ROSE, Justice.
This appeal concerns administrative proceedings relative to the suspension of driving privileges following a conviction for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Appellee pleaded guilty and was convicted of the aforementioned offense on March 24, 1977, after being charged through a citation with a violation of § 31-129, W.S.1957, C.1967, 1975 Cum. Supp. [§ 31-5-233, W.S.1977].1 Subsequent to his conviction, appellee-Shipley received an Order of Suspension from the appellant-Department of Revenue and Taxation, indicating that his driving privileges were to be suspended for a period of ninety (90) days, in accordance with § 31-276.26, W.S.1957, C.1967, 1975 Cum.Supp. [§ 31-7-127, W.S. 1977].2 The Order was dated and mailed on [417]*417April 7, 1977, but appellee stated that he did not receive it until April 9. On April 28, 1977, Mr. Shipley requested an administrative hearing on his suspension, which request was denied as being untimely under Section 13 of the Rules of appellant relating to drivers’ licenses.3 Appellee thereafter filed a petition for judicial review, seeking a reversal of the hearing-denial and a reduction of the suspension period. The trial court granted the relief requested. We will reverse the trial court’s determination that a thirty (30)-day suspension was the proper statutory sanction, but we will affirm the trial court’s order to the extent that it provided that appellee should be allowed an administrative hearing.
Appellant-Department of Revenue and Taxation raises the following contentions in support of its view that the trial court should be reversed in all respects:
1. “The trial court erred in reversing the ninety-day suspension period imposed by W.S. 31-276.26 and substituting the thirty-day suspension period pursuant to W.S. 31-129.”
2. “The trial court erred in holding that appellee was entitled to an administrative hearing.”
In response, appellee-Shipley raises a related third issue, asserting that a suspension under the ninety-day provision, § 31-276.26, would violate the due-process notice requirements.
PROPER PERIOD OP SUSPENSION
The first issue, having to do with which period of suspension is proper, calls up the question as to whether the thirty-day suspension period provided by § 31 - 129(e), was repealed by implication through the enactment of § 31-276.26. As recently stated by this court, statutory repeals by implication are not favored, but they will be declared and enforced where the statutes in question are repugnant by virtue of their relating to the same subject and are directed at a distinct offense with the same object. Bartlett v. State, Wyo., 569 P.2d 1235, 1241. See, Thomas v. State, Wyo., 562 P.2d 1287. A reading of the two statutes in question reveals that they are both aimed at the suspension of driving privileges upon conviction of the criminal offense of driving while under the influence — the only difference being the imposition of different periods of suspension. They are, therefore, repugnant, leaving only the question as to which statute applies. In making that determination, we must look to see which statute was last enacted. Thomas v. State, supra. Further (in settling a question such as that which confronts us here), we recognize the rule that a later specific statute controls over a general statute. Thomas v. State, supra; and Haines v. Territory, 3 Wyo. 167, 13 P. 8. In this case, we may also give some weight to a Wyoming Attorney General’s opinion, dated March 27, 1973, which concluded that § 31-129(e) had indeed been repealed by implication through enactment of § 31-276.26. See, School Districts Nos. 2, 3, 6, 9 and 10 v. Cook, Wyo., 424 P.2d 751. But, see, Seyfang v. Board of Trustees of Washakie County School District No. 1, Wyo., 563 P.2d 1376.
A review of the legislative history of these two statutes discloses that § 31-129(e) was first enacted in 1953 (Ch. 184, § 1, W.S.L.1953), while § 31-276.26 was enacted in 1973 (Ch. 238, § 1, W.S.L.1973). Appellee-Shipley correctly notes that the provisions of § 31-129 were amended in 1973 (Ch. 22, § 1, W.S.L.1973), but those amendments — as they affected § 31-129(e) [418]*418—related only to the entity which was empowered to suspend driving privileges. It is also noted that § 31-129(c) was amended in 1975 (Ch. 67, § 1, W.S.L.1975), but again, that amendment had no relationship to the suspension of driving privileges. Even if we were to assume that the 1973 amendment constituted a re-enactment of § 31-129(e), the legislative history indicates that § 31-276.26 was adopted and approved and programmed to become effective on a date after the effective date for the 1973 amendment of § 31-129.4 When two statutes, which are impossible to harmonize, are approved during the same legislative session, the statute taking the later effect is controlling. State v. Marcus, 34 N.M. 378, 281 P. 454, 456 (1929). Since § 31-276.26 took effect later than the amendments to § 31-129 (fn. 4, supra), we hold that the ninety-day period of suspension is the sanction which is to be imposed.
Our conclusion is buttressed by the fact that the enactment of the Driver’s License Act of 1973 — which included the provisions of § 31-276.26 — also included a repeal of § 31-273(2)(b), W.S.1957, C.1967 (Ch. 238, § 3, W.S.L.1973). This repealed section provided for a thirty-day suspension period upon proof of a conviction for driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated. While the legislative action in this area is admittedly confusing, under the rules of law discussed above, we must give effect to § 31-276.26— it being the most recent legislative pronouncement in the area.
Although it was not made clear in the trial court’s order, it is apparent from the comments of the court at the hearing on appellee’s petition that it was primarily bothered by the fact that Mr. Shipley, the appellee, was charged and convicted under § 31-129, but his driving privileges were suspended under § 31-276.26. This concern relates directly to appellee’s contention with respect to inadequate notice. In this regard, it is important to note that § 31-129 is a criminal statute, but § 31-276.26 is not. The latter provision does not provide for a fine or imprisonment sanction but merely holds that the motor vehicle division shall suspend or revoke a driver’s license upon receipt of the record of conviction for one of the enumerated offenses. When the uniform traffic citation procedure is utilized— as it was here — it is sufficient if the accused is informed of the nature of the offense with which he is charged. Swisse v. City of Sheridan, Wyo., 561 P.2d 712. Appellee did not contend below or on appeal that the use of a traffic citation was unauthorized or that he was not fully notified of the criminal offense with which he was charged. Rather, his complaint is grounded in the State’s failure to additionally notify him of a possible ninety-day suspension under § 31-276.26.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
ROSE, Justice.
This appeal concerns administrative proceedings relative to the suspension of driving privileges following a conviction for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Appellee pleaded guilty and was convicted of the aforementioned offense on March 24, 1977, after being charged through a citation with a violation of § 31-129, W.S.1957, C.1967, 1975 Cum. Supp. [§ 31-5-233, W.S.1977].1 Subsequent to his conviction, appellee-Shipley received an Order of Suspension from the appellant-Department of Revenue and Taxation, indicating that his driving privileges were to be suspended for a period of ninety (90) days, in accordance with § 31-276.26, W.S.1957, C.1967, 1975 Cum.Supp. [§ 31-7-127, W.S. 1977].2 The Order was dated and mailed on [417]*417April 7, 1977, but appellee stated that he did not receive it until April 9. On April 28, 1977, Mr. Shipley requested an administrative hearing on his suspension, which request was denied as being untimely under Section 13 of the Rules of appellant relating to drivers’ licenses.3 Appellee thereafter filed a petition for judicial review, seeking a reversal of the hearing-denial and a reduction of the suspension period. The trial court granted the relief requested. We will reverse the trial court’s determination that a thirty (30)-day suspension was the proper statutory sanction, but we will affirm the trial court’s order to the extent that it provided that appellee should be allowed an administrative hearing.
Appellant-Department of Revenue and Taxation raises the following contentions in support of its view that the trial court should be reversed in all respects:
1. “The trial court erred in reversing the ninety-day suspension period imposed by W.S. 31-276.26 and substituting the thirty-day suspension period pursuant to W.S. 31-129.”
2. “The trial court erred in holding that appellee was entitled to an administrative hearing.”
In response, appellee-Shipley raises a related third issue, asserting that a suspension under the ninety-day provision, § 31-276.26, would violate the due-process notice requirements.
PROPER PERIOD OP SUSPENSION
The first issue, having to do with which period of suspension is proper, calls up the question as to whether the thirty-day suspension period provided by § 31 - 129(e), was repealed by implication through the enactment of § 31-276.26. As recently stated by this court, statutory repeals by implication are not favored, but they will be declared and enforced where the statutes in question are repugnant by virtue of their relating to the same subject and are directed at a distinct offense with the same object. Bartlett v. State, Wyo., 569 P.2d 1235, 1241. See, Thomas v. State, Wyo., 562 P.2d 1287. A reading of the two statutes in question reveals that they are both aimed at the suspension of driving privileges upon conviction of the criminal offense of driving while under the influence — the only difference being the imposition of different periods of suspension. They are, therefore, repugnant, leaving only the question as to which statute applies. In making that determination, we must look to see which statute was last enacted. Thomas v. State, supra. Further (in settling a question such as that which confronts us here), we recognize the rule that a later specific statute controls over a general statute. Thomas v. State, supra; and Haines v. Territory, 3 Wyo. 167, 13 P. 8. In this case, we may also give some weight to a Wyoming Attorney General’s opinion, dated March 27, 1973, which concluded that § 31-129(e) had indeed been repealed by implication through enactment of § 31-276.26. See, School Districts Nos. 2, 3, 6, 9 and 10 v. Cook, Wyo., 424 P.2d 751. But, see, Seyfang v. Board of Trustees of Washakie County School District No. 1, Wyo., 563 P.2d 1376.
A review of the legislative history of these two statutes discloses that § 31-129(e) was first enacted in 1953 (Ch. 184, § 1, W.S.L.1953), while § 31-276.26 was enacted in 1973 (Ch. 238, § 1, W.S.L.1973). Appellee-Shipley correctly notes that the provisions of § 31-129 were amended in 1973 (Ch. 22, § 1, W.S.L.1973), but those amendments — as they affected § 31-129(e) [418]*418—related only to the entity which was empowered to suspend driving privileges. It is also noted that § 31-129(c) was amended in 1975 (Ch. 67, § 1, W.S.L.1975), but again, that amendment had no relationship to the suspension of driving privileges. Even if we were to assume that the 1973 amendment constituted a re-enactment of § 31-129(e), the legislative history indicates that § 31-276.26 was adopted and approved and programmed to become effective on a date after the effective date for the 1973 amendment of § 31-129.4 When two statutes, which are impossible to harmonize, are approved during the same legislative session, the statute taking the later effect is controlling. State v. Marcus, 34 N.M. 378, 281 P. 454, 456 (1929). Since § 31-276.26 took effect later than the amendments to § 31-129 (fn. 4, supra), we hold that the ninety-day period of suspension is the sanction which is to be imposed.
Our conclusion is buttressed by the fact that the enactment of the Driver’s License Act of 1973 — which included the provisions of § 31-276.26 — also included a repeal of § 31-273(2)(b), W.S.1957, C.1967 (Ch. 238, § 3, W.S.L.1973). This repealed section provided for a thirty-day suspension period upon proof of a conviction for driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated. While the legislative action in this area is admittedly confusing, under the rules of law discussed above, we must give effect to § 31-276.26— it being the most recent legislative pronouncement in the area.
Although it was not made clear in the trial court’s order, it is apparent from the comments of the court at the hearing on appellee’s petition that it was primarily bothered by the fact that Mr. Shipley, the appellee, was charged and convicted under § 31-129, but his driving privileges were suspended under § 31-276.26. This concern relates directly to appellee’s contention with respect to inadequate notice. In this regard, it is important to note that § 31-129 is a criminal statute, but § 31-276.26 is not. The latter provision does not provide for a fine or imprisonment sanction but merely holds that the motor vehicle division shall suspend or revoke a driver’s license upon receipt of the record of conviction for one of the enumerated offenses. When the uniform traffic citation procedure is utilized— as it was here — it is sufficient if the accused is informed of the nature of the offense with which he is charged. Swisse v. City of Sheridan, Wyo., 561 P.2d 712. Appellee did not contend below or on appeal that the use of a traffic citation was unauthorized or that he was not fully notified of the criminal offense with which he was charged. Rather, his complaint is grounded in the State’s failure to additionally notify him of a possible ninety-day suspension under § 31-276.26. We are aware of no authority, however, and appellee cites us to none which is applicable, holding that due process requires a uniform traffic citation to set out the penalty which will follow in the event of a conviction. See, State v. Newkirk, 21 Ohio App.2d 160, 255 N.E.2d 851; and State v. Johnson, 27 Ohio App.2d 129, 272 N.E.2d 915. As stated in State v. Newkirk, at 255 N.E.2d 854:
“A license to operate a motor vehicle is a privilege and not a property right. The state has the right under its sovereign power to control automobile traffic by reasonable regulations of the circumstances under which its citizens may be licensed to operate a motor vehicle and to adopt appropriate provisions to insure competence and care on the part of the licensees, to protect others using the highways; and any appropriate means adopted does not deny to a person subject to its provisions any constitutional rights [419]*419under the Constitution of the United States or the state of Ohio. See Wilsch v. Bencar, 7 Ohio App.2d 165, 219 N.E.2d 311; Paduchik v. Mikoff, 112 N.E.2d 69, 64 Ohio Law Abs. 150. Also, see, Solomon v. Liquor Control Comm., 4 Ohio. St.2d 31, 212 N.E.2d 595, relating to a different type of license, but wherein the matter for determination was the suspension or revocation of a permit.”
We further find no violation of due process in view of the fact that an appellee in Mr. Shipley’s circumstances is, by statute, granted the additional right to notice and a hearing on the independent suspension sanctions. § 31-276.26(c), supra, fn. 2.
We hold, therefore, that the trial court erred in directing a thirty-day suspension, as opposed to upholding the ninety-day suspension imposed, and that imposition of the last-mentioned sanction is not constitutionally infirm.
ENTITLEMENT TO A HEARING
Appellant’s contention — in regard to the timeliness of appellee’s request for an administrative hearing — calls for a consideration of appellant’s administrative rules (fn. 3, supra) and the applicable statutes. Appellant urges that the running of the time, within which a hearing must be requested, commenced as of the date of its Order of Suspension as opposed to the date on which appellee received that order. This being so — argues the appellant — the appellee’s request was one day late, in consequence of which the Department of Revenue and Taxation was justified in denying the appellee a hearing in this case.
We would agree that the failure to timely request an administrative hearing would constitute a waiver of the right to any administrative review. Campbell v. Chatwin, 102 Ariz. 251, 428 P.2d 108, 113. The question of timeliness, however, depends on an interpretation of the agency’s rule, § 31-276.26(c), supra, and § 9-276.-31(c), W.S.1957, 1975 Cum.Supp. [§ 9-4-113(c), W.S.1977].5 The agency’s rules require a licensee to file his hearing request within twenty days “from the date of notice.” Section 31-276.26(c), supra, simply provides that before suspending a license, the motor vehicle division “shall immediately notify the licensee in writing and upon his request shall afford him an opportunity for a hearing.” Finally, § 9-276.31(c), supra, provides that no license suspension is lawful unless the agency “gave notice by mail” to the licensee. The aforementioned statutes indicate the manner of service — a mailed writing — but they do little to explain how the time period established by agency rule should be calculated. Notice has been held effective from the time that a motor vehicle division mails a certified letter, containing notification of the proposed suspension. Ryan v. Andrews, 50 Ohio App.2d 72, 361 N.E.2d 1086. But, see, Fell v. Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 30 Ohio App.2d 151, 283 N.E.2d 825, cert. den., 419 U.S. 1010, 95 S.Ct. 330, 42 L.Ed.2d 285, and People v. Liddell, 19 Ill.App.3d 794, 313 N.E.2d 248. In each of the cited cases, however, the courts were dealing with statutes providing that the time, within which to request a license suspension hearing, commenced on the date of mailing. Under such circumstances, the filing of a hearing [420]*420request within the indicated time period is considered a reasonable burden on the licensee — at least where there is no delay caused by the postal system. Ryan v. Andrews, supra. See, generally, Annot., “Sufficiency of Notice and Hearing Before Revocation or Suspension of Motor Vehicle Driver’s License,” 60 A.L.R.3d 437-447. Unlike most cases in this area, the appellee does not contest the fact that he actually received notice of the proposed suspension. We are only concerned, therefore, with the proper computation of the time within which to request a hearing.6
Applicable statutes and rules should be liberally construed in favor of the right of a licensee to have a review of the proposed suspension. See, Fell v. Bureau of Motor Vehicles, supra. Viewed in this light, we find that the phrase “date of notice” — contained in Section 13 of the agency’s rules (fn. 3 supra) — should be construed to mean the date of actual receipt by the licensee of the suspension order, rather than the date of the order .or the date of its mailing. Cf., Ferrenbach v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass’n., 8 Cir., 121 F. 945, 59 C.C.A. 307, cert. den., 191 U.S. 569, 24 S.Ct. 842, 48 L.Ed. 306; and Booher v. Farmer’s Mut. Fire Ass’n of West Virginia, 91 W.Va. 468, 113 S.E. 754 (where similar conclusions were reached with respect to the construction of insurance contracts). While such a conclusion may result in some inconvenience for the motor vehicle division (Ryan v. Andrews, supra), we find it necessary to protect the rights of the licensee — at least until the statutes or agency rules are clarified. Under such a construction, appellee timely filed his hearing request — since it was made within twenty days of receipt of the suspension order. We hold, therefore, that the district court was correct in directing appellant to provide appellee with an administrative hearing on his suspension.
The district court’s order is reversed in part and affirmed in part, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.