Kelly Driver STACKPOOL v. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION
2021 COA 150
Colo. Ct. App.2021Background
- In Aug. 2018 Kelly Driver Stackpool was arrested for DUI after a breath test showed BAC over twice the legal limit; the DMV initially revoked her license.
- Stackpool applied for and received an interlock-restricted license in Nov. 2018 under the interlock statute.
- In Sept. 2019 she pleaded guilty to DUI — fourth or subsequent offense (class 4 felony).
- The Department sent inconsistent revocation notices: one revoking for two years under the DUI-repeat subsection and another revoking for one year under the general subsection for felonies involving a vehicle, asserting no driving privileges.
- A hearing officer held Stackpool ineligible for early reinstatement because she was convicted of a felony; the district court affirmed. Stackpool appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the interlock statute’s reference to “DUI … conviction” includes felony DUIs and misdemeanor DUIs, permitting early reinstatement with an interlock-restricted license.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "DUI … conviction" in § 42-2-132.5 includes felony DUI | "DUI" covers both misdemeanor and felony DUI; interlock statute applies to any DUI conviction | "DUI" in interlock statute was meant only for misdemeanors; felony DUIs fall under § 42-2-125(1)(c) and exclude interlock relief | Court: "DUI … conviction" includes felony and misdemeanor DUI; driver may seek early reinstatement with interlock license (reversed) |
| Mootness of appeal after DMV later issued an interlock license | Exception applies — issue capable of repetition yet evading review; decide merits | Initially argued appeal moot; later withdrew at oral argument | Court exercised exception (likely to recur, evades review) and addressed the statutory issue |
| Preservation of statutory interpretation argument | Preserved in administrative hearing and in district court appeal challenging denial of interlock eligibility | DMV claimed the specific statutory cross-argument (re subsections) was not preserved | Court: argument was preserved; reviewable de novo |
| Motion for change of judge | Sought recusal | DMV had already issued relief rendering recusal moot | Court: change-of-judge issue moot; no practical effect |
Key Cases Cited
- Jenkins v. Pan. Canal Ry. Co., 208 P.3d 238 (Colo. 2009) (specific statutory provision prevails over general when conflict exists)
- Rooftop Restoration, Inc. v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 418 P.3d 1173 (Colo. 2018) (consistent usage of words across statutory scheme informs meaning)
- Linnebur v. People, 476 P.3d 734 (Colo. 2020) (felony DUI is a distinct offense with prior convictions as elements)
- Diehl v. Weiser, 444 P.3d 313 (Colo. 2019) (mootness is a jurisdictional prerequisite)
- Rocky Mountain Ass'n of Credit Mgmt. v. Dist. Ct., 565 P.2d 1345 (Colo. 1977) (courts may decide issues capable of repetition yet evading review to establish precedent)
- Walton v. People, 451 P.3d 1212 (Colo. 2019) (DUI sentences often shorter than appellate review timelines; supports evading-review rationale)