This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Darcy Carol Snyder, petitioner,
Commissioner of Public Safety,
Filed October 17, 2006
Hennepin County District Court
File No. IC 485580
Steve M. Tallen, Tallen & Baertschi, 4560 IDS Center,
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Jeffrey F. Lebowski, Assistant Attorney
General, Sean R. McCarthy, Assistant Attorney General, Peter D. Magnuson,
Assistant Attorney General, 1800
Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Shumaker, Judge; and Stoneburner, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
appeal from the district court’s order sustaining the revocation
of appellant’s driver’s license under the implied-consent law, appellant argues
that because the implied-consent hearing was not conducted within 60 days after
the filing of the petition for judicial review, the revocation should be
rescinded under Fedziuk v. Comm’r of Pub.
Safety, 696 N.W.2d 340 (
Appellant Darcy Carol Snyder was stopped for driving while intoxicated, read the implied-consent advisory, and submitted to a breath test that indicated an alcohol concentration of .10. Appellant’s driver’s license was revoked, and appellant petitioned for judicial review. The implied-consent hearing was scheduled, but the commissioner requested a continuance because the arresting officer was not available. The hearing was rescheduled, and the commissioner contacted appellant’s attorney who agreed to the new hearing date. The commissioner offered to stay the balance of the revocation of appellant’s driving privileges, but appellant’s attorney declined the offer.
hearing on appellant’s petition to rescind the revocation of her driver’s
license, appellant argued that because her implied-consent hearing was held 82
days after she filed her petition for review, her driver’s-license revocation
should be rescinded based on the holding in Fedziuk
v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 696 N.W.2d 340 (
D E C I S I O N
The facts in this case are not
disputed. The application of law to
undisputed facts is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo. Morton
Bldgs., Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, 488 N.W.2d 254, 257 (
Appellant argues that because her
implied-consent hearing was not held within 60 days after the filing of her
petition for review, she is entitled to a rescission of her driver’s-license
revocation. The 2003 amendments to the
implied-consent law deleted the requirement that a judicial-review
hearing be “held at the earliest practicable date, and in any event no later
than 60 days following the filing of the petition for review.” See 2003
Appellant’s implied-consent hearing was not conducted within 60 days after the filing of her petition for judicial review. The remedy for not conducting appellant’s hearing within 60 days after filing is a stay of revocation rather than rescission; thus, the district court did not err in sustaining the revocation of appellant’s driver’s license.