{
  "id": 8522552,
  "name": "DIANA RUTH WAGONER, Petitioner v. WILLIAM S. HIATT, COMMISSIONER NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wagoner v. Hiatt",
  "decision_date": "1993-08-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 9221SC417",
  "first_page": "448",
  "last_page": "451",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "111 N.C. App. 448"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 20-17",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "259 S.E.2d 558",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "564"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "298 N.C. 476",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572766
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "484"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/298/0476-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 S.E.2d 182",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1956,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "184"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "243 N.C. 735",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627135
      ],
      "year": 1956,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "738"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/243/0735-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "275 S.E.2d 399",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "405"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "302 N.C. 274",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565402
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "288"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/302/0274-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 S.E.2d 709",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1960,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "711"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "252 N.C. 361",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622042
      ],
      "year": 1960,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "363"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/252/0361-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 384,
    "char_count": 6370,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.73,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.595387516019696e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8190056640367837
    },
    "sha256": "8643b8633e6776ff5bb03960336b30a82c9997fa63be058544c8530fde59a0ce",
    "simhash": "1:a7189666145b1ea2",
    "word_count": 1014
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:07:55.768244+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges JOHNSON and McCRODDEN concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "DIANA RUTH WAGONER, Petitioner v. WILLIAM S. HIATT, COMMISSIONER NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Respondent"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ORR, Judge.\nRespondent contends that the Division of Motor Vehicles was authorized under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-19(d) and (j) to revoke petitioner\u2019s driver\u2019s license for four years. We agree.\nPetitioner correctly argues that the statute should be given its plain meaning, and the plain meaning of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-19(d), when read alone, does support her contention that the four-year revocation was unauthorized. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 2049(d) provides:\nWhen a person\u2019s license is revoked under subdivision (2) of G.S. 20-17 [which requires revocation for the conviction of an impaired driving offense] and the person has another offense involving impaired driving for which he has been convicted, which offense occurred within three years immediately preceding the date of the offense for which his license is being revoked, the period of revocation is four years, and this period may be reduced only as provided in this section. . . .\nHowever, \u201cStatutes in pari materia are to be construed together, and it is a general rule that the courts must harmonize such statutes, if possible. . . .\u201d Justice v. Scheldt, 252 N.C. 361, 363, 113 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1960). Thus, subsection (d) of the statute must be interpreted in the context of the entire section. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-19(j) specifically refers to subsection (d):\nThe Division is authorized to issue amended revocation orders issued under subsections (d) and (e), if necessary because convictions do not respectively occur in the same order as offenses for which the license may be revoked under those subsections.\nIn matters of statutory construction, the task of the courts is to ensure that the purpose of the Legislature, the legislative intent, is accomplished. The best indicia of that legislative purpose are the language of the act and what the act seeks to accomplish. State ex rel. Hunt v. North Carolina Reinsurance Facility, 302 N.C. 274, 288, 275 S.E.2d 399, 405 (1981). The language in contention is part of the Uniform Driver\u2019s License Act, which was designed\nto safeguard the use of our highways from those who are not qualified to operate motor vehicles, from those guilty of certain violations of our statutes regulating the use of motor vehicles, e.g.... drunken driving, etc., to exercise some measure of control over such operators, and generally to make uniform, so far as practicable, the granting or withholding of this privilege to operate a motor vehicle in furtherance of the safety of the users of the State\u2019s highways.\nHarrell v. Scheldt, 243 N.C. 735, 738, 92 S.E.2d 182, 184 (1956). We believe that the purpose of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-19 is to provide a uniform standard period for the withholding of the privilege to operate a motor vehicle following certain offenses. Under the trial court\u2019s interpretation of the statute, a two-time offender could easily circumvent the four-year revocation called for by subsection (d) by continuing his hearing on the first offense until after he is convicted of the second offense. \u201cA court should always construe the provisions of a statute in a manner which will tend to prevent it from being circumvented.\u201d Campbell v. First Baptist Church of Durham, 298 N.C. 476, 484, 259 S.E.2d 558, 564 (1979). Thus we must read subsections (d) and (j) of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-19 together, giving consideration both to the legislative intent of ensuring standard penalties for the same offenses and to the policy of preventing circumvention of the statute.\nWe find that N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-19(j) authorizes the Division to amend its subsection (d) revocation orders when the convictions occur in reverse order than the offenses, allowing the intended four-year revocation of the offender\u2019s driver\u2019s license. Therefore, the trial court should have affirmed the four-year revocation of petitioner\u2019s driver\u2019s license.\nWe reverse the order of the trial court and remand for the entry of judgment affirming the four-year revocation of petitioner\u2019s driver\u2019s license.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges JOHNSON and McCRODDEN concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ORR, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Paul C. Shepard for petitioner-appellee.",
      "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Bryan E. Beatty, for respondent-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DIANA RUTH WAGONER, Petitioner v. WILLIAM S. HIATT, COMMISSIONER NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Respondent\nNo. 9221SC417\n(Filed 3 August 1993)\nAutomobiles and Other Vehicles \u00a7 87 (NCI4th)\u2014 two offenses of driving while impaired \u2014convictions in reverse order \u2014four-year revocation of license proper\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-19(j) authorizes the Division of Motor Vehicles to amend its N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-19(d) revocation orders when the convictions occur in reverse order than the offenses so as to allow the intended four-year revocation of the offender\u2019s driver\u2019s license; therefore, the trial court should have affirmed the four-year revocation of petitioner\u2019s license where she was arrested for driving while impaired on 9 November 1990 and 9 December 1990, and was convicted of the second offense on 18 January 1991 and of the first offense on 25 January 1991.\nAm Jur 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic \u00a7 144.\nAppeal by respondent from order signed 25 February 1992, nunc pro tunc for 11 February 1992 by Judge Howard R. Greeson, Jr. in Forsyth County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 March 1993.\nOn 9 November 1990, petitioner was arrested in Forsyth County on a charge of driving while impaired (hereinafter referred to as \u201cfirst offense\u201d). On 9 December 1990, petitioner was arrested again in Forsyth County on a separate charge of driving while impaired (hereinafter referred to as \u201csecond offense\u201d). On 18 January 1991, petitioner was convicted of the second offense. On 25 January 1991, petitioner was convicted of the first offense. Petitioner received two notices of revocation of her driver\u2019s license, each for one year, one carrying an effective date of 18 January 1991 and one carrying an effective date of 9 March 1991. Petitioner also received a notice of revocation of her driver\u2019s license for four years effective 18 January 1991.\nPetitioner filed a petition in Forsyth County Superior Court to contest the four-year revocation of her driver\u2019s license by respondent. The trial court granted her petition, concluded that the four-year revocation was unauthorized under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 20-17 and 20-19, and ordered the four-year revocation reversed and stricken. From this order, respondent appeals.\nPaul C. Shepard for petitioner-appellee.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Bryan E. Beatty, for respondent-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0448-01",
  "first_page_order": 478,
  "last_page_order": 481
}