Harte v. Routt County Dist. Court, 2012 COA 183 (Colo. Ct. App. October 25, 2012) (No. 11CA1815)*

Defendant’s successfully completed deferred judgment under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-102(2) constituted a conviction of an alcohol-related driving offense, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-4-1301, and therefore, she was not entitled to seal her arrest and criminal records under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-72-308. The legislature intended the definition of “conviction” in the alcohol-related driving offenses exception to the sealing statute to include a successfully completed deferred judgment, even though “conviction” was defined in Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-4-1307(2)(a) to exclude a successfully completed deferred judgment. *No final published opinion available as of date.

In re Harte, — P.3d —- (2012)

After defendant pleaded nolo contendere to driving under the influence of alcohol and successfully completed deferred judgment and sentence, and court dismissed her case, defendant petitioned to seal the criminal case records. The District Court, Routt County, Michael A. O’Hara, J., denied petition. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals, Davidson, C.J., held that defendant was statutorily ineligible to petition to seal her records.

Long v. Colorado Dept. of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Div., 296 P.3d 329 (2012)

Driver sought review of decision of the Department of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Division, revoking driver’s license for one year based on his refusal to submit to testing as required by express consent law. The District Court, City and County of Denver, Brian R. Whitney, J., affirmed. Driver appealed. The Court of Appeals, Booras, J., held that: [1] Department properly made an initial revocation determination based on the information submitted to it by the law enforcement officer before holding a hearing; [2] information contained in arresting officer’s express consent affidavit supported Department’s initial revocation determination; [3] driver failed to establish “extraordinary circumstances” exception to the general rule of express consent law that drivers are entitled to their chosen form of test; [4] driver failed to establish that he was not properly advised under the express consent statute; and [5] officer conducted valid traffic stop.

Shiplet v. Colorado Dept. of Revenue, 266 P.3d 408 (2011)

Motorist sought judicial review of a decision of the Department of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Division, revoking his driver’s license for nine months based on motorist’s refusal to submit to blood or breath test under express consent statute. The District Court, Jefferson County, R. Brooke Jackson, J., affirmed. Motorist appealed. Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Booras, J., held that: [1] evidence supported conclusion that motorist, who was hearing impaired, understood his obligation to take a blood or breath test after police officer requested for him to do so; [2] officer was not required by statute to procure a sign language interpreter to help motorist communicate with officer.

Fallon v. Colorado Dept. of Revenue, 250 P.3d 691 (2010)

Department of Revenue appealed from judgment of the District Court, Arapahoe County, Cheryl L. Post, J., reversing the revocation of petitioner’s driver’s license by the Department of Revenue for refusing to submit to testing as required by express consent statute. The Court of Appeals, Davidson, C.J., held that: [1] Department’s power to subpoena witnesses is discretionary; [2] Department’s refusal to subpoena witness did not impair licensee’s ability to challenge reasonableness of stop and legality of arrest; [3] officer had reasonable suspicion justifying traffic stop; and [4] officer had probable cause for arrest.

Garcia v. Huber, 252 P.3d 486 (2010)

Motorist sought review of finding by state Department of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Division that motorist was a persistent drunk driver. The District Court, Douglas County, Paul A. King, J., affirmed finding. Motorist appealed. The Court of Appeals, Carparelli, J., held that statutory presumption of accuracy of blood alcohol content (BAC) analysis done on behalf of law enforcement agency applies only to revocation determinations and not to “persistent drunk driver” determinations.

Wiesner v. Huber, 228 P.3d 973 (2010)

Licensee appealed from decision of the District Court, Arapahoe County, Joyce S. Steinhardt, J., affirming the three-month suspension of his driver’s license and the finding that he was a “persistent drunk driver” by the Department of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Division. The Court of Appeals, Román, J., held that presumption of accuracy in the law enforcement blood or breath test results applies to the revocation of a license for a 0.08 or more blood alcohol content (BAC), but does not apply to the higher – 0.17 – BAC required for a “persistent drunk driver” finding.

Colorado Dept. of Revenue v. Hibbs, 122 P.3d 999 (2005)

Commercial truck driver challenged Department of Revenue’s one-year revocation of his commercial driver’s license after he was found to have been driving commercial vehicle while intoxicated at level four times the legal limit. The District Court, Chaffee County, Kenneth M. Plotz, J., reversed the order. Department of Revenue appealed. The Court of Appeals, 107 P.3d 1061, affirmed. Certiorari was granted. The Supreme Court, Hobbs, J., held that former statute’s verified report requirement was satisfied by police officer’s own signature and affirmation on department’s form, and notarized report was not required.