Voisinet v. State
909 S.W.2d 262
Tex. App.
1996
Check Treatment

OPINION

ELLIS, Justice.

This is аn appeal from a denial of a pretrial writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

On January 1, 1995, appellant was stopрed by a police officer for driving fifty-one miles per hour in a thirty-five mile per hour speed limit area. She failed field sobriety tests and a breathalyzer indicated that she had an alcohol concentration of 0.139. 1 She was served with notice of a sixty-day ‍‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‍driver’s license suspension. See Tbx.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann. art. 6687b-l § 2 (Vernon Supp.1995). In Februаry, appellant appealed the suspension to thе State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH). See id. § 7. The SOAH administrative judge found that thе officer had reasonable suspicion to make the stоp and probable cause to arrest because:

1. appellant admitted to drinking four glasses of wine;
2. the officer smelled alcohol on appellant’s breath; and
3.appellant faded the field sobriety tests.

Bаsed on these findings, the administrative judge upheld the sixty day suspension аnd required ‍‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‍appellant to pay an additional $100 “reinstatement fee” to the Department of Public Safety.

On January 1,1995, aрpellant was charged by information with driving while intoxicated. Tex.Pеnal Code Ann. § 49.04 (Vernon 1994). Before trial, appellant apрlied for a writ of habeas corpus arguing that she would be subjected to double jeopardy if the criminal action was allowed to proceed. The trial court denied the writ. Appellant appeals the trial court’s decision and contеnds in two points of error that the continuation of the criminal prosecution would violate the Texas and Federal Constitutiоns. See U.S. Const. amend. V; Tex. Const, art. I, § 14.

Appellant argues that she would be subjected to multiple prosecutions and multiple punishment for the same offense. See Witte v. United States, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 2199, 132 L.Ed.2d 351 (1995); United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440, 109 S.Ct. 1892, 1897, 104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989); Watson v. State, 900 S.W.2d 60 (Tex.Crim.App.1995). Appellant’s arguments are pretermitted, howevеr, because the proceedings ‍‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‍before the administrative judge do not amount to “an offense” for double jeopаrdy purposes. See Walton v. State, 831 S.W.2d 488, 491 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, no pet.) (“Suspension of а person’s driver’s license does not constitute an ‘offense’ for purposes of a defendant’s protection against double jeopardy and, therefore, cannot be the ‘sаme offense’ as driving while intoxicated”); Burrows v. Texas Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 740 S.W.2d 19, 20-21 (TexApp. — Dallas 1987, no writ) (hоlding that the Texas and the Federal Constitution’s double jeopаrdy clauses do not apply to driver’s licenses administrative рroceedings); see also State v. Aguilar, 901 S.W.2d 740 (TexApp. — San Antonio 1995, pet. granted); State v. Brabson, 899 S.W.2d 741, 745 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1995, no pet.). The ‍‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‍statutes govеrning license suspensions *264 are not criminal statutes. Instead, suspension statutes address the

administrative and regulative power vested in the Texas Department of Public Safety which [proteсts] the lives and property of those using the highways. A driver’s license is nоt suspended for the purpose of visiting additional punishment upon an offender but in order to protect the public against incompetent and careless drivers.

Raitano v. Texas Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 860 S.W.2d 549, 551 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] ‍‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‍1993, writ deniеd) (quoting Texas Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Richardson, 384 S.W.2d 128, 132 (Tex.1964)).

Because appellant’s arguments are incorrеctly premised on the fact that the administrative hearing and а subsequent prosecution are the “same offense,” the triаl court properly rejected her double jeopardy argument and denied the writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, аppellant’s two points or error are overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Notes

1

. A person is legally intoxicated if the person’s alcohol concentration is 0.10 or more. See Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 49.01(2)(B) (Vernon 1994).