604 N.E.2d 1386 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1992
This is an appeal by appellant Gary D. Shoemaker from the judgment of the Municipal Court of Napoleon upholding appellee Bureau of Motor Vehicles' ("BMV's") implied consent suspension of appellant's driver's license under R.C.
On October 5, 1991, appellant was arrested for violation of R.C.
Appellant then filed a petition in the Municipal Court of Napoleon, asserting that the BMV erred in suspending his driver's license. After a hearing to the court, the court upheld the BMV's suspension of appellant's driver's license but granted him occupational driving privileges. Appellant timely appeals from the judgment of the court and asserts the following sole assignment of error:
"The trial court erred in denying appellant's petition for reasons that the Registrar of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles did commit error in suspending appellant's operator's license pursuant to the implied consent statutes."
Appellant presents a broad assignment that the BMV erred in suspending his driver's license. However, appellant's brief narrows the assignment of error to whether appellant was informed of all consequences of refusing the chemical test when he was not informed that a reinstatement fee and proof of insurance are required before his driver's license suspension is terminated.
Appellant asserts that the notification of refusal did not inform him of all the consequences of refusing the breath-alcohol test as required by R.C.
When challenging a license suspension from the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, the petitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that there was error committed in suspending petitioner's driver's license. Hoban v. Rice (1971),
Appellant admits that he was shown and read the form prescribed by the registrar and that the officer did not deviate from that form. However, appellant asserts that even though he was shown and read the proper form, the form was insufficient as it failed to advise him of the $125 reinstatement fee and the proof of insurance requirements, as delineated in R.C.
Appellant's argument is without merit. Appellant has not demonstrated that the reinstatement fee and the proof of insurance are a consequence of refusing the breath-alcohol test. The requirements set forth in R.C.
Judgment affirmed.
EVANS and SHAW, JJ., concur. *428