leskovarlm.com

Massachusetts Middlesex County Driving License Revocation Lawyers Attorney

by

Atchuthan Sriskandarajah

Michael R. Celata, III v. Registry of Motor Vehicles et al

SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX

January 13, 1995, Decided

Facts:

Mr. Celata was involved in a car accident in which the passenger in his vehicle was killed. The accident occurred after Mr. Celata and his passenger left a party Mr. Celata, 19 years old at the time, consumed three beers. The cause of the accident was determined to be operating too fast for existing conditions and alcohol. The driver’s license was revoked three years after he pled guilty to vehicular homicide while operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor. After the board upheld the revocation, the driver filed a compliant seeking judicial review. Appellant driver sought review of the decision of the Board of Appeals on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds (Massachusetts), which upheld appellee registry’s revocation of his driver’s license for a period of 10 years after he pled

guilty

to vehicular homicide while driving under the influence of liquor.

Issue:

Whether the Board of Appeals erred in upholding the revocation of the appellant driver s license?

Discussion:

This court agreed with the board’s finding that the driver intentionally acted to subvert both Massachusetts and Florida law when he obtained a Florida license under false pretenses. This court determined that the driver had no substantial right that was prejudiced by the agency’s action. This court also ruled that any error or law that resulted from the registry’s failure to revoke the driver’s licensee immediately after his conviction was harmless error. This court reasoned that the delay of three years did not prejudice a substantial right of the driver’s given the fact hat he continued to drive both before and after his license was revoked. This Court also finds that any error of law or procedure which resulted from the Registry’s failure to revoke Mr. Celata’s license immediately after his conviction was harmless error.G.L.c. 90 24 mandates the revocation of appellant’s license for a period of ten years. G.L.c. 90, 24(1)(c)(4) (1985 ed.). The Registry’s delay of three years did not prejudice a substantial right of Mr. Celata’s given that he continued to drive before and after his license was revoked. Thus, this Court finds that under any theory of relief, Mr. Celata has failed to meet the requirements of G.L.c. 30A, 14.

Conclusion:

This court hence affirmed the decision upholding the registry’s revocation of the driver’s license.

Disclaimer:These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm s unofficial views of the Justices opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

Atchuthan Sriskandarajah is a Virginia lawyer and owner of the SRIS Law Group. The SRIS Law Group has offices in Virginia, Maryland,

Massachusetts

, New York, North Carolina & California. The firm handles criminal/traffic defense, family law, immigration & bankruptcy cases.

Article Source:

ArticleRich.com