ALBERT HILL, PETITIONER,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the circuit court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in denying the petition for review of the Department's order refusing license reinstatement.
Albert Hill's driver's license was permanently revoked due to a DUI manslaughter conviction. He had a prior DUI conviction in 1987. The Department den…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Dui Manslaughter cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
Petitioner, Albert Hill, seeks review of the circuit court order denying his petition for review of an order of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles that refused his request for driver’s license reinstatement. Hill’s license was permanently revoked as a result of his conviction for DUI manslaughter in violation of section 316.193(3)(e)3., Florida Statutes. The Department found that he was statutorily ineligible for reinstatement because, in addition to the DUI manslaughter conviction, Hill had previously been convicted of driving under the influence in 1987. The appellate division of the circuit court denied Hill’s petition. We deny review, concluding that the circuit court did not depart from the essential requirements of law.
Hill cites McDaniel v. State, 683 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), as support for his position that he is eligible for reinstatement. In that case, the court found an individual was eligible for reinstatement based upon the law in effect in 1996. However, the applicable law is the law in effect at the time the application for license reinstatement is made. Cantrall v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 828 So. 2d 1062, 1063 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). As Hill’s application was made in April 2004, the law in effect at that time was section 322.271(4), Florida Statutes (2003), which provides:
[A] person whose driving privilege has been permanently revoked because he or she has been convicted of DUI manslaughter in violation of s. 316.193 and has no prior convictions for DUI-related offenses may, upon expiration of 5 years after the date of such revocation or the expiration of 5 years after the termination of any term of incarceration under s. 316.193 or former s. 316.1931, whichever date is later, petition the department for reinstatement of his or her driving privilege.
(Emphasis added). Thus, Hill’s 1987 conviction precludes reinstatement of his driving privileges.
Petition denied.
GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lescher v. Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, 946 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…DCA 2002), the statute in effect at the time of application for reinstatement of a driver’s license controls, not the statute in effect when the driver’s license was revoked. We agree with Cantrall. Hill v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 891 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Petitioner argues that when the legislature reenacted the law effective July 1, 2003, the elimination of the hardship license violated the ex post facto prohibition in the Florida Constitution, Article I, section 10, as to him.…
-
Ott Cornelius, II v. State, 913 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…e’s amendment. Because the applicable law is the law in effect at the time the application for license reinstatement is made, Cornelius was precluded from reinstatement of his driving privileges. See Hill v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 891 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). The trial court summarily denied Cornelius’s postconviction relief motion, which alleged his plea was involuntary based upon the change of the license reinstatement statute. The court found that there was a conflict within this…
-
Murray Leopold v. State, 960 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…. We deny the petition for writ of certio-rari on the merits. See Lescher v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 946 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), review granted, 949 So. 2d 198 (Fla.2007); Hill v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 891 So. 2d 1202, 1203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (piting Cantrall v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 828 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)). We certify the same question that this court-certified in Lescher: Does the amendment to section 322.271(4), Florida Statu…
Authorities Cited
- McDANIEL v. State, 683 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Cantrall v. Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, 828 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)