AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• On July 27, 2019, the appellant was issued a DWI citation and a notice of revocation for refusing a chemical test to determine blood or breath alcohol content. The appellant's license was to be revoked in twenty days under the Implied Consent Act. A hearing was requested and scheduled for September 30, 2019. Notification of the hearing was sent to the appellant's attorney and received by the attorney's staff. Neither the appellant nor his attorney appeared at the hearing, leading to the license revocation being sustained by the administrative hearing officer (AHO) (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Doña Ana County: The district court rescinded the AHO's revocation of the appellant's license, considering evidence outside the administrative record (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant-Respondent: Argued that due to the attorney's employee failing to inform him of the hearing notice, he did not receive adequate notice of the September 2019 hearing, warranting a new hearing (para 3).
• Appellee-Petitioner: Contended that the district court erred by considering evidence outside the administrative record and reversing the revocation of the appellant's license for lack of due process (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in considering evidence outside the administrative record in rescinding the revocation of the appellant's driver's license (para 4).
• Whether the appellant received adequate notice of the administrative hearing as required for due process (para 11).

Disposition

• The decision of the district court to rescind the revocation of the appellant's driver's license was reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Court of Appeals (para 10).

Reasons

• Per HANISEE, Chief Judge (YOHALEM and WRAY, Judges concurring): The Court of Appeals held that district courts in administrative appeals are limited to the record created at the agency level and cannot admit new evidence or substitute their judgment for that of an administrative agency. The district court abused its discretion by considering affidavits not included in the administrative record. The AHO's decision to sustain the license revocation was based on regulations that were not properly contested with evidence at the administrative level. The Court of Appeals also noted that due process in a civil administrative proceeding requires only notice reasonably calculated to apprise the litigant of the date and time of the hearing, and notice to counsel is deemed sufficient. The reversal by the district court was based on a misapprehension of the law, as it relied on evidence outside the administrative record and misinterpreted the requirements for adequate notice (paras 5-9, 11).