NICHOLAS LEE SNYDER v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA SERVICE OKLAHOMA (2025)

1 Nicholas Snyder (Snyder) appeals from the trial court's January 3, 2025, Journal Entry wherein the trial court refused to reinstate Snyder's commercial driver's license (CDL), after a lifetime disqualification. Upon review of the record and applicable law, this Court finds the statutes do not afford the relief Snyder seeks and thus, this appeal is dismissed.

BACKGROUND

2 It is undisputed that Snyder was convicted in July 2009 for driving under the influence, which disqualified his CDL for one year pursuant to 47 O.S.Supp.2006, § 6-205.2(B). In October 2009, Snyder was again convicted of driving under the influence and his CDL was disqualified for life pursuant to 47 O.S.Supp.2006, § 6-205.2(D). Snyder did not appeal the lifetime disqualification of his CDL pursuant to 47 O.S.Supp.2006, § 6-205.2(O) and 47 O.S.Supp.2006, § 6-211(A) and (G).

3 On April 18, 2024, Snyder filed an Appeal Petition for Reinstatement (Petition) of his CDL. In support of his request for reinstatement, Snyder relied on Section 6-205.2(D), which states, in pertinent part, “Service Oklahoma may promulgate rules establishing conditions under which a disqualification for life pursuant to the provisions of this subsection may be reduced to a period of not less than ten (10) years provided a previous lifetime disqualification has not been reduced.” 47 O.S.Supp.2022, § 6-205.2(D) (emphasis added). Snyder argued that even though Service Oklahoma had not promulgated any rules or conditions upon which his lifetime disqualification could be reduced, he was entitled to a reduction of his lifetime disqualification because the statute allowed for it. On September 24, 2024, after multiple hearings, the trial court denied Snyder's Petition.  ¹ From this judgment, Snyder appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

4 Our review of this case requires statutory construction of Sections 6-205.2 and 6-211. Questions of law, including statutory interpretation, are reviewed de novo. Fanning v. Brown, 2004 OK 7, 8, 85 P.3d 841, 845.

5 In statutory interpretation cases, this Court's “inquiry begins with the text of the statute and-absent unresolvable ambiguity--ends with the text.” Hall v. Galmor, 2018 OK 59, 45, 427 P.3d 1052, 1070. “Our task is to determine the ordinary meaning of the words that the Legislature chose in the provisions of law at issue.” Id. Courts apply the plain and ordinary meaning of words in a statute because people are governed by the laws as they are written. “In ascertaining meaning, we look not just at the text of the provision at issue, but also at the text of related provisions in the same statute or legislative act, in a manner that achieves full force and effect for each provision.” Id. “[A] court is duty-bound to give effect to legislative acts, not amend, repeal or circumvent them.” Fulsom v. Fulsom, 2003 OK 96, 7, 81 P.3d 652, 655. “[T]he wisdom of choices made within the Legislature's law-making sphere are not our concern, because those choices--absent constitutional or other recognized infirmity--rightly lie within the legislative domain.” Head v. McCracken, 2004 OK 84, 13, 102 P.3d 670, 680.

ANALYSIS

6 In his only proposition of error, Snyder argues the trial court erred in denying his request for reinstatement of his CDL.  ² Specifically, Snyder claims the trial court is authorized to reinstate his CDL by 47 O.S.Supp.2022, § 6-205.2(D). We disagree, and dismiss this appeal, as the statutes do not provide Snyder with the ability to appeal to the courts for modification of his disqualification under Section 6-205.2(D).

7 Section 6-205.2, which governs disqualification of a person upon a conviction of enumerated crimes, provides that “[a]ny person who is disqualified from driving under the provisions of this section shall have the right of appeal, as provided in Section 6-211 of this title.” 47 O.S.Supp.2006, § 6-205.2(O). Section 6-211 then provides the trial court jurisdiction to hear the petition for appeal. 47 O.S.Supp.2006, § 6-211(A). Pursuant to Subsection E, the petition “shall be filed within thirty (30) days after the order has been served upon the person”. 47 O.S.Supp.2006, § 6-211(E). Subsection G greatly limits that appeal, stating “the court shall not consider the propriety or merits of the revocation action, except to correct the identity of the person convicted as shown by records of the Department.” 47 O.S.Supp.2006, § 6-211(G). Snyder did not timely appeal his disqualification as provided by Sections 6-205.2 and 6-211, nor is his current appeal for modification before the courts under those provisions.

8 Instead, Snyder attempts to file with the courts an “Appeal Petition for Reinstatement”, for which there is no statutory authority. Although Section 6-211 has previously provided an appeal of a request for modification under other sections of Title 47, it has never authorized an appeal for modification for Section 6-205.2. See 47 O.S.Supp.2006, § 6-211(H). Further, the Legislature has since removed any ability to file a petition for modification under Section 6-211. See 47 O.S.Supp.2024, § 6-211. The statutes do not permit this appeal by Snyder.

9 Section 6-205.2 provides for the reinstatement of a CDL after short term revocations, i.e. after a first conviction of one of the enumerated crimes. However, Section 6-205.2 does not provide for the reinstatement of a lifetime disqualification, and periods of disqualification defined in Section 6-205.2 cannot be modified. 47 O.S.Supp.2022, § 6-205.2(L); 47 O.S.Supp.2006, § 6-205.2(M)

10 Neither Section 6-211 nor 6-205.2 provide for the reinstatement of a lifetime disqualification of a CDL. Neither Section 6-211 nor 6-205.2 permit Snyder's “Appeal Petition for Reinstatement” to be filed in the courts.  ³ Accordingly, Snyder's appeal is dismissed.

CONCLUSION

11 As there is no statutory procedure under which Snyder seeks reinstatement of his CDL, this appeal is dismissed.

12 DISMISSED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The trial court's Journal Entry memorializing the oral pronouncement and Court Minute were not filed until January 3, 2025.

2.   Although Snyder set forth six propositions in the Petition in Error, he only raised one in the Brief in Chief. Any claims not presented in the Brief in Chief are waived. See Okla. Sup. Ct. R. 1.11(k)(1), 12 O.S.2021, Ch. 15, App. 1.

3.   Regardless, we have reviewed Snyder's claims and find them meritless. The trial court correctly applied the law. The statutory language of 47 O.S. § 6-205.2(D) does not provide any relief to Snyder. The word “may” does not compel the executive branch to act, nor can the judicial branch act in the absence of a law. We are also not persuaded by Snyder's arguments challenging the constitutionality of the statute. Further, even if the statute were struck down as an unconstitutional delegation of power by the Legislature, it would not provide any relief to Snyder.

TIMOTHY J. DOWNING, PRESIDING JUDGE:

BELL, C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur.