Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

304 So. 2d 758

Docket No. 6426.

State v. Cornelison

STATE of Louisiana v. Kenneth L. CORNELISON.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided December 10, 1974.

Louisiana Court of Appeal · decided 1974-12-10

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"The `forthwith' mandate of the statute is directed to the Department for the purpose of protecting the public at large from the habitually intoxicated motorist and not to create by implication a prescriptive period to relieve the convicted driver from the penalties of his own misconduct."”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Sneed v. Department of Public Safety, 341 So. 2d 80 - Fontenot v. State, Dept. of Public Safety

“2. LSA-R.S. 32:414(B) provides in pertinent part: B. The department shall forthwith revoke the license of any person, for a period of twelve months, upon receiving satisfactory evidence of the conviction or the entry of a plea of guilty and a sentence thereupon or of the forfeiture of bail of any person charged with any of the following crimes: ... (2) Conviction or entry of a plea of guilty and sentence thereupon, or of the forfeiture of bail of any such person on the second or subsequent offense for operating or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating beverages.... 3. LSA-R.S. 32:414(G)(1)(a) provides: Any period of suspension or revocation under this Chapter shall begin upon the receipt by the department of the operator's license of the person affected, upon the expiration of the operator's license, or upon proof of its loss. 4. LSA-R.S. 32:415.1(A)(1) provides in pertinent part: A.(1) Upon suspension, revocation or cancellation of a person's driver's license for the first time only as provided for under R.S. 32:414 and R.S. 32:415, said person, after initial notice from the department, shall have the right to file a petition in the district court of a parish in which the applicant is domiciled alleging that revocation of his driving privileges will deprive him or his family of the necessities of life and will prevent him from earning a livelihood. The district court is vested with jurisdiction to set the matter for con”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Spataro v. STATE, DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORR.

Relies on Smith v. Department of Public Safety

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1974-12-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 2004

7 state decisions

301974198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*759 Foye L. Lowe, Jr., Associate Gen. Counsel, Baton Rouge, for appellee.

¶2John W. Robinson, Gretna, for appellant.

¶3Before STOULIG and MORIAL, JJ., and BARON B. BOURG, J. Pro. Tem.

¶4STOULIG, Judge.

¶5This is an appeal from a judgment affirming the action of the State of Louisiana, Department of Public Safety, License Control and Driver Improvement Division in suspending for one year the driver's license and vehicle registration privileges of Kenneth L. Cornelison under R.S. 32:414(B)(2) and R.S. 32:896(A). Appellant was notified of the Department's action by letter dated September 4, 1973 and he timely applied to the district court for a judicial review.

¶6At the hearing, the Department introduced evidence establishing that appellant was either found or pleaded guilty to a charge of driving while intoxicated on two occasions. Appellant admits DWI convictions on January 22, 1968 and July 31, 1972; however the gravamen of his complaint is that the Department waited more than a year after the second conviction before issuing the suspension order and this undue delay violates R.S. 32:414 and contravenes his guarantee to the administration of justice without unreasonable delay under LSA-Const. Art. 1, § 6.

¶7Appellant, relying on the following language from R.S. 32:414(B) "[t]he department shall forthwith revoke … [emphasis added]" and the case of Smith v. Department of Public Safety,[1] contends that the Department had a twofold burden of proving the appellant's two DWI convictions and that it acted promptly upon receiving this information. This argument is without merit. Smith stands for the proposition that in a judicial review of the revocation of a driver's license, the burden rests with the State of Louisiana to prove the prior DWI convictions. Appellant attempts to enlarge this burden of proof to encompass receipt of notice by the Department. Such an extension is not warranted under the rationale of Smith.

¶8The statutory mandate that the license be revoked forthwith is circumscribed by the limitation that the Department shall act only "upon receiving satisfactory evidence of the conviction or of the entry of a plea of guilty." R.S. 32:414(B). This qualification presupposes prior administrative functions at the trial court and Department levels. The record does not reflect when the Department was notified of the latter conviction of July 31, 1972.

¶9The "forthwith" mandate of the statute is directed to the Department for the purpose of protecting the public at large from the habitually intoxicated motorist and not to create by implication a prescriptive period to relieve the convicted driver from the penalties of his own misconduct. There is no evidence that appellant was prejudiced in any way during the 14 months which elapsed between the second conviction and the notice of revocation.

¶10The constitutional argument is not persuasive. LSA-Const. Art. 1, § 6 is designed to insure the impartial administration of justice within a reasonable time to "every person for injury done him in his rights, lands, goods, person or reputation." We do not think this general article applies to the instant case where the State imposes a penalty on the appellant for multiple violations of law against driving while intoxicated.

¶11For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

¶12Affirmed.

NOTES

¶13[1] 254 So.2d 515 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1971).

/304/so2d/758 · .json · Public domain