Wimmer v. Motor Vehicles Div.
| Decision Date | 31 December 1986 |
| Citation | 730 P.2d 1297,83 Or.App. 268 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Suspension of the Driving Privileges of William D. Wimmer. William D. WIMMER, Respondent, v. MOTOR VEHICLES DIVISION, Appellant. 84-1498-E; CA A39516. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Richard D. Wasserman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., and James E. Mountain, Jr., Sol. Gen., Salem.
Clayton C. Patrick, Grants Pass, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Michael L. Mowrey, and Burrows, Hull, Mowrey & Thompson, Grants Pass.
Before BUTTLER, P.J., and WARREN and ROSSMAN, JJ.
Motor Vehicles Division (MVD) appeals from the circuit court judgment on remand from this court, Wimmer v. MVD, 75 Or.App. 287, 706 P.2d 182, rev. den. 300 Or. 367, 712 P.2d 109 (1985), which reinstates MVD's order of suspension, suspending petitioner's driving privileges for one year, as required by ORS 482.545(1). 1 MVD argues that the trial court, which had previously vacated the suspension order, erred on remand by reinstating it in its original form instead of ordering petitioner's driving privileges suspended for an additional 320 days. Due to the lapse in time, the net effect of the vacation and reinstatement is that petitioner's driving privileges were suspended for only 45 days. 2
The mandate in Wimmer v. MVD, supra, provided: "Reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate the Division's order of suspension." Although we should have phrased our mandate differently, the statute is clear: petitioner's driving privileges must be suspended for a total of one full year. See Wolfgang v. Thiele Co., 141 Or. 280, 17 P.2d 313 (1932).
Reversed and remanded with instructions to enter order of suspension for one year from the date of entry of order, less 45 days.
1 Petitioner's driving privileges were suspended because he had refused to submit to a breath test on request by a police officer after being arrested for driving under the influence of intoxicants.
2 MVD's suspension order, in its original form, suspended petitioner's driving privileges from September 4, 1984, to September 4, 1985.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green v. Motor Vehicles Div.
... ... See Moore v. Motor Vehicles Division, supra; State v. Newton, supra ... Reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate the suspension order in accordance with Wimmer v. MVD, 83 Or.App. 268, 730 P.2d 1297 (1986) ... --------------- ... 1 In State v. Spencer, 305 Or. 59, 750 P.2d 147 (1988), the court revisited its analysis in Newton: ... "We are not persuaded by the Newton plurality's reasons for concluding that the right to seek the advice or assistance of ... ...
-
Basile v. DMV
...order and remand with instructions to enter an order of suspension. Id. at 435, 888 P.2d 1078 (citing Wimmer v. Motor Vehicles Div., 83 Or.App. 268, 269, 730 P.2d 1297 (1986)). The issue on appeal is whether petitioner received adequate notice of his rights and consequences as provided in O......
-
Hoefling v. Motor Vehicles Div.
... ... Respondent did not effectively contest that conclusion other than by asserting the opposite ... Reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate the suspension order in accordance with Wimmer v. MVD, 83 Or.App. 268, 730 P.2d 1297 (1986) ... NEWMAN, Judge, dissenting ... The majority states: ... "In any event, the hearings officer concluded that, given the requirements of the testing procedure, the officer properly declined to allow ... ...
-
In Re: Suspended Driving Privileges of Basil
...aside DMV's suspension order and remand with instructions to enter an order of suspension. Id. at 435 (citing Wimmer v. Motor Vehicles Div., 83 Or App 268, 269, 730 P2d 1297 (1986)). The issue on appeal is whether petitioner received adequate notice of his rights and consequences as provide......