Refusal, Suspension, Cancellation and Revocation of Registration, Title, Driving Privileges and Identification Card
Procedures on habitual offender determination
Notes of Decisions
Where Motor Vehicles Division revoked defendant's driving privileges under habitual offender statute, notice of revocation failed to convey to defendant information required by statute, namely, date that revocation would take effect unless defendant acted to request hearing and, thus, conviction was based on inadequate notice of revocation. State v. Atkinson, 305 Or 295, 751 P2d 784 (1988)
This section limits agency to determining only whether there was error in compiling conviction shown in driving record supporting revocation order and does not allow consideration of validity of underlying DUII conviction. Moore v. MVD, 109 Or App 195, 818 P2d 974 (1991), Sup Ct review denied
Notes of Decisions
Under Former Similar Statute
Dismissal of previous complaint alleging defendant was habitual traffic offender barred second complaint alleging same cause of action where court has signed order which adjudged defendant was not habitual traffic offender. State ex rel MVD v. Henigan, 37 Or App 135, 586 P2d 395 (1978)
Neither Article I, section 11 of the Oregon Constitution or the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution require appointment of counsel for indigent defendants in habitual traffic offender proceedings. State v. Rhoades, 54 Or App 254, 634 P2d 806 (1981), Sup Ct review denied
There is no limitation period for proceedings under the Habitual Traffic Offenders Act. State v. Renteria, 59 Or App 619, 651 P2d 1362 (1982)
Atty. Gen. Opinions
Under Former Similar Statute
Convictions prior to 1973 Habitual Traffic Offenders Act, (1974) Vol 36, p 859