WYOMING DEPT. OF TRANS. v. Haglund

• Decision Date: 09 June 1999
• Docket Number: No. 98-303.,98-303.
• Citation: 982 P.2d 699
• Parties: WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellant (Respondent), v. Julie HAGLUND, Appellee (Petitioner).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

982 P.2d 699

WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellant (Respondent), v. Julie HAGLUND, Appellee (Petitioner).

No. 98-303.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

June 9, 1999.

Gay Woodhouse, Attorney General; Ron Arnold, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Clinton D. Beaver, Special Assistant Attorney General, Representing Appellant

George L. Simonton and Marcia Peterson of Simonton and Simonton, Cody, Wyoming, Representing Appellee

Before LEHMAN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN and HILL, JJ.

MACY, Justice.

Appellee Julie Haglund sought review in the district court of the hearing officer's order which upheld the decision by Appellant Wyoming Department of Transportation (the department) to suspend her driver's license. The district court reversed and remanded the matter to the hearing officer, instructing him to order the department to return the driver's license to Haglund.

We affirm the district court's decision.

ISSUE

The department presents a single issue for our review:

Does WYO. STAT. § 31-7-138(e)(i)(A) require the Department of Transportation to return Appellee's driver's license upon her acquittal on the DWUI charge, irrespective of a pending administrative suspension of the license?

FACTS

On February 19, 1997, Haglund was involved in an automobile accident. When the patrolman arrived at the accident scene, he arrested Haglund and charged her with driving while under the influence of alcohol. Haglund submitted to a chemical test to determine the concentration of alcohol in her blood, and the test revealed that she had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.21 percent.

The department suspended Haglund's driver's license for ninety days. It did, however, issue a temporary driver's license to her. Haglund requested a hearing to challenge the suspension of her driver's license, and the department transferred the case to the Office of Administrative Hearings. A hearing officer held a contested case hearing on June 24, 1997. On August 15, 1997, the hearing officer upheld the suspension of Haglund's driver's license.

In the meantime, Haglund pleaded not guilty to the criminal charge. The county court held a bench trial on May 27, 1997. Haglund maintained that she was not intoxicated while she was driving her vehicle but that, after the accident occurred, she consumed a large quantity of alcohol during the time she was waiting for the patrolman to arrive. The county court judge ruled that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Haglund was intoxicated while she was driving her vehicle, and he entered an order on July 18, 1997, acquitting Haglund of the charge of driving while under the influence of alcohol.

On August 22, 1997, Haglund notified the department that she had been acquitted of the criminal charge and asked for her driver's license to be returned to her. The department responded, stating that dismissal of the criminal action did not entitle Haglund to have her driver's license returned to her and informing her that, if she felt the administrative suspension of her license "should be dismissed for the same reason the criminal action was dismissed," she could appeal from the hearing officer's order.

Haglund filed a petition for review with the district court. The district court held a hearing and determined that Haglund was entitled to have her driver's license returned to her pursuant to the relevant statutes. The department appealed to this Court.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (Michie 1997) governs judicial review of administrative decisions. W.R.A.P. 12.09(a); Everheart v. S & L Industrial, 957 P.2d 847, 851 (Wyo.1998). The issues presented in this case require us to interpret various statutes. Statutory interpretation is a question of law. Newton v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division, 922 P.2d 863, 864 (Wyo.1996); Trefren v. Lewis, 852 P.2d 323, 325 (Wyo.1993). We affirm an agency's conclusions of law when they are in accordance with the law. Corman v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division, 909 P.2d 966, 970 (Wyo.1996). When an agency has not invoked and properly applied the correct rule of law, we correct the agency's errors. Weaver v. Cost Cutters, 953 P.2d 851, 855 (Wyo.1998); Gneiting v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division, 897 P.2d 1306, 1308 (Wyo.1995).

DISCUSSION

The department contends that the district court erred when it concluded that Haglund was entitled to have her driver's license returned to her. It argues that the district court misinterpreted the relevant statutes in reaching its conclusion. Haglund asserts that the district court's interpretation of the statutes and its ultimate decision that she was entitled to have her driver's license returned to her were correct. We agree with Haglund.

Our rules of statutory interpretation are well established. We decide initially whether the statute is clear or ambiguous. Lyles v. State ex rel. Division of Workers' Compensation, 957 P.2d 843, 845 (Wyo.1998). This Court makes that determination as a matter of law. Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Wyoming State Board of Equalization, 813 P.2d 214, 220 (Wyo.1991); see also Parker Land and Cattle Company v. Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, 845 P.2d 1040, 1043 (Wyo. 1993)

. If we determine that a statute is clear and unambiguous, we give effect to the plain language of the statute. Lyles, 957 P.2d at 846; Gunderson v. State, 925 P.2d 1300, 1304 (Wyo.1996). In effectuating the plain language of the statute,

[w]e begin by making an "`inquiry respecting the ordinary and obvious meaning of the words employed according to their arrangement and connection.'" Parker Land and Cattle Company v. Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, 845 P.2d 1040, 1042 (Wyo.1993) (quoting Rasmussen v. Baker, 7 Wyo. 117, 133, 50 P. 819, 823 (1897)). We construe the statute as a whole, giving effect to every word, clause, and sentence, and we construe together all parts of the statute in pari materia.

State Department of Revenue and Taxation v. Pacificorp, 872 P.2d 1163, 1166 (Wyo. 1994). If, on the other hand, we determine that the statute is ambiguous, we resort to general principles of statutory construction to determine the legislature's intent. Parker Land and Cattle Company, 845 P.2d at 1044.

The department suspended Haglund's driver's license pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-6-102(e) (Michie 1997). That provision states in relevant part:

(e) If a person submits to chemical testing and the test result indicates the person has an alcohol concentration of ten one-hundredths of one percent (0.10%) or more, the peace officer shall submit his signed statement to the department. Based upon the statement the department shall suspend the person's Wyoming driver's license or his privilege to operate a motor vehicle in this state for ninety (90) days. If a criminal conviction results from the same incident on which a suspension under this subsection is based, the suspension under W.S. 31-7-128(b) or revocation under W.S. 31-7-127(a)(ii) shall be reduced by ninety (90) days.

Section 31-6-102(e). After the department suspended Haglund's license, it issued a temporary license to her in accordance with the relevant provisions of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-6-102(f) (Michie 1997). That subsection states in pertinent part:

(f) In addition to the signed statement submitted under subsection (d) or (e) of this section, the peace officer shall issue the person a temporary license similar to but in lieu of the license authorized under W.S. 31-7-138. This temporary license shall be valid for thirty (30) days, shall not be renewed, shall contain a notice that the person has twenty (20) days from the date of issuance within which to request a hearing from the department and that failure to timely request a hearing will result in the suspension automatically commencing upon expiration of the temporary license or upon expiration of any existing suspension or revocation if the person's license or privilege is suspended or revoked at the time the temporary license is issued. W.S. 31-7-138(d) and (e) apply to a license under this section.

Section 31-6-102(f) (emphasis added).

The county court acquitted Haglund of the criminal charge, and she asked the department to return her license to her pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-7-138(e) (Michie 1997 & Supp.1998). That provision states in pertinent part:

(e) Upon receipt of a record indicating the disposition of the arrest or citation which required surrender of the license:

(i) Each Wyoming license surrendered under this section or pursuant to W.S. XX-X-XXXX(k) shall be:

(A) Returned, if the licensee is not convicted and is otherwise entitled to receive the license ....

Section 31-7-138(e)(i)(A). The department refused to return Haglund's license to her, stating:

Since an alcohol related offense in Wyoming involves both the administrative and the criminal actions, dismissal of only the criminal action would not qualify licensee to receive the license back. The ninety (90) day administrative suspension action upheld by the Hearing Examiner, disqualifies Ms. Haglund from receiving her license back. She will not be "entitled" to receive the license until she has served the mandatory suspension and met the Department's requirements for reinstatement.

Section 31-6-102(f) provides for the issuance of a temporary license after a driver's license has been suspended under § 31-6-102(e). It specifically refers to § 31-7-138(e). Section 31-7-138(e) sets out two conditions which must be satisfied before a driver's license may be returned to the licensee: (1) The person must not be convicted of the criminal charge which led to the suspension of her license; and (2) she must be "otherwise entitled to receive the license." Section 31-7-138(e)(i)(A).

Haglund was acquitted of the charge of driving while under the influence and, consequently, satisfied the first condition of § 31-7-138(e)(i)(A). The parties disagree, however, as to...