Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

43 Colo. App. 540

608 P.2d 844

Purcell v. Tomasi

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided January 4, 1980

Colorado Court of Appeals · decided 1980-01-04

1. <bold>AUTOMOBILES</bold> — <italic>Traffic Violation Conviction — Not Penalty Assessment —</italic><italic>Result of Court Appearance — No Notation — Points Assessed — Not Preclude</italic><italic>Use — Driver's License Suspension.</italic> Traffic violation conviction which driver sought to challenge was not the result of penalty assessment procedure but rather resulted from court appearance; thus, the fact that it did not bear on its face a notation of the points assessed for the offense did not preclude it from being used in driver's license suspension proceeding.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1980

1 state decisions

Relies on Adams v. State · Stortz v. Colorado Department of Revenue · Stortz v. COLORADO DEPT. OF REV., MOTOR VEH.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1980-01-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PIERCE, Judge.

¶1Plaintiff appeals a judgment of the district court sustaining an order of the Department of Revenue suspending plaintiff’s driver’s license for a period of one year and denying plaintiff’s request for a restricted license. We affirm.

¶2*845At a hearing conducted by the Department pursuant to § 42-2-123, C.R.S.1973, it was determined that plaintiff had accumulated 12 points within 12 months and 19 points within 2 years, and that his license should therefore be suspended. Plaintiff contends that the Department acted improperly in considering a citation from the City of Fort Collins issued on May 30, 1977. Citing Stortz v. Colorado Department of Revenue, 195 Colo. 325, 578 P.2d 229 (1978), and Dunn v. Tice, Colo.App., 598 P.2d 530 (1979), plaintiff contends that the May 30 ticket does not bear on its face a notation of the points assessed for the offense and therefore may not be considered a conviction by the hearing officer.

¶3Plaintiff’s reliance on Stortzand Dunn, which dealt with penalty assessments under the provisions of § 42-4-1501(4)(a), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Cum.Supp.), is misplaced. Section 42-2-121(3), C.R.S.1973, requires that for a penalty assessment to be considered a conviction for the purposes of suspension or revocation of a license, the summons must state clearly the points to be assessed for the offense. However, the conviction which plaintiff challenges was not the result of a penalty assessment, but rather resulted from a court appearance. Because the statutory provision which requires that a summons reflect the number of points to be assessed for the offense charged relates only to penalty assessments, plaintiff’s contention is without merit.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

RULAND and STERNBERG, JJ., concur.
/43/coloapp/540 · .json · Public domain