 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Partridge v. State3/17/2004
esentencing for the violation of OCGA § 40-6-391(a)(5). [FN7]
FN2. Morgan v. State, 212 Ga.App. 394, 395(1), 442 S.E.2d 257 (1994); see also Smith v. State, 239 Ga.App. 515, 516(1), 521 S.E.2d 450 (1999); Hogan v. State, 178 Ga.App. 534, 535, 343 S.E.2d 770 (1986).
FN3. See Hogan, supra at 536-537, 343 S.E.2d 770; OCGA § 16-1- 7(a)(1).
FN4. The sentence for this offense was only a fine.
FN5. See Schoolfield v. State, 251 Ga.App. 52, 55(3), 554 S.E.2d 181 (2001).
FN6. Ellerbee v. State, 215 Ga.App. 102, 103(1), 449 S.E.2d 874 (1994).
FN7. See Taylor v. State, 238 Ga.App. 753, 755(2), 520 S.E.2d 267 (1999).
We now consider Partridge's claim of error and find that any error in the admission of the field sobriety test results was harmless. A conviction under OCGA § 40-6-391(a)(5) does not require the state to prove impaired driving ability. [FN8] Thus, even if the results of the field sobriety tests should have been excluded, it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the judgment. [FN9] The breath test results, which are not challenged on appeal, provide sufficient proof of the per se violation. [FN10] Any error in denying Partridge's motion to suppress *307 the results of the field sobriety tests would therefore be harmless. [FN11]
FN8. Power v. State, 231 Ga.App. 335, 337(1), 499 S.E.2d 356 (1998).
FN9. See id.
FN10. See Hogan, supra at 536, 343 S.E.2d 770 (DUI per se requires proof only of the commission of proscribed specific act, without resort to any inference or presumption).
FN11. See Smith, supra.
Judgment affirmed
Page 1 2 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|