 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Wilkinson10/31/1989
Robert Joseph Wilkinson appeals from his conviction for driving while intoxicated (DUI) on a suspended license, a class 5 felony, arguing that his conviction cannot be sustained because at the time of the DUI offense, he possessed a valid Idaho driver's license. We disagree and affirm.
FACTS
Appellant was a resident of Arizona until September of 1987, when he moved to Idaho. His Arizona driver's license was suspended effective December 7, 1987 due to
his failure to appear in Tucson City Court. A second suspension was ordered effective from May 23, 1988 to December 12, 1988 as a result of appellant's failure to complete traffic survival school. Appellant's Arizona license expired June 4, 1988. On September 8, 1988, appellant obtained an Idaho driver's license. In response to the question on the license application whether he had ever had his license suspended, revoked, denied, cancelled or refused, appellant answered "no." The instant offense occurred on November 30, 1988. At the time Wilkinson was arrested, he admitted that he knew his Arizona license was suspended.
Wilkinson was indicted for DUI on a suspended license. Prior to trial, appellant moved to preclude the state from admitting evidence of the Arizona suspension and to admit evidence that he had obtained a valid Idaho license. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that the issue for the jury to resolve was whether appellant was driving on a suspended Arizona license, and that the fact that Idaho had issued him a license subsequent to the suspension was irrelevant.
ISSUE ON APPEAL
The sole issue on appeal is whether the fact that Wilkinson was issued an Idaho driver's license while his Arizona license was suspended is a defense to a subsequent charge of DUI on a suspended license in Arizona.
Discussion
A.R.S. § 28-450 provides:
A resident or nonresident whose operator's or chauffeur's license or right or privilege to operate a motor vehicle in this state has been suspended or revoked as provided by this chapter shall not operate a motor vehicle in this state under a license, permit or registration certificate issued by any other jurisdiction, or otherwise during the suspension or after the revocation until a new license is obtained when and as permitted under this chapter.
This statute clearly supersedes the privilege to drive in this state conferred by A.R.S. § 28-412(A)(3) upon nonresidents who possess a valid license issued by another state.
Appellant argues that this statute conflicts with the provisions of the Driver License Compact, A.R.S. §§ 28-1601, et seq., unless it is construed to mean that obtaining a valid license in another Compact state serves to terminate the Arizona suspension, citing People v. Hutson, 178 Ill.App.3d 836, 128 Ill.Dec. 40, 533 N.E.2d 1128 (1989), and People v. Klaub, 130 Ill.App.3d 704, 85 Ill.Dec. 891, 474 N.E.2d 851 (1985). The pertinent provisions of the Compact are as follows:
ARTICLE V
Applications for New Licenses
Upon application for a license to drive, the licensing authority in a party state shall ascertain whether the applicant has ever held, or is the holder of a license to drive issued by any other party state. The licensing authority in the state where application is made shall not issue a license to drive to the applicant if:
(1) The applicant has held such a license, but the same has been suspended by reason, in whole or in part, of a violation and if such suspension period
Page 1 2 3 Arizona DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|