Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

2516RE: [tips_and_tricks] Texas Driver's License

Expand Messages
  • Dessie Andrews
    Aug 28, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Message
      I've had this case for years, but not in electronic format, thus can't ever find it.
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Russell Mortland [mailto:rtm@...]
      Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 12:39 AM
      To: ed44@yahoogroups.com
      Cc: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Texas Driver's License

      Not Reported in S.W.2d

      No Publication

       

      (Cite as: 1997 WL 438759 (Tex.App.‑San Antonio))

       

      NOTICE: NOT DESIGNATED FOR

      PUBLICATION. UNDER TEX.R.APP.P. 47.7

      UNPUBLISHED

      OPINIONS MAY NOT BE CITED AS

      AUTHORITY.

       

      Daniel C. ARTEAGA, Appellant,

       

      V.

       

      The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

       

      Appeal No. 04‑96‑00650‑CR.

       

      Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio.

       

      Aug. 6,1997.

       

      From the County Court at Law No. 8, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 602001 Honorable Karen Crouch, Judge Presiding

       

      Sitting: TOM RICKHOFF, Justice SARAH B. DUNCAN, Justice JOHN F. ONION, Jr., Justice.

       

      ONION, Justice. [FN I I.

       

      FN1. Assigned to this case by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas.

       

      REVERSED AND ACQUITTAL ORDERED

       

      *1 This appeal is taken from a conviction for unlawfully driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway during a period in which the driver's privilege to drive was suspended. [FN2) Appellant, Daniel Arteaga, entered a plea of not guilty but was convicted in a bench trial. His punishment was assessed at ninety days' confinement in the county jail and a fine of $300. The imposition of the sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on community supervision for six months.

       

      FN2. TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 601.371(a)(1), (2) (Vernon Pamp.1997).

       

      Appellant advances five points of error, the first being a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. On March 31, 1995, Balcones Heights Police Officer Danny Tomlison observed appellant driving a white 1980 Dodge pickup truck

       

      Page I

       

      without a rear license plate. The officer initiated a traffic stop. Appellant was unable to produce a driver's license or proof of insurance. Appellant was arrested and charged with driving a motor vehicle while his privilege to drive was suspended.

       

      The statute at issue provides:

       

      (a) A person commits an offense if the person operates a motor vehicle on a highway:

       

      (1) during a period that a suspension of the person's driver's license or nonresident! s operating privilege is in effect under this chapter; or

       

      (2) while the person's driver's license is expired, if the license expired during a period of suspension imposed under this chapter.

       

      TEX. TRANS. CODE ANN. § 601.371(a)(1), (2) (Vernon Pam p. 1997).

       

      To obtain a conviction under this statute, the prosecution must show either that the accused had an unexpired license which was suspended at the time of the alleged offense or that the accused's privilege to drive was suspended at or before the time his license expired by its own terms, and that the privilege remained suspended from the expiration date to the time of the alleged offense. See Allen v. State, 681 S.W.2d 38, 40 (Tex.Crim.App.1984); Smith v. State, 895 S.W.2d 449, 452 (Tex.App.‑‑Dallas 1995, pet. ref d).

       

      The evidence in the instant case showed appellant's driver's license expired on November 2, 1992. This Texas driver's license was suspended on July 14, 1993, and again on January 1, 1994, for failure to comply with the Texas Safety Responsibility Act. Thus, it is clear that at the time of appellant's arrest, his driver's license had been suspended after his license had expired. The State confesses error and agrees that the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain the conviction. Point of error one is sustained. In view of our disposition of this point of error, we need not reach the other points of error.

       

      The judgment of conviction is reversed and appellant is ordered acquitted. See Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 18, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978); Greene v. Massey, 437 U.S. 19, 24, 98 S.Ct. 2151, 57 L.Ed.2d 15 (1978).

       

      END OF DOCUMENT

       

      Copr. C West 1999 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works



      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
    • Show all 5 messages in this topic