State v. Stokes

2007 MT 318N (Mont. 2007) · Supreme Court of Montana · December 5, 2007 · No. DA 06-0629

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the denial of John P. Stokes's petition to reinstate his driver's license after he refused a breath test following a traffic stop. The court held that, without a transcript of the evidentiary hearing, Stokes could not demonstrate that the district court's findings regarding probable cause, impairment, and refusal were erroneous.

Court
Supreme Court of Montana
Writing for the Court
Chief Justice Gray; Justice W. William Leaphart; Justice Patricia Cotter; Justice Jim Rice; Justice John Warner
Jurisdiction
Montana
Decision date
December 5, 2007
Docket number
DA 06-0629
Procedural posture
Appeal from the denial of a petition to reinstate a Montana driver's license after the district court found probable cause for the traffic stop, reasonable grounds to believe Stokes was driving under the influence of alcohol, and that Stokes refused a breath test.
Standard of review
The court reviews the denial of a petition for reinstatement of driving privileges to determine whether the district court's findings of fact were clearly erroneous and whether its conclusions of law were correct. The suspension is presumed correct, and the appellant bears the burden of establishing that it was improper.
Precedential value
Nonprecedential memorandum decision
Parties
John P. Stokes v. State of Montana
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

administrative lawprobable causeappellate procedurestandard of reviewpreservation of error

Practice areas

administrative lawcriminal procedureappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court erred in finding probable cause for the initial traffic stop.
  2. Whether the district court erred in finding reasonable grounds to conclude that Stokes was driving under the influence of alcohol.
  3. Whether Stokes could establish appellate error without providing a transcript of the evidentiary hearing.

Holdings

  1. An appellant who challenges findings based on an evidentiary hearing must provide a transcript or otherwise reference the record sufficiently to demonstrate error; without the transcript, Stokes failed to carry his burden of showing that the district court erred.
  2. The district court's denial of reinstatement was affirmed because the suspension was presumed correct and Stokes did not establish that the district court's findings were clearly erroneous or its legal conclusions incorrect.

Key quotations

the following memorandum decision shall not be cited as precedent (¶ 1)
As a result, he cannot carry his burden of showing error by reference to matters of record. (¶ 7)

Factual background

On May 17, 2006, a patrol officer stopped Stokes because his vehicle's license plate tags were expired. The officer detected a strong odor of alcohol, Stokes failed field sobriety tests, and he refused a requested breath test after admitting that he had consumed four cocktails. His driver's license was suspended, and the district court later found probable cause for the stop, reasonable grounds indicating that he was driving under the influence of alcohol, and a refusal to provide a breath sample.

Procedural history

After Stokes's license was suspended following his refusal to submit to a breath test, he petitioned the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, for reinstatement. The district court temporarily reinstated his license pending an evidentiary hearing, then revoked the temporary reinstatement and suspended his driving privileges for six months. Stokes appealed, but did not provide a transcript of the evidentiary hearing.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…