Schneider v. State
Decision Date | 02 March 2022 |
Docket Number | S-21-0196 |
Citation | 505 P.3d 591 |
Parties | Robert Ray SCHNEIDER, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellant: Ryan A. Semerad, The Fuller Law Firm, Casper, Wyoming.
Representing Appellee: Bridget Hill, Attorney General; Jenny Lynn Craig, Deputy Attorney General; Joshua C. Eames, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Donovan Burton, Assistant Attorney General.
Before FOX, C.J., and DAVIS* , KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.
[¶1] After his tenth driving under the influence (DUI) conviction, Robert Schneider was required to operate only vehicles equipped with an interlock device. Mr. Schneider applied for relief from that requirement, after eight years of sobriety as allowed by statute, and requested a hearing to show cause. The district court, without explanation, denied his request for a hearing and denied his application to remove the interlock device. Mr. Schneider appealed, and we reverse and remand.
[¶2] Mr. Schneider raises two issues:
[¶3] Mr. Schneider has ten DUI convictions, the latest on August 18, 2012.1 He pled guilty to that offense on May 28, 2013, and was sentenced on July 22, 2013.
[¶4] Wyoming law requires that a driver who has four or more DUI convictions operate only vehicles equipped with an ignition interlock device "for the remainder of the offender's life, except five (5) years from the date of conviction and every five (5) years thereafter," the driver may apply to the court to have the device removed. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-5-233(f)(v) (LexisNexis 2021). The court may grant this request if the driver has not had a subsequent DUI conviction, and for good cause shown. Id.
[¶5] Mr. Schneider was required to have an interlock device in his car for life after his 2013 conviction. He applied to the district court to have the interlock removed on June 14, 2021. He asserted that five years had passed since his conviction and he had not been convicted of another DUI, and attached Wyoming Department of Transportation driver history record in support. He said good cause existed because he had been sober since his conviction, took sobriety seriously, and was no longer a risk to public safety. Mr. Schneider requested a hearing on his application. The State opposed Mr. Schneider's application, arguing that the number and frequency of his DUIs warranted continued caution.
[¶6] The district court denied Mr. Schneider's application without explanation. The court declined to set a hearing, stating that its order resolved the matter. Mr. Schneider timely appealed to this Court.
[¶7] Mr. Schneider argues that the district court abused its discretion because it did not hold a hearing. We review a trial court's exercise of discretion for abuse of that discretion. Coffey v. State , 2021 WY 21, ¶ 8, 479 P.3d 1263, 1265 (Wyo. 2021). "The ultimate issue that we decide in determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion is whether or not the court could have reasonably concluded as it did." Knospler v. State , 2016 WY 1, ¶ 12, 366 P.3d 479, 482 (Wyo. 2016) (quoting Lawrence v. State , 2015 WY 97, ¶ 10, 354 P.3d 77, 80 (Wyo.2015) ). We will not reverse its decision if there is a legitimate basis for its ruling. Requejo v. State , 2019 WY 44, ¶ 7, 439 P.3d 747, 749 (Wyo. 2019).
[¶8] Mr. Schneider argues that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-5-233(f)(v) requires the court to hold a hearing to give him the opportunity to show good cause. We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo.
Butler v. State , 2015 WY 119, ¶ 6, 358 P.3d 1259, 1262 (Wyo. 2015) (citing Qwest Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Wyo. , 2007 WY 97, ¶ 3, 161 P.3d 495, 497 (Wyo. 2007) ).
[¶9] "The goal of statutory interpretation is to ‘give effect to the intent of the legislature primarily on the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used in the statute.’ " Harrison v. State , 2021 WY 40, ¶ 7, 482 P.3d 353, 356 (Wyo. 2021) (quoting Raczon v. State , 2021 WY 12, ¶ 8, 479 P.3d 749, 751 (Wyo. 2021) ). When interpreting a statute, Cercy v. State , 2019 WY 131, ¶ 21, 455 P.3d 678, 685 (Wyo. 2019) (citing Hopkins v. State , 2019 WY 77, ¶ 7, 445 P.3d 582, 585 (Wyo. 2019) ).
[¶10] The governing statute provides:
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-5-233(f)(v) (emphasis added).
[¶11] The parties have different interpretations of what "good cause shown" means in the context of § 31-5-233(f)(v). Mr. Schneider believes that it requires the court to hold a hearing, when the applicant has shown he otherwise qualifies under § 31-5-233(f)(v). The State contends the court has discretion whether to hold a hearing.
[¶12] The applicant must meet three requirements to have the interlock device removed § 31-5-233(f)(v). At least five years must have passed since his last DUI conviction. He must not have a subsequent DUI conviction. Finally, he must show good cause as to why the interlock device should be removed. The first two requirements are straightforward: either the applicant does or does not meet them. The third requirement is more fact sensitive and requires the court to consider the applicant's history and current circumstances.
[¶13] Neither this Court nor the legislature has defined what constitutes good cause under § 31-5-233(f)(v). We find it necessary to do so in order to determine if § 31-5-233(f)(v) requires the court to hold a hearing. New Mexico has a similar statute that requires a driver with four or more DUI convictions to operate only a vehicle equipped with an interlock device for the rest of his life. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 66-5-5(D). Every five years, the driver may apply to have the interlock removed. Id. "[T]he court, upon good cause being shown , may order restoration of the license" and remove the ignition interlock device if the driver does not have a subsequent DUI conviction. Id. (emphasis added). The New Mexico Court of Appeals was faced with determining what the applicant is required to show under the good cause requirement to have his interlock device removed. DeMichele v. State, Taxation and Revenue Dept. Motor Vehicle Div. , 356 P.3d 523, 526 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). The court reasoned that the purpose of having an interlock device was to protect the public from unsafe drivers that had a history of alcohol abuse. Id. at 529. It therefore concluded that in order to show good cause, the applicant must "demonstrate that he or she no longer presents a threat to public safety if given an unrestricted license." Id. The court further held that the application cannot be denied based only on the number of DUIs the applicant had, saying the New Mexico Legislature enacted a statute that gave drivers with numerous DUI convictions the ability to remove the interlock device. Id. at 530. "Had the Legislature intended that people receiving six [DUI] convictions be required to maintain an interlock device indefinitely, despite a showing of good cause, the Legislature could have drafted the statute to say so." Id.
[¶14] Our statute is similar to New Mexico's statute; we find that court's reasoning compelling. We hold that an applicant shows good cause under § 31-5-233(f)(v) when he demonstrates that he would no longer present a threat to public safety if he were permitted to drive without an interlock device. We agree with the New Mexico court that a court may not deny an application to remove an interlock device based solely on the applicant's number of DUI convictions. It may be a factor in determining whether the applicant poses a risk, but it is not determinative.
[¶15] The legislature intended that an applicant be entitled to a hearing, to make a good cause showing, and provide relevant evidence. It will necessarily require evidence of the applicant's sobriety, including the length of sobriety, how the applicant maintains it, and the applicant's commitment to it. The applicant may testify to the circumstances surrounding his sobriety, and perhaps call witnesses to corroborate his testimony. This will entail weighing evidence and determining credibility. Because the legislature understands the legal framework within which it enacts laws, we conclude it understood this and intended that the applicant have an opportunity for a hearing. See Hayse v. Wyoming Bd. of Coroner Standards , 2020 WY 4, ¶ 6, 455 P.3d 267, 270 (Wyo. 2020) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pellet v. Pellet
...court acts within its discretion by denying the motion without a hearing. See generally Schneider v. State , 2022 WY 31, ¶ 16, 505 P.3d 591, 595 (Wyo. 2022) (finding a court must hold a hearing on an application to remove an ignition interlock device if an applicant makes a prima facie show......
-
BC-K v. State
...there is plain, unambiguous language used in a statute there is no room for construction." Schneider v. State, 2022 WY 31, ¶ 9, 505 P.3d 591, 594 (Wyo. 2022) (quoting Cercy State, 2019 WY 131, ¶ 21, 455 P.3d 678, 685 (Wyo. 2019)). "All statutes must be construed in pari materia; and in asce......
-
BC-K v. State
...there is plain, unambiguous language used in a statute there is no room for construction." Schneider v. State , 2022 WY 31, ¶ 9, 505 P.3d 591, 594 (Wyo. 2022) (quoting Cercy v. State , 2019 WY 131, ¶ 21, 455 P.3d 678, 685 (Wyo. 2019) ). "All statutes must be construed in pari materia ; and ......
-
Pellet v. Pellet
...court acts within its discretion by denying the motion without a hearing. See generally Schneider v. State, 2022 WY 31, ¶ 16, 505 P.3d 591, 595 (Wyo. 2022) (finding court must hold a hearing on an application to remove an ignition interlock device if an applicant makes a prima facie showing......