No. 85-148
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1985
GARY JACK LANCASTER and DON LAWRENCE
HENRIKSEN,
Petitioners and Appellant-,
DEPT. OF JUSTICE, DIVISION OF MOTOR
VEHICLES,
Respondents and Respondents.
APPEAL FROM: The District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Gallatin,
The Honorable Thomas Olson, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Linda McNiel, Rozeman, Montana
For Respondent :
Barbara Claassen, Asst. Attorney General, Helena,
Montana
Martin Lambert, Deputy County Attorney, Rozeman,
Montana
Submitted on briefs: Aug. 1, 1985
Decided: September 18, 1985
SEP 18 1985
Filed:
Mr. Justice Frank B. Morrison, Jr. delivered the Opinion of
the Court.
Gary Lancaster and Don Henriksen (appellants) appeal the
findings of fact, conclusions of law and order of the
District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District granting
the Division of Motor Vehicles1 (respondents) motion to quash
an alternative writ of mandate.
Appellants were both cited in separate incidents with
second offense driving under the influence of alcohol. Both
moved the Justice Court of Gallatin County, to strike their
prior convictions as constitutionally invalid because their
prior convictions failed to show whether the appellants were
advised of their constitutional rights or whether they
expressly waived their rights prior to entering their pleas
of guilty. These motions were granted. Both appellants then
pled guilty and were sentenced as first time DUI offenders.
Their driver's licenses were suspended for 6 months with the
opportunity to apply for provisional licenses for employment
purposes.
The Division of Motor Vehicles was sent copies of the
orders striking the appellants prior DUI convictions but they
refused to strike the conviction from the appellants'
records. The Division of Motor Vehicles revoked appellants'
licenses for a period of one year.
On December 17, 1984, an alternative writ of mandate was
issued by the District Court staying the actions of the
Division of Motor Vehicles. The Division filed a motion to
quash the writ. A hearing was held on the writ and the
motion to quash. On February 11, 1985, the motion to quash
the alternative writ of mandate was granted. The appellants
appeal the granting of that motion on the following issues:
1. Is the decision of the justice court res judicata?
2. Did the District Court properly rule that the
appellants' prior uncounseled convictions could be used for
purposes of driver's license revocation?
I.
The doctrine of res judicata only pertains where a claim
or issue has been previously litigated. F.es judicata does
not apply where the issues dealt with in the two relevant
causes of action are not the same. Brault v. Smith (Mont.
1984), 679 P.2d 236, 41 St.Rep. 527.
In this case, the District Court dealt with an issue
different than the issue considered by the justice court.
The justice court considered the issue of whether a prior
uncounseled conviction could be considered in the sentencing
of the appellants for the criminal matter of DUI. The
District Court considered whether the appellants' prior
uncounseled convictions could be used in the civil matter of
revoking their driver's licenses.
The issues considered in the two causes were not the
same and the matter is not res judicata.
11.
The appellants contend that the Division of Motor
Vehicles considered null and void convictions to revoke their
drivers' licenses. They argue that when a prior conviction
is determined by a court to be unconstitutional, that court
is empowered to direct the Division of Motor Vehicles not to
impose mandatory sanctions based upon that prior conviction.
We disagree.
In the first place, nowhere in the statutes is the
justice court given the authority to vacate a conviction.
Section 3-10-303, MCA. In the second place, the justice
court does not have the jurisdiction or authority to direct
alteration of the Division's records.
The Division has the duty of maintaining records of
convictions of licensees pursuant to 6 1 - - 1 0 2 ( 2 ) MCA.
The order issued by the justice court granting the
appellants' motions to strike their prior convictions does
not affect this duty of the Division.
The suspension or revocation of a driver's license is a
civil proceeding and not a criminal prosecution. The
striking of the convictions by the justice court to avoid
enhancement of the criminal penalty had nothing to do with
the Division's civil revocation of driver's privileges.
The District Court is affirm
We concur:
hief Justice