OPINION
Appellant challenges the revocation of his driver’s license, arguing that the absence of court-appointed legal counsel in his implied-consent matter violated his due-process rights. Appellant also contends that because the notice and order of revocation failed to offer court-appointed legal counsel, the statutory deadline in which to file a petition for judicial review never commenced, making appellant’s late petition timely. Because indigent parties in implied-consent proceedings have no right to court-appointed legal counsel, the notice and order of revocation was proper and appellant’s petition for judicial review was untimely. We affirm.
FACTS
On or about December 23, 2011, appellant Thomas Thole was arrested for driving while impaired (“DWI”). After hearing the implied consent advisory, Thole submitted to a urine test, which indicated an alcohol concentration of 0.16. On February 2, 2012, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Driver and Vehicle Ser
Thirty-five days later, on March 8, 2012, Thole served and filed a petition for judicial review of the order. Thole contends that he was indigent at the time he received the notice and order and that his first opportunity to retain legal counsel was on March 8, the day he filed the petition. The commissioner moved to dismiss Thole’s petition for lack of jurisdiction because the petition was untimely served and filed. Thole argued that his due-process rights were violated when he was not provided court-appointed legal counsel or information on court-appointed legal counsel in the notice and order, and that the statute of limitations on Thole’s petition for judicial review was suspended as a result. The district court dismissed the matter, sustaining the revocation.
On appeal, Thole contends that his due-process rights were violated when he was not provided access to court-appointed legal counsel in his implied-eonsent matter. He further contends that the commissioner’s failure to provide him information on legal counsel in the notice and order of revocation suspended the statute of limitations, making his petition timely.
ISSUES
1. Did the district court properly conclude that it lacked jurisdiction to review Thole’s petition for judicial review because it was untimely?
2. Does due process require that courts appoint legal counsel to indigent drivers in implied-eonsent matters?
3. Must the commissioner give drivers information on court-appointed legal counsel in the notice and order of revocation?
4.Did the commissioner’s failure to advise Thole of his right to court-appointed legal counsel in the notice and order of revocation suspend the statute of limitations on petitioning for judicial review?
ANALYSIS
Standards of Review
“Jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo.” Underdahl v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety,
I.
A driver may petition for judicial review of the revocation of his driver’s license within 30 days after receipt of a notice and order of revocation. Minn.Stat. § 169A.53, subd. 2(a) (2012). Service by mail of a notice and order of revocation is deemed effective three days after the notice and order is mailed to the driver’s last known address. Minn.Stat. § 169A.52, subd. 6 (2012). A failure to file a petition for judicial review within the 30-day statutory period deprives the district court of jurisdiction to hear the petition. Qualley v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety,
On February 2, 2012, the DVS notified Thole by mail that his driver’s license would be revoked. Thole does not dispute that service of the notice and order was effective on February 5, 2012. A petition for judicial review of the revocation of a driver’s license must be served and filed within 30 days of receipt of the notice and order of revocation. Minn.Stat. § 169A.53, subd. 2(a). Thole filed his petition on March 8, 2012, outside the timeframe allowed under the statute.
Thole asks this court to extend the 30-day statutory timeline. However, “[a]ppeal periods in statutory proceedings are peculiarly within the legislative domain, and the courts and administrative agencies have no power to extend or modify the periods of limitation prescribed by statute.” Langer v. Comm’r of Revenue,
II,
Thole argues that indigent parties in implied-consent cases should be granted court-appointed legal counsel just like indigent defendants in criminal cases. “Both the United States and the Minnesota Constitutions guarantee that ‘in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to ... have the assistance of counsel in his defense.’ ” Cox v. Slama,
Implied:consent cases are civil proceedings. State v. Dumas,
Thole points out that there is a right to court-appointed legal counsel in some civil proceedings, such as paternity actions and civil contempt cases. See Hepfel v. Bashaw,
We therefore hold, pursuant to our supervisory power to ensure the fair administration of justice, that in paternity adjudications counsel must be provided indigent defendants where the complainant is represented by the county attorney. We hold that counsel is required, not because we are constitutionally compelled to do so, but because, given the present adversary nature of paternity adjudications, there is no better method available to us to protect theimportant interests involved. It must be noted that the issue before us was narrowly limited to the right to counsel in paternity actions, which are, by their very nature, sui generis. Thus, our holding in no way affects the right of indigent defendants in other civil actions to court-appointed counsel.
Id. (emphasis added). The court explicitly did not rely on equal-protection or due-process arguments, which it deemed of “dubious contention.” Id,, at 344. Hepfel strictly limits the right to counsel to paternity actions. Id. It does not authorize the expansion of such a right to other civil proceedings. See id.
Thole asks this court to anticipate that the supreme court will apply its supervisory powers in the present matter, like in Hepfel. Supervisory authority is vested solely in the Minnesota Supreme Court. State v. Gilmartin,
Thole also cites Cox as support for his position. There, the supreme court held that, based upon its supervisory powers and its reasoning in Hepfel, indigent defendants in civil contempt proceedings alleging failure to pay child support must be given access to court-appointed legal counsel. Cox,
Thole asserts a due-process right to court-appointed legal counsel because of the threat to his liberty and an at least indirect financial interest in the loss of his driver’s license. But, as noted above, there is no threat to Thole’s liberty in a civil implied-consent proceeding. Thole contends that Hepfel and Cox justify the expansion of the right to court-appointed legal counsel to other civil matters if an indigent defendant can show that the appointment of legal counsel is necessary to avoid injustice in the form of (1) a direct financial interest and (2) at least an indirect threat to loss of liberty. Hepfel does not stand for this proposition. Hepfel specifically limits its holding to indigent defendants in paternity actions and unequivocally states that its holding is not meant to apply to other civil proceedings. See
The commissioner contends that Thole lacks standing to bring his due-process claims. In order to establish that Thole has standing to bring a claim of a due-process violation, he must show a direct and personal harm resulting from the alleged denial of his constitutional rights. Riehm v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety,
III.
Thole argues that the commissioner violated his due-process rights by failing to notify him how to obtain court-appointed legal counsel in the notice and order of revocation. The implied-consent laws outline what information the commissioner must provide drivers in a notice and order for revocation. See Minn.Stat. § 169A.52, subd. 6. “The notice must advise the person of the right to obtain administrative and judicial review.” Id.; see Minn. R. 7503.0900, subp. 4 (providing content of notice when served by DVS). Minnesota statutes and rules do not require a statement regarding court-appointed legal counsel in a notice and order of revocation. Parties in implied-consent proceedings have no right to court-appointed legal counsel, so inclusion of this statement in the notice and order would be erroneous.
IV.
Thole argues that because the notice and order of revocation failed to inform him how to access court-appointed legal counsel, the statute of limitations within which he was required to serve and file a petition for judicial review never commenced. Because he has no right to court-appointed legal counsel, his argument fails. The appellant in Garcia v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety,
Thole makes no argument that the notice and order failed to notify him that the appeal period had commenced, or was insufficient in any other way, other than that it failed to include Thole’s suggested — but inaccurate — statement of law on the right to legal counsel. The notice and order complied with the requirements of section 169A.52, subdivision 6. The deadline to serve and file a petition for judicial review expired 30 days after service of the notice and order. Thole served and filed his petition 32 days after service of the notice and order of revocation was deemed effective. His petition was untimely, and the district court properly dismissed it.
DECISION
Because indigent parties have no right to court-appointed legal counsel in implied-consent proceedings, Thole suffered no due-process violation when he was not provided court-appointed legal counsel. Further, the commissioner’s notice and order of revocation was sufficient, and the district court properly dismissed Thole’s untimely petition for judicial review for lack of jurisdiction.
Affirmed.