AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Lewis Smith was issued a DWI citation and a notice of revocation for refusing a chemical test on March 10, 2018. He requested a hearing to contest the revocation, which was scheduled for April 26, 2018, but neither Smith, his attorney, nor the issuing officer appeared at the scheduled telephonic hearing. The administrative hearing officer (AHO) then sustained the revocation of Smith's license. Smith's attorney later sought to reschedule, citing confusion and a scheduling conflict, but the AHO denied this request due to scheduling constraints and the legislative deadline for conducting the hearing (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Otero County: The revocation of Smith's driver's license was rescinded, with the court finding that the Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) failed to meet its burden of proof and that the AHO should have considered the circumstances of Smith's failure to appear (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant-Respondent (Smith): Argued that evidence from witnesses must be submitted by a preponderance to sustain the revocation of the license (para 5).
• Appellee-Petitioner (MVD): Contended that the district court erred by substituting its judgment for that of the AHO and that the AHO did not abuse her discretion in sustaining the license revocation. MVD also argued that the regulation and the Implied Consent Act are not in conflict and comply with administrative due process requirements (paras 5, 12).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in rescinding the revocation of Smith's driver's license by substituting its judgment for that of the AHO.
• Whether the AHO abused her discretion in applying the regulation to sustain the revocation of Smith's license for failing to appear at the hearing.
• Whether the regulation and the Implied Consent Act are in conflict and if they comply with administrative due process requirements (paras 5, 12).

Disposition

• The decision of the district court to rescind the revocation of Smith's driver's license was reversed, and the case was remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Court of Appeals (para 15).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee writing and Judges Jane B. Yohalem and Katherine A. Wray concurring, found that the district court abused its discretion by rescinding the revocation of Smith's license. The court held that Smith and his attorney had adequate notice of the hearing and that their failure to appear constituted a forfeiture of Smith's right to a hearing under the applicable regulation. The court also determined that the regulation and the Implied Consent Act are not in conflict and that the procedures comply with administrative due process requirements. The court emphasized the AHO's authority to control the hearing schedule and noted that neither Smith nor his attorney moved for a continuance under the proper procedure. The court concluded that the district court's decision was based on a misapprehension of the law regarding the AHO's discretion and the requirements for sustaining a license revocation (paras 6-14).