TEODORO M. CARRASCO v. NEW JERSEY MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION

(NOTE: The status of this decision is .)
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5894-07T15894-07T1

TEODORO M. CARRASCO,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION,

Respondent.

________________________________________________________________

 

Submitted May 26, 2009 - Decided

Before Judges Lisa and Alvarez.

On appeal from New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission.

Thomas M. Murphy, attorney for appellant.

Anne Milgram, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Judith Andrejko, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant, Teodoro M. Carrasco, was convicted in Florida on March 22, 2006 for driving under the influence. His sentence in Florida apparently included a six-month loss of driving privileges. On April 21, 2008, the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (MVC) received from Florida the report of the out-of-state conviction. The MVC promptly posted the conviction to appellant's record on May 12, 2008. On that date the MVC also issued to appellant a notice of proposed suspension of his New Jersey driving privileges for 210 days because of his Florida conviction. The MVC also imposed a $3000 surcharge assessment, payable over three years.

Through counsel, appellant requested a hearing. However, because he did not dispute any material facts, most notably that he was convicted in Florida of the offense referenced in the suspension notice, the MVC denied the hearing request. On June 26, 2008, the MVC issued its final order of suspension, and on July 10, 2008, the MVC issued its final order imposing the surcharge assessment. This appeal from those two orders followed.

Appellant argues:

POINT ONE

THE EXTRAORDINARY, UNEXPLAINED DELAY BETWEEN APPELLANT'S FLORIDA ARREST AND CONVICTION, AND THE NEW JERSEY MVC SUSPENSION VIOLATED APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS, AND THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION AND SURCHARGE SHOULD BE VACATED.

POINT TWO

THE SUSPENSION OF APPELLANT'S DRIVING PRIVILEGES IN NEW JERSEY AND THE IMPOSITION OF A SURCHARGE TWENTY-SIX MONTHS AFTER AN OUT OF STATE D.U.I. CONVICTION VIOLATED APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND MUST BE VACATED.

These arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D) and (E), beyond these brief comments.

Appellant concedes that his Florida conviction is the functional equivalent of a violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, and he does not dispute that 210 days is the appropriate sanction for loss of driving privileges based upon that conviction. The essence of his argument is that there was an undue delay of approximately two years between his Florida conviction and the commencement of the New Jersey suspension, as a result of which he is being punished twice for the same offense by having two suspension periods imposed at two separate times. This argument presupposes some right of an offender in these circumstances to concurrent suspension periods. It is well settled that no such entitlement exists. State, Div. of Motor Vehicles v. Pepe, 379 N.J. Super. 411, 415-418 (App. Div. 2005); Boyd v. Div. of Motor Vehicles, 307 N.J. Super. 356, 359-60 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 154 N.J. 608 (1998).

Appellant's argument that he was wrongfully denied a hearing also lacks merit. He contended in his request for a hearing that a factual dispute existed as to the reason for the two-year delay in suspending his New Jersey driving privileges. He makes the same argument before us. There is no dispute on the record before us that the MVC did not receive notice of the Florida conviction from Florida authorities until April 21, 2008. The reason for any delay in the issuance and transmittal of this notice by the Florida officials is not material to the mandatory action taken by the MVC upon receipt of that notice, which action was taken very promptly. Boyd, supra, 307 N.J. Super. at 360; Pepe, supra, 379 N.J. Super. at 415. Indeed, the authority of the MVC to suspend New Jersey driving privileges does not begin until it receives an official report of the conviction from the other state. N.J.S.A. 39:5D-3, -4(a)(2).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-5894-07T1

June 23, 2009