I'm curious what other jurisdictions are doing with the DWLI cases based on the failure to pay the surcharge. This week, I reveived my first batch of DWLI cases based soley on the surcharge not being paid for both DWLI and DWI cases. Are other jurisdictions filing these cases and, if so, what language are you using to in the information? Seems to be an open-ended suspension or revocation similar to the reinstatement fee issue. Based on the recent past I expect to be inundated with these in the near future. It is becoming increasingly difficult to look at a driving record and tell why the license is supended especially when a clearance letter is sent for the alr, conviction and SR suspensions, then the surcharge suspension or revocation kicks in. Any thoughts? If you have any charging laguage, I would be grateful if you would share. scurryca@snydertex.com
That sounds like one of those technical revocations that a couple of legislators are talking about. Anyone see the irony that the legislators set up the financial charges leading to the revocation?
It does tend to be a vicious circle. Can't work without a DL...can't get a DL without a job to pay the surcharge. HMMMMM Once again, curious how others are handling these cases. Janette, any insight?
[This message was edited by mhartman on 01-28-05 at .]
Sorry, not a clue. As for reading the DL history, I understand. A DL history is hard to read unless someone has sat down and taught you the code. I will pass the complaints about the difficult of understanding what type of suspensions or actions, dates, etc., are being referred to in the history. Years ago when I was hired out of law school as one of the first ALR attorneys, we had as part of our training a two hour class on reading DL histories!
Janette Ansolabehere
Posts: 674 | Location: Austin, Texas, United States | Registered: March 28, 2001
Thanks for the response. I am wondering if there will be any problem with filing a DWLI based on failure to pay the surcharge only,(as happened with the reinstatement fee) since there is no ending date on the suspension.
Is anyone filing strictly on the surcharge issue? OR refusing to file soley on that basis?
I went to a school put on by DPS a couple of times that was held at the academy and included a section on DWLS hosted by Capt. Tilingahst, if I remember correctly. Since that time, there have been so many more suspension notations added to the driving record I need a refresher course. Addtitonally, there was a paper that went with the talk that contained all the notations with explanations and statute cites. It was really helpful. It is just frustrating when a pro se defendant comes in with a clearance letter and can't understand why he was arrested and I have a difficult time figuring it out as well from looking at the record. Is it possible that the clearance letter would go out prior to the surcharge being paid? ie. can a def. get his ALR and SR suspension cleared(no conviction suspension because he took the DWI class) and then the surcharge kick in at a later date? Same question with a DWLI conviction.
That seems to be what happened on a couple of cases I have had. If that is possible, why doesn't DPS withhold clearance until such time as all conditions are satisfied including the surcharge? Lastly, is a notice of revocation being sent prior to the surcharge suspension taking effect?
I understand that we are dealing with an enormous process and some cases might be subject to error....but I need to understand the proceedure in order to successfully handle these cases and am not sure where to find this info.. I never knew all this irony could cause such a headache! Thanks Mike Hartman Scurry County Attorney 325-573-7440 scurryca@snydertex.com
It is my understanding that a clearance letter is often issued for each suspension on the license. A few months ago, a pro se defendant came to me with 2 clearance letters, dated within a month of each other - and he had an arrest for DWLI subsequent to the letters. It seems there was a third reason for suspension................
A public "Thank you" is in order for Janette for her prompt resonse regarding the questions posted above. I appreciate the phone calls and the assistance. Since we talked, I had several more cases come through and the histories were much easier to understand. I have been told by several defendants that DPS is accepting monthly payments on the surcharges, with the license being reinstated as long as the payment is being made promptly. If the surcharge is the only reason the license is suspended, I may hold those cases to give the defendants an opportunity to get the surcharge paid and get the license reinstated. Once again, Thanks for the help.
Has there been any new caselaw on the surcharge suspension / DWLI issue? Defense attorneys keep bringing up phantom cases that I can't find, but don't want to be blindsided with if they actually exist. Maybe some administrative ruling by DPS?
I haven't seen any...but, so far, I have been able to resolve these cases by the defendant making the payments to the State in exchange for a dismissal. Seems to get the State its revenue and disposes of a case that has potential problems if tried. My docket has been inundated the past few weeks with these cases.
I believe under this provision the license is definitely revoked and clearly within the language of the DWLI statute. The problem the courts had with the reinstatement fee in the Allen case wasn't that it was an open-ended suspension, but that it wasn't a suspension at all (they called it an "unsuspended, unreinstated license"). There's no doubt this is a flat-out revocation. That being said, I think the solution Mike is using in Snyder gets a big thumbs up. This provision was added as a revenue-generator, nothing more, though anyone with half a brain looking at it would swear the purpose was to guarantee more people driving on bad licenses.
Posts: 49 | Location: Midland, Texas, USA | Registered: December 30, 2004
At this point, I'm holding these cases. When the defendant comes in to discuss it (we are a small county and most of my pleas are with unrepresented defendants), I explain the problem and attempt to explain the solution. Many of these folks never get notice because the address on their licenses is not correct.
Anyway, I give them 60 days to clear the license, whether it is to purchase insurance, start paying the surcharge or whatever. If they do so, the case is not filed - therefore, I don't have to do a dismissal. If they fail to do so, I file the case and then they are looking at the fine and probation - one provision of which is to obtain a valid TExas DL.........
For all you prosecutors and judges out there who have trouble reading the DL history (and who doesn't), there is hope in the future. DPS is in the process of a major DL reengineering that will include a change in the way DL histories are output. They should provide more and clearer information so that it won't take a degree in DL-speak to understand the notations. I don't know the roll out date but it's definitly in the development stage.
Janette Ansolabehere
Posts: 674 | Location: Austin, Texas, United States | Registered: March 28, 2001
Lisa "enlightened" us a couple of years ago, and we are doing essentially what she does. We give them 60 or 90 days to get all their issues worked out. (Most are paying out to DPS.) We give them a reset date. The day before the appearance date, we run their driver's license record. If they are clear, it's all over.
If there's a really bad actor or someone we don't like, then it's another story.....
e-mail me at DPS if you need a summary of the DL history alarm codes with their statutory references and action (for the officer). They will change when the reengineering project goes into effect, but they may be helpful now.
My e-mail is in the following format: firstname.lastname@txdps.state.tx.us
Janette Ansolabehere DPS
Posts: 674 | Location: Austin, Texas, United States | Registered: March 28, 2001
