Sonoda v. State

Decision Date05 May 1983
Docket NumberNo. 82CA1289,82CA1289
Citation664 P.2d 259
PartiesKenichi SONODA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE of Colorado; Governor Richard D. Lamm; Colorado Department of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Division; Alan Charnes, Director, Colorado Department of Revenue; R.W. Skeen, Director, Motor Vehicle Division, Colorado Department of Revenue; and Guy Meyer, Defendants-Appellants. . I
CourtColorado Court of Appeals

Berenbaum & Berenbaum, Edwin G. Perlmutter, Amy Therese Loper, Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Deputy Atty. Gen., Joel W. Cantrick, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Larry A. Williams, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendants-appellants.

VAN CISE, Judge.

The Department of Revenue appeals from an order of the district court mandating issuance of a probationary driver's license to Kenichi Sonoda. We reverse.

The hearing officer ordered suspension of Sonoda's license for one year for an accumulation of 12 points during a 12-month period. That suspension is not at issue in this appeal. Sonoda's request for a probationary license was denied. See § 42-2-123(11), C.R.S.1973 (1982 Cum.Supp.); Department of Revenue Regulation No. 2-123.11, 1 Code Colo.Reg. 204-8 (1977). The hearing officer found that although Sonoda had established his need for a probationary license, there were aggravating circumstances which outweighed this need, specifically, repeated violations of a particular offense, two prior suspensions, and carelessness. He found no mitigating factors.

On appeal the district court affirmed the suspension of Sonoda's license, but found that the record revealed many mitigating and few aggravating factors, and concluded that the department had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying Sonoda a probationary license.

The department contends that, since the hearing officer's decision was supported by sufficient evidence, it was error for the district court to reverse. We agree.

Regulation No. 2-123.11 sets forth the factors to be considered in granting a probationary license during a period of suspension. Pursuant to this regulation the need of the applicant for a probationary license is merely one factor to be considered in conjunction with the enumerated aggravating and mitigating factors. Edwards v. State, 42 Colo.App. 52, 592 P.2d 1345 (1979). Here, there was competent evidence to support the hearing officer's findings of aggravating circumstances and lack of mitigating circumstances and, therefore, to sustain the denial of a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Fisher v. Jorgensen
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • 1 Diciembre 1983
    ...officer in conjunction with the enumerated aggravating and mitigating factors in the driver's cumulative driving record. Sonoda v. State, 664 P.2d 259 (Colo.App.1983); Edwards v. State, 42 Colo.App. 52, 592 P.2d 1345 (1978). Here, the hearing officer made findings with respect to such of th......
  • Elkins v. Charnes, 83CA0672
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • 17 Mayo 1984
    ...we, nor the district court, are free to set aside his order. See Dolan v. Rust, 195 Colo. 173, 576 P.2d 560 (1978); Sonoda v. State, 664 P.2d 259 (Colo.App.1983). We do not view the hearing officer's determination to be arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of The judgment is reversed and the ......
  • Hoth v. Charnes, 85CA0887
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • 8 Enero 1987 precluded from further review of the soundness of that denial. See Elkins v. Charnes, 682 P.2d 70 (Colo.App.1984); Sonoda v. State, 664 P.2d 259 (Colo.App.1983). Petitioner argues that the hearing officer failed to take into account the hardship to him that would result from denial of a ......

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