The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court’s decision, upholding the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles’ (BMV) decision to disqualify a commercial driver’s license (CDL) holder, Adam D. Boylen. The case, *Boylen v. Ohio Dept. of Pub. Safety, Bur. of Motor Vehicles*, centered on the interpretation of Ohio law regarding CDL disqualification following certain convictions.
Background of the Case
The case goes back to 2013 when Boylen was convicted of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs (OVI). This led to a temporary CDL disqualification. Later, in 2023, Boylen was convicted of grand theft of a motor vehicle. Because of this second conviction, the BMV moved to permanently disqualify Boylen’s CDL.
The BMV held a hearing, and Boylen did not dispute the convictions themselves. However, he argued that state law required a specific conviction *under* a particular section of the law (R.C. 4506.15) before the BMV could impose sanctions. The BMV disagreed, leading to the case before the courts.
The BMV’s Final Order and the Trial Court’s Decision
The BMV issued a Final Order, essentially saying that Boylen’s interpretation of the law was incorrect. The BMV argued that the convictions Boylen had (OVI and grand theft) fell under the list of prohibited conduct described in R.C. 4506.15. The trial court agreed with the BMV, affirming the Final Order. Boylen then appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeals.
Arguments on Appeal
Boylen raised two main arguments in his appeal:
* Argument 1: He argued that he couldn’t be “convicted for a violation of RC 4506.15” (the specific section of law) without *being charged with* and found guilty of that specific offense.
* Argument 2: He argued that allowing the BMV to disqualify his CDL based on convictions for different offenses, without being charged with a violation of R.C. 4506.15, violated the separation of powers doctrine and was unconstitutional.
The Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Fifth District Court of Appeals addressed each of Boylen’s arguments.
Regarding Argument 1: The court examined the relevant statutes, specifically R.C. 4506.15 and R.C. 4506.16. R.C. 4506.15 outlines what a CDL holder *cannot* do, while R.C. 4506.16 details when the BMV *must* disqualify a CDL.
The court referenced a similar case, *Bowling v. Norman*, decided by the Sixth District Court of Appeals. The *Bowling* court clarified that R.C. 4506.16(D)(1) requires a conviction for a violation of R.C. 4506.15(A)(2) to (12), not a conviction specifically *under* R.C. 4506.15. The Fifth District adopted this reasoning.
In Boylen’s case, the court noted that he had been convicted of OVI (in violation of R.C. 4511.19) and grand theft (in violation of R.C. 2913.02), which is a felony. R.C. 4506.15(A)(6) prohibits driving under the influence, and R.C. 4506.15(A)(7) prohibits using a motor vehicle in the commission of a felony. Since Boylen’s convictions fell under these prohibitions, the court found that the BMV was correct in disqualifying his CDL.
Regarding Argument 2: Boylen claimed that the BMV’s actions violated the separation of powers. He argued the BMV was essentially creating a conviction that didn’t exist, by using his previous convictions to disqualify his CDL.
The court rejected this argument, reiterating that R.C. 4506.16(D)(2) requires disqualification based on convictions for *violations* of R.C. 4506.15(A)(2) to (12), not convictions *under* that specific section. Because Boylen’s existing convictions were for conduct prohibited by R.C. 4506.15, the court found no violation of the separation of powers.
Boylen also suggested he didn’t have adequate notice that his convictions could lead to CDL disqualification. The court dismissed this argument, pointing out that R.C. 4506.16(D) clearly states that two qualifying convictions result in lifetime disqualification.
The Outcome
The Fifth District Court of Appeals overruled Boylen’s assignments of error and affirmed the decision of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas. This means the BMV’s decision to disqualify Boylen’s CDL was upheld, and he will remain disqualified.