No Hearing? Represent myself after my attorney did a bad job?

[EducatedButNotALawyer]

Jurisdiction

Michigan

I hired an attorney to represent me for a claim of appeal for restoration of driver's license. I think he did a poor job.
Long back story short: I made poor decisions in my life related to drinking and driving. I got a DUI, when I was 16 in 2002, then 2012, then 2017. The two most recent were weird circumstances, where I wasn't even in the car and they arrested me at a later time. The small town I am in has a way of putting felony charges on top of the dui arrests. The two recent cases could have easily been taken to court and dropped. However with the looming unwarranted felony charges, this town then offers you a plea: take the dui and we will drop the felony charges. So I take the DUI. The 3rd was charged as a second due to the circumstances and timeframe. I am grateful that I am not a felon. However I did not know a plea deal gives up my rights to ever take it to trail, ever, very frustrating.

Current issue:
It has been over 4 years now since the arrest. I have not had a single legal issue and I am happily a sober man. Driver license appeals are slow. I waited the year, went to SOS Hearing with proper paperwork and was denied. Appealed with the court and they granted me a restricted license and blow and go. The breathalyzer was installed in March 2020. A year later had a second sos hearing and was denied, then I appealed with the court and that hearing date was a week ago.

I hired a well known dui firm in town, I received a young attorney that had only 1 year in practice. He made multiple errors in handling my requests to add info into brief, that I specifically requested, such as it being filed for 3 offences in 10 years, when it was only two. The brief did not have much in it at all but I felt confident that the hearing would go well. It has been over 4 years with zero legal problems, 1.5 yrs with breathalyzer, among many other proofs of drug testing and documentation to support my sobriety over the 4+ years.

THE PROBLEM:
Day of my trail, we were waiting in his office for the hearing to start via zoom, then after awhile received a call from the judge stating it was suppose to be in court. Rushed to court house, was sitting in the court room, no one was there. He then left the room, forgetting his paperwork in the courtroom, came back 15min later and said sorry judge said no full license, but you can drive til 9pm. I was so disappointed and took it as is. We left the courthouse.
I could not stop thinking about it. No trial? No Hearing? he forgot his paperwork? what did or didnt he say? I wanted to make a personal statement? I then thought, Can I appeal this hearing?
I contacted him and was cordial. He was rude, told me there's no transcript, no documents, nothing of proof as to what happened. that it is what it is. I said I would like to at least have a hearing and make a statement? He said go ahead and represent yourself and file a request for hearing if you want. I said can you please file the request for hearing for me? I know the court does not help people with paperwork. He said, nope I did my job I represented you. If you wanna represent yourself then go to law school... Wow, I thought to myself, how frustrating in is that I have an MBA and cannot legally represent myself.... but also though maybe I will get my JD as it could be done seeing I already have an MBA..... But the problem in hand needs to be delt with asap
How do I file a notice of hearing? is this a bad idea?
I figure it is worth the gamble to represent myself, weather I get the same judge or not. Otherwise I will have to wait another year or year and a half and do this also over again. Carrying the costs and burdens. Further I am self employed, have studied abroad and travel abroad. This is rather troublesome going abroad without a full license and hoping my car doesn't have an issue while sitting back home.

Thank you all in advance, I am grateful to the people on this forum.

 

[justblue]

I hired an attorney to represent me for a claim of appeal for restoration of driver's license. I think he did a poor job.
Long back story short: I made poor decisions in my life related to drinking and driving. I got a DUI, when I was 16 in 2002, then 2012, then 2017. The two most recent were weird circumstances, where I wasn't even in the car and they arrested me at a later time. The small town I am in has a way of putting felony charges on top of the dui arrests. The two recent cases could have easily been taken to court and dropped. However with the looming unwarranted felony charges, this town then offers you a plea: take the dui and we will drop the felony charges. So I take the DUI. The 3rd was charged as a second due to the circumstances and timeframe. I am grateful that I am not a felon. However I did not know a plea deal gives up my rights to ever take it to trail, ever, very frustrating.

Current issue:
It has been over 4 years now since the arrest. I have not had a single legal issue and I am happily a sober man. Driver license appeals are slow. I waited the year, went to SOS Hearing with proper paperwork and was denied. Appealed with the court and they granted me a restricted license and blow and go. The breathalyzer was installed in March 2020. A year later had a second sos hearing and was denied, then I appealed with the court and that hearing date was a week ago.

I hired a well known dui firm in town, I received a young attorney that had only 1 year in practice. He made multiple errors in handling my requests to add info into brief, that I specifically requested, such as it being filed for 3 offences in 10 years, when it was only two. The brief did not have much in it at all but I felt confident that the hearing would go well. It has been over 4 years with zero legal problems, 1.5 yrs with breathalyzer, among many other proofs of drug testing and documentation to support my sobriety over the 4+ years.

THE PROBLEM:
Day of my trail, we were waiting in his office for the hearing to start via zoom, then after awhile received a call from the judge stating it was suppose to be in court. Rushed to court house, was sitting in the court room, no one was there. He then left the room, forgetting his paperwork in the courtroom, came back 15min later and said sorry judge said no full license, but you can drive til 9pm. I was so disappointed and took it as is. We left the courthouse.
I could not stop thinking about it. No trial? No Hearing? he forgot his paperwork? what did or didnt he say? I wanted to make a personal statement? I then thought, Can I appeal this hearing?
I contacted him and was cordial. He was rude, told me there's no transcript, no documents, nothing of proof as to what happened. that it is what it is. I said I would like to at least have a hearing and make a statement? He said go ahead and represent yourself and file a request for hearing if you want. I said can you please file the request for hearing for me? I know the court does not help people with paperwork. He said, nope I did my job I represented you. If you wanna represent yourself then go to law school... Wow, I thought to myself, how frustrating in is that I have an MBA and cannot legally represent myself.... but also though maybe I will get my JD as it could be done seeing I already have an MBA..... But the problem in hand needs to be delt with asap
How do I file a notice of hearing? is this a bad idea?
I figure it is worth the gamble to represent myself, weather I get the same judge or not. Otherwise I will have to wait another year or year and a half and do this also over again. Carrying the costs and burdens. Further I am self employed, have studied abroad and travel abroad. This is rather troublesome going abroad without a full license and hoping my car doesn't have an issue while sitting back home.

Thank you all in advance, I am grateful to the people on this forum.

Take all your information, along with criminal record, and consult with another DUI attorney. See what s/he has to say about the outcome and if you can/should appeal.

State Bar of Michigan

 

[Zigner]

Your track record indicates a period of at least 5 years between offenses (for which you are caught). Perhaps the judge is taking that into consideration...

 

[army judge]

SOS - Driver's License Hearing Request

Habitual Alcohol and Drug Offenders

Under section 303 of the Michigan Vehicle Code [the Code; MCL 257.303] certain combinations of alcohol and/or drug-related convictions lead to a presumption that a person is a "habitual offender." The law requires the Secretary of State to revoke that person's driver license. The law also requires the Secretary of State to deny a license for that person until he or she meets certain conditions.

The types of convictions that lead to the presumption are:

Operating While Intoxicated, which includes:
Operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or a combination of alcohol and drugs.
Operating a vehicle with a bodily alcohol content [BAC] of .08 or higher.
Operating a vehicle with a BAC of .17 or higher [High BAC].
Operating While Impaired by alcohol or drugs, or a combination of alcohol and drugs.
Operating a commercial vehicle with an alcohol content of .04 or higher.
A person less than 21 years old ("Zero Tolerance") operating a vehicle with:
An alcohol content of .02 or more, but less than .08
Any presence of alcohol in the body, other than from alcohol consumed as part of a generally recognized religious service or ceremony
Two of those convictions within 7 years, or 3 of them within 10 years, lead to the presumption. Only 1 Zero Tolerance conviction may count towards the combinations.

A conviction for an attempted offense is treated as if the offense were completed.

Convictions under local ordinances and other laws that substantially correspond to the provisions of the Code count towards the combinations. This covers both Michigan laws and ordinances and those of other states.

A first driver license revocation/denial is for a minimum of 1 year. A subsequent revocation/denial is for a minimum of 5 years, if it comes within 7 years of a previous revocation/denial.

After the minimum period of revocation/denial is over, the person may apply for a hearing with the Office of Hearings and Administrative Oversight to be considered for a driver license. The request for a hearing must be in writing. Information about that type of hearing is available from:

The Order of Revocation/Denial
Instructions sent to a person who requests a hearing
A recorded message with instructions is available at telephone number 1-888-767-6424.
A current substance abuse evaluation must be submitted to Office of Hearings and Administrative Oversight before a hearing will be scheduled.

A person for whom a hearing is scheduled is a "petitioner."

A petitioner who is not ready to proceed may request, in writing, that the hearing be adjourned (postponed) to a later date. However, a petitioner should not assume that the hearing is adjourned until he or she is notified by the Office of Hearings and Administrative Oversight that has happened.

If a petitioner does not appear for the hearing, and an adjournment has not been granted, the petitioner is not eligible for another hearing for up to 1 year.

The law limits the authority of the Office of Hearings and Administrative Oversight hearing officer to order a driver license for a habitual offender. The hearing officer cannot order a license unless the petitioner rebuts the habitual offender presumption by clear and convincing evidence.

The sorts of things a habitual offender petitioner must prove at the license appeal hearing include:

His or her alcohol and/or substance abuse problems, if any, are under control and are likely to remain under control.
He or she represents a low or minimal risk of again driving drunk and/or drugged, or repeating his or her past abusive behavior regarding alcohol and/or drugs.
He or she has the ability and motivation to drive safely and within the law.
He or she has the minimum period of abstinence.
Regarding abstinence, the petitioner must prove that he or she has completely abstained from the use of alcohol and drugs, except for controlled substances prescribed by a licensed health care professional, for not less than 6 consecutive months immediately before the hearing.

However, the minimum period of abstinence is not less than 12 consecutive months immediately before the hearing if the evidence presented at the hearing indicates that a longer period of abstinence is necessary. The sorts of things that would require a longer period of abstinence include:

A chemical test showing an alcohol level of .16 or higher.
Three or more convictions for alcohol and/or drug-related offenses.
A relapse after an attempt to bring an alcohol and/or drug abuse problem under control. A relapse means the petitioner used alcohol or drugs on at least 1 occasion after attempting to bring his or her problem under control.
A diagnosis of past or present alcohol or controlled substance dependency.
A previous habitual offender revocation/denial.
Other evidence that is relevant to these things.
In addition to the substance abuse evaluation required before the hearing is scheduled, other evidence is encouraged to help the hearing officer decide whether to order restricted driving or full driving. Such evidence includes things like letters and documentation of abstinence and sobriety, and proof of involvement in a treatment or support program. A petitioner may also have witnesses testify at his or her hearing.

If the hearing officer approves a petitioner to return to the road, a restricted license or full driving may be ordered. If a restricted license is issued, those restrictions may allow the person to drive:

In the course of his or her employment.
To and from any combination of the following:
The person's residence.
The person's work location.
An alcohol or drug education or treatment program ordered by the court. The court probation department.
Court-ordered community service.
Regularly occurring medical treatment for a serious condition for the person or a member of his or her household or immediate family.
Section 319(19) of the Code [MCL 257.319(19)] requires that a person with a restricted license carry proof of his or her destination and hours, and present that proof to a law enforcement officer if requested.

If a restricted license is granted to a petitioner whose license was revoked/denied as a habitual offender under section 303(2)(c), (d), or (g) of the Code [MCL 257.303(2)(c), (d), or (g)], the hearing officer must require the use of a properly installed and functioning Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device [BAIID] on each vehicle the petitioner owns or intends to operate.

A record of the hearing will be made as required section 322 of the Code [MCL 257.322].

The hearing officer has the final decision-making authority in these cases. There is no further appeal within the Department of State. However, a petitioner may file with the Office of Hearings and Administrative Oversight a Motion for Reconsideration or Rehearing based on any of the following:

New, material evidence that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence before the hearing and produced at the hearing.
An error of law at the hearing.
A material mistake of fact by the hearing officer.
The decision may be appealed to Circuit Court, but the court's review is limited by section 323 of the Code [MCL 257.323].



Beginning October 31, 2010, if a BAIID is required by a restricted license, the driver cannot remove the device, or have it removed, without the approval of the Department of State.










SOS - Habitual Alcohol Offender

 

[Redemptionman]

Yeah, if your driving privileges was restored for driving till 9pm, what is the deal? Take it show that you can perform the requirements and get full restoration at a later date.

Do not understand your frustration on this one.

 

[EducatedButNotALawyer]

Your track record indicates a period of at least 5 years between offenses (for which you are caught). Perhaps the judge is taking that into consideration...

Thank you for the response. My driving privileges were restored in January 2020 via court appeal, with operating hours from 7am to 7pm. Breathalyzer was installed in March 2020. I understand the position of the court and judge to keep the breathalyzer for another year/ year and half. But my option is to accept the extension to 6am to 9pm. Or secondly, as I stated I do not think my attorney did a good job, I have no idea what he said to the judge in chambers and I had no formal hearing. I understand I look like a loser and the evidence is there for that but also It has been over 4 years since the conviction with zero legal issues and 1.5 years with a breathalyzer. If I don't do an appeal and fight, It will put me out past 5+ years and 2.5 years respectively.
I honestly wanted to make a simple post asking how to "appeal / request a hearing to represent myself " but my long winded story was for transparency. I 100% want to get a formal hearing on this matter. Can I file the papers myself or is an attorney required?
Thank you for your help!

 

[EducatedButNotALawyer]

Take all your information, along with criminal record, and consult with another DUI attorney. See what s/he has to say about the outcome and if you can/should appeal.

Is it possible for myself to walk into the court house and request an appeal or request for a hearing? I am worried I have very little time to act on this matter.

 

[EducatedButNotALawyer]

Yeah, if your driving privileges was restored for driving till 9pm, what is the deal? Take it show that you can perform the requirements and get full restoration at a later date.

Do not understand your frustration on this one.

I understand what you are saying but I can already drive from 7am to 7pm, it has been 4+ years since the offense and I have had a breathalyzer for 1.5+ years. If I worked and lived in the town I am in I would just take and wait a year and go reapply thus having another year of proven sobriety however I travel out of state and out of the country for months at a time making this rather problematic.
I want to appeal and request a formal hearing. Is this something I can do or is a attorney required?

Thank your kind soul for providing this information!

 

[EducatedButNotALawyer]

Habitual Alcohol and Drug Offenders

Under section 303 of the Michigan Vehicle Code [the Code; MCL 257.303] certain combinations of alcohol and/or drug-related convictions lead to a presumption that a person is a "habitual offender." The law requires the Secretary of State to revoke that person's driver license. The law also requires the Secretary of State to deny a license for that person until he or she meets certain conditions.

The types of convictions that lead to the presumption are:

Operating While Intoxicated, which includes:
Operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or a combination of alcohol and drugs.
Operating a vehicle with a bodily alcohol content [BAC] of .08 or higher.
Operating a vehicle with a BAC of .17 or higher [High BAC].
Operating While Impaired by alcohol or drugs, or a combination of alcohol and drugs.
Operating a commercial vehicle with an alcohol content of .04 or higher.
A person less than 21 years old ("Zero Tolerance") operating a vehicle with:
An alcohol content of .02 or more, but less than .08
Any presence of alcohol in the body, other than from alcohol consumed as part of a generally recognized religious service or ceremony
Two of those convictions within 7 years, or 3 of them within 10 years, lead to the presumption. Only 1 Zero Tolerance conviction may count towards the combinations.

A conviction for an attempted offense is treated as if the offense were completed.

Convictions under local ordinances and other laws that substantially correspond to the provisions of the Code count towards the combinations. This covers both Michigan laws and ordinances and those of other states.

A first driver license revocation/denial is for a minimum of 1 year. A subsequent revocation/denial is for a minimum of 5 years, if it comes within 7 years of a previous revocation/denial.

After the minimum period of revocation/denial is over, the person may apply for a hearing with the Office of Hearings and Administrative Oversight to be considered for a driver license. The request for a hearing must be in writing. Information about that type of hearing is available from:

The Order of Revocation/Denial
Instructions sent to a person who requests a hearing
A recorded message with instructions is available at telephone number 1-888-767-6424.
A current substance abuse evaluation must be submitted to Office of Hearings and Administrative Oversight before a hearing will be scheduled.

A person for whom a hearing is scheduled is a "petitioner."

A petitioner who is not ready to proceed may request, in writing, that the hearing be adjourned (postponed) to a later date. However, a petitioner should not assume that the hearing is adjourned until he or she is notified by the Office of Hearings and Administrative Oversight that has happened.

If a petitioner does not appear for the hearing, and an adjournment has not been granted, the petitioner is not eligible for another hearing for up to 1 year.

The law limits the authority of the Office of Hearings and Administrative Oversight hearing officer to order a driver license for a habitual offender. The hearing officer cannot order a license unless the petitioner rebuts the habitual offender presumption by clear and convincing evidence.

The sorts of things a habitual offender petitioner must prove at the license appeal hearing include:

His or her alcohol and/or substance abuse problems, if any, are under control and are likely to remain under control.
He or she represents a low or minimal risk of again driving drunk and/or drugged, or repeating his or her past abusive behavior regarding alcohol and/or drugs.
He or she has the ability and motivation to drive safely and within the law.
He or she has the minimum period of abstinence.
Regarding abstinence, the petitioner must prove that he or she has completely abstained from the use of alcohol and drugs, except for controlled substances prescribed by a licensed health care professional, for not less than 6 consecutive months immediately before the hearing.

However, the minimum period of abstinence is not less than 12 consecutive months immediately before the hearing if the evidence presented at the hearing indicates that a longer period of abstinence is necessary. The sorts of things that would require a longer period of abstinence include:

A chemical test showing an alcohol level of .16 or higher.
Three or more convictions for alcohol and/or drug-related offenses.
A relapse after an attempt to bring an alcohol and/or drug abuse problem under control. A relapse means the petitioner used alcohol or drugs on at least 1 occasion after attempting to bring his or her problem under control.
A diagnosis of past or present alcohol or controlled substance dependency.
A previous habitual offender revocation/denial.
Other evidence that is relevant to these things.
In addition to the substance abuse evaluation required before the hearing is scheduled, other evidence is encouraged to help the hearing officer decide whether to order restricted driving or full driving. Such evidence includes things like letters and documentation of abstinence and sobriety, and proof of involvement in a treatment or support program. A petitioner may also have witnesses testify at his or her hearing.

If the hearing officer approves a petitioner to return to the road, a restricted license or full driving may be ordered. If a restricted license is issued, those restrictions may allow the person to drive:

In the course of his or her employment.
To and from any combination of the following:
The person's residence.
The person's work location.
An alcohol or drug education or treatment program ordered by the court. The court probation department.
Court-ordered community service.
Regularly occurring medical treatment for a serious condition for the person or a member of his or her household or immediate family.
Section 319(19) of the Code [MCL 257.319(19)] requires that a person with a restricted license carry proof of his or her destination and hours, and present that proof to a law enforcement officer if requested.

If a restricted license is granted to a petitioner whose license was revoked/denied as a habitual offender under section 303(2)(c), (d), or (g) of the Code [MCL 257.303(2)(c), (d), or (g)], the hearing officer must require the use of a properly installed and functioning Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device [BAIID] on each vehicle the petitioner owns or intends to operate.

A record of the hearing will be made as required section 322 of the Code [MCL 257.322].

The hearing officer has the final decision-making authority in these cases. There is no further appeal within the Department of State. However, a petitioner may file with the Office of Hearings and Administrative Oversight a Motion for Reconsideration or Rehearing based on any of the following:

New, material evidence that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence before the hearing and produced at the hearing.
An error of law at the hearing.
A material mistake of fact by the hearing officer.
The decision may be appealed to Circuit Court, but the court's review is limited by section 323 of the Code [MCL 257.323].



Beginning October 31, 2010, if a BAIID is required by a restricted license, the driver cannot remove the device, or have it removed, without the approval of the Department of State.

Thank you for this response, I am aware of what you posted. Do you have any information regarding my particular request?
I want to appeal and request a formal hearing to represent myself.

Thank you greatly!

 

[army judge]

Thank you for this response, I am aware of what you posted. Do you have any information regarding my particular request?
I want to appeal and request a formal hearing to represent myself.

Thank you greatly!

Was your hearing before an adjudicator employed by your SOS?

Was your hearing held before a judge or magistrate?

If your answer is the latter, you can REQUEST a hearing before a hearing officer employed by your SOS.

The SOS hearing officer request process is explained on the links of which you claim to be familiar.

 

[Redemptionman]

You can go pro se, but you will probably more than likely have zero credibility before the judge and he will not rule in your favor. By all means proceed how you wish.

 

[EducatedButNotALawyer]

Was your hearing before an adjudicator employed by your SOS?

Was your hearing held before a judge or magistrate?

If your answer is the latter, you can REQUEST a hearing before a hearing officer employed by your SOS.

The SOS hearing officer request process is explained on the links of which you claim to be familiar.

I first had a SOS hearing and was denied. I then had a hearing with a judge and formal hearing. the Judge granted a restricted

You can go pro se, but you will probably more than likely have zero credibility before the judge and he will not rule in your favor. By all means proceed how you wish.

Thank you,
How do I file a motion. Can I walk into the courthouse and request to file a motion. What am I filing a motion for?

 

[Zigner]

I first had a SOS hearing and was denied. I then had a hearing with a judge and formal hearing. the Judge granted a restricted

Thank you,
How do I file a motion. Can I walk into the courthouse and request to file a motion. What am I filing a motion for?

I suggest that you retain an attorney to do this for you. Either the one you had, or a different one. This is not a DIY project for you.