MAX NIETO
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VECHICLES
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.
Max Nieto sought a writ of certiorari to challenge the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles' denial of his request for early reinstatement of his driving privileges (hardship license) after revocation as a Habitual Traffic Offender. The appellate court granted the petition, finding that the administrative hearing officer applied the wrong statutory provision in making the eligibility determination.
The court granted the petition for writ of certiorari and quashed the final administrative order. The Administrative Hearing Officer applied an incorrect section of the statute and should have applied the criteria in section 322.271(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2011) instead.
[1] A petition for writ of certiorari is the proper vehicle to challenge a final administrative order denying reinstatement of a driver's license.
[2] A driver seeking early reinstatement of a license as a habitual traffic offender must meet the criteria set forth in section 322.271(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The Administrative Hearing Officer should have applied the criteria in section 322.271(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2011) when determining Petitioner's request for a hardship license.”
Establishes the correct statutory provision that should have been applied by the hearing officer
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Max Nieto's driving privilege was revoked as a Habitual Traffic Offender effective January 27, 2009 through January 26, 2014. After one yea…
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.
Opinion n administrative order ofthe Department of Hi. h ay otor Vehicles.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
APPELLATE DIVISION
CASE NO. 1 1-222 AP ‘_.» I“ 1.‘ .1‘ we ‘#1) '53"C Q0-4 ‘~F3” In '41-4;) 0°-<c‘. 01- ~;1 z“,4 1"‘V..- ravt‘- { a rs \i war mt as =8 rid g w Melissa L. Co le, E ' ' y sq., for Petitioner. Damaris E. Reynolds, Esq., for Respondent. Before JOSE L. FERNANDEZ, THOMAS REBULL, and JUDITH RUBENSTEIN, JJ. (RUBENSTEIN, J.) This court has before it a Petitio fo n r Writ of Cefliorari directed to a final administrative order of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Bureau of Administrative Reviews. Said order, titled “FINAL ORDER DENYING REINSTATEMENT,” was entered on March 28, 201 1. Petitioner Max Nieto’s driving privilege had been revoked as a Habitual Traffic Offender effective January 27, 2009 through January 26 2014 , . §§ 322.264 and 322.2’7(5), Fla. Stat. (2011). Petitioner applied for early reinstatement, (a hardship license) after one year and hearing was held for this pu , a rpose on March 26 2011 § 3 , . 22.271(1)(b), Fla. Stat final administraf ' ' . (2011). In the ive order, Pet1t10ner’s request for a hardship license was denied. OZ jbb i .33, Q‘ ‘aoadsreylilgir-lS.@l@91\@& -\ [*2] t The Administrative Hearing Officer found that since the Petitioner had driven within the past year, he was ineligible to be considered for a hardship license. Although not specifically referenced by number, this finding appears consistent with a ruling based on section 322. -271(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2011). This would be an application of the incorrect section of the statute. The Administrative Hearing Officer should have applied the criteria in section 322.27l(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2011) when determining Petitioner’s request for a hardship license. WHEREFORE, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is hereby GRANTED and the Final Administrative Order QUASHED. The Administrative Hearing Officer is hereby ordered to enter an appropriate Administrative order consistent with the requirements of Sec. 322.271(1)(b). (FERNANDEZ and REBULL, JJ. concur.) 7% /?-—
DONE AND
P DBRED in Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida, this day of June 12. /la ‘ udith Ru ensten §\ \ls,FII11 Fernandez