State v. Anderson, A18-1491

941 N.W.2d 724

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent,

v.Steven Jeffrey ANDERSON, Appellant.

A18-1491

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed: April 15, 2020

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Kurt B. Glaser, Catherine A. Crane, Lexington City Attorneys, Smith & Glaser, LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent.

Paul P. Sarratori, Mesenbourg & Sarratori Law Offices, P.A., Coon Rapids, Minnesota, for appellant.

OPINION

McKEIG, Justice.

Appellant Steven Anderson was charged with second-degree driving while impaired for refusal to submit to chemical testing, Minn. Stat. § 169A.25, subd. 1(b) (2018), which requires both the refusal to submit to chemical testing and one aggravating factor. In this case, a prior license revocation was the aggravating factor. At the time of the offense, Anderson’s license revocation was in effect but had not yet been judicially reviewed. The State waited until the license revocation was sustained to charge Anderson. Applying the plain language of the driving-while-impaired statutory scheme to these facts, we conclude that the State properly used Anderson’s license revocation as an aggravating factor to enhance his charge of driving while impaired. Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals.

FACTS

The facts are not in dispute. This case is the result of two driving-while-impaired incidents, the first occurring on October 2, 2016. Anderson was arrested, and a week later he was notified that his license had been administratively revoked for 1 year. Anderson filed a petition for review of the license revocation, and a hearing date was set for December 28, 2016. The hearing was delayed until April 2017 because of continuances requested by both parties. At that hearing, Anderson waived the right to further review, and the district court sustained the revocation.

On December 18, 2016—after Anderson had petitioned for review of his license revocation but before the revocation was sustained—Anderson was arrested a second time for driving while impaired. He agreed to take a preliminary breath test, but failed to provide a proper sample because he "only provided short puffs of air and at times sucked on the tube." Anderson was taken to the police department, where he was read the Minnesota Implied Consent Advisory. He said he understood the advisory and wanted to talk to an attorney. After a 10-minute phone call, Anderson agreed to take a breath test. He provided multiple short breaths, kept stopping, blew around the mouthpiece, and otherwise prevented a proper sample. Police determined that Anderson had refused the test.

The State waited until August 2017—after the license revocation related to the October 2016 charge of driving while impaired was sustained—to charge Anderson for the December 2016 incident. He was charged with four counts, including the one on appeal: second-degree driving while impaired for refusal to submit to chemical testing, Minn. Stat. § 169A.25, subd. 1(b). That charge requires one aggravating factor, which the complaint listed as a prior impaired driving-related loss of license—Anderson’s October 2016 license revocation.

Anderson filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the second-degree driving-while-impaired count should be dismissed for lack of probable cause because a license revocation cannot be used as an aggravating factor unless judicial review has occurred or has been waived by the time of the subsequent offense. The district court denied the motion to dismiss.

A trial was held on February 21, 2018. The parties filed an agreement advising the court that the trial would proceed as a stipulated facts and evidence trial. See Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 4 (detailing the proper procedure to preserve an issue for appellate review "[w]hen the parties agree that the court’s ruling on a specified pretrial issue is dispositive of the case, or that the ruling makes a contested trial unnecessary").¹ In accordance with Rule 26.01, Anderson entered a not guilty plea, waived his right to a trial by jury, stipulated to certain facts and evidence, and acknowledged that his right of appeal was limited to the pretrial district court order denying his motion to dismiss. The district court found Anderson guilty, and he was sentenced on the second-degree driving-while-impaired count.

Anderson appealed and the court of appeals affirmed. State v. Anderson , 931 N.W.2d 640 (Minn. App. 2019). The court of appeals held that "a prior license revocation is present as an aggravating factor to enhance a subsequent DWI offense after a driver receives notice of the revocation."

Id. at 647. Further, the court of appeals concluded that Anderson’s due process rights were not violated because Anderson had the opportunity for judicial review of the revocation before charging. Id. at 649.

ANALYSIS

The question of whether Anderson’s license revocation can be used as an aggravating factor involves the application of law to undisputed facts, and so our review is de novo. See State v. Wiltgen , 737 N.W.2d 561, 566 (Minn. 2007). This review involves the interpretation of the second-degree driving-while-impaired statute, Minn. Stat. § 169A.25, subd. 1(b), and the related statutory definitions within Minn. Stat. § 169A.03 (2016). We also review issues of statutory interpretation de novo. State v. Thonesavanh , 904 N.W.2d 432, 435 (Minn. 2017). "When the words of a law in their application to an existing situation are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit." Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2018).

A person is guilty of second-degree driving while impaired if he or she has refused to submit to a chemical test, Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2 (2016), and "one aggravating factor was present when the violation was committed." Minn. Stat. § 169A.25, subd. 1(b).

A series of definitions laid out in section 169A.03 detail how a driver’s license revocation like Anderson’s could qualify as an aggravating factor for purposes of Minnesota Statutes chapter 169A (2016). First, "aggravating factor" includes "a qualified prior impaired driving incident within the ten years immediately preceding the current offense." Minn. Stat. § 169A.03, subd. 3(1). A "qualified prior impaired driving incident" includes "prior impaired driving-related losses of license." Minn. Stat. § 169A.03, subd. 22. And, most importantly for this case, a "prior impaired driving-related loss of license" includes a "driver’s license suspension, revocation, cancellation, denial, or disqualification under ... 169A.50 to 169A.53 (implied consent law)." Minn. Stat. § 169A.03, subd. 21(a)(1). Sections 169A.50 to 169A.53 are Minnesota’s "Implied Consent Law." Minn. Stat. § 169A.50. These sections set out the requirements for chemical testing; the consequences of refusing chemical testing, including license revocation; and the procedure for administrative and judicial review of license revocations.

Read together, these statutes provide that a driver’s license revocation under the Implied Consent Law can be used as an aggravating factor for purposes of Minn. Stat. § 169A.25, subd. 1(b), if the license revocation was "present when the violation was committed." Anderson asserts that a license revocation is not "present" as an aggravating factor until it is judicially reviewed or the right to review has been waived. If neither review nor waiver has occurred by the time of the offense, Anderson argues that the license revocation cannot be used as an aggravating factor. Under Anderson’s interpretation, this defect cannot be cured by delaying charging until after review has occurred, as the State did here. We disagree.

As detailed above, Minn. Stat. § 169A.03 includes a host of definitions related to which driving incidents qualify as aggravating factors. The statute does not, however, define the word "present," as that word is used in Minn. Stat. § 169A.25, subd. 1(b). "We therefore look to dictionary definitions to determine [the word’s] common and ordinary meaning[ ]." Thonesavanh , 904 N.W.2d at 436. "Present" simply means "existing or occurring now." New Oxford American Dictionary 1381 (3d ed. 2010). When we apply this definition to the driving-while-impaired statutory scheme, the question becomes when a license revocation "exists" as an aggravating factor.

A license revocation under the Implied Consent Law, reviewed or not, comes into existence as of its effective date. A license revocation "becomes effective at the time the commissioner ... notifies the person of the intention to revoke, disqualify, or both, and of revocation or disqualification." Minn. Stat. § 169A.52, subd. 6 ; see Heddan v. Dirkswager , 336 N.W.2d 54, 63 (Minn. 1983) (holding prehearing license revocations constitutional, with an emphasis on the availability of prompt post-revocation hearings).

Upon its effective date, a revocation comes with immediate legal consequences for the license holder. Minn. Stat. § 169A.52, subd. 6. Revocation of a driver’s license results in a revocation of the driving privilege. Minn. Stat. § 171.02 (2018). A driver whose license has been revoked only becomes eligible for a limited license 15 days after the revocation’s effective date. Minn. Stat. § 171.30, subd. 2a(1) (2018). Even then, issuance of a limited license is discretionary; is appropriate only under certain, specified circumstances; and can be subject to a broad swath of conditions. Id. , subd. 1(b)–(c) (2018). And although a person who has had a license revoked may petition for administrative or judicial review, filing a petition does not stay a license revocation, except under limited circumstances. Minn. Stat. § 169A.53, subds. 1, 2(a), (c).

These statutes do not mandate, or even suggest, that to be used as an aggravating factor, a license revocation must be reviewed by the time of a subsequent offense. To the contrary, the language suggests that the Legislature intended that a license revocation’s legal consequences begin...