Wood v. Dep't of Inland Fisheries

302 A.3d 18

2023 ME 61

Daniel WOOD

v.DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE

Docket: And-22-396

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued: June 7, 2023

Decided: September 5, 2023

Verne E. Paradie, Jr., Esq. (orally), Lewiston, for appellant Daniel Wood

Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General, and Mark Randlett, Asst Atty. Gen. (orally), Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, JABAR, HORTON, CONNORS, and DOUGLAS, JJ.

DOUGLAS, J.

[¶1] Daniel Wood appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court (Androscoggin County, Stewart, J. ) affirming the decision of the Commissioner of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to revoke or suspend Wood's hunting license for three years and his guide license for one year. He argues that the Commissioner misinterpreted a statute as requiring a mandatory revocation of his hunting license; that the statute governing revocation of hunting licenses is unconstitutionally vague; and that Department rules establishing standards of competency, which the Commissioner relied upon in revoking his guide license, result from an unconstitutional delegation of authority by the Legislature. We affirm the judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

[¶2] Based on an incident in November 2018, the State charged Wood with discharge of a firearm or crossbow near a dwelling (Class E), 12 M.R.S. § 11209(1)(A), (2) (2023).¹ Through a subsequent plea agreement, Wood was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, reckless conduct (Class D), 17-A M.R.S. § 211 (2023),² and the State dismissed the initial charge. On January 6, 2022, the court (Lawrence, J. ) signed the judgment and commitment, ordering Wood to pay a $1,000 fine.

[¶3] By letter dated January 25, 2022, the Commissioner notified Wood that pursuant to 12 M.R.S. § 10902 (2023) his "privilege to obtain a hunting license and [his] right to apply for or obtain a hunting license from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife [was] revoked effective 01/06/2022 to 01/06/2025" because of his conviction for reckless conduct. The letter explained that the one-year period from January 6, 2022, to January 6, 2023, represented a mandatory revocation under section 10902 and that the additional, three-year, concurrent suspension period ending on January 6, 2025, was nonmandatory and was being imposed in the discretion of the Commissioner. In a second letter of the same date (January 25, 2022), the Commissioner notified Wood that his "privilege to obtain a guide license and [his] right to apply for or obtain a guide license from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife [were] revoked effective 01/25/2022 to 01/25/2023" because of the same conviction. See 12 M.R.S. §§ 10902, 10908 (2023). Both letters informed Wood of his right to an administrative hearing if requested in writing within thirty days "after receipt of notice" of the decision to revoke or suspend the license.³

[¶4] Wood timely requested an administrative hearing as to the Commissioner's decision on both licenses. At the hearing, held on April 27, 2022, both Wood and the game warden who investigated the November 2018 incident testified; and the Department introduced without objection its file on the matter, which included the game warden's report. The following facts are supported by the record and are not in dispute.

[¶5] Wood, a registered Maine Guide, shot a deer from a public road in Lewiston.

According to the game warden's report, a witness had observed Wood's truck stopped in the roadway, facing in the wrong direction with its driver's door open. While leaning on the passenger-side mirror and pointing his firearm in the direction of a residence, Wood aimed and fired, killing a deer. Subsequent measurements established that the deer was standing eighty-six yards from the residence when struck by the bullet fired by Wood.

[¶6] Wood did not dispute that he shot the deer in the manner described in the game warden's report or that the deer was within 100 yards of the residence when it was hit. See 12 M.R.S. § 11209(1)(A).⁴ He did not dispute that he pleaded guilty to and was convicted of reckless conduct under 17-A M.R.S. § 211 based on the same conduct. Rather, he argued that the statutes and regulations under which his licenses were revoked or suspended are overbroad,⁵ vague, and standardless. He further argued that the revocation of his hunting license would be mandatory only if he were convicted of a crime for which the act of hunting was an element of the offense.

[¶7] In a May 27, 2022, decision, the Commissioner determined that (1) Wood's conviction for reckless conduct, 17-A M.R.S. § 211, in these circumstances "is sufficient grounds for the revocation of Wood's hunting license, and of his right to apply for or obtain a hunting license" under 12 M.R.S. § 10902(4)(A) and (2) section 10902 "was properly applied" as to the mandatory one-year revocation. Given the nature of Wood's actions, she also found that an additional, three-year, concurrent nonmandatory suspension of the right to apply for a hunting license was appropriate. She then reasoned that the revocation of Wood's guide license was justified because Wood failed to meet the Department's standards of competency for a guide, which require, among other things, that a guide have "experience based judgment" that will ensure safety and that the guide understand and abide by all laws and rules involving the licensed activities. 09-137 C.M.R. ch. 24, § 24.08(A)(3), (5) (effective April 13, 2021).⁶

[¶8] Wood timely petitioned the Superior Court for review of the Department's final agency action. See 5 M.R.S. §§ 11001, 11002 (2023) ; M.R. Civ. P. 80C. After accepting briefs from the parties, the court (Stewart, J. ) entered a judgment on November 21, 2022, affirming the Commissioner's decisions. Wood timely appealed. See 5 M.R.S. § 11008 (2023) ; M.R. App. P. 2B(c)(1).

II. DISCUSSION

[¶9] We begin by summarizing the statutes at issue on appeal, then address each of the issues Wood raises.

A. Statutes Governing the Revocation or Suspension of Hunting and Guide Licenses

[¶10] Section 10902 of Title 12 of the Maine Revised Statutes sets out the circumstances under which the Commissioner may revoke or suspend a person's hunting license (or the right to apply for a hunting license).⁷ Subsection 1 provides, in part, that "[a]ny conviction or adjudication for a violation of this Part is grounds for suspension of any license or permit issued under this Part. Except where provided by law, the commissioner shall determine the suspension period." 12 M.R.S. § 10902(1). Subsection 4 provides:

A person's license must be revoked under the following circumstances.

A. If a person holding a license or permit under ... chapter [913] is convicted of the violation of any provision of Title 17-A while on a hunting or fishing trip or in the pursuit of wild animals, wild birds or fish, the commissioner shall revoke the license or permit held by that person for a period of at least one year, except when the killing or wounding of a human being has occurred, in which case the commissioner shall revoke the license or permit for at least 5 years.

Id. § 10902(4); see 12 M.R.S. §§ 10751 - 10759 (2023) (establishing, in chapter 913, the Department's authority to issue licenses under part 13 of Title 12, which governs inland fisheries and wildlife); 12 M.R.S. § 11101 (2023) (particularly authorizing, within part 13 of Title 12, the issuance of a hunting license).

[¶11] A person holding a guide license is subject to professional standards of conduct adopted by the Commissioner through the agency rulemaking process. See 12 M.R.S. § 12851 (2023) ; 5 M.R.S. §§ 8051 - 8064, 8071(3) (2023) ; 09-137 C.M.R. ch. 24, § 24.08. Section 12851 authorizes the Commissioner, with the advice and consent of the Advisory Board for the Licensing of Guides, to adopt rules in several areas, including rules setting out standards of competency for guides. 12 M.R.S. § 12851(3). Among other things, the standards of competency that were adopted require a guide to "[h]ave experience based judgment that helps prevent unsafe situations" and "[f]ully understand and abide by all state and federal laws and rules involving the activities in the classification(s) for which the Guide is licensed." 09-137 C.M.R. ch. 24, § 24.08(A)(3), (5).

B. Wood's Appeal

[¶12] Wood challenges (1) the Commissioner's interpretation of the statute mandating revocation of his hunting license for one year; (2) the constitutionality of the statute governing hunting license revocation and suspension; and (3) the constitutionality of the legislative delegation of authority to establish standards of competency for licensed guides.

1. Interpretation of Section 10902(4)(A)

[¶13] Wood contends that the revocation of his hunting license was not required by section 10902(4)(A) because the Title 17-A offense of which he was convicted did not include as one of its elements that he was engaged in the pursuit of a wild animal. Wood argues that "while he was convicted of an offense under Title 17-A, he was not convicted of doing so while hunting, fishing or pursuing wild animals, as the statute clearly requires."

[¶14] "[W]hen the trial court has acted in an intermediate appellate capacity, we review directly the original decision of the fact-finding agency, without deference to the ruling on the intermediate appeal by the court from which the appeal is taken." Black v. Bureau of Parks & Lands , 2022 ME 58, ¶ 25, 288 A.3d 346 (quotation marks omitted). We review de novo questions of statutory interpretation involved in Rule 80C appeals. Ouellette v. Saco River Corridor Comm'n , 2022 ME 42, ¶ 8, 278 A.3d 1183. In interpreting a statute, we look to its plain meaning, reading its language in harmony with the entire statutory scheme in which it appears, and interpret the statutory language "to avoid absurd, illogical or inconsistent results." Jackson Lumber & Millwork Co. v....