State ex rel. Robinett v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State ex rel. Robinett v. Smith

572 P.2d 346, 31 Or. App. 1167, 1977 Ore. App. LEXIS 2125

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 12, 1977

DocketNo. 37-371, CA 8041

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 572 P.2d 346 (State ex rel. Robinett v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Robinett v. Smith, 572 P.2d 346, 31 Or. App. 1167, 1977 Ore. App. LEXIS 2125 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

TANZER, J.

The state appeals an order of the circuit court dismissing an habitual traffic offender proceeding¹ because there was no proof that defendant received notice of his right to an advisory meeting with the Motor Vehicles Division. Such notice is required by ORS 484.715² and we have held it to be a condition precedent to adjudging a driver an habitual traffic offender. State v. Wells, 27 Or App 537, 556 P2d 727 (1976).

The state’s evidence included a certified copy of defendant’s driving record which contained the notation "Hab 07/09/75 Warn,” and a certified copy of a return receipt for certified mail which showed a delivery date of July 10, 1975. The notation was not explained. The return receipt was signed by defendant. Also in evidence was a printed form signed by defendant requesting a meeting with a division representative.³ Defendant testified that he did not recall receiving notice.

Assuming, without deciding, that this evidence was insufficient to prove notice, we nevertheless hold that [[1170]]*[1170]the trial court erred in dismissing the proceeding. The purpose of the notification requirement of ORS 484.715 is to advise drivers who are in danger of being adjudged habitual offenders that they can meet with a representative of the division to discuss the consequences of habitual offender status and the availability of driver improvement programs. The evidence shows that defendant knew of the opportunity for such a meeting and availed himself of it. Dismissal for failure to notify defendant of the existence of an opportunity of which he was proved to have actual knowledge would exalt form over substance.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

TANZER, J.

The state appeals an order of the circuit court dismissing an habitual traffic offender proceeding¹ because there was no proof that defendant received notice of his right to an advisory meeting with the Motor Vehicles Division. Such notice is required by ORS 484.715² and we have held it to be a condition precedent to adjudging a driver an habitual traffic offender. State v. Wells, 27 Or App 537, 556 P2d 727 (1976).

The state’s evidence included a certified copy of defendant’s driving record which contained the notation "Hab 07/09/75 Warn,” and a certified copy of a return receipt for certified mail which showed a delivery date of July 10, 1975. The notation was not explained. The return receipt was signed by defendant. Also in evidence was a printed form signed by defendant requesting a meeting with a division representative.³ Defendant testified that he did not recall receiving notice.

Assuming, without deciding, that this evidence was insufficient to prove notice, we nevertheless hold that [[1170]]*[1170]the trial court erred in dismissing the proceeding. The purpose of the notification requirement of ORS 484.715 is to advise drivers who are in danger of being adjudged habitual offenders that they can meet with a representative of the division to discuss the consequences of habitual offender status and the availability of driver improvement programs. The evidence shows that defendant knew of the opportunity for such a meeting and availed himself of it. Dismissal for failure to notify defendant of the existence of an opportunity of which he was proved to have actual knowledge would exalt form over substance.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

572 P.2d 346, 31 Or. App. 1167, 1977 Ore. App. LEXIS 2125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-robinett-v-smith-orctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack