California
Appeals
Standard of Review
DMV Hearing Continuance

Standard of Review-DMV hearing officer discretion  to grant a continuance pursuant to the applicable law-Bussard v. DMV

DISCUSSION

I.          Standard of Review

            A determination by the DMV to suspend an individual’s driver’s license is subject to judicial review in the trial court by means of a petition for writ of mandate.  (Veh. Code, § 13559; Brierton v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 499, 508.)  Section 13559, subdivision (a), of the Vehicle Code authorizes the trial court to rescind an order of suspension on several grounds, including that the DMV made a determination which was “not supported by the evidence in the record,” that it “exceeded its … statutory authority, made an erroneous interpretation of the law, [or] acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.…”  In the writ proceeding, the trial court exercises its independent judgment.  (Lake v. Reed (1997) 16 Cal.4th 448, 456.)

            On appeal, we ordinarily need only review the record to determine whether the trial court’s findings were supported by substantial evidence.  (Lake v. Reed, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 457.)  Here, however, the appeal is from the trial court’s ruling on a legal question -- i.e., whether the hearing officer had any discretion under the circumstances to grant a continuance pursuant to the applicable law.  When the dispositive issue is one of law, we exercise independent judgment.  (Villalobos v. Zolin (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 556, 558; Brierton v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at p. 508.)  Specifically, we must independently determine whether the hearing officer’s decision to grant a continuance was within the scope of her discretion.  An order granting or denying a continuance is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard.  (Mahoney v. Southland Mental Health Associates Medical Group (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 167, 172.)  Such decisions will be upheld unless a clear abuse is shown, amounting to a miscarriage of justice.  (Id. at p. 170; In re Marriage of Young (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 147, 153.)[1]

eBook Master Table of Contents   
Standard of Review-Table of Contents