State v. Stehle
This text of 575 P.2d 994 (State v. Stehle) 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.
Opinion
Defendant appeals from the trial court’s order finding him to be a habitual traffic offender. Defendant contends on appeal that violations of the 55 miles per hour maximum speed limit should not be considered in determining whether an individual is a habitual traffic offender.
ORS 484.705(l)(b) provides:
"* * * '[Hlabitual offender’ means any person * * * who within a five-year period, has been convicted of or forfeited bail for * * * [tjwenty or more of any one or more offenses involving the operation of a motor vehicle which violations are required to be reported to the [Motor Vehicles] division * * *.”1
After receiving notification from the Motor Vehicles Division (Division) that defendant had received 26 traffic citations within the last five years for moving violations, 10 of which were for exceeding the 55 miles per hour maximum speed, the district attorney filed a complaint in circuit court pursuant to ORS 484.7202 charging defendant with being a habitual traffic offender. After a hearing, the trial court found defendant to be a habitual traffic offender and ordered him to [118]*118surrender all Oregon licenses to operate motor vehicles.3
Defendant contends first that ORS 487.477 indicates that the legislature did not intend to include violations of a maximum speed limit as offenses under the habitual offenders law. ORS 487.477 provides:
"In no event shall the division suspend or revoke a person’s license, permit or privilege to drive a motor vehicle in this state solely on the grounds that such a person has incurred one or more convictions of a violation of [the 55 miles per hour speed limit].” (Emphasis supplied.)
The inclusion of the word "solely” in ORS 487.477 defeats defendant’s contention.
Defendant next argues that his twentieth traffic infraction was that of violating the 55 miles per hour maximum speed and thus he was held to be a habitual offender "solely” on the basis of violating the 55 miles per hour maximum speed. Defendant’s argument overlooks that the state must show 19 other convictions in order to meet its burden of proving that an individual is a habitual offender. Thus it can hardly be said that defendant’s status of habitual offender was based "solely” uon the twentieth infraction.
[119]*119Lastly, defendant contends that ORS 484.710(1)4 indicates that the general policy of the habitual offenders law is to provide safety for motorists and that under the terms of ORS 487.475(1),5 the legislature stated that the purpose of the 55 miles per hour maximum speed limit rule was to conserve fuel. However, ORS 484.705(1) requires that violations of the 55 miles per hour maximum speed be considered in determining if an individual is a habitual offender. When a specific statute conflicts with a general policy statement, the specific, here ORS 484.705(1), controls the general, here ORS 484.710(1). See Smith v. State of Oregon, 31 Or App 15, 19-20, 569 P2d 677 (1977), rev den (1978).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
575 P.2d 994, 33 Or. App. 115, 1978 Ore. App. LEXIS 3235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-stehle-orctapp-1978.