 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Benbow4/5/2005
6 S.E.2d 696, 698 (1948) (emphasis added). In this case DMV's decision was not discretionary; rather, it was required under the mandatory provisions in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-17.8.
Accordingly, as the criminal case had concluded and the district court did not have jurisdiction under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-25, the district court erroneously exempted defendant from theignition interlock requirement. Moreover, even assuming the district court had jurisdiction, DMV did not have notice of the proceedings as required by statute.
As indicated by DMV in their brief to this Court, there are proper procedures for challenging the validity of a statute, which defendant may pursue in a different proceeding. In addition, the General Assembly may want to review this matter. As we have concluded the trial court lacked jurisdiction, we do not address the parties' remaining arguments.
Reversed.
Judges CALABRIA and JACKSON concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 North Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|