On April 13, 1987, the State commenced the present civil action alleging appellee,
*461
Michael David Phelps, was a habitual offender.
See
Iowa Code § 321.555 (1985). The State sought the revocation of Phelps’s driver’s license as a sanction for that alleged status.
See
Iowa Code § 321.559 (1985). Following a hearing, the district court, relying on this court’s decision in
State v. Dague,
The State’s allеgation of Phelps’s habitual offender status was based upon the following definition of that status contаined in Iowa Code section 321.555 (1985):
As used in this division, “habitual offender” means any person who has accumulаted convictions for separate and distinct offenses described in subsections 1, 2, or 3, committed after July 1, 1974, for which final convictions have been rendered, as follows:
[[Image here]]
2. Six or more of any separаte and distinct offenses within a two-year period in the operation of a motor vehicle which are required to be reported to the department by section 321.207 or chapter 321C, excеpt equipment violations, parking violations as defined in section 321.210, violations of registration laws, violations of section 321.446, operating a vehicle with an expired license or permit, failure to appear, weights and measures violations and speeding violations of less than fifteen miles рer hour over the legal speed limit.
Phelps committed six of the pertinent offenses during the periоd from January 7, 1985, to September 14,1986, inclusive. His convictions for those offenses, however, occurrеd during the period from January 8, 1985, to January 8,1987, inclusive, a period of two years and one day.
In
State v. Dague,
As used in this division, “habitual offender” means any person who has accumulated convictions for sepаrate and distinct offenses described in subsections 1, 2, or 3, committed after July 1, 1974, as follows:
[[Image here]]
2. Six or more convictions of any separate and distinct offenses within a two-year period in the operation of a motor vehiclе which are required to be reported to the department of public safety by section 321.207, except equipment violations, violations of parking regulations of cities, violations of registratiоn laws, operating a vehicle with an expired license or permit, failure to appear, and weights and measures violations and speeding violations of less than six miles per hour over the legal speed limit, as provided by law prior to enactment of chapter 1189, Acts of the Sixty-fifth General Assembly, 1974 Session.
(Emphasis added.)
The presence of the word “convictions” in subsection two’s definition of “habitual offender” provided the basis for the decision in
Dague. See
The legislature by changing a statute recognizes the judicial interpretation placed upon the statute.
Humboldt County v. Biegger,
We ended our opinion in Dague with the following observation:
The State argues persuasively that the date of violation should be more significant than the date of conviction, but that argument would more appropriately be addressed to the legislature.
We think it clear the lеgislature accepted and acted upon our invitation when, one year following Dague, it amended section 321.555. Accordingly, we hold that the two-year period in subsection two defines the time within which the violations, not convictions, must have occurred. Dague no longer controls the point.
The judgment of the district court is reversed and this case is remanded for proceedings in conformance with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
