Deibel v. DMV

Filed 8/10/06 Deibel v. DMV CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

ARAN S. DEIBEL,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES,

Defendant and Appellant.

A112802

(San Francisco County

Super. Ct. No. CPF-05-505518)

The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) appeals from the judgment granting respondent Aran Deibel's petition for writ of mandate and ordering it to modify its administrative decision to reflect a four-month suspension of Deibel's driver's license, rather than a one-year suspension. The trial court ruled that the one-year suspension was improperly based on the DMV's consideration of Deibel's prior Ohio conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence. Additionally, the court did not allow the DMV to introduce new evidence in the writ proceeding. Both rulings were wrong and accordingly we reverse the judgment.

I. FACTS

On the evening of March 24, 2005, San Francisco Police Officers Chorley and Springer came upon an accident at 18th Street and Guerrero. Respondent Deibel's car and another were blocking the intersection; both exhibited collision damage. Officer Chorley spoke with Deibel, observing that his speech was slow and mumbled. As well, the officer could smell the strong odor of an alcoholic beverage on Deibel's breath. Upon Deibel's failure to satisfactorily perform field sobriety tests, the officers arrested him for driving under the influence (DUI) of an alcoholic beverage. (Veh. Code,^[1] § 23152, subd. (a).) Thereafter, breath tests showed Deibel's blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) to be 0.25 percent.

Officer Springer issued Deibel an â€

Description	Appeal from the judgment granting respondent's petition for writ of mandate and ordering Appellant to modify its administrative decision to reflect a four-month suspension of respondent's driver's license rather than a one-year suspension. The trial court ruled that the one-year suspension was improperly based on the DMV's consideration of respondent's prior conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence. Additionally, the court did not allow the DMV to introduce new evidence in the writ proceeding. Both rulings were wrong and accordingly court reverse the judgment.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.