State v. Dysart
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Batchelder (N.H. 1984)
- State v. Mullen (N.H. 1979)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Memorandum
Defendant was found to be a habitual motor vehicle offender following a hearing before the Hillsborough County Superior Court. The trial court ordered defendant not to operate a motor vehicle for six months from the date of its order. This order was later amended to provide for a twelve-month revocation. The State seasonably excepted to the court’s order and the matter was transferred here by Loughlin, C.J.
RSA 262-B:5 IV provides that following a finding that a person is a habitual offender the court shall direct the person not to operate a motor vehicle. The period of revocation is governed by RSA 262-B:6 which requires a mandatory lapse of at least four years from the effective date of the order before a person may petition for restoration of his privilege to operate. RSA 262-B:8. Restoration of this privilege is an administrative function required by statute and not one involving judicial discretion, such as suspension of a fine or other sentence. See State v. Greenwood, 115 N.H. 117, 119, 335 A.2d 644, 646 (1975).
Exception sustained; order vacated, remanded.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.