Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon; September 12, 2001; Oregon; State Appellate Court
Defendant appeals a conviction for felony driving while revoked (DWR), contending that the trial court erred by not allowing him to challenge the validity of the habitual traffic offender (HTO) order linked to the DWR charge. The court concludes that the trial court's ruling was incorrect, leading to a reversal and remand. In November 1997, defendant was charged with driving under the influence and felony DWR. On the trial's morning, he filed a motion to dismiss the DWR charge and exclude evidence of the HTO order, arguing that he should be allowed to collaterally attack the HTO order's validity. Defendant claimed that according to ORS 809.600, three major traffic offenses within five years were necessary for the revocation, and his record showed only two offenses prior to the HTO order. The state countered that the defendant had received notice of his HTO status in 1988 and could have contested this revocation at any time during the subsequent nine years, which he did not do. The state argued that the HTO order was presumptively valid, placing the burden on the defendant to prove otherwise. Defendant asserted that his driving record was incomplete, lacking information prior to 1988, and claimed that the DMV could not provide a complete history despite his requests. The trial court noted the incomplete records and ultimately denied the motion, suggesting it was inappropriate to invalidate the HTO revocation after a decade of inaction. Following a trial, defendant was acquitted of driving under the influence but convicted of felony DWR. On appeal, he argued that the trial court's denial of his motion constituted error.
Defendant argues he can challenge the validity of the Habitual Traffic Offender (HTO) order, asserting that his driving record lacks sufficient convictions to justify it. The state counters that he cannot collaterally attack the HTO order since he received the required notice of revocation and did not file an administrative appeal. Additionally, the state claims the burden of proof lies with the defendant to demonstrate that the underlying convictions were invalid and that the HTO order was wrongly issued, stating that his reliance on a 1998 driving record is inadequate for this burden. However, precedent allows a defendant to contest the HTO order's validity in felony driving while revoked cases. Previous rulings indicate that nonjury administrative decisions typically do not have preclusive effects in criminal proceedings. Since the trial court's ruling was based solely on the collateral attack issue, the case is reversed and remanded for the trial court to assess the facts regarding the HTO order's validity. Relevant statutes are cited, indicating that driving privileges can be revoked as a habitual offender for multiple offenses within a specified timeframe. The defendant also mentions that two major traffic offenses from the same prosecution should be considered as one for HTO status, but this issue need not be resolved at this stage. Notably, the defendant does not contest the adequacy of notice regarding the HTO order or indicate that he pursued an administrative appeal.
