State ex rel. Crank v. City of Logan
This text of 363 S.E.2d 135 (State ex rel. Crank v. City of Logan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering West Virginia Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This case is before this Court upon appeal by the appellants, the City of Logan, West Virginia, a municipal corporation, and L.W. Bechtold, as Commissioner of the West Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, from the final order of the Circuit Court of Logan County, West Virginia. In its final order the circuit court nullified the appellee’s, Steven Allen Crank’s, conviction of a first offense under a municipal ordinance on driving under the influence of alcohol; ordered the Commissioner to expunge the Department of Motor Vehicle’s records of the first-offense administrative revocation of the appellee’s license to operate a motor vehicle; and concluded that the appellee’s license should not be revoked for any further period of time for a conviction of a second offense under this type of ordinance (concluded to be the first valid conviction thereunder).
After reviewing the petition for appeal, including the exhibits therewith, and the briefs of the parties, we reverse the trial court’s rulings on the challenges to the validity of the respective ordinances involved in this case, but note that the result reached by the trial court, specifically, that the appellee’s license may not be revoked for a further period of time, is correct, for a different reason than that assigned by the trial court.
I
On December 1, 1984, the appellee was arrested in the City of Logan for violation of its municipal ordinance against driving under the influence of alcohol. The appel-lee subsequently entered a guilty plea to this charge. Upon receipt of notice of this violation, the Commissioner of the West Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, pursuant to W.Va.Code, 17C-5A-2(i), as amended, entered an order revoking the appellee’s license to operate a motor ve-[550]*550hide.1 The appellee did not contest this order and surrendered his license to the Department of Motor Vehicles. The revocation was stated to be for ninety days.2 On March 25, 1985, the appellee's license to operate a motor vehicle was reinstated.
On January 17, 1985, the City of Logan adopted a new ordinance on driving under the influence of alcohol. The new ordinance superseded the previous ordinance (enacted on June 12, 1984) and provided for a maximum jail term of thirty days. The previous ordinance provided for a maximum jail term of six months.
On May 31, 1985, the appellee was arrested again. This time he was arrested for violation of the January, 1985 ordinance on driving under the influence of alcohol. Upon receipt of notice of this violation the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles revoked the appellee’s license to operate a motor vehicle. Being the appel-lee’s second offense, this violation resulted in a revocation period of ten years.3 The appellee requested an administrative hearing, and based upon the evidence adduced at this hearing the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles affirmed the ten-year revocation order.
The appellee thereafter timely appealed the Commissioner’s revocation order to the Circuit Court of Logan County, West Virginia. The appellee also brought a mandamus proceeding in that court to declare the prior municipal ordinance void and to compel the Commissioner to expunge the record of the appellee’s first offense from the files of the Department of Motor Vehicles. The circuit court consolidated the appeal and the mandamus proceeding.
The circuit court ruled that the prior municipal ordinance, under which the ap-pellee was convicted of the first offense of driving under the influence of alcohol, was null and void because the maximum jail term of six months provided by that ordinance exceeded the maximum jail term of thirty days provided for municipal offenses in general by W.Va.Code, 8-11-1, as amended.4 Accordingly, the circuit court ordered the Commissioner to expunge the record of the appellee’s first-offense license revocation. The circuit court also concluded that the appellee’s loss of his license for the ninety-day revocation period imposed for the invalidated first offense resulted in the appellee’s having already satisfied the administrative requirements for a first offense of driving under the influence of alcohol, which was what the second offense became with invalidation of the first offense.
II
The appellants contend that the circuit court erred in nullifying the prior municipal ordinance and the first-offense license revocation because W. Va. Code, 17C-5-ll(b), as amended, expressly excepts penalties under municipal ordinances on driving under the [551]*551influence of alcohol from the thirty-day-maximum jail-term provisions of W.Va. Code, 8-11-1, as amended. In addition, W.Va.Code, 17C-5-ll(b) also requires such penalties to be the same as provided by statute.5 In this case, the prior ordinance had provided for a jail term of a maximum of six months, which is the same as provided by W.Va.Code, 17C-5-2(d)(2), as amended.6
The appellants’ contention with respect to the prior municipal ordinance is valid. Pursuant to W.Va.Code, 17C-5-11(b), as amended, a municipal ordinance must impose the same penalty for driving under the influence of alcohol as is prescribed for the corresponding state offense. The June, 1984 municipal ordinance of the City of Logan on driving under the influence of alcohol was, contrary to the circuit court’s ruling, valid because it imposed a mandatory jail term of a maximum of six months, including a mandatory confinement of not less than twenty-four hours, and a mandatory fine of not less than $100 nor more than $500, all in conformity with W.Va.Code, 17C-5-2(d)(2), as amended. Thus, the revocation of the appellee’s license to operate a motor vehicle for a first offense, in December, 1984, of driving under the influence of alcohol was also valid, contrary to the circuit court’s ruling. The appellee has, however, already satisfied the administrative requirements of the Department of Motor Vehicles with regard to a first offense of driving under the influence of alcohol.
Ironically, as asserted by the appellee in his brief, the same principle supporting the appellants’ contention as to the validity of the prior municipal ordinance leads to the invalidity of the current (January, 1985) municipal ordinance. That is, the January, 1985 municipal ordinance of the City of Logan on driving under the influence of alcohol is void because it conflicts with W.Va.Code, 17C-5-2(d)(2), as amended, in that it imposes a maximum jail term of thirty days, instead of six months, and provides that the municipal court has the discretion to impose no jail term at all or to impose a jail term without requiring at least twenty-four hours of actual confinement. The appellee’s second-offense conviction, on or about May 31, 1985, of driving under the influence of alcohol is, therefore, void. Accordingly, the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles must expunge the Department’s records of the appellee’s second offense, and the Department may not proceed further on such offense.
[552]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
363 S.E.2d 135, 178 W. Va. 548, 1987 W. Va. LEXIS 629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-crank-v-city-of-logan-wva-1987.