{ "id": 5306896, "name": "JAMES SIDNEY DAVIS v. WILLIAM S. HIATT, Commissioner, North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles", "name_abbreviation": "Davis v. Hiatt", "decision_date": "1990-04-05", "docket_number": "No. 155PA89", "first_page": "462", "last_page": "466", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "326 N.C. 462" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "376 S.E.2d 44", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "92 N.C. App. 748", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527647 ], "year": 1989, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/92/0748-01" ] }, { "cite": "34 N.C.L. Rev. 280", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "N.C. L. Rev.", "year": 1955, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "167 S.E. 382", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1933, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "204 N.C. 48", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8611014 ], "year": 1933, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/204/0048-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 S.E.2d 525", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1952, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "236 N.C. 196", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8623843 ], "year": 1952, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/236/0196-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 S.E.2d 501", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "239 N.C. 190", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626207 ], "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/239/0190-01" ] }, { "cite": "238 S.E.2d 521", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "293 N.C. 539", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565441 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/293/0539-01" ] }, { "cite": "390 S.E.2d 336", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "326 N.C. 467", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 5305785 ], "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/326/0467-01" ] }, { "cite": "59 S.E.2d 589", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1950, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "591" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "232 N.C. 128", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8595808 ], "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/232/0128-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 S.E.2d 259", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "241 N.C. 31", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8600357 ], "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/241/0031-01" ] }, { "cite": "164 S.E.2d 2", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "274 N.C. 473", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560662 ], "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/274/0473-01" ] }, { "cite": "362 S.E.2d 513", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "535-36" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "321 N.C. 125", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2567820 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "161-62" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/321/0125-01" ] }, { "cite": "390 S.E.2d 366", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "326 N.C. 467", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 5305785 ], "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/326/0467-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 491, "char_count": 9970, "ocr_confidence": 0.764, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.2802246553481316e-07, "percentile": 0.7850791687082915 }, "sha256": "17633cd5028ea24dd8bc97d4af7c0b24c69c34de6783f38bf4fa7992d562f096", "simhash": "1:27179043043ba2f2", "word_count": 1697 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:38:26.587833+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "JAMES SIDNEY DAVIS v. WILLIAM S. HIATT, Commissioner, North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WEBB, Justice.\nThe appellant argues first that the superior court did not have jurisdiction to determine the questions raised in the petition. We agree with the Court of Appeals that the suspension of the petitioner\u2019s driving privilege was mandatory under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-17(2) and N.C.G.S. \u00a7 2049(e) and the petitioner did not have the right to appeal under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-25. Underwood v. Howland, Comr. of Motor Vehicles, 274 N.C. 473, 164 S.E.2d 2 (1968); Fox v. Scheidt, Comr. of Motor Vehicles, 241 N.C. 31, 84 S.E.2d 259 (1954).\nWe do not agree with the Court of Appeals that the petitioner has a right of appeal under Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Administrative Procedure Act. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-43 provides in part:\nAny person who is aggrieved by the final decision in a contested case ... is entitled to judicial review of the decision under this Article, unless adequate procedure for judicial review is provided by another statute. . . .\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-2 provides in part:\n(2)\u201cContested case\u201d means an administrative proceeding pursuant to this Chapter to resolve a dispute between an agency and another person that involves the person\u2019s rights, duties, or privileges, including licensing or the levy of a monetary penalty. \u201cContested case\u201d does not include rulemaking, declaratory rulings, or the award or denial of a scholarship or grant.\n(3)\u201cLicense\u201d means any certificate, permit or other evidence, by whatever name called, of a right or privilege to engage in any activity, except licenses issued under Chapter 20 and Subchapter I of Chapter 105 of the General Statutes and occupational licenses.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-43 provides that any person who is an aggrieved party in a contested case is entitled to judicial review if it is not otherwise available. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-2 says that contested cases include disputes about licenses, except licenses issued under Chapter 20 of the General Statutes. This case involves a driver\u2019s license which was issued pursuant to Chapter 20. It is expressly excluded from those cases which may be appealed under the Administrative Procedure Act. The petitioner had no right of appeal under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-43.\nThe superior court could review the actions of the Commissioner by issuing a writ of certiorari. In Russ v. Board of Education, 232 N.C. 128, 59 S.E.2d 589 (1950), the petitioner filed an action in superior court to review the action of the Board of Education of Brunswick County in dismissing him from his position as member of a school committee. The superior court overruled a demurrer to the action and this Court affirmed. Justice Ervin, writing for this Court, said \u201cG.S. 1-269 expressly stipulates that \u2018writs of certiorari . . . are authorized as heretofore in use.\u2019 It is well settled in this jurisdiction that certiorari is the appropriate process to review the proceedings of inferior courts and of bodies and officers exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions in cases where no appeal is provided by law.\u201d Id. at 130, 59 S.E.2d at 591. We held in that case that the act of ousting the petitioner from the school committee was quasi-judicial in nature and may be reviewed by the superior court by certiorari. We also held in that case that if a petition alleges facts sufficient to establish the right of review on certiorari its validity as a pleading is not impaired by the fact the petitioner does not specifically pray that the court issue a writ of certiorari. In this case the petitioner pled sufficient facts to show he did not have a right to appeal from a final decision of an agency. He could then petition for a writ of certiorari to have the case reviewed by the superior court. We hold the superior court had jurisdiction to review the case.\nThe substantive question in this case is whether the judgment entered on a plea of no contest to a previous charge of driving with a blood alcohol content of .10 percent or more may be used as a prior conviction by the Department of Motor Vehicles for purposes of revoking a driver\u2019s license. We hold that it may be so used.\nIn State v. Outlaw, 326 N.C. 467, 390 S.E.2d 336 (1990), we discussed the use of a judgment imposed after a no contest plea. We cited several cases passing on this question. State Bar v. Hall, 293 N.C. 539, 238 S.E.2d 521 (1977); Winesett v. Scheidt, Comr. of Motor Vehicles, 239 N.C. 190, 79 S.E.2d 501 (1954); State v. Thomas, 236 N.C. 196, 72 S.E.2d 525 (1952); and In re Stiers, 204 N.C. 48, 167 S.E. 382 (1933). See also Lane-Reticker, Nolo Contendere in North Carolina, 34 N.C.L. Rev. 280 (1955). The rule from these cases is that a plea of no contest is not an admission and may not be used against the defendant in another case. In those cases it was also held that when a no contest plea was accepted the court must impose a sentence based on the plea and may not adjudge the defendant guilty. Because a court could not adjudge the defendant guilty on a no contest plea there was not a conviction to be used in another case.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1022(c) (1989) has changed the rule that a court may not adjudicate the defendant\u2019s guilt on a plea of no contest. Before a court may now accept a plea of no contest it must make a finding that there is a factual basis for the plea. This amounts to an adjudication of guilt. There is now an adjudication of guilt on a no contest plea and the rationale of the above cases that there is not an adjudication on a no contest plea which may not be used in another case no longer applies. The adjudication of guilt on the no contest plea was properly used by the Commissioner in this case to revoke the petitioner\u2019s driving privilege.\nReversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "WEBB, Justice." }, { "text": "Justice Frye\nconcurring in result.\nThe Court\u2019s decisions today in this case and in State v. Outlaw, 326 N.C. 467, 390 S.E.2d 366 (1990), follow naturally from this Court\u2019s holding in State v. Holden, 321 N.C. 125, 161-62, 362 S.E.2d 513, 535-36 (1987), to which I dissented. While I continue to believe that Holden was incorrectly decided insofar as it held that a no contest plea and final judgment entered thereon constituted a conviction under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000(e), it is now the law of this State, and I am bound thereby. Accordingly, I concur in the result reached by the Court.", "type": "concurrence", "author": "Justice Frye" } ], "attorneys": [ "George R. Barrett for petitioner appellee.", "Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Jane P. Gray, Special Deputy Attorney General, and Mabel Y. Bullock, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JAMES SIDNEY DAVIS v. WILLIAM S. HIATT, Commissioner, North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles\nNo. 155PA89\n(Filed 5 April 1990)\n1. Automobiles and Other Vehicles \u00a7 2.3 (NCI3d)\u2014 mandatory revocation of driver\u2019s license \u2014 no right of appeal\nThe suspension of petitioner\u2019s driver\u2019s license was mandatory under N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 20-17(2) and 20-19(e), and petitioner thus did not have the right to appeal under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-25. Nor did petitioner have a right of appeal under the Administrative Procedure Act since cases involving a license issued under Ch. 20 are expressly excluded by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-2(3) from those cases which may be appealed under the Administrative Procedure Act. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-43.\nAm Jur 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic \u00a7 144.\n2. Automobiles and Other Vehicles \u00a7 2.3 (NCI3d)\u2014 mandatory revocation of driver\u2019s license \u2014superior court review by certiorari\nThe superior court had jurisdiction to review the mandatory revocation of petitioner\u2019s driver\u2019s license by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles by a writ of certiorari. Where the petition alleged facts sufficient to establish the right of review by certiorari, its validity as a pleading was not impaired by the fact that petitioner did not specifically pray that the court issue a writ of certiorari.\nAm Jur 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic \u00a7 144.\n3. Automobiles and Other Vehicles \u00a7 2.4 (NCI3d) \u2014 revocation of driver\u2019s license \u2014 impaired driving \u2014 use of prior no contest plea\nThe judgment entered on a plea of no contest to a previous charge of driving with a blood alcohol content of .10 percent or more may be used as a prior conviction by the Division of Motor Vehicles for purposes of revoking a driver\u2019s license since the court must now make a finding that there is a factual basis for a plea of no contest before it may accept the plea, and this amounts to an adjudication of guilt. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1022(c) (1989).\nAm Jur 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic \u00a7\u00a7 117,134.\nJustice FRYE concurring in result.\nON discretionary review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, 92 N.C. App. 748, 376 S.E.2d 44 (1989), affirming the judgment entered by McLelland, J., at the 25 March 1988 Civil Session of Superior Court, WAKE County, reversing an order of the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Heard in the Supreme Court 13 November 1989.\nThis case involves the revocation of a driver\u2019s license. The record shows the petitioner was convicted of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of .10 or more on 14 March 1979. His driver\u2019s license was revoked for one year until 14 March 1980. On 31 August 1983 the petitioner pled no contest to operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of .10 or more. His driver\u2019s license was revoked until 31 August 1984. On 19 October 1987 the petitioner was convicted of driving while impaired. The Commissioner of Motor Vehicles notified the petitioner that based on N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-17(2) and N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-19(e) his driving privilege had been permanently revoked.\n. Mr. Davis filed a petition in superior court asking for review of the Commissioner\u2019s action. The respondent filed an answer and moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The superior court denied the motion to dismiss and held that the Commissioner erred in permanently revoking the petitioner\u2019s driving privilege. The court ordered that the revocation be for one year. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the superior court.\nWe allowed the Commissioner\u2019s petition for discretionary review.\nGeorge R. Barrett for petitioner appellee.\nLacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Jane P. Gray, Special Deputy Attorney General, and Mabel Y. Bullock, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent appellant." }, "file_name": "0462-01", "first_page_order": 498, "last_page_order": 502 }