Hedrick v. Comm'r of the Dep't of Pub. Safety

Citation315 P.3d 989
Decision Date26 November 2013
Docket NumberNo. 110199.,110199.
PartiesKevin HEDRICK, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. The COMMISSIONER of the DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, State of Oklahoma, Defendant/Appellee.
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

315 P.3d 989

Kevin HEDRICK, Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
The COMMISSIONER of the DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, State of Oklahoma, Defendant/Appellee.

No. 110199.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Nov. 26, 2013.



CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS DIVISION I.
¶ 0 The Department of Public Safety (DPS) revoked Kevin Hedrick's driver's license for 180 days following his arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicants. He filed an appeal with the District Court of McClain County and attached a photocopy of the order which DPS mailed to him when it revoked his license. DPS objected to the trial court's jurisdiction, arguing that Hedrick had not provided the trial court with a certified copy of its revocation order. DPS refused to provide a certified copy, insisting that it was under no obligation to do so. The trial court dismissed the appeal, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. We granted certiorari to address whether a certified copy of a DPS order is required to perfect an appeal of a DPS revocation to the district court; and whether the appeal was timely. We hold that 47 O.S. Supp.2007 § 2–111 expressly deems photocopies of DPS records to be considered originals for all purposes and to be admissible as evidence in all courts. Also, pursuant to 12 O.S.2011 § 3004(3), a certified copy of the DPS order was not required. We also hold that the appeal was timely.
CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OPINION

[315 P.3d 990]

VACATED; TRIAL COURT REVERSED AND REMANDED.


Michael L. Gardner, Law Offices of Joe Farnan, Purcell, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant.

A. Deann Taylor, (Former) Assistant General Counsel, Department of Public Safety, Brian K. Morton, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Public Safety, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendant/Appellee.


KAUGER, J.:

¶ 1 The dispositive issues are whether the holder of a driver's license brought a timely appeal to challenge his driver's license revocation and whether he was required to provide the district court with a certified copy of a Department of Public Safety (DPS) revocation order when he appealed the revocation. We hold that: the appeal was timely; 47 O.S. Supp.2007 § 2–111 expressly deems photocopies of DPS records to be considered originals for all purposes and admissible as evidence in all courts; 1 and that pursuant to 12 O.S.2011 § 3004(3), a certified copy of the DPS order was not required.2

FACTS

¶ 2 The defendant/appellant, Kevin B. Hedrick (Hedrick) was arrested for driving under the influence in McClain County, Oklahoma. Details as to the date and circumstances surrounding the arrest are not provided in the record. 3 DPS held a hearing on

[315 P.3d 991]

September 2, 2009, and determined that Hedrick's driving privileges should be revoked for 180 days. DPS mailed Hedrick a copy of its revocation order on September 23, 2009. On October 30, 2009, Hedrick filed an appeal of the DPS revocation to the District Court of McClain County and attached a copy of the DPS revocation order which DPS had mailed him. Hedrick sought to set aside the revocation, or in the alternative, have it modified based on extreme and usual hardship.

¶ 3 When the matter came for trial on February 2, 2010, DPS objected to the trial court's jurisdiction to hear the appeal because Hedrick had not provided a certified copy of its order to the trial court. DPS also argued that the appeal was untimely, because it was filed thirty-seven days after it mailed the order to Hedrick.4 At the trial, DPS acknowledged that it issues thousands of these orders, but insisted that unless Hedrick provided a certified copy of the order, the trial court could not review the matter.

¶ 4 Hedrick's attorney asked the DPS lawyer if she had a certified copy and she said it was not her burden to show that Hedrick had a right to be in the district court or that his appeal was timely. When the trial court asked if it could take judicial notice of the official business records of DPS, DPS contended that if it were not a certified copy, it was not sufficient evidence. 5 DPS insisted that it was Hedrick's burden and that DPS was not required to provide a certified copy of its administrative order. The trial court recessed the matter and instructed the parties to submit briefs on the issues.

¶ 5 DPS submitted a brief on February 22, 2010, and Hedrick replied on March 22, 2010. On April 12, 2010, the matter was assigned to another trial judge, but nothing happened in the cause until nearly eighteen months later when DPS filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. Hedrick's lawyer responded, explaining that: 1) the trial court did not reset the hearing; 2) all of his cases at DPS were reset because of DPS's shortage of attorneys; and 3) he was willing to get a court date, but DPS had not cooperated on setting a date.

[315 P.3d 992]

¶ 6 On October 5, 2011, the trial court dismissed the case because Hedrick did not provide a certified copy of the DPS revocation order. It determined that: 1) Hedrick had the burden of proving jurisdiction and an uncertified copy of the DPS order was incomplete evidence to establish jurisdiction; and 2) the appeal was untimely. On October 17, 2011, Hedrick filed a motion to reconsider which the trial court denied on November 14, 2011.

¶ 7 On December 14, 2011, Hedrick appealed and the Court of Civil Appeals in an unpublished opinion affirmed on May 10, 2013,6 holding that, while the trial court had jurisdiction to hear the case,7 the photocopy of the DPS order was incompetent to establish that DPS ever revoked Hedrick's driver's license under 47 O.S. Supp.2006 § 6–211(F).8 Certiorari was granted on October 14, 2013, and assigned to these chambers.

I.
TITLE 47 O.S. SUPP.2007 § 2–111 EXPRESSLY DEEMS PHOTOCOPIES OF DPS RECORDS TO BE CONSIDERED ORIGINALS FOR ALL PURPOSES AND ADMISSABLE AS EVIDENCE IN ALL COURTS. ALSO PURSUANT TO 12 O.S.2011 § 3004(3), A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DPS ORDER WAS NOT REQUIRED.

A.

¶ 8 DPS contends that unless Hedrick attached a certified copy of its order to his petition in the district court, his appeal could not be perfected in the trial court. It insists that the photocopy of DPS's revocation submitted with his petition to the district court was incompetent evidence because it was neither certified, nor submitted with a certificate, pursuant to 12 O.S.2011 § 30059

[315 P.3d 993]

or 12 O.S.2011 § 2902. 10 Hedrick argues that the copy he attached to his district court petition need not be a certified copy. He relies on an exception to these requirements, found at 12 O.S.2011 § 3004(3), which provides in pertinent part:

The original is not required, and a duplicate or other evidence of the contents of a record is admissible if:

....

3. At a time when an original was under the control of the party against whom offered, the party was put on notice, by the pleadings or otherwise, that the contents would be a subject of proof at the hearings and the party does not produce the original at the hearing...

Although neither party mentions 47 O.S. Supp.2007 § 2–111, we take judicial notice of the statute 11 which provides in pertinent part:


C. 1. The Commissioner may cause any or all records kept by the Department of Public Safety to be photographed, microphotographed, photostated, reproduced on film, or stored on computer storage medium. The film or reproducing material shall be of durable material, and the device used to reproduce the records on the film or reproducing material shall accurately reproduce and perpetuate the original records in all detail.

2. The photostatic copy, photograph, microphotograph, photographic film or computerized image of the original records shall be deemed to be an original record for all purposes and shall be admissible as evidence in all courts or administrative agencies. A facsimile, exemplification, or certified copy thereof shall be deemed to be a transcript, exemplification, or certified copy of the original. (Emphasis supplied.)

B.

¶ 9 The trial court is required to examine all of the records in a DPS file relative to an offense committed.12Section 2–111 clearly and unambiguously declares photocopies of DPS records to be considered originals and admissible in any court. Applying this statute could end our inquiry but this is not the only dispositive statute applicable to this cause. Revocation appeal proceedings in the district court are exempt from the provision of the Oklahoma Pleading and Discovery

[315 P.3d 994]

codes, but they are not exempt from the Oklahoma Evidence Code.13 The requirements of 12 O.S.2011 § 3004(3) which are applicable here specifically allow admission of duplicates, or other secondary evidence, to prove the contents of a document, when the original document is:

1) under the control of the party against whom it is offered;

2) the party was put on notice by the pleadings or otherwise that the contents would be a subject of proof at the hearings; and

3) the party does not produce the original at the hearing.14

¶ 10 Title 12 O.S.2011 § 3004, which is identical to Rule 1004 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, carves out specific exceptions to the normal rules of admissibility under the evidence code.15 These requirements have been met in this cause because: 1) the original DPS revocation order was in the possession of DPS, against whom it was to be proffered; 2) DPS was put on notice by Hedrick's pleading that the contents of the revocation order would be a subject of proof at the hearing in the trial court; and 3) DPS did not produce the original at the hearing or any other time.

¶ 11 Title 12 O.S.2011 § 3004 does not require that a duplicate be certified if the necessary conditions are satisfied, nor does it recognize any degree of secondary evidence, such as first requiring a direct copy.16 The reason a certified copy is not required under this rule is because DPS has the original in their possession. If the authenticity of the copy is questioned they can easily introduce the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Chandler v. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Safety, Case Number: 115275
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
    • September 8, 2017
    ...DPS Revocation Order, not the entire DPS file of Chandler's case as required 47 O.S. 2011 6-211(I).26 See also Hedrick v. Commissioner of Dept. Of Public Safety , 2013 OK 98, ¶ 9, 315 P.3d 989, 993 ("trial court is required to examine all of the records in a DPS file relative to an offense ......
  • Muratore v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • January 28, 2014
    ...of the Oklahoma Pleading and Discovery codes, but they are not exempt from the Oklahoma Evidence Code.” Hedrick v. The Comm'r of the Dep't of Pub. Safety, 2013 OK 98, 315 P.3d 989. The trial court's determination to admit or not admit evidence under one of the hearsay exceptions will not be......
  • Auto. Fin. Corp. v. Rogers, Case No. 115,626
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
    • March 1, 2019
    ...issues adjudicated on appeal are those which were raised either directly or by implication ." (Emphasis added.) Hedrick v. Commissioner of Dept. Of Public Safety , 2013 OK 98, ¶ 16, 315 P.3d 989, 1002 (J. Edmondson, concurring in result). "Raising an issue either directly or indirectly... w......
  • Auto. Fin. Corp. v. Rogers
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
    • March 27, 2019
    ...were raised either directly or by implication." (Emphasis added.) Hedrick v. Commissioner of Dept. Of Public Safety, 2013 OK 98, ¶ 16, 315 P.3d 989, 1002 (J. Edmondson, concurring in result). "Raising an issue either directly or indirectly... would include not only those issues actually rai......

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