Judge denies request for unrestricted driver’s license, cites unpaid restitution

The Dixon County Circuit Court denied a motion asking the court to order an unrestricted driver’s license for Clifton A. Damesworth, saying that the Department of Safety—not the court—controls license status and that outstanding restitution prevents an unrestricted license.

At the docket call, counsel asked the judge to order an unrestricted license. The judge reviewed the clerk’s record and said the defendant’s license had been revoked for nonpayment of fines and costs and that a restitution obligation remained unpaid. The judge cited restitution in the record of $4,725 and an additional amount the transcript records inconsistently, and told the defendant he could not order an unrestricted license without, in effect, suspending restitution. “I am denying that request because I don’t think it’s within my power,” the judge said.

The judge explained the practical route available to the defendant: establish a payment arrangement with the clerk’s office so the Department of Safety can consider issuing a restricted license, or consult private counsel for other options. The court declined to suspend restitution to accomplish a license change. The judge suggested the defendant pursue a payment arrangement with the clerk and the Department of Safety, or seek private legal advice.

The court’s ruling reflected the procedural division between sentencing and administrative licensing: the court controls criminal sentences and restitution orders, while the state Department of Safety determines whether a driver gets a restricted or unrestricted license after restitution or payment arrangements are in place. The matter was continued as other docket items proceeded.

What happens next: The defendant may pursue a payment arrangement with the clerk; otherwise, the Department of Safety will maintain the restriction in accordance with its rules. The court did not alter the restitution order.