State v. Dysart

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

State v. Dysart

393 A.2d 569, 118 N.H. 743

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedOctober 30, 1978

DocketNo. 78-191

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 393 A.2d 569 (State v. Dysart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Dysart, 393 A.2d 569, 118 N.H. 743 (N.H. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum

Defendant was found to be a habitual motor vehicle offender following a hearing before the Hillsborough County Superior Court. The trial court ordered defendant not to operate a motor vehicle for six months from the date of its order. This order was later amended to provide for a twelve-month revocation. The State seasonably excepted to the court’s order and the matter was transferred here by Loughlin, C.J.

RSA 262-B:5 IV provides that following a finding that a person is a habitual offender the court shall direct the person not to operate a motor vehicle. The period of revocation is governed by RSA 262-B:6 which requires a mandatory lapse of at least four years from the effective date of the order before a person may petition for restoration of his privilege to operate. RSA 262-B:8. Restoration of this privilege is an administrative function required by statute and not one involving judicial discretion, such as suspension of a fine or other sentence. See State v. Greenwood, 115 N.H. 117, 119, 335 A.2d 644, 646 (1975).

Exception sustained; order vacated, remanded.

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

Memorandum

Defendant was found to be a habitual motor vehicle offender following a hearing before the Hillsborough County Superior Court. The trial court ordered defendant not to operate a motor vehicle for six months from the date of its order. This order was later amended to provide for a twelve-month revocation. The State seasonably excepted to the court’s order and the matter was transferred here by Loughlin, C.J.

RSA 262-B:5 IV provides that following a finding that a person is a habitual offender the court shall direct the person not to operate a motor vehicle. The period of revocation is governed by RSA 262-B:6 which requires a mandatory lapse of at least four years from the effective date of the order before a person may petition for restoration of his privilege to operate. RSA 262-B:8. Restoration of this privilege is an administrative function required by statute and not one involving judicial discretion, such as suspension of a fine or other sentence. See State v. Greenwood, 115 N.H. 117, 119, 335 A.2d 644, 646 (1975).

Exception sustained; order vacated, remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

393 A.2d 569, 118 N.H. 743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dysart-nh-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack