The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Wilson (Decided August 7, 2023, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that it is virtually impossible to collaterally attack a prior license revocation being used to enhance the severity of the current charge.
In Wilson, the Defendant was charged with Third Degree DWI (i.e. two DWI's within 10 years). The charge was enhanced to a third-degree offense because Wilson’s driver’s license had been revoked two months earlier based on a November 24, 2019 DWI-related traffic stop. Wilson did not seek judicial review of the prior revocation within the statutory 60-day period. After the judicial review period to contest the driver’s-license revocation had ended, Wilson successfully moved to suppress the evidence of impairment in the prior related criminal DWI proceeding.
In the present case, Wilson moved to exclude evidence of the license revocation from being used to enhance the DWI charge. She argued that the state could not use the revocation as an aggravating factor because the evidence of impairment had been suppressed in the criminal case related to the November 24 stop. The district court denied Wilson’s motion and, in a stipulated-facts trial, found Wilson guilty of third-degree DWI.
On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the lower court stating:
"Use of an unreviewed license revocation as an aggravating DWI factor does not violate a defendant’s due-process rights. State v. Coleman, 661 N.W.2d 296, 301 (Minn. App. 2003), rev. denied (Minn. Aug. 5, 2003). A challenge to the validity of the underlying revocation used as an aggravating factor is a collateral challenge to the revocation. Anderson v. Comm ’r of Pub. Safety, 878 N.W.2d 926, 930 (Minn. App. 2016). A collateral challenge attacks the final outcome of another proceeding which is being used as an element of a charged offense. Davis v. Comm ’r of Pub. Safety, 509 N.W.2d 380, 391-92 (Minn. App. 1993), aff’d, 517 N.W.2d 901 (Minn. 1994). Because collateral challenges weaken the finality of judgments, they are allowed only in “unique cases.” State v. Warren, 419 N.W.2d 795, 798 (Minn. 1988); Anderson, 878 N.W.2d at 930 (citing this aspect of Warren in the implied-consent context)."
"Wilson argues that hers is a unique case because she was indigent and unable to afford counsel to help her seek review of the driver’s-license revocation. Wilson additionally argues that, had she been able to afford counsel and sought judicial review of the driver’s-license revocation, her license revocation would have been rescinded because evidence of intoxication in the related criminal proceeding was suppressed. We are not persuaded that Wilson presents a unique case."
"First, parties in civil implied-consent proceedings do not have the right to court-appointed counsel. Thole, 831 N.W.2d at 22. Thus, Wilson’s indigency and lack of counsel do not present a unique case."
"Second... Because the proceedings for license revocation and DWI are separate such that issues decided in one proceeding are not precluded from being relitigated in the other, suppression of the evidence and dismissal of the DWI charges related to the November 24 stop do not indicate that revocation of Wilson’s license would have been rescinded, had she challenged it."
"Additionally, Wilson mistakenly relies on Anderson as support for her claim. There, we concluded that the district court did not have jurisdiction to hear an untimely petition for judicial review of a license revocation and the petitioner’s due-process rights were not violated because he had adequate notice of the revocation despite alleged mental incompetence. Anderson, 878 N.W.2d at 927-28. In dicta, we also noted that arguments about the use of prior revocation as an enhancement “should be raised at the time a person is charged with a crime,” not in an implied-consent proceeding. Id. at 930 (quotation omitted). Like in Anderson, Wilson did not timely challenge her license revocation, and, as discussed, allowing a collateral challenge is not warranted in her case."
Makes you wonder what would constitute a "unique" case.
Moral Of The Story: Lack of haste makes waste.
If you or a loved one have been charged with a Minnesota DWI, feel free to contact Minneapolis DWI Attorney, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI and DUI questions.
