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

Texas Driver's License

Expand Messages
  • Russell Mortland
    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
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 26, 2003
      Message

      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      UNPUBLISHED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

    • Dessie Andrews
      I ve had this case for years, but not in electronic format, thus can t ever find it. ... From: Russell Mortland [mailto:rtm@texas.net] Sent: Wednesday, August
      Message 2 of 5 , Aug 28, 2003
        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.
      • Sterling W Wyatt
        The recently posted Arteaga *driving* case conviction that was overturned on appeal, does not prove that one can drive without a license. It DOES prove that
        Message 3 of 5 , Aug 29, 2003
          Message
           
          The recently posted Arteaga *driving* case conviction that was overturned on appeal, does not prove that one can drive without a license. 
           
          It DOES prove that the elements of the specific crime Arteaga was charged with were not fulfilled at the TIME he was charged.  Specifically, one's license can not be suspended if the license is not operative and current, therefore the requirement that he was driving when his license was lawfully suspended is not fulfilled.  Or alternatively, any suspension must have occurred BEFORE the license expired, but in this instance, the alleged suspension occured AFTER his license had expired.
           
          The State saw the mix up and agreed there was insuficient evidence showing he had a bonafide SUSPENDED LICENSE when actually CHARGED to convict him of driving on a suspended license.
           
          It appears that the case is a good teaching aid - and for fooling potential trafic law protestors.
           
          Wayne
           
        • WARREN NELSON
          Wayne, you need to read and understand the law, before you can say anything about travelling without a STATE privilege license. Warren
          Message 4 of 5 , Aug 30, 2003
            Wayne, you need to read and understand the law, before
            you can say anything about travelling without a STATE
            privilege license.


            Warren
            --- Sterling W Wyatt <swwyatt@...> wrote:
            >
            > The recently posted Arteaga *driving* case
            > conviction that was overturned
            > on appeal, does not prove that one can drive without
            > a license.
            >
            > It DOES prove that the elements of the specific
            > crime Arteaga was charged
            > with were not fulfilled at the TIME he was charged.
            > Specifically, one's
            > license can not be suspended if the license is not
            > operative and current,
            > therefore the requirement that he was driving when
            > his license was
            > lawfully suspended is not fulfilled. Or
            > alternatively, any suspension
            > must have occurred BEFORE the license expired, but
            > in this instance, the
            > alleged suspension occured AFTER his license had
            > expired.
            >
            > The State saw the mix up and agreed there was
            > insuficient evidence
            > showing he had a bonafide SUSPENDED LICENSE when
            > actually CHARGED to
            > convict him of driving on a suspended license.
            >
            > It appears that the case is a good teaching aid -
            > and for fooling
            > potential trafic law protestors.
            >
            > Wayne
          • Dessie Andrews
            I think we all understood the case, Sterling. The point is, if one does not have a current driver license, it has either been surrendered or has expired, then
            Message 5 of 5 , Aug 31, 2003
              Message

              I think we all understood the case, Sterling.  The point is, if one does not have a current driver license, it has either been surrendered or has expired, then one can not be charged with driving on a suspended license.  One has no contract with the state in that instance and has no obligation to perform.

               

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Sterling W Wyatt [mailto:swwyatt@...]
              Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 10:59 PM
              To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Texas Driver's License

               

               

              The recently posted Arteaga *driving* case conviction that was overturned on appeal, does not prove that one can drive without a license. 

               

              It DOES prove that the elements of the specific crime Arteaga was charged with were not fulfilled at the TIME he was charged.  Specifically, one's license can not be suspended if the license is not operative and current, therefore the requirement that he was driving when his license was lawfully suspended is not fulfilled.  Or alternatively, any suspension must have occurred BEFORE the license expired, but in this instance, the alleged suspension occured AFTER his license had expired.

               

              The State saw the mix up and agreed there was insuficient evidence showing he had a bonafide SUSPENDED LICENSE when actually CHARGED to convict him of driving on a suspended license.

               

              It appears that the case is a good teaching aid - and for fooling potential trafic law protestors.

               

              Wayne

               



              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.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.