ORDERS:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter is an appeal by the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (Department) from an Order of Dismissal of the South Carolina Division of Motor Vehicle Hearings (DMVH). The DMVH’s Order of Dismissal was issued following a hearing held pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 56-10-530 (2006). The Department claims that the DMVH erroneously rescinded the suspension of Respondent’s driving and registration privileges. The Administrative Law Court (ALC or Court) has jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-660 & 56-10-530 (Supp. 2006). Upon review, the DMVH’s Final Order and Decision is remanded to the DMVH for a new hearing.
BACKGROUND
On July 26, 2007, the Department sent Respondent written notice that, as a result of a Reckless Driving Conviction that occurred on May 14, 2006, his driving and registration privileges in South Carolina would be suspended pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 56-1-1030, effective July 26, 2007.
On July 23, 2007, Respondent applied to the DMVH to have a hearing to show why he should not be declared a habitual offender. A hearing was held on August 27, 2007. However, the Department did not appear at the hearing.
On September 12, 2007, the hearing officer summarily dismissed the case on the basis that the DMV did not file any certified copy documentation in the matter nor did it appear at the hearing and did not notify the DMVH that they would not be appearing. The Department filed a Motion to Reconsider on September 13, 2007. This appeal followed.
ISSUE ON APPEAL
1. The DMVH hearing officer erred by dismissing this case on the grounds that “Petitioner, SCDMV, did not file any certified copy documentation in the matter…”
LAW
The DMVH is authorized by law to determine contested cases arising from the Department. See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-660 (Supp. 2006). Therefore, the DMVH is an “agency” under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-310(2) (2005). As such, the APA’s standard of review governs appeals from decisions of the DMVH. See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380 (Supp. 2006); see also Byerly Hosp. v. S.C. State Health & Human Servs. Fin. Comm’n, 319 S.C. 225, 229, 460 S.E.2d 383, 385 (1995). The standard used by appellate bodies, including the ALC, to review agency decisions is provided by S.C. Code Ann. §1-23-380(A)(5) (Supp. 2006). This section provides:
The court may not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision [of the agency] if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:
(a) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;
(b) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency;
(c) made upon unlawful procedure;
(d) affected by other error of law;
(e) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or
(f) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.
S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(5) (Supp. 2006).
S.C. Code Ann. § 56-1-1030 (Supp. 2006) provides in pertinent part:
If the [Department of Motor Vehicles] determines after review of its records that [a] person is an habitual offender as defined in Section 56-1-1020, the department must revoke or suspend the person’s driver’s license. . . . A resident of South Carolina found to be an habitual offender may appeal the decision to the Division of Motor Vehicle Hearings in accordance with its rules of procedure.
S.C. Code Ann. § 56-1-1020 (2006) defines a habitual offender to include, among others, a person who, in a three-year period, accumulates three of more convictions for “[d]riving a motor vehicle while his license, permit, or privilege to drive a motor vehicle has been suspended or revoked, except a conviction for driving under suspension for failure to file proof of financial responsibility.” Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 56-1-1090 (Supp. 2006), the length of a habitual offender suspension is five years, unless the suspension period is reduced to two years as permitted by subsection (c) of Section 56-1-1090.
DISCUSSION
The Hearing Officer held that she never received certified documentation from the Department as evidence of Respondent’s Habitual Offender status. The Record is clear that the Department mailed the DMVH certified copies of the documentation for introduction at the Habitual Offender hearing. According to the dates stamped on the documents, they were received by the DMVH on July 24, 2007 and a clocked copy was returned to the DMV on July 26, 2007. Moreover, on the right side of each page, there is a stamp that states that the copy is “certified to be true and correct copy of the original document on file with the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles.” This certificate is signed by the Driver Services, Deputy Director. Therefore, the DMVH hearing officer’s finding that “there is no evidence before me that the Respondent meets the statutory requirement of a Habitual Offender” was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the DMVH’s Order of Dismissal is reversed and, because this case was summarily dismissed without a full hearing, this matter is remanded to the DMVH for a new hearing.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the DMVH’s Order of Dismissal is REVERSED. Appellant may request a new hearing pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 56-1-1030 (Supp. 2006).
AND IT IS SO ORDERED. ______________________________
Carolyn C. Matthews
Administrative Law Judge
May 20, 2009
Columbia, South Carolina
|
