LIONEL MARQUEZ
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY & MOTOR VEHICLES
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 Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles suspended Marquez's driver's license for obtaining a license by fraud but failed to schedule a requested formal hearing within the statutory 30-day period. The court granted the petition for writ of certiorari and quashed the suspension order, holding that the agency's failure to timely schedule the hearing violated procedural due process and required automatic invalidation of the suspension.
DHSMV's failure to schedule the hearing within 30 days violated procedural due process and triggered the statutory mandate to invalidate the suspension under section 322.2615(9), Florida Statutes (2015). The subsequent hardship license hearing should not have been held because it was scheduled after the statutory period had expired.
[1] A license suspension is invalidated if the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles fails to schedule a requested hearing within 30 days.
[2] Failure to schedule a hearing within the statutory 30-day period constitutes a violation of procedural due process.
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“Because DHSMV failed to schedule the hearing within 30 days, DHSMV "shall invalidate the suspension." § 322.2615(9), Fla. Stat. (2015).”
Establishes the mandatory statutory requirement that the suspension must be invalidated when the agency fails to timely schedule a requested hearing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDHSMV issued an Order of License Revocation suspending Marquez's license for one year on June 23, 2015. Marquez requested a formal review and specific…
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.
Before: MURPHY, GLICK, and HIRSCH, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
The State of Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (“DHSMV”) issued an Order of License Revocation, Suspension, or Cancellation on June 23, 2015, which suspended the Petitioner’s license for a period of one year for obtaining a license by fraud. The Page I of 2 [*2] Petitioner requested a formal review of the suspension on July 2, 2015 and specificaily requested a show cause hearing on July 21, 2015. However, the DHSMV failed to schedule the requested hearing within 30 days, as required by statute. See § 322.2615(6), Fla. Stat. (2015). Because DHSMV failed to schedule the hearing within 30 days, DHSMV “shall invalidate the suspension.” § 322.26l5(9), Fla. Stat. (2015). In fact, the DHSMV never scheduled the hearing requested by the Petitioner. However, on August 17, 2015 DHSMV sent the Petitioner a letter advising him that he could request a hardship license. On August 24, 2015 the Petitioner requested a hardship license hearing. The DHSMV scheduled this subsequent request and the hearing was held on August 26, 2015. The hearing officer denied the request for a hardship license. The hardship license hearing should not have been held since it was scheduled after the statutory period and section 322.2615(9) of the Florida Statutes (2015) compels the DHSMV to invalidate the suspension if a requested hearing is not scheduled within 30 days. The DHSMV’s failure to schedule a hearing within 30 days of the Petitioner’s request is a violation of procedural due process. Therefore, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED and the Order of License Revocation, Suspension, or Cancellation is QUASHED. Because we are quashing the Order of License Revocation, Suspension, or Cancellation based upon the lack of procedural due process, any subsequent proceeding and orders that were entered, as well as the remaining issues addressed in the Petition, are moot.