Florida Court Of Appeals - On August 5, 2009, the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, issued an opinion in the case or Robert C. Dawson v. State of Florida, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. Judge Cope issued the opinion of the court, which has not bee released for formal publication. Attorneys Robin Lotane and Damaris E. Reynolds represented the state, and Mr. Dawson acted as his own lawyer.
As happens more often than not, Mr. Dawson didn't have an attorney and therefore lost the case to the team of government lawyers working against him. Here's how it happened:
On July 14, 2008, Mr. Dawson was convicted in Suffolk County, New York of DWAI ("driving while ability impaired). His driver's license was suspended for 90 days and he was fined. Later, on August 27, 2008, the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (the Florida DMV) revoked his Florida driver's license for a year because of the New York conviction.
In Florida, the Florida DMV has the authority to revoke the driver's license of Florida licensed drivers for various out of state convictions, of which DUI is one.
Mr. Dawson filed a writ of certiorari in Martin County, Florida, asking the judge to reinstate his license. His appeal was denied. He then filed an appeal in the Fourth District Court of Appeal (for Florida). That court recused itself because of a potential conflict of interest in the case. The case then ended up in the Third District.
Mr. Dawson's legal argument was that the New York DWAI conviction didn't have the same elements as a Florida DUI. After comparing the two statutes, however, the appeals court rejected that position.
Mr. Dawson also asserted that he was denied due process with the Florida DMV gave him the maximum possible suspension without a hearing. The Court confirmed that the DMV can enter an order revoking a person's driving privileges without prior notice or opportunity to be heard, and it does not violate the due process clause of the Constitution because he could have requested a hearing on receipt of the notice of revocation anyways.
Even though Mr. Dawson chose to represent himself rather than have an attorney, he is held to the same standard as somebody who is actually a trained lawyer. He missed the deadline for requesting a hearing, and therefore it was his inaction, rather than a due process violation that, according to the court, sealed his fate of not driving for a year.
No comments:
Post a Comment