Woodall v. State
| Decision Date | 03 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | 1111-2021 |
| Parties | STEVEN ALBERT WOODALL v. STATE OF MARYLAND |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Queen Anne's Count Case No C-17-CR-21-000232
Graeff, Tang, Kenney, James A., III (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Following a bench trial, the Circuit Court for Queen Anne's County convicted Steven Albert Woodall, appellant, of driving on a revoked license. The court sentenced him to one year's imprisonment, with all but 15 days suspended, followed by 18 months of unsupervised probation. Appellant noted this appeal, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction.[1] For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
As a prelude to the recitation of the facts in this case, we begin with a statutory overview of the Transportation Article of the Maryland Code ("TR") for revoking one's driving privileges in Maryland. Maryland's Motor Vehicle Administration ("Administration") uses a point system for, inter alia, the suspension or revocation of drivers' licenses.[2] Md. Code Ann., TR § 16-401 . Points may be assessed against an individual's license after conviction for violating vehicle laws, regulations, or certain criminal statutes. TR § 16-402. For example, a conviction for driving while under the influence of alcohol will result in the assessment of 12 points against an individual's license. TR § 16-402(a)(38). Points assessed will be retained for two years from the date of the violation. TR § 16-407. Accordingly, an accumulation of points within any two-year period (including those arising from multiple events) can result in the individual's license being either suspended or revoked. TR § 16-404(a)(3), (b)(1).
If a certain number of points accumulate on one's license within a two-year period, the Administration is authorized to take action against the licensee, including sending a warning letter or requiring attendance at a driver improvement program. TR § 16-404(a)(1), (2). If a licensee accumulates 12 points, the Administration is required to take more severe action and "issue a notice of revocation." See TR § 16-404(b)(1)(ii). The revocation notice shall state the duration of the revocation and advise the licensee of his right to promptly request a hearing before the Administrator.[3] TR §§ 16-404(b)(2)(ii), (iii), 12-203(a). The revocation notice must "[b]e personally served or sent by certified mail, bearing a postmark from the United States Postal Service[.]" TR § 16-404(b)(2)(i).
If the licensee requests a hearing, the Administration must provide notice and a hearing.[4] See TR §§ 12-202, 12-203. Specifically, the Administration's hearing notice must contain, inter alia: the "date, time, place, and nature of the hearing;" the "nature of the proposed action that the Administration is to consider;" and the "right of the Administration, on failure of the licensee to appear, to . . . [i]mpose any sanction proposed in the notice." TR § 12-204(1), (4), (9)(ii); COMAR 11.11.02.03(B). The hearing notice must be given at least 10 days before the date of the hearing by either personal delivery or mail to the licensee at the address on record with the Administration.[5] TR §§ 12-202(b)(2), (3), 12-114(a); COMAR 11.11.02.03(C).
The hearing "shall be held within 30 days of the date of the request" for a hearing.[6]TR § 12-203(b)(2); COMAR 11.11.02.03(C) ("A hearing shall be scheduled within 30 days of the date a party requests a hearing."). The Administrator must render a decision within 30 days of the hearing. TR § 12-203(b)(3); see Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Geppert, 470 Md. 28, 38 (2020).
If the licensee fails to appear at the hearing, the Administrator may "impose the sanction proposed in the notice." TR § 12-208(c). If the Administrator imposes a sanction against the licensee, e.g., the Administrator revokes the license, the decision must be served by personal delivery or by mail to the licensee at the address on record with the Administration. TR §§ 12-208(b)(2), 12-114(a)(1), (2). With this statutory scheme in mind, we turn to the evidence adduced at trial.
On January 27, 2021, Deputy George Betts, of the Queen Anne's County Sheriff's Department, was conducting routine traffic enforcement when he observed a vehicle, driven by appellant, which appeared to be speeding. Deputy Betts activated his emergency equipment and stopped the vehicle. He then obtained appellant's driver's license and learned it had been revoked. When the deputy asked appellant about the status of his license, appellant said he was unaware his license had been revoked.
In addition to the deputy's testimony, the State introduced into evidence, and the court admitted, appellant's driving record. The record shows a history of alcohol-related driving offenses ("DUI"). In 1983, appellant was charged with and convicted of DUI. On May 31, 2018, appellant was charged with another DUI. In connection with that charge, appellant's license was suspended on July 16, 2018. On August 27, 2018, the suspension was stayed.
On September 7, 2018, appellant was convicted of the DUI, which resulted in the imposition of 12 points. Thereafter, on March 28, 2019, the Administration mailed appellant a "point system revocation letter." On or about April 8, 2019, appellant requested a hearing, and the Administration held the revocation "in abeyance." On June 18, 2019, after a hearing, the Administration suspended appellant's license. These events, which are documented in the excerpt of the record below, are collectively referred to as the "2019 Revocation Proceeding."
05-31-18
09-07-18
DRIVE/ATTEMPT DR WHILE UNDER THE INF OF ALCOHOL/PER SE (MV)
12*
03-28-19
POINT SYSTEM REVOCATION LETTER MAILED
04-05-19
IGNTTIOM INTERLOCK NOTICE MAIL MAILED- CONV FOR HIGH BAC
04-05-19
INTERLOCK RESTRICTION ON ALL VEHICLES OPERATED
04-08-13
033819
POINT SYSTEM HEARING REQUESTED REVOCATION HELD IN ABEYANCE
04-29-13
6M 090718
INTERLOCK RESTRICTION ON ALL VEHICLES OPERATED - REMOVED
06-18-19
090718 6M ALJ
On April 1, 2020, about a year after the 2019 Revocation Proceeding, appellant was convicted of failing to obey a traffic control device. This violation resulted in the assessment of another point against appellant's license. Thereafter, on July 30, 2020, the Administration sent appellant another "point system revocation letter." On or about August 14, 2020, appellant requested a hearing, and the Administration held the revocation "in abeyance." On September 30, 2020, appellant failed to appear at the hearing, which resulted in the revocation of his license. These events are documented in the excerpt of the record, below:
03-09-20
04-01-20
3HK0E30
FAIL TO OBEY INSTRUCTIONS OF TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE(MV)
07-30-20
POINT SYSTEM REVOCATION LETTER MAILED
08-14-20
2018-05-31
POINT SYSTEM HEARING REQUESTED REVOCATION HELD IN ABEYANCE
08-19-20
POINT SYSTEM REVOCATION LETTER RETURNED BY POSTAL AUTHORITY
09-30-20
HEARING FAILED TO APPEAR
09-30-20
09-30-20
ALJ
HEARING-REVOKED
09-30-20
At the close of the State's case, appellant moved for judgment of acquittal, arguing that the State failed to prove that appellant knew that his license was revoked at the time of the traffic stop on January 21, 2021, approximately five months after appellant requested a hearing. After arguments by both parties, the trial court found appellant guilty of driving on a revoked license:
I will find [appellant] guilty of Count 2, driving a license [sic] while revoked. Certainly, he was given notice of the revocation. He did request a hearing; that was August of 2020. The fact that this count -- this charge was on January of 2021, he should have known or taken some action to find out what happened with that hearing. The fact that he didn't from August until January, I believe he willfully decided not to follow-up with the MVA and find out what was going on. Having already been through the proceeding in 2019 he knew exactly what was going on. I will find him guilty of that charge.
Maryland Rule 8-131(c) provides the standard of review for an appeal from a judgment entered following a bench trial. It provides:
When an action has been tried without a jury, the appellate court will review the case on both the law and the evidence. It will not set aside the judgment of the trial court on the evidence unless clearly erroneous, and will give due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.
"[I]n a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, the appellate court is not to ask whether it believes that the evidence at trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Pagotto, 361 Md. 528, 534 (2000). "Rather, the court only asks 'whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Id. (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)) (emphasis in original).
Appellant was convicted of a single charge of driving while his license was revoked. To prove his guilt of that offense, the State was required to show beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that appellant was driving a motor vehicle, (2) at the time he was driving, his license was revoked, and (3) that he knew that his license was revoked. See Steward v. State, 218 Md.App. 550, 559-60 (2014). Appellant limits his challenge to the third element, that is, whether there was...
To continue reading
Request your trial