 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Coker v. State6/13/2003
A jury found William Coker guilty of DUI and of driving with a suspended license. Coker was stopped by police while driving a golf cart on a public highway in Peachtree City. He appeals only the conviction for driving with a suspended license, arguing that (i) the evidence did not sustain the conviction, (ii) the court erred in instructing the jury that a driver's license was required to drive a golf cart on a public highway, and (iii) the court erred in declaring unconstitutional a Peachtree City municipal ordinance allowing unlicensed drivers to drive golf carts on public highways. We hold that a driver's license is required to drive a golf cart on public highways and therefore affirm the conviction.
Construed in favor of the verdict, the evidence showed that police witnessed Coker driving a golf cart on a public highway shortly after 1:00 a.m. They activated their car's blue lights and siren, and Coker immediately drove the cart onto a golf cart path that paralleled the highway. Coker eventually stopped and consented to field sobriety tests, which he failed. Coker had no driver's license, as it had been suspended. A breath test showed his blood-alcohol level to be over .14. He was charged with obstructing law enforcement officers, two counts of DUI, and driving with a suspended license.
Coker moved to dismiss the suspended-license charge, arguing that no license was required to drive a golf cart in Peachtree City. He pointed to a Peachtree City ordinance, which he claimed allowed 12-to- 14-year-olds to drive golf carts on recreation paths and streets if accompanied by a licensed parent. The court held that OCGA § 40-5-20 (a) preempted the ordinance and required drivers of all motor vehicles, including golf carts, to have a driver's license when driving on public highways. The court instructed the jury of the requirement for a driver's license, and Coker was found guilty on one of the DUI charges and the driving-with-a-suspended-license charge. Coker moved for a new trial, which was denied. He appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court, which transferred the appeal to this Court on the ground that no constitutional questions were raised or ruled on below. His appeal challenges the driving-with-a-suspended-license conviction only, arguing that the evidence was insufficient, that the jury charge regarding the need for a license to drive a golf cart was erroneous, and that the court erred in declaring the city ordinance unconstitutional.
1. Coker argues that the court erred in declaring the Peachtree City ordinance unconstitutional. We note, however, that the Supreme Court in its transfer order specifically determined that no constitutional questions were raised or ruled on in the trial court. Since this determination is final and binding, we cannot consider Coker's constitutionality arguments. Schmidt v. Feldman, 230 Ga. App. 500, 502 (2) (497 SE2d 23) (1998); see Hardeman v. State, 247 Ga. App. 503 (1) (544 SE2d 481) (2001); Hindman v. State, 234 Ga. App. 758, 765 (5) (507 SE2d 862) (1998).
2. In his other two enumerations, Coker contends that he did not need a driver's license to drive a golf cart on a public highway. He argues that a golf cart is a motorized cart as defined in OCGA § 40-1-1 (32) and is not subject to the general requirement that the driver have a license. He explains that since motorized carts receive special treatment in OCGA §§ 40-6-330 and 40-6-331, which statutes do not expressly require a license for drivers of motorized carts, one can infer that the legislature, which in another statute (OCGA § 40-6-351) expressly required moped drivers to have a driver's license, did not intend to require motorized cart drivers to have a driver's license. He also
Page 1 2 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|