Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...one year without notice, on information that the person whose license is suspended was involved in an automobile accident, resulting in the death of another. In suspending said license the Director of the Department of Public Safety proceeded under Section 322.27(1)(b), F.S.A., as follows: "(1) The department is hereby authorized to suspend the license of an operator or chauffeur without preliminary hearing upon a showing by its records or other sufficient evidence that the licensee: * * * * *...

...State, 345 So.2d 711 (Fla.1977); Stewart v. State, 586 So.2d 449 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). When a report of "a determination or admission of an infraction is received by the department, it shall proceed to enter the proper number of points on the licensee's driving record in accordance with s. 322.27." § 318.14(8), Fla. Stat. (1995) (emphasis supplied). Section 322.27(3), Florida Statutes (1995), provides for a point system for "convictions of violations of motor vehicle laws." In the same 1990 statute that changed section 322.01(10)'s definition of conviction, the legislature added section 318.14(1...

...State, 345 So.2d 711 (Fla.1977); Stewart v. State, 586 So.2d 449 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). When a report of "a determination or admission of an infraction is received by the department, it shall proceed to enter the proper number of points on the licensee's driving record in accordance with s. 322.27." § 318.14(8), Fla. Stat. (1995) (emphasis supplied). Section 322.27(3), Florida Statutes (1995), provides for a point system for "convictions of violations of motor vehicle laws." [4] This is in contrast to the treatment accorded traffic infractions by the Florida Rules of Traffic Procedure....

...product of the stop and not subject to suppression. [7] We therefore grant the petition for writ of certiorari, quash the order under review, and remand with instructions to reverse the county court's order granting the motion to suppress. NOTES [1] Section 322.27(5), Florida Statutes (1989), states: "The department shall revoke the license of any person designated a habitual offender, as set forth in s. 322.264, and such person shall not be eligible to be relicensed for a minimum of 5 years from the date of revocation, except as provided for in s. 322.271." [2] Probable cause exists where the officer has "knowledge of facts and circumstances which would warrant an individual of reasonable caution in believing that an offense had been committed." Cross v....

...he following offenses arising out of separate acts: * * * (d) Driving a motor vehicle while his or her license is suspended or revoked. The Department's authority to revoke an individual's driver's license pursuant to section 322.264 may be found in section 322.27(5), Florida Statutes (1997), which provides: (5) The department shall revoke the license of any person designated a habitual offender, as set forth in s. 322.264, and such person shall not be eligible to be relicensed for a minimum of 5 years from the date of revocation, except as provided for in s. 322.271. (emphasis added). However, in referring specifically to the revocation provided for in the above subsection, section 322.271(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1997), states: (b) A person whose driving privilege has been revoked under s. 322.27(5) may, upon expiration of 12 months from the date of such revocation, petition the department for restoration of his or her driving privilege....

...s maintained by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, shows that such person has accumulated the specified number of convictions for offenses described in subsection (1) or subsection (2), within a five year period." (Emphasis added). Section 322.27(5), Florida Statutes, mandates that the Department revoke the license of anyone designated an habitual offender....

...Following this plea, the trial court sentenced the defendant to pay a fine of $253. On August 24, 2001, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (the Department) determined that following his DWLSR plea, Bolware was a habitual traffic offender and thus revoked his driver's license for five years pursuant to section 322.27(5), Florida Statutes (2001)....

...In contrast to the statutes at issue in Daniels and other cases, in which the court revoked the driver's licenses of certain drug offenders, see, e.g., § 322.055, Fla. Stat. (2007), or of defendants convicted of DUI manslaughter, see, e.g., § 322.28(2)(e), Fla. Stat. (2007), section 322.27(5) leaves it to the Department to revoke the license of a habitual traffic offender....

...he trial court to be responsible for notifying a defendant of a potential consequence of a plea and conviction the consequence must be immediate and direct, and in Bolware's case the consequence was not immediate or direct since any revocation under section 322.27(5) is to be determined by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, and not by the sentencing court....

...It is sometimes virtually impossible to perform the ordinary functions of life without ready access to a motor vehicle. Thus, having a driver's license is often not just a desire but a necessity. It also seems to me that the punishment of license revocation is also largely automatic. Section 322.27(5) provides, in pertinent part, that "The [Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles] shall revoke the license of any person designated a habitual offender." § 322.27(5), Fla....

...NOTES [1] This section provides: The department shall revoke the license of any person designated a habitual offender, as set forth in s. 322.264, and such person shall not be eligible to be relicensed for a minimum of 5 years from the date of revocation, except as provided for in s. 322.271. Any person whose license is revoked may, by petition to the department, show cause why his or her license should not be revoked. § 322.27(5), Fla....

...le to pass the examination. On April 7, 1952, the appellant, through his attorneys, wrote the Department requesting reference to the statutory authority under which such action was taken and was advised by the Department under date of April 14, that Section 322.27, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., authorized the Department to suspend a license without hearing "upon a showing by its records or other sufficient evidence that the licensee has done one or more of several acts, one of which is, `Incompetent...

...or and demonstrating his competency to drive." It should be noted at the outset that the Department did not charge the appellant with being "incompetent to drive a motor vehicle", which would have been a ground for suspension under the provisions of Section 322.27, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.; it merely advised the appellant that his "ability to operate a motor vehicle in a safe manner is questionable," and directed him to take a driver's examination (and, although this is not material to the issue...

...Woodmansee, 11 Cal. App.2d 595, 54 P.2d 519; Rawson v. Department of Licenses, Wash., 130 P.2d 876; Application of Wignall, 278 App.Div. 28, 103 N.Y.S.2d 7. There is nothing in our statutes authorizing the procedure here followed by the Department. Section 322.27, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., authorizes the Department to suspend without preliminary hearing a driver's license upon a showing by its records or other sufficient evidence that the licensee is "incompetent to drive a motor vehicle", and...

...March 7, 1962. *514 Edward C. Flood, Bartow, for appellant. Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Joseph C. Jacobs, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. THORNAL, Justice. By direct appeal we have for review an order of a circuit judge upholding the validity of Section 322.27, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. We must determine the validity of Section 322.27, supra, which establishes a so-called "point system" for evaluating such convictions of motor vehicle laws or ordinances as will support the suspension of a driver's license....

...On February 2, 1961, the Florida Department of Public Safety suspended Jones' motor vehicle operator's license for a period of three months. The announced reason for the suspension was the "accumulation of eighteen points within eighteen months" as defined by Section 322.27, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...We are not requested to reverse the subject order which sustained the validity of the statute. The principal ground urged for reversal is the absence of a provision in the statute requiring a hearing as a condition precedent to the suspension of a driver's license. Section 322.27(2) is a legislative enactment establishing a so-called "point system" for the evaluation of convictions of violations of laws or ordinances "for the determination of the continuing qualification of any person to operate a motor vehicle...

...By the statute the Legislature enumerated the various types of offenses which would support a suspension. It also provided for each conviction a stipulated number of points which shall be recorded in arriving at the total during any specific period. By Section 322.271, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., the Department of Public Safety is required to notify a licensee immediately upon the entry of a suspension order....

...By Section 322.31, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., any final adverse ruling by the Department may be subject to review within thirty days in the circuit court in the licensee's county of residence. *515 The principal insistence of appellant Jones is that Section 322.27, supra, contains no provision for a hearing prior to the initial entry of a suspension order by the Department when such order is grounded on the total number of points accumulated over the period of time provided by the statute....

...s provided. The Florida Statute meets this rule. Appellant Jones also urges that appellee's letter of advice describing the various offenses leading to the suspension of his driver's license did not describe such offenses in the specific language of Section 322.27, supra....

...Section 322.264 defines a "habitual traffic offender" as a person whose driving record, as maintained by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV), reflects three or more convictions for specified moving traffic offenses (including driving while license suspended), occurring within five years. Section 322.27(5) requires the DHSMV to revoke the license of a person designated as a habitual traffic offender for a minimum of five years....

...Patterson's case, therefore, is distinguishable from Beach, Hlad, and their progeny because his conviction rests on a substantially different statutory structure. Mr. Patterson does not challenge the validity of the civil disability imposed by sections 322.264 and 322.27(5)....

...This cause is before us on appeal from a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, denying Appellant's petition for writ of certiorari. [1] In its opinion, the District Court passed upon the validity of Sections 322.264 [2] (Habitual traffic offender defined) and 322.27(5) [3] (Authority of department to suspend or revoke license), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., giving this Court jurisdiction of the direct appeal under Article V, Section 3(b)(3) of the Constitution of the State of Florida, F.S.A. The facts of the case are as follows: On November 15, 1971, Appellant had his driving privilege suspended for a period of one (1) year for the accumulation of 24 points within thirty-six months, in compliance with the provisions of Section 322.27(2)(c), [4] Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...nses for which points were assessed: as a result, Appellee suspended Appellant's driving privilege effective February 22, 1973, for a period of five (5) years. In the District Court, Appellant challenged the constitutionality of Sections 322.264 and 322.27(5), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., alleging that they: deny substantive due process; are not reasonably related to the health, safety, welfare, or morals of the people; constitute a denial of equal protection; operate in an ex post facto fashion; and constitute a cruel and unusual punishment....

...has accumulated the convictions for separate offenses described in subsections (1), (2) and (3), committed within a five-year period: ... "... (2) Fifteen (15) convictions for moving traffic offenses for which points may be assessed as set forth in section 322.27, Florida Statutes, including those offenses in subsection (1)." [3] "(5) The department shall revoke the license of any person designated an habitual offender, as set forth in section 322.264, and such person shall not be eligible to be relicensed for a minimum of five (5) years from the date of revocation....

...shall be for a period of not more than one year." [5] City of Miami v. Aronovitz, 114 So.2d 784 (Fla. 1959). [6] 62 So.2d 740 (Fla. 1953). [7] Smith v. City of Gainesville, 93 So.2d 105 (Fla. 1957). [8] Section 322.264, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. [9] Section 322.27(2)(d), Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...(5) is a “moving violation,” see § 322.34(1); and the cancellation, suspension, or revocation of a driver’s license under subsection (2) is based on the number of “points ” a driver has accumulated pursuant to the point system provided in section 322.27 over a certain period of time, whereas subsection (5) is based on the number of convictions for the offenses listed in sections 322.264(1) and (2) over a five-year period....

...unlawful driving as a habitual traffic offender under subsection (5) constitute different degrees of the same offense. Under the Florida Statutes, suspension of a driver’s license is based upon a point system or the commission of certain offenses. Section 322.27, Florida Statutes (2012), which governs driver’s license suspension, provides: (1) Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in chapter 120, the department may suspend the license or identification card of any person without pre...

...]] (5) The department shall revoke the license of any person designated a habitual offender, as set forth in s. 322.264, and such person is not eligible to be relicensed for a minimum of 5 years from the date of revocation, except as provided for in s. 322.271. A review of the habitual traffic offender statute demonstrates that a number of the offenses detailed in section 322.27 serve as predicates for qualifying a person as a habitual traffic offender....

...le crash resulting in the death or personal injury of another; or (f) Driving a commercial motor vehicle while his or her privilege is disqualified. (2) Fifteen convictions for moving traffic offenses for which points may be assessed as set forth in s. 322.27, including those offenses in subsection (1)....

...(2012) (emphasis supplied). Thus, upon three convictions of driving with a suspended or revoked license within a five-year period, a driver not only qualifies as a habitual traffic offender under section 322.264, but revocation of his or her license is mandatory. § 322.27(5), Fla....

...(“The department shall revoke the license of any person designated a habitual offender....” (emphasis supplied)). Moreover, while a certain number of points assessed against a driver within twelve, eighteen, or twenty-four months can lead to license suspension under section 322.27(3), fifteen convictions under the same point system within a five-year period leads to mandatory license revocation as a habitual traffic offender. §§ 322.264(2), 322.27(5), Fla....

...The Florida Legislature has chosen to penalize habitual traffic offenders — drivers who have been convicted of specified offenses multiple times within a five-year period — more severely by revoking their licenses for a mandatory term of five years rather than using a sliding scale of punishment like that employed in section 322.27(3) for drivers who are not habitual traffic offenders....

...The decision of the Third District in Gil is quashed, and the decisions in Dees, Duff, and Franklin are approved to the extent they are consistent with our holding today. It is so ordered. PARIENTE, QUINCE, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur. POLSTON, C.J., and CANADY, J., concur in result. . Section 322.27(5), Florida Statutes (2012), states: "The [Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles] shall revoke the license of any person designated a habitual offender, as set forth in s. 322.264, and such person is not eligible to be relicensed for a minimum of 5 years from the date of revocation, except as provided for in s. 322.271.” ....

...(2012) (failure to pay child support). . Further, if a third conviction under the DWLS provision occurs within a five-year period, the driver will be designated as a habitual traffic offender, which entails a mandatory five-year license revocation under section 322.27(5)....

...(Emphasis supplied.) Furthermore, DHSMV "shall revoke the license of any person designated a habitual offender, as set forth in s. 322.264, and such person shall not be eligible to be relicensed for a minimum of 5 years from the date of revocation, except as provided for in s. 322.271." § 322.27(5), Fla....

...privilege": Any person who operates a motor vehicle: (a) Without having a driver's license as required under s. 322.03; or (b) While his or her driver's license or driving privilege is canceled, suspended, or revoked pursuant to s. 316.655, s. 322.26(8), s. 322.27(2), or s....

...habitual." Today's decision allows the appellant—and now every potential habitual traffic offender—to escape punishment by exploiting an instance of imprecise statutory drafting. I am also concerned that the majority's reading of sections 322.264, 322.27(5) and 322.34(5) as operating only against licensed persons not only obstructs legislative intent as to those provisions, but also affects the operation of any other provisions in chapter 322 that may lack the phrase "or driving privilege." Fo...

...Crain has any sort of statutory privilege to drive; instead, it argues that all individuals have a due process right in the privilege to obtain a driver's license. [5] The Second District reasoned that, since the Legislature used the term "driving privilege" in section 322.271(1)(b) when referring to section 322.27(5), which uses the term "driver's license," the Legislature intended the terms "to mean the same thing and to apply equally to either situation." Carroll v....

...Bletcher, 763 So.2d 1277, 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (reversing trial court's dismissal of charge under section 322.34(5), citing Carroll ); see also Newton v. State, 898 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (per curiam affirmance citing Carroll and Bletcher ). [6] For example, section 322.271(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2009), which is referenced in section 322.27(5), provides that a "person whose driving privilege has been revoked under s. 322.27(5) may, upon expiration of 12 months from the date of such revocation, petition the department for reinstatement of his or her driving privilege." But, section 322.27(5), Florida Statutes (2009), states that DHSMV shall revoke a habitual offender's license.

...ense. The trial court erred in reducing the charge. Because the defendant was a habitual traffic offender, his driver's license was revoked, and he was not eligible to be relicensed for a minimum of five years from the date of revocation. Fla. Stat. § 322.27(5) (1997); see Lord v....

...Dickenson, 906 So.2d 316, 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Dickenson v. Aultman, 905 So.2d 169, 171-72 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Doyon v. Dept. of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 902 So.2d 842, 844 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). In response to these cases, the legislature enacted section 322.2715, Florida Statutes (2005). Among other things, this provision authorized the Department to require the installation of the device whenever the sentencing court failed to order its mandatory placement. See § 322.2715(4), Fla....

...UI offenders to install the device cannot be considered part of their criminal sentences. See Embrey v. Dickenson, 906 So.2d at 318 (finding the Department lacked the independent authority to impose [this] criminal punishment prior to the passage of section 322.2715); Dickenson v....

...vil Procedure 1.220(a) have been met, including numerosity, commonality, and typicality. [3] We note that the Department currently can require the device on convicted DUI offenders if the sentencing court fails to order its mandatory placement ( see § 322.2715(4)) or upon review of the offender's application for license reinstatement ( see § 322.271(2)(d))....

...certainly to anything other than damages. A second DUI conviction for which the trial court should have required the device does not alter the fact that the Department had no such authority with regard to persons convicted before July 1, 2005, when section 322.2715, Florida Statutes (2005), took effect....

...Bolware had entered a plea of no contest to driving while his license was suspended or revoked, and was ordered to pay a fine. Several months later, the Department determined he was an habitual traffic offender and revoked his license for five years pursuant to section 322.27(5)....

...Appellants also alleged that class members who committed their offenses of driving under the influence prior to July 1, 2005, and who were not required by any court to use an ignition interlock device, could not be required by the Department to install such devices pursuant to section 322.2715(4), Florida Statutes (2005)....

...atement of his Florida driving privilege. There is no question presented claiming error in the proceedings or on the merits. The sole basis upon which the petition is presented is the petitioner's contention that Fla. Stat. § 322.264 and Fla. Stat. § 322.27(5), F.S.A., respectively entitled, "Habitual traffic offender defined", and "Authority of department to suspend or revoke license", are unconstitutional....

...It should be noted, in the case presently before the court, that two of the traffic violations occurred after the effective date of the statutes (July 1, 1972). The second line of argument directed to the alleged unconstitutionality of the statutes is appellant's contention that Fla. Stat. § 322.264 and Fla. Stat. § 322.27(5), F.S.A., fail to require that any of the moving violations occur after the effective date of the statutes....

...§ 322.264(2), F.S.A., in setting the conditions for revoking a license, specifically provides that a "habitual traffic offender" can be a person who has accumulated "[f]ifteen (15) convictions for moving traffic offenses for which points may be assessed as set forth in section 322.27, Florida Statutes ...". (emphasis supplied) (Fla. Stat. § 322.27(4), F.S.A., requires that the department "......

...*624 Instead of requesting a record review pursuant to the notice, the petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the circuit court. The circuit court denied the petition on the ground that the petitioner had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. Florida Statutes § 322.27(7) and § 322.31 (1997) provide that review of a final order revoking a driver's license is by petition for writ of certiorari filed in the circuit court....

...Callahan contends that a trial court does not have the authority to revoke or suspend a driver's license except in such instances where a defendant is convicted of driving under the influence or any other offense regulating the operation of a motor vehicle as specified under sections 322.28(2)(a) and 322.27(2), Florida Statutes (1987)....

...ce he did not object to the condition, he did not preserve the issue for our review. See McPike v. State, 473 So.2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Even though the 1987 version of chapter 322 limits the power of the trial court to suspend drivers' licenses, section 322.27(2), Florida Statutes (1987), provides that the trial court may direct the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to suspend a driver's license, "when the court feels that the seriousness of the offense and the circumstances su...

...(DWLSR) was not voluntary because he was not informed prior to the plea that as a consequence of the conviction (apparently his third), the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles could revoke his driver's license for five years pursuant to section 322.27(5), Florida Statutes....

...ked pursuant to s. 322.264 (habitual offender) and who drives any motor vehicle upon the highways of this state while such license is revoked is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Section 322.27(5) provides for the revocation of the license of a habitual traffic offender as follows: The department shall revoke the license of any person designated a habitual offender, as set forth in s. 322.264, and such person shall not be eligible to be relicensed for a minimum of 5 years from the date of revocation, except as provided for in s. 322.271. Any person whose license is revoked may, by petition to the department, show cause why his or her license should not be revoked. A person whose license has been revoked under section 322.27(5) may petition the Department for restoration of driving privileges "[a]t the expiration of 5 years from the date of license revocation." § 322.331....

...The Department will thereafter investigate the petitioner's qualification and fitness to drive and hold an administrative hearing to determine whether to restore driving privileges completely or on a restricted basis. Id. There is no ambiguity in this statutory framework. Under section 322.27(5), when Blandin's license was revoked as a habitual traffic offender in August 1992, it was revoked "for a minimum of 5 years." After five years, Blandin was eligible to be relicensed, but relicensing was not automatic....

...nt of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles denying petitioner's request for reinstatement of his driver's license. On October 29, 1973, respondent issued an order revoking petitioner's driver's license for a period of five years under the provisions of § 322.27(5), F.S.A....

...The petitioner's primary contention is that he was not afforded a hearing prior to the revocation of his driver's license. Petitioner recognizes that the Florida Supreme Court has previously upheld the revocation of a driver's license under the "point system" established by § 322.27(2), F.S.A., without a presuspension hearing....

...opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case' before the termination becomes effective. .. ." Some distinction can be made between the suspension under the Georgia Financial Responsibility Act and the suspension or revocation under § 322.27, F.S.A. [3] However, we believe that if the issue of prehearings under § 322.27 were revisited in the Florida Supreme Court in light of Bell , a result different than Jones and Thornhill might now obtain....

...ing no opportunity for a prerevocation or presuspension hearing by one who has never had a hearing either before or after the fact, we think it likely that a court might now hold the prehearing to be constitutionally necessary. [6] We see nothing in § 322.27, F.S.A....

...Pennsylvania. [4] An attack against the Habitual Traffic Offender law on other grounds was recently rejected in Zarsky v. State, Fla. 1974, 300 So.2d 261, Opinion filed June 19, 1974. [5] A person threatened with the revocation of his license under § 322.27(5) is only entitled to raise at the hearing such matters as those which relate to whether or not he, in fact, was the recipient of fifteen moving traffic offenses within the applicable time period. He cannot attack the sufficiency of the convictions themselves. See Reese v. Kassab, supra . [6] A prehearing should not be confused with that provided in § 322.271 in which all those whose licenses have been suspended or revoked, excepting habitual traffic offenders, are permitted a hearing for the purpose of attempting to have their licenses restored on a restricted basis due to hardship....

...did not charge a crime. We reverse with directions to reinstate Count I. After appellee, Richard E. Phillips, had been designated a "habitual traffic offender" in 1998 under section 322.264, Florida Statutes (1997), [1] his license was revoked under section 322.27(5), Florida Statutes (1997)....

...tionally deficient, because it referred to section 322.264 as authority for the revocation of Phillips' license, whereas the latter statute only defined the criteria for finding a person to be a habitual traffic offender. The court acknowledged that section 322.27(5) authorizes the revocation of a driver's license of a person who is designated a habitual offender under section 322.264, but reasoned that the reference to that statute in the information could not correct the facial deficiency of section 322.34(5). The court observed that section 322.34(5)'s constitutional infirmity could be cured by the legislature simply amending the language therein by substituting section 322.27(5) for section 322.264....

...In our judgment, the statute fairly placed Phillips on notice of the offense for which he was accused. While we agree with the lower court that Phillips' driver's license was not revoked in accordance with the provisions of section 322.264, but rather those of section 322.27(5), which provides, as stated, for the revocation of a license of anyone defined as a habitual offender, we cannot agree that such reference renders section 322.34(5) constitutionally invalid....

...efined by section 322.264. REVERSED and REMANDED with directions. BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., CONCUR. NOTES [1] This statute identifies a habitual traffic offender as one who has compiled a number of specified convictions within a five-year period. [2] Section 322.27(5) provides: The department shall revoke the license of any person designated a habitual offender, as set forth in s....

...[4] Count I charged Phillips as follows: JERRY M. BLAIR, State Attorney of the Third Judicial Circuit of Florida, charges that RICHARD EUGENE PHILLIPS on or about the seventh day of SEPTEMBER, 2001, in COLUMBIA County, Florida, while his driver's license had been revoked pursuant to F.S. 322.27(5) (Habitual Offender), did drive a motor vehicle upon the highways of this state, contrary to Florida Statute 322.34(5).

...artment's order revoking Larry Rosenthal's driver's license. Because we conclude that the circuit court failed to apply the correct law, we grant the Department's certiorari petition and quash the circuit court's order. Background Acting pursuant to section 322.27(5), Florida Statutes (2002), the Department revoked Rosenthal's driver's license for five years as a habitual traffic offender....

...of law articulated by the supreme court in Raulerson. We therefore turn to an examination of the pertinent provisions in chapter 322 and of the holding in Raulerson. Our analysis will also involve a provision of chapter 318, Florida Statutes (2002). Section 322.27(5) provides that "[t]he department shall revoke the license of any person designated a habitual offender, as set forth in s....

...iew the propriety of this revocation. Thus, the facts in this opinion come solely from the documents included in the appendix. [2] Although it revoked the license and did not suspend it, the DHSMV presumably based its actions on sections 322.251 and 322.27, Florida Statutes (1999). Section 322.27 provides, in part: [T]he department is hereby authorized to suspend the license of any person without preliminary hearing upon a showing of its records or other sufficient evidence that the licensee: (A) Has committed an offense for which mandatory revocation is required upon conviction....

chapter 322 to add a requirement — codified at section 322.27(5) — that the Department revoke the license

...Appellant contends that the circuit court erred by failing to dismiss appellee's petition for certiorari upon the ground that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction. We agree. By appellant's order of April 10, 1973, appellee's driving privilege in the State of Florida was revoked effective April 15, 1973, pursuant to § 322.27(5), Fla....

...results in classification as a habitual traffic offender. § 322.264(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2000). Also, a revocation may result from "[f]ifteen convictions for moving traffic offenses for which points may be assessed." § 322.264(2), Fla. Stat. (2000). Section 322.27(5) requires the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to revoke the license of any person "designated a habitual offender" as set forth in section 322.264....

...ense in "any case where DUI manslaughter occurs and the person has no prior convictions for DUI-related offenses," subject to the ability to petition the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles for reinstatement after five years, pursuant to section 322.271(4), Florida Statutes (2000).

...FRANK, A.C.J., and THREADGILL and PATTERSON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] In Travis v. State, 549 So.2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), it was stated that the trial court could recommend the revocation of a driver's license upon commission of a felony in which a motor vehicle is used pursuant to section 322.27(2), Florida Statutes (1987), "upon direction of the court, when the court feels that the seriousness of the offense and the circumstances surrounding the conviction warrant the suspension of the licensee's driver's privilege." However, a close reading of that statute discloses that section 322.27(2) applies solely to suspensions for offenses under the Motor Vehicles Statutes....

...Urban, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner. Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Thomas M. Carney, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent. MAGER, Judge. Petitioner seeks review by certiorari of an order of license revocation (entered under F.S. Section 322.27(5), F.S.A.) wherein petitioner is designated as an habitual traffic offender, as defined in Section 322.264, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...Petitioner contends that the provisions of Section 322.264, the habitual traffic offender law, are ex post facto and unconstitutional because revocation is dependent upon offenses occuring prior to the enactment of such law. Petitioner further contends that Section 322.27(5), Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...not disturb them." In Jones, supra, the Supreme Court similarly observed: "Organic requirements are met in the legislative prescriptions are clear and reasonable, and, a fair opportunity to test the validity of the suspension order is provided... ." Section 322.27(5) which provides for the revocation of the license of any person designated as an habitual offender also contains the following language: "......

...to be heard on his petition and if necessary to be afforded an evidentiary hearing. [2] *547 In light of the foregoing the petition for certiorari is denied without prejudice to the petitioner to seek review of his revocation in accordance with Sec. 322.27(5), Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...ed its order occurred subsequently to July 1, 1972. [2] An appellate court is not the proper forum either for the conduct of an evidentiary hearing or for the relitigation of issues of fact. The scope and extent of a hearing accorded under F.S. Sec. 322.27(5), F.S.A., must be dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case....

...iring in subsection (2) the reinstatement of the person’s “driving privilege” under certain circumstances); § 322.091(1), Fla. Stat. (2016) (seemingly equating “driving privileges” with “driver license or learner’s driver license”); § 322.271(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2016) (stating, “[a] person whose driving privilege has been revoked under s. 322.27(5),” but section 322.27(5) speaks only of the revocation of a driver’s license)....

...operating motor vehicles” to persons who have demonstrated their indifference to the safety of others and their disrespect for the laws and orders); § 322.23(1), Fla. Stat. (2016) (stating, “[t]he privilege of driving . . . given to a nonresident”); § 322.271(1)(a), Fla....

...(5) is a “moving violation,” see § 322.34(1); and the cancellation, suspension, or revocation of a driver’s license under subsection (2) is based on the number of “points” a driver has accumulated pursuant to the point system provided in section 322.27 over a certain period of time, whereas subsection (5) is based on the number of convictions for the offenses listed in sections 322.264(1) and (2) over a five-year period. When a driver’s license is suspended under section 322.34(2) it is because the driver has accumulated a specific number of “points” or upon a conviction for certain offenses. Section 322.27(3) provides for the assessment of points: four points for reckless driving; six points for leaving the scene of an accident resulting in property damage of more than $50; six points for driving at an unlawful speed resulting in a crash...

...d limits; four points for violating certain traffic control devices; three points for all other moving violations; three points for any conviction under section 403.413(6)(b); and four points for any conviction under section 316.0775(2). Pursuant to section 322.27(3) when a licensee accumulates a certain number of points during a specific period of time, his license shall be suspended for a certain number of days: (a) When a licensee accumulates 12 points within a 12-month period, the period of suspension shall be for not more than 30 days....

...period of not more than 3 months. (c) When a licensee accumulates 24 points, including points upon which suspension action is taken under paragraphs (a) and (b), within a 36-month period, the suspension shall be for a period of not more than 1 year. Section 322.27 also provides for suspension of a driver’s license where mandated by law, for example: after a conviction for violation of a traffic law that resulted in a crash that caused the death or personal injury of another or property damage in excess of $500, under section 322.27(1)(b); if the driver is incompetent to drive a motor vehicle, under section 322.27(l)(c), etc....

...to impose the actual suspension. See Moreland v. State, 442 So.2d 1002 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Hence, upon remand, the court should delete the suspension order and substitute a direction to the Department that it suspend Travis’ license as provided in section 322.27, Florida Statutes....

not a habitual traffic offender pursuant to section 322.27(5). This court has held in Department of Safety

...presumed as to other citizens, petitioner seeks the restoration of his driver’s license which was lawfully suspended on the occasion of his incompetency adjudication. The authority to suspend a driver’s license upon such adjudication is found in Section 322.27, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and Section 322.27(1) (c)....

...Rules of Appellate Procedure only by a writ of certiorari issued by the circuit court in the county wherein such person shall reside, in the manner prescribed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, any provision in chapter 120 to the contrary notwithstanding.” See also § 322.27 (7), Fla....

...to follow the essential requirements of law when it revoked Brownstein’s driving privileges and denied reinstatement of such privileges. We reverse. In May, 1972, Brownstein’s driving privileges were suspended by the Department as authorized by Section 322.27, Florida Statutes....

...tional driving convictions while driving his car during the revocation period. The Department entered an order in September, 1974, revoking Brownstein’s driving privileges for a period of five (5) years as an habitual offender, as authorized under Section 322.27(5), supra....

...ng privileges. In July, 1976, after hearing, his petition was denied. Brownstein then filed his petition for certiorari, the order on which is here on review. Brownstein’s petition for certiorari in the circuit court alleges that Sections 322.264, 322.27(5) and (6), and 322.271, Florida Statutes, known as the Florida habitual traffic offender act, are unconstitutional....

MILLS, Judge. Bolden appeals from the denial of her petition for writ of certiorari. She contends the Division of Driver Licenses does not have the authority to suspend driving privileges under Section 322.27, Florida Statutes (1983), for participation in the process of obtaining a driver’s license by fraudulent means, where no license was actually obtained....

...Following this, Bolden was escorted to the administrative office where she was asked by the office supervisor if she was in fact Terri Ann Bolden. She admitted that she was not. As a result of her actions, Bolden had her future driving privileges suspended for one year in accordance with Section 322.27(l)(d), Florida Statutes (1983). It is to this suspension that the petition for writ of certiorari was sought below. The question in this case is whether the word “obtaining,” as used in Section 322.27(l)(d), requires a completed act, or whether that word merely denotes the process of acquisition....

...clearly erroneous or unauthorized,” its interpretation should be afforded great weight. Gay v. Canada Dry Bottling Co. of Florida, 59 So.2d 788, 790 (Fla.1952). In the present case, Bolden has not met this evidentiary burden. Nor does a reading of Section 322.27 show that the Department’s construction of the word “obtaining” is clearly erroneous, especially in light of the final sentence which reads: “Provided, however, no provision of this section shall be construed to include the provisions of s. 322.32(1).” By expressly excluding the first portion of Section 322.32, it would appear the legislature intended to specifi *193 cally incorporate the remaining sections of the statute. Accordingly, we find Section 322.27(l)(d) can properly be read to cover not only the actual obtaining of a false license but the fraudulent application for one as well....

...accumulated [three or more] convictions for [certain enumerated] offenses” set forth in section 322.264, Florida Statutes, or who has accumulated “[f]ifteen convictions for moving traffic offenses for which points may be assessed as set forth in s. 322.27.” § 322.264, Fla. Stat. (2016). Once an individual is designated as an HTO, Florida law requires that DHSMV revoke the individual’s driver license for a period of five years. See § 322.27 (5)(a) (“The department shall revoke the license of any person designated a habitual offender, as set forth in s. 322.264, and such person is not eligible to be relicensed for a minimum of 5 years from the date of revocation, except as provided for in s. 322.271....

...Appellee, Steven James Argeros, had his driving privilege suspended by appellant, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, State of Florida, for a period of one year for the accumulation of twenty-four points within thirty-six months as authorized by Section 322.27(2) (c), Florida Statutes 1973....

...We must agree. The Florida Supreme Court has clearly indicated that the failure of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to provide the individual who has accumulated sufficient points to warrant suspension of his driver’s license under § 322.27 with notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the suspension of the individual’s license does not deprive the individual of procedural due process....

...This is a petition for certiorari review of a final order entered by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles revoking petitioner’s driver’s license for a period of five years as a result of his having been classified as an habitual traffic offender pursuant to Section 322.264 and Section 322.27(5), Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...umulated the convictions for separate offenses described in subsections (1), (2) and (3), committed within a five-year period: % ;{c % i}c % “(2) Fifteen (15) convictions for moving traffic offenses for which points may be assessed as set forth in section 322.27, Florida Statutes, including those offenses in subsection (1).” The latter statutory provision provides: “322.27(5) The department shall revoke the license of any person designated an habitual offender, as set forth in section 322.264, and such person shall not be eligible to be relicensed for a minimum of five (5) years from the date of revocation....

...Any person whose license is revoked may, by petition to the department, show cause why his license should not be revoked. “(6) Review of an order of suspension or revocation shall be by writ of certio-rari as provided in chapter 120, Florida Statutes, the uniform administrative procedure act.” *354 Subsection (6) of Section 322.27 merely provides for review of an order of revocation or suspension by writ of certiorari as provided by Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., in the manner generally provided for review of quasi-judicial orders of administrative agencies....

...However, the record belies that contention. It clearly appears that following the respondent’s order of revocation dated July 18, 1973, the petitioner under date of September 14, 1973, filed a “Petition to Show Cause” why his license should not be revoked which is in conformance with Section 322.27(5), Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...In the face of this record, we cannot say that the respondent departed from the essential requirements of law in revoking petitioner’s license for five years. The legislature expressly provided that the driver’s license of an habitual offender “shall” be revoked “for a minimum of five years” [Sec. 322.27(5), Florida Statutes, F.S.A.], and that is precisely what the respondent agency did....

...r her normal business or employment to support oneself or his or her family, persons whose driver’s license are revoked as an habitual offender were expressly excepted from being qualified for restricted use of their license for business purposes. Section 322.271, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

Safety and Motor Vehicles taken pursuant to F.S. § 322.27(5) which requires the Department to revoke the

...law. Hagar was classified as an habitual traffic offender pursuant to section 322.264 2 of the Florida Statutes (1989). The department issued an order on September 20, 1989 revoking Hagar’s driving privileges for a period of five years pursuant to section 322.27(5) 3 of the Florida Statutes *216 (1989)....

...Hagar does not contest that he was convicted in Alabama for these three traffic violations. He was aware of these convictions and he could have altered his conduct accordingly rather than hope that these Alabama convictions would not catch up with him. Hagar also argues that section 322.27(3)(f) 5 of the Florida Statutes (1989) somehow creates a duty upon the department to send some sort of warning letter to an individual who may be approaching the danger zone of having his or her license suspended for accumulated points. We find this argument to be without merit. Section 322.27(3)(f) does not mandate but instead merely authorizes the department to send a warning letter advising that any future convictions may result in a driver’s *217 license suspension....

...Assuming, arguendo, that the department was mandated to send a warning letter, the department, on March 30, 1988, sent Hagar notice of a thirty-day suspension based on the fact that he had accumulated twelve points within twelve months pursuant to section 322.27(3)(a) of the Florida Statutes (1987)....

...We also note that chapter 322 of the Florida Statutes (1989) does not prescribe any time limitation or period in which the department may take action to suspend or revoke the driver’s license of an individual who has accumulated fifteen moving traffic violations in a period of five years. §§ 322.27, 332.264, Fla.Stat....

...as accumulated the specified number of convictions for offenses described in subsection (1) or subsection (2) within a 5-year period: [[Image here]] (2) Fifteen convictions for moving traffic offenses for which points may be assessed as set forth in § 322.27, including those offenses in subsection (1). . § 322.27 Authority of department to suspend or revoke license.— ****** (5) The department shall revoke the license of any person designated a habitual offender, as set forth in § 322.264, and such person shall not be eligible to be relicensed for a minimum of 5 years from the date of revocation, except as provided for in § 322.271....

...— The department is authorized to suspend or revoke the license of any resident of the state, upon receiving notice of the conviction of such person in another state of an offense therein which, if committed in this state, would be grounds for the suspension or revocation of his license. . § 322.27 Authority of department to suspend or revoke license.— ****** (3) There is established a point system for evaluation of convictions of violations of motor vehicle laws or ordinances, and violations of applicable provisions of s....

...See also § 322.032(3) (providing for the development of "digital proof of driver's license" on the same terms required for "issuance of a physical driver's license"). In 1972, the legislature amended chapter 322 to add a requirement— codified at section 322.27(5)—that the Department revoke the license of any individual designated as a habitual traffic offender....

...B. In Carroll, we held that the defendant's "lack of a driver's license did not relieve him" from prosecution and conviction under section 322.34(5). 761 So. 2d at 419. To reach that conclusion, we relied on section 322.271(1)(b), Florida Statutes -7- (1997), which deals with restoration of driving privileges to habitual traffic offenders. It provides as follows: A person whose driving privilege has been revoked under s. 322.27(5) may, upon expiration of 12 months from the date of such revocation, petition the department for restoration of her driving privilege....

...Thus, this court concluded, a habitual traffic offender whose driving privilege was revoked could be convicted under section 322.34(5) of driving while his driver's license was revoked for being a habitual traffic offender. Id. In sum, Carroll held (a) that the term "driving privilege" in section 322.271(1)(b) carries a broader meaning than the right to drive conferred by a certificate authorizing one to drive, which the defendant in Carroll never had, and (b) that this broader meaning controls the scope of section 322.34(5) because "driver's license" and "driving privilege" mean the same thing....

...a certificate even if driving privilege and driver's license could mean the same thing. More fundamentally, however, Carroll's conclusion that the term "driver's license" in section 322.34 means the same thing as "driving privilege" in section 322.271 is itself unsound....

...The revocation statute applicable to habitual traffic offenders provides only that "[t]he department shall revoke the license of any person designated a habitual offender, . . . and such person is not eligible to be relicensed for a minimum of 5 years." § 322.27(5), Fla....

...otherwise be required to perform, or sustain in common with all other persons"); Privilege, Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) ("A privilege grants someone the legal freedom to do or not to do a given act."). - 12 - 322.271(1)(b)....

...and construe related statutory provisions in harmony with one another." (quoting Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control Dist., 604 So. 2d 452, 455 (Fla. 1992))). The driving privilege that is the subject of an application for restoration under section 322.271(1)(b) includes and refers to the "driver's license" that was revoked under the habitual traffic offender statutes as described in section 322.34(5). After having a driver's license revoked for being a habitual traffic offender, one can have the privilege that license conveyed restored by petitioning to have the license reinstated. Because sections 322.34(5) and 322.271(1)(b) operate harmoniously without denying "driver's license" its defined meaning, there is no reason to interpret either statute other than in accord with the plain meaning of its text....

...To be convicted of a violation of section 322.34(5), one must first qualify as a habitual traffic offender, which requires three separate convictions of specified traffic offenses. See § 322.264(1). The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles must then revoke the person’s license pursuant to section 322.27(5), Florida Statutes (2001)....

...is a sufficient "lawful arrest" to satisfy the statutory requirements of s. 322.261(1)(a), F. S., to allow a subsequent chemical test for intoxication. A mandatory hearing is not required by s. 318.19 (2), F. S., as it incorporates the provision of s. 322.27 (1)(b), until a violation of the traffic laws has resulted in property damage in excess of $250....

...y damage in excess of $250," while s. 318.19 (2), F. S., provides for a mandatory hearing for "[a]ny infraction which would, if the person is convicted, result in the suspension or revocation of his driver's license or privilege under ss. 322.26 and 322.27 ." Reference to s. 322.26 in s. 318.19 (2), F. S., is erroneous as none of the offenses listed in that section qualify as an "infraction" and will be deleted from the statutes by reviser's bill. Section 322.27 (1)(b), F....

...action to be required to appear before the court for hearing. It is obvious that subsection (1) of s. 318.19 , F. S., is in conflict with subsection (2), as the former provides for property damage in excess of $250 while the latter (by incorporating s. 322.27 (1)(b), F....

...ion is entitled to great weight and will not be overturned until clearly erroneous. State ex rel. Biscayne Kennel Club v. Board of Business Regulation, 276 So.2d 823 . The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles administers the provisions of s. 322.27 , F....

...monizing and reconciling the legislative intent, after consideration of the construction of the statute by the agency charged with the statute's administration, a mandatory hearing would not be required under s. 318.19 (2), F. S., as it incorporates s. 322.27 (1)(b), until the property damage exceeds $250.

a person whose license has been revoked under § 322.27(5) may petition the Department for restoration

...A mechanism exists for the removal of the HTO designation, which Strickland invoked by pleading nolo contendere to the underlying charge in this case arising in Lake County, Florida (driving while license suspended) and attempting to prove compliance with statutory criteria. See id. § 322.27(5)(b) (If a person whose license is revoked “as a result of a third violation of driving a motor vehicle while his or her license is suspended or revoked provides proof of compliance for an offense listed in s....

...before the scheduled court appearance date.” Strickland contended that this requirement would have applied to her plea hearing if she had sought a withhold of adjudication (which she did not seek) but is inapplicable to a proceeding seeking the removal of an HTO designation under section 322.27(5)(b)....

...regards “Appeal Proceedings in Criminal Cases.” The State points out that Strickland is not appealing her judgment or sentence, both of which would be appealable under the rule. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(1)(A), (F). The State also argues that section 322.27(5)(b), the HTO removal provision, is an “administrative” statute that is solely administered by the clerk of court and makes no mention of judicial authority to “impose or order an amended 2 disposition of the habitual traffic offender status.” As such, the relief that Strickland seeks under section 322.27(5) is “solely administrative and within the purview of the clerk of court, not the trial court.” Strickland counters that rule 9.140(b)(1)(D) allows for her appeal because it explicitly says a criminal defendant may appeal �...

...we conclude that Strickland’s motion is one that was “entered after final judgment” or a “finding of guilt,” and was directly related to the underlying proceedings. As such, jurisdiction is established. The view that the procedure in section 322.27(5)(b) is solely administrative and exempt from judicial review is not persuasive. The statute merely says that a clerk of court “shall submit an amended disposition to remove the habitual traffic offender designation” if proof of c...

license for a period of one year, pursuant to § 322.27(2), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., for the accumulation of

...within which to seek such review is jurisdictional. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.020(g) and 9.100(c); State, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Joannou, 353 So.2d 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). As pointed out by the Department, however, review under section 322.27(5) remained open to the appellant....

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge. The State of Florida, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, petitions for a writ of certiorari to quash an order of the circuit court rendered in its appellate capacity. Section 322.27(5), Florida Statutes (1983), provides that the department shall revoke the license of a “habitual traffic offender” for a minimum of five years....

...d render aid as required under the laws of this state in the event of a motor vehicle accident resulting in the death or personal injury of another. (2) Fifteen convictions for moving traffic offenses for which points may be assessed as set forth in s.322.27, including those offenses in subsection (1)....

...driving while license suspended or revoked. Subsection (2), in providing that an individual is a “habitual traffic offender” if he has accumulated: Fifteen convictions for moving traffic offenses for which points may be assessed as set forth in s.322.27, including those offenses in subsection (1) is unclear as to whether “including those offenses in subsection (1)” means those in subsection (1) for which points may be assessed, or all of those offenses within subsection (1)....

...at respondent return petitioner’s driver license to him.” Petitioner’s driving record demonstrates that within a period of five years, petitioner accumulated fifteen convictions for moving traffic violations for which points are assessed under Section 322.27(2), Florida Statutes (1977)....

...The record on appeal reflects that the Division of Drivers’ Licenses included these three convictions and the points assessed therefor, in revoking petitioner’s driving privilege in Florida for a period of five years as an habitual traffic offender under Sections 322.27(5) and 322.-264(2), Florida Statutes (1977)....

...ifteen convictions for moving traffic offenses for which points may be assessed. It includes as offenses for which such assessment of points may be made, offenses under any law of another state substantially conforming to these statutory provisions. Section 322.27(5), Florida Statutes (1977), mandates that the department “shall revoke the license of any person designated a habitual offender” under Section 322.264, supra....

MANN, Chief Judge. Casci’s claim that Fla.Stat. § 322.27 (5) F.S.A. (1972) is invalid as an ex post facto

...traffic “convictions” within five years. Sections 322.264, .27, .31, Florida Statutes (1977). The issue is whether, in counting the number of Bennett’s “convictions for moving traffic offenses for which points may be assessed as set forth in s. 322.27,” the Department properly counted pre-1975 “convictions” entered on the Department’s record when Bennett paid several traffic fines to the county courts but did not personally appear before a judge for adjudication of guilt....

...that such person has accumulated the convictions for separate offenses described in subsections (1), (2), and (3), committed within a 5-year period: (2) Fifteen convictions for moving traffic offenses for which points may be assessed as set forth in s. 322.27 . . . (Ch. 72-175, Section 2, Fla.Laws). Section 322.27(2)(d) provides “a graduated scale of points assigning relative values to convictions” of a certain character, including four points for willful and wanton reckless driving, three or four points for excessive speed, two points for i...

...r not, was sufficient predicate for entry in the Department’s records of a traffic “conviction” for purposes of assessing points and counting “[fjifteen convictions for moving traffic offenses for which points may be assessed as set forth in s. 322.27 ....

...We give the Department’s record of Bennett’s violations the effect that the parties and the circuit court gave it, and find nevertheless that Bennett within five years was “convicted” fifteen times for moving traffic offenses assessable under Section 322.27(2)(d)....