DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY, ETC., PETITIONER,
v.
SALLY C. STOCKMAN, RESPONDENT

Fla. 5th DCA | 1998-04-03
No. 98-164
DAUKSCH and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.
709 So. 2d 179 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1998) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles challenged a circuit court's decision to stay a driver's license suspension pending certiorari review. The Fifth District Court of Appeal held that circuit courts have inherent discretionary power to stay administrative license suspensions during certiorari review, and denied the Department's petition for writ of certiorari.


Holding

A circuit court has inherent power and discretion to stay an administrative license suspension order pending certiorari review. The statutes cited by the Department—sections 322.2615(13), 322.272, and 322.28(6)—only prohibit automatic stays, not discretionary stays. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310 also grants the circuit court power to suspend the effect of the order under review.


Headnotes

[1] A circuit court has the inherent power and discretion to stay an administrative driver's license suspension pending certiorari review.

[2] Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure grant circuit courts the power to suspend the effect of an order during certiorari review.

Previewing 2 of 5 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

Key Quotes

“They simply provide that there is no automatic stay pending an appeal or review of the Department's administrative order suspending or revoking a license. A discretionary stay is not prohibited.”

Establishes that statutes prohibiting automatic stays do not prohibit discretionary stays by reviewing courts.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Sally Stockman's driver's license was administratively suspended for six months by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. Stockman sough…

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 of the Court
W. SHARP, Judge.

W. SHARP, Judge.

The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (the Department) seeks review of the circuit court order, which stayed Respondent Sally Stockman’s driver’s license suspension during the circuit court’s certiorari review of the suspension.1 We construe the Department’s notice of appeal from the suspension order as a petition for writ of certiorari,2 and we deny the writ.

This is a case of first impression which poses the issue of whether a circuit court has the authority to stay the administrative suspension of a driver’s license, pending certiorari review by the circuit court. The Department argues that section 322.2615(13) and section 322.272 prohibit the circuit court from staying the suspension order, pending certiorari review. Section 322.2615(13) states that “an appeal shall not stay the suspension,” and section 322.272 provides “[t]he filing of a petition for certiorari to the circuit court does not itself stay the enforcement of the suspension, revocation, or cancellation of license. However, the department may order a stay of the enforcement upon appropriate terms and conditions.” Further, section 322.28(6) provides that no administrative suspension of a driving privilege shall be stayed upon request for review of the departmental order and no suspension or revocation shall be stayed “upon an appeal of the conviction or order that resulted therein.” (emphasis added).

Initially, we do not think the statutes are controlling in this case. They simply provide that there is no automatic stay pending an appeal or review of the Department’s administrative order suspending or revoking a license. A discretionary stay is not prohibited.3 However, in cases involving the appeal of a conviction or order that caused the suspension or revocation, suspension and revocation of such administrative orders are apparently barred by section 322.28(6). State, Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Degrossi, 680 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). This case involves review of the administrative order itself.

In such a ease, we think the circuit court, as the direct reviewing court, has the inherent power and discretion to suspend the administrative order, pending certiorari review.4 Further, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310 gives the circuit court, while in the process of certiorari review of the order, power to suspend its effect. Any conflict between statutes and rules regarding court procedure must of course be resolved in favor of the rules. City of Jacksonville Beach v. Public Employees Relations Commission, 359 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 374 So. 2d 98 (Fla.1979); School Board of Hillsborough County v. Lara, 667 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

Were the circuit court not accorded discretionary power to stay the administrative order under review, review of such orders would likely be meaningless. For example, in this case, Stockman’s license was suspended for six months. If this order could not be stayed pending review, the suspension time, or a great deal of it, would likely run before the circuit court ruled on the petition for certiorari review. We do not think the Legislature intended to provide for a useless remedy; i.e., certiorari review in the circuit court.

Our jurisdiction in this super-certiorari review of the suspension order is limited. Although we might disagree as to whether a stay should have been granted by the circuit court, we think the Department failed to establish an abuse of discretion or departure from the essential requirements of the law. Thus, we deny the writ.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari DENIED.

DAUKSCH and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. . Pursuant to section 322.2615(13), Fia. Stat. (1996) (review of such administrative orders is via a petition for certiorari in the circuit court).

. Fla. R.App. P. 9.040(c)

. See Commonwealth v. Yameen, 401 Mass. 331, 516 N.E. 2d 1149 (1987).

. See State v. Hochhausler, 76 Ohio St.3d 455, 668 N.E. 2d 457 (1996).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Larcher v. Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, 736 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
    …that because driving is a privilege, revocation of that privilege does not involve punishment but merely returns the parties to their prior non-privileged status. To be sure, this court in Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Stockman, 709 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) held that the circuit court, as the direct reviewing court, has the inherent power and discretion to suspend a Department administrative order suspending defendant’s driver’s license pending certiora-ri review of that administrat…
  • Dep't OF Hwy. Safety v. Sylvie Marie Parsons, 719 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
    …required the Department to grant Parsons a hardship license in this interim period if she was otherwise eligible; ie., if she is not a habitual traffic offender pursuant to section 322.27(5). This court has held in Department of Safety v. Stockman, 709 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) that in cases involving the review or appeal of the Department’s administrative order suspending or revoking a driver’s license, there is no automatic stay pending completion of the review process by the circuit court. However, w…
  • Anderson v. Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, 751 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
    …e suspension. We agree with the circuit court’s conclusion that the statute is constitutional and deny the petition for certiorari. Prior to the amendment of section 322.28 that added subsection (5), this court, in Department of Safety v. Stockman, 709 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), concluded that a judicial stay of a license suspension was appropriate when the administrative order causing the suspension was being reviewed. Stockman relied upon the inherent power and discretion of courts to suspend an admin…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw