Matteo v. Department of Motor Vehicles
209 Cal. App. 4th 624
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Matteo has three DUI convictions under Vehicle Code §23152(a) on 12/24/1990, 12/13/2007, and 2/23/2010, the latter involving a multiple‑point collision.
- After a 1‑year suspension under §13353.2 due to second DUI, Matteo sought an APS hearing, which occurred 6/9/2010; he pled nolo contendere on 7/15/2010 and the court ordered IID installation for at least one year.
- An amendment to §13352(a)(3), effective 7/1/2010, allowed a restricted license after a 90‑day suspension if the offender enrolled in an 18‑month DUI program, provided proof of SR‑22 insurance, and installed an IID.
- DMV initially told Matteo he was ineligible for a restricted license until at least 6/8/2011, applying the amended statute only to offenses after its effective date, based on a statewide policy.
- Matteo petitioned for mandamus (9/13/2010); the trial court granted relief, ordering the DMV to grant the IID‑restricted license under the amended statute, leading to this appeal.
- The court concluded the amended statute should be applied retroactively to promote public policy, and otherwise held the amendment is prospective rather than retroactive after analysis of liability implications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §13352(a)(3) applies retroactively to pre‑amendment DUI offenses | Matteo argues Estrada/Durbin require retroactive application as a mitigation of punishment for pre‑amendment conduct. | DMV relies on Fox v. Alexis to urge prospective application of the amendment. | Amendment is prospective in effect; no retroactive liability imposed. |
| Whether applying the amended §13352(a)(3) to Matteo affects liability for past conduct | Amendment mitigates penalties and applies broadly to pre‑amendment offenses to deter drunk driving. | Amendment merely changes administration of suspensions and does not alter past liability. | Application is not a retroactive imposition of liability; it changes administration, not past punishment. |
| Whether the case is moot or presents a public‑interest exception to mootness | Continued guidance is needed to address statewide DMV policy on applying amendments. | Matteo's license rights exist, but the broader issue affects DMV policy and future cases. | Public‑interest exception applies; case not moot for purposes of review. |
| What standard governs the court's review of DMV's interpretation of the statute | DMV interpretation supported by Estrada/Durbin; should be given deference as a reasonable interpretation. | Interpretation is informal policy; court should independently assess the statute's text. | Statutory interpretation reviewed independently with limited deference to DMV’s interpretation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fox v. Alexis, 38 Cal.3d 621 (Cal. 1985) (retroactivity restricts applying post‑enactment statutes to pre‑enactment conduct)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (legislative mitigation may require retroactive application)
- People v. Durbin, 64 Cal.2d 474 (Cal. 1966) (extension of Estrada to civil penalties/forfeitures)
- Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn’s, LLC, 39 Cal.4th 223 (Cal. 2006) (retroactivity assessed by functional effect on liability and rights)
- River Garden Retirement Home v. Franchise Tax Bd., 186 Cal.App.4th 922 (Cal. App. 4th 2010) (prospective/retroactive analysis based on function and effect on past events)
- Bullis Charter School v. Los Altos School Dist., 200 Cal.App.4th 1022 (Cal. App. 4th 2011) (public interest exception to mootness in mandamus context)