RAGHUBIR_V._DHSMV_ _2022 CA 2205 O_ _2.14.2024

Linscy Sims-llohnenstiehl, Assistant General Counsel,'I'ampa, for Il.espondent. Bclore CIIILJ, D. BEAMIIR, and I-A|IMOI{E, JJ. Petitioncr Vinodh Raghubir filed this case seeking certiorari review of a Statc of Florida, Department of Flighway Safcty and Motor Vehicles ("the Department"), order related to the suspension of his driver's license for failure to pay court financial obligations arising out of two felony cases. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to l:lorida Rulc of Appellate Procedure 9'030(c) and section 322.31 of the li'lorida Statutes. We dcny the petition. I I Filing # 191993712 E-Filed 02/14/2024 08:03:00 PM [*2] Petitioner timely filed this action after issuancc of a DHSMV "Notice of Order ofSuspension and Final Order" advising Petitioner that his driver's license would be suspended indefinitely under section 322.245, Florida Statutes. Petitioner then requested and receivcd a hearing belore a hearing officer ofthe Department on the issue, and that hearing resulted in an order determining that there was competent, substantial evidence to hnd that the Petitioner's driving privilege was properly suspended. I Pctitioner contends that thc hcaring offtcer's order affirming his license suspension violatcd due process, arguing that he presented indisputable cvidence during thc hearing as a basis to show why the suspension was inconect. However, Petitioner's arguments that an incorrect basis was utilized for his license suspension focus on the orders ol probation issued in his Criminal Division cases within this Court, case numbers 20 I 6-CF- 1 833-A-O and 2016-CF-523 I -A-O. Petitioner contends that the orders lailed to comply with procedural duc process 1 While Pctitioncr did not amcnd his pctition after thc issuancc of the Departmcnt's ordcr upon hcaring, hc addrcsscd that ordcr in his rcply. We havc considcrcd that ordcr as part olthcsc procceclings. Similarly, the Dcparlmcnt filcd their responsc and appendix in this mattcr withoul ieceiving an ordcr lrom this Court dirccting such frlings, doing so in an abundancc of caution alter being scrvccl by Pctitioncr with a copy ofthc pelition and a summons dirccting an answer in the case. Pcritioncr has filed multiplc documents in this ccrtiorari case that arc inappropriate for such appcllatc procccdings, including a rcquest for admissions, which the Dcpartmcnt has movcd to strike. Page 2 of 5 2022-CA-OOZ705-O [*3] impose the costs resulting in his license suspension. Those probation orders have those Criminal Division cases, some of which were also appealed, and this panel will not review them further discretion in suspending Petitioner's driver's license after his failure to pay couft costs. When a defendant fails to meet financial obligations arising from a criminal case, the Depaftment must suspend the defendant's license upon receipt of notice from the clerk of court. See Evans v. llhodes, 735 Fed. Appx. 986 (1 1 th Cir. )Ql$\; Anderson v. State, 48 So. 3d 1 0 1 5, 1 0 I 6 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010);_Turem v. State of Florida, Dep't llighway Safety & Motor Vehicles, Case no. 2021-CA-1981 (Fla.2dCir.Ct. Apr.7,2022).'l'heDepartment'sobligationtoreinstateadriving privilege is delineated in $ 322.245(5)(b), Florida Statute. See also | 322.29(2), F'lorida Statutes. Petitioner's remedy related to the suspension of his driver's licensc is not via cefliorari proceedings based on the probation orders in his Criminal Division cases. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. We adopt Respondent's Response to Petition for Writ of Cefliorari and associatcd Appendix, both filcd on May 25,2022, as aulhorizcd 1ilings, and requirements and are "void not voidable" so that they cannot be used as a basis to been reviewed on direct appeal as well as through postconviction fiiings within lJnder section 322.2a5Q)@), Florida Statutes, the Department does not have Page 3 of 5 2072-CA-OOZ205-O [*4] they have bcen considered as though they were filcd in response to an order of this Court under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9. 100(h).

2. The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DENIED.

3. Respondent's Motion to Strike Pctitioncr's "Notice of Filing and Request for Admissions" is GRANTED. Further, the other documcnts filed by Petitioner in this case and not appticable to certiorari proceedings under Florida Rulc of Appellate Procedure 9.100, including servicc ofprocess documents, a second amended memorandum of law in support of the Petition, an amended motion for summary judgmcnt,, and notices of f,riing docurnents rclated to the Pclitioncr's other civil cases Illed in this Court are also hcreby STRICKEN or DENIED as moot or inappropriate. DONE AND OIf.DER.ED in Chambers, at Orlando, Orange County, Irlorida, on this b# day of f4bru*{ ,zozq. C

T CHIU

Presiding Circuit Judgc

D. BEAMER and LATIMORE, JJ., concur

Page 4 of 5 2022-CA-OO2205-O t-\ r ,/ /l/ l/ (_.-- [*5] I CERTI lLl auy or FY at the foregoing was fiied with the Clerk of the Cout this 2024,by using the Florida Courts E-Iriling Porlal c.( System. Accordingly, a copy of the foregoing is being sered on this day to al attorney(s)/interested parties identified on the ePortal Electronic Service List vra transmission of Notices of Electronic l'iling gcnerated by the ePoftal System, including to VINODH RAGHUBIR at [email protected] and LINSEY SIMS-BOHNENSTIEHL, ESQ., at [email protected]. x\'q,[ Judicial Assistant Page 5 of 5 2022-CA-002205-O

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE