 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sykes v. Hiatt6/5/1990
On appeal, petitioner first argues that no valid bond forfeiture occurred in South Carolina and that the trial court erred in holding that the DMV had validly suspended his driving privileges based on this bond forfeiture.
General Statutes Chapter 20, Article 2, reads as follows:
20-16. Authority of Division to suspend license.
(a) The Division shall have authority to suspend the license of any operator with or without a preliminary hearing upon a showing by its records or other satisfactory evidence that the licensee:
(7) Has committed an offense in another state, which if committed in this State would be grounds for suspension or revocation.
G.S. 20-16(a)(7).
General Statute 20-23 authorizes DMV to suspend or revoke a resident's license "upon receiving notice of the conviction as defined in G.S. 20-24(c) of such person in another state of the offenses hereinafter enumerated which, if committed in this State, would be grounds for the suspension or revocation of the license of an operator." The section applies only to offenses set forth in G.S. 20-26(a).
General Statute 20-26(a), in turn, cross references to G.S. 20-17 for an additional list of offenses to which G.S. 20-23 and G.S. 20-24(c) are applicable. General Statute 20-17(2) reads as follows:
20-17. Mandatory revocation of license by Division.
The Division shall forthwith revoke the license of any driver upon receiving a record of such driver's conviction for any of the following offenses when such conviction has become final:
(2) Impaired driving under G.S. 20-138.1.
Petitioner contends that DMV could not validly suspend his driver's license pursuant to these statutes because he was not convicted of the offense of driving while impaired in South Carolina. Petitioner argues that conviction under G.S. 20-24(c) is defined as
"a final conviction of a criminal offense or a determination that a person is responsible for an infraction."
Petitioner admits that he received a citation in South Carolina for which he posted a cash bond in the amount of $218.00 to insure his appearance in court. Relying on In re Revocation of License of Wright, 228 N.C. 584, 46 S.E.2d 696 (1948), petitioner argues, however, that no bond forfeiture occurred in South Carolina when he failed to appear because the notice from South Carolina stated only that a uniform traffic ticket was issued. There could be no legal bond forfeiture without a legal proceeding, and there could be no pending legal proceeding unless a warrant had been issued. Id. at 588, 46 S.E.2d at 699. See also In re Donnelly, 260 N.C. 375, 132 S.E.2d 904 (1963).
Since the Supreme Court's decisions in Wright and Donnelly, the South Carolina Code and the North Carolina General Statutes have been amended to permit service of process by citation for misdemeanor traffic violations. South Carolina Code Ann. § 56-7-10 states:
There will be a uniform traffic ticket used by all law enforcement officers in arrests for traffic offenses . . . .
S.C. Code Ann. § 56-7-10 (Law. Co-op. 1976). This section has been interpreted by the South Carolina Supreme Court to vest jurisdiction in the traffic court to hear and dispose of traffic charges without the necessity of an arrest warrant. State v. Prince
Page 1 2 North Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|