment of the district court, we are of the opinion that the trial judge, in a well written opinion, has disposed of all of the issues raised by appellant, and we hereby adopt in part his opinion as our own, to-wit:

'In these proceedings, Mr. Gary Gardner is seeking to have restored his chauffeur's license that was revoked by the Department of Public Safety of the State of Louisiana.

'The Department appeared through its Hearing Officer, Ossie P. Savoy, and submitted the records of the City Court of the City of New Iberia showing that the plaintiff has either pleaded guilty or was found guilty by that court of two offenses of driving while under the influence of liquor. (LSA-R.S. 14:98.)

'The first conviction was August 25, 1965; the second was August 31, 1966.

'LSA-R.S. 32:414 requires the Department to revoke a driver's license on the second offense for operating a motor vehicle 'while under the influence of intoxicating liquor'.

' From these it appears that the Department has no discretion in taking the action that it did.

'However, Mr. Gardner's counsel raises two questions relating to these convictions. The first is that the affidavit upon which the City Court acted in his second conviction charges that Mr. Gardner did 'unlawfully drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor'. He points out that this does not charge an offense known to our law because the statute, LSA-R.S. 14:98, which applies in such cases, denounces the operating of a motor vehicle while intoxicated which is defined to mean 'while under the influence of alcoholic beverages'.

' This contention, of course, is based entirely upon a technicality . Perhaps if objection had been raised to the form of the charge at the time that it was under consideration by the court, the contention could have prevailed. The charge could have been amended . But the fact is that the accused entered a plea of guilty to the charge, was sentenced under it and paid the fine.

'To accede to plaintiff's contention would be to hold, in a civil proceeding, that a criminal conviction in another court is null and void and of no effect. This we cannot do. The law provided Mr. Gardner with ample remedies, but he waived them.

' Further, the statute involved, LSA-R.S. 32:414, is very broad in defining the circumstances under which licenses must be revoked. It provides that those who are guilty and sentenced for operating a motor...