 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Taylor2/7/2000
Appeal From Beaufort County Luke N. Brown, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Submitted December 7, 1999
AFFIRMED
The trial court convicted Daniel Lee Taylor of driving under suspension, second offense. Taylor appeals, arguing his conviction is invalid as a matter of law because the term of his suspension expired before the date of his arrest. We affirm.
FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 1996, Daniel Lee Taylor was charged with and convicted of driving under suspension (DUS). As a result, his license was suspended. The suspension period ended November 1, 1996. It is undisputed that Taylor never complied with the statutory requirements for reinstating his suspended license. In January of 1998, Taylor was stopped and arrested for driving on the wrong side of the road. A Beaufort County grand jury indicted him for DUS.
At a bench trial, Taylor stipulated to the facts. The only matter the judge had to decide, therefore, was Taylor's claim that, because his license suspension expired in November 1996, he could not, as a matter of law, be convicted of DUS in 1998. The trial court found Taylor guilty of DUS, second offense, and sentenced him to sixty days imprisonment and a $500 fine, suspended on fifty-nine days or a $350 fine and two years probation. This appeal followed.
LAW/ANALYSIS
The sole question presented for our consideration is whether the running of a definite term of suspension precludes a conviction for DUS as a matter of law.() Taylor contends the expiration of his suspension period effectively operated to "revoke" his driver's license, because by statute he was required to "renew" his license before driving again. As he admittedly failed to comply with the statutory requirements, asserts Taylor, he actually did not possess a license at the time of the arrest and therefore could not be convicted of DUS.
One statute at issue provides in relevant part:
n all cases where the Department [of Public Safety] suspends or revokes the driver's license of any person under lawful authority possessed by the Department, except in those cases provided for in § 56-1-270, in which case the license only shall be suspended and not the registration, the Department shall also suspend the registration for all motor vehicles registered in the name of that person . . . . The license and registration shall remain suspended or revoked and shall not at any time thereafter be renewed nor shall any license be thereafter issued to that person . . . until permitted under the motor vehicle laws of this State and not then until he shall give and thereafter maintain proof of financial responsibility. S.C. Code Ann. § 56-9-500 (1991) (emphasis added).
Accordingly, by the clear, express terms of the statute, once Taylor's license was suspended lawfully, it remained suspended in the absence of proof of financial responsibility. See Bumgardner v. South Carolina Dep't of Highways & Pub. Transp., 286 S.C. 46, 331 S.E.2d 787 (Ct. App. 1985) (on completion of DUS suspension period, § 56-9-500 requires submission of proof of financial responsibility before reinstating driver's license) (emphasis added).
Taylor, however, argues that because his definite period of suspension expired on November 1, 1996, his failure to conform to the statutory mandates of §§ 56-1-400 and 56-9-500 caused his license to expire with it. Therefore, although he may have been driving without a license, he was not driving under suspension. In support of this argument, Taylor relies on § 56-1-400, which states in pertinent part:
The department, upon suspending or revoking a license, shall require that such l
Page 1 2 South Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|