Miller v. Epling

Decision Date21 June 2012
Docket NumberNo. 11–0353.,11–0353.
Citation729 S.E.2d 896,229 W.Va. 574
PartiesJoe E. MILLER, Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles, Petitioner v. John B. EPLING, Respondent.
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Syllabus by the Court

1. “On appeal of an administrative order from a circuit court, this Court is bound by the statutory standards contained in W. Va.Code § 29A–5–4(a) and reviews questions of law presented de novo; findings of fact by the administrative officer are accorded deference unless the reviewing court believes the findings to be clearly wrong.” Syllabus Point 1, Muscatell v. Cline, 196 W.Va. 588, 474 S.E.2d 518 (1996).

2. “In cases where the circuit court has [reversed] the result before the administrative agency, this Court reviews the final order of the circuit court and the ultimate disposition by it of an administrative law case under an abuse of discretion standard and reviews questions of law de novo.” Syllabus Point 2, Muscatell v. Cline, 196 W.Va. 588, 474 S.E.2d 518 (1996).

3. “It is the general rule that a judgment of acquittal in a criminal action is not res judicata in a civil proceeding which involves the same facts.” Syllabus, Steele v. State Road Commission, 116 W.Va. 227, 179 S.E. 810 (1935).

4. When a criminal action for driving while under the influence in violation of West Virginia Code § 17C–5–2 (2008) results in a dismissal or acquittal, such dismissal or acquittal has no preclusive effect on a subsequent proceeding to revoke the driver's license under West Virginia Code § 17C–5A–1 et seq. Moreover, in the license revocation proceeding, evidence of the dismissal or acquittal is not admissible to establish the truth of any fact. In so holding, we expressly overrule Syllabus Point 3 of Choma v. West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles, 210 W.Va. 256, 557 S.E.2d 310 (2001).

Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Esq., Attorney General, Scott Johnson, Esq., Senior Assistant Attorney General, Elaine L. Skorich, Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, WV, for Petitioner.

Gregory W. Sproles, Esq., Gregory W. Sproles, PLLC, Summersville, WV, for Respondent.

BENJAMIN, Justice:

This appeal by Joe E. Miller, Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “Commissioner Miller”), the petitioner herein, challenges a January 27, 2011, order of the Circuit Court of Nicholas County that remanded the case to the Office of Administrative Hearings for a new full evidentiary hearing, with directions to perform a proper analysis under Muscatell v. Cline, 196 W.Va. 588, 474 S.E.2d 518 (1996) and Choma v. WV Division of Motor Vehicles, 210 W.Va. 256, 557 S.E.2d 310 (2001). Herein, Commissioner Miller argues that this Court should overrule Choma. Commissioner Miller also argues that the circuit court erred in finding that the Commissioner did not perform a proper analysis under Muscatell, and in remanding the case to the Office of Administrative Hearings rather than the Commissioner. For the reasons expressed below, we affirm in part and reverse in part the January 27, 2011, order of the circuit court and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In so ruling, we expressly overrule Syllabus Point 3 of Choma.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 16, 2009, Deputy R.C.Hicks and Deputy Caprio 1 observed a car traveling on Church Street in Summersville, West Virginia, at a high rate of speed. Deputy Caprio pursued the car and stopped it.2 Deputy Hicks followed and arrived while Deputy Caprio was processing Mr. Epling's information. It is disputed whether Mr. Epling was still in the vehicle at the time Deputy Hicks arrived at the scene. While speaking to Mr. Epling, Deputy Hicks determined that Mr. Epling's speech was clear and that he was not unsteady, but that Mr. Epling smelled of alcohol. Mr. Epling admitted to consuming four or five beers. Deputy Hicks administered three standard field sobriety tests. Mr. Epling failed the walk and turn test and the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, but passed the one-leg stand test. Mr. Epling refused a preliminary breath test. Thereupon, Deputy Hicks arrested Mr. Epling for driving a motor vehicle in the State of West Virginia while under the influence of alcohol. Deputy Hicks then administered a secondary breath test to Mr. Epling, which revealed that Mr. Epling had a blood alcohol content of .111%. The DUI charge against Mr. Epling was subsequently dismissed five days later on August 21, 2009.

Thereafter, on September 29, 2009, Commissioner Miller issued an order revoking Mr. Epling's privilege to drive a motor vehicle. Mr. Epling requested an administrative hearing, which was held on May 21, 2010. Following the administrative hearing, the hearing examiner proposed that Commissioner Miller conclude, as a matter of law, that Mr. Epling violated W. Va.Code § 17C–5–2 (2008) by driving a motor vehicle in West Virginia while under the influence of alcohol. Specifically, the hearing examiner noted that while Mr. Epling testified that as a medical student he was familiar with the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, there was no evidence that this was the same as the training that Deputy Hicks received as a law officer. The hearing examiner further explained that he did not credit the testimony of Mr. Epling's witness that he was not intoxicated because the witness offered no reason to believe this other than knowing Mr. Epling for most of his life. Finally, the hearing examiner did not credit the dismissal of the criminal charges for DUI because there was no evidence as to why the Prosecuting Attorney dismissed the charges. Commissioner Miller entered a final order on October 5, 2010, adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law proposed by the hearing examiner and ordered that Mr. Epling's privilege to drive a motor vehicle be revoked for a period of six months and thereafter until the completion of all obligations for reinstatement.

Thereafter, Mr. Epling filed a petition for judicial review in the Circuit Court of Nicholas County. In his petition, Mr. Epling alleged that Commissioner Miller erred in failing to give weight to the dismissal of the underlying criminal case in this matter pursuant to Choma. Mr. Epling also asserted, inter alia, that Commissioner Miller erred in failing to consider his testimony and the testimony of a witness called on his behalf and in failing to make a reasoned and articulate decision, capable of judicial review, by failing to properly consider such testimony and giving it appropriate weight under Muscatell. Following a hearing on the petition, the circuit court entered an order on January 27, 2011, remanding the case to the Office of Administrative Hearings for a full evidentiary hearing, with directions to issue a new order regarding the revocation of Mr. Epling's drivers license and to make a proper analysis under Muscatell and Choma in regard to any issues raised at the administrative level. Following the circuit court's order, Commissioner Miller filed the instant appeal.

II.STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court has previously established the standards for our review of a circuit court's order deciding an administrative appeal as follows:

On appeal of an administrative order from a circuit court, this Court is bound by the statutory standards contained in W. Va.Code § 29A–5–4(a) and reviews questions of law presented de novo; findings of fact by the administrative officer are accorded deference unless the reviewing court believes the findings to be clearly wrong.

Syl. Pt. 1, Muscatell v. Cline, 196 W.Va. 588, 474 S.E.2d 518 (1996). In addition,

[i]n cases where the circuit court has [reversed] the result before the administrative agency, this Court reviews the final order of the circuit court and the ultimate disposition by it of an administrative law case under an abuse of discretion standard and reviews questions of law de novo.

Id., Syl. Pt. 2. Guided by these principles, we proceed to review the merits of the appeal before us.

III.DISCUSSION

In his first assignment of error, Commissioner Miller urges this Court to overrule Choma. In Choma, the Appellant filed an appeal from a circuit court order affirming an administrative decision of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles revoking the Appellant'slicense for six months for driving under the influence of alcohol, pursuant to the provisions of W. Va.Code § 17C–5A–2(I) (2000). Id. at 258, 557 S.E.2d at 312. Ms. Choma alleged, inter alia, that the Commissioner erred in suspending her license because she was acquitted in her DUI criminal proceeding. Id. at 259–260, 557 S.E.2d at 313–314. She argued that the adjudication of the DUI issue in the criminal context was res judicata on that issue in the administrative context. Id. at 260, 557 S.E.2d at 315. The Commissioner alternatively argued that the burdens of proof were different in the administrative and criminal forum and that this Court had regularly up-held a “two-track” approach of separate driver's license proceedings and criminal DUI proceedings. Id. at 260, 557 S.E.2d at 315.

In deciding that the Commissioner's decision arbitrarily and capriciously discredited and disregarded Ms. Choma's testimony and was clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence, this Court, held that

In administrative proceedings under W. Va.Code 17C–5A–1 et seq., the commissioner of motor vehicles must consider and give substantial weight to the results of related criminal proceedings involving the same person who is the subject of the administrative proceeding before the commissioner, when evidence of such results is presented in the administrative proceeding.

Id., Syl. Pt. 3. The Choma majority reasoned that although this Court had traditionally upheld a statutory two-track approach of separate DUI administrative driver's license proceedings and criminal DUI proceedings, 3 the separate procedures were nevertheless connected and intertwined...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Frazier v. Null
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 15 Abril 2022
    ...Choma v. W.Va. Div. of Motor Vehicles, 210 W.Va. 256, 259, 557 S.E.2d 310, 313 (2001), overruled on other grounds by Miller v. Epling, 229 W.Va. 574, 729 S.E.2d 896 (2012) ("[T]he Commissioner's decision cannot arbitrarily disregard . . . contradictory evidence.").[4] The only remedy availa......
  • Frazier v. Null
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 15 Abril 2022
    ...v. W. Va. Div. of Motor Vehicles , 210 W. Va. 256, 259, 557 S.E.2d 310, 313 (2001), overruled on other grounds by Miller v. Epling , 229 W. Va. 574, 729 S.E.2d 896 (2012) ("[T]he Commissioner's decision cannot arbitrarily disregard ... contradictory evidence.").4 The only remedy available t......
  • Reed v. Riner, 13-1180
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 24 Septiembre 2015
    ...be clearly wrong.' Syllabus Point 1, Muscatell v. Cline, 196 W. Va. 588, 474 S.E.2d 518 (1996)." Syllabus point 1, Miller v. Epling, 229 W. Va. 574, 729 S.E.2d 896 (2012). 2. "'A statutory provision which is clear and unambiguous and plainly expresses the legislative intent will not be inte......
  • Reed v. Riner
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 24 Septiembre 2015
    ...findings to be clearly wrong.” Syllabus Point 1, Muscatell v. Cline,196 W.Va. 588, 474 S.E.2d 518 (1996).Syl. pt. 1, Miller v. Epling,229 W.Va. 574, 729 S.E.2d 896 (2012). We also note that,[u]pon judicial review of a contested case under the West Virginia Administrative Procedure Act, Chap......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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