DeWitt v. South Carolina Dept. of Highways and Public Transp., 21120
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 262 S.E.2d 28,274 S.C. 184 |
| Parties | James DeWITT, Respondent, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 21120,21120 |
| Decision Date | 15 January 1980 |
Page 28
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION, Appellant.
Page 29
[274 S.C. 185] Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard D. Bybee and Staff Atty. William L. Todd, Columbia, for appellant.
Furman & Speedy, Camden, for respondent.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is from an order enjoining appellant South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation from imposing against respondent James DeWitt the civil sanctions for driving under the influence of alcohol, second offense. We reverse.
Respondent was convicted on June 8, 1970, in Magistrate's Court of driving under the influence of alcohol, first offense. He did not seek appellate review of that conviction.
On May 19, 1978, respondent was tried in Chesterfield County Court of General Sessions on a charge of driving under the influence, second offense. At this trial, the judge reviewed respondent's first conviction for driving under the influence and determined that it was invalid. Thereupon, the judge ordered the first conviction be set aside. He then permitted respondent to enter a guilty plea to driving under the influence, first offense, and ordered that this conviction be [274 S.C. 186] treated by all law enforcement officers and all administrative agencies as a first offense and that any sanctions imposed be those of a first offense.
Despite such order, appellant requested respondent to forfeit his driver's license for one year, the statutorily mandated civil sanction for a conviction of driving under the influence, second offense. See S.C.Code of Laws, § 56-5-2990 (1976). Following appellant's request, respondent obtained an order from the Richland County Court of Common Pleas enforcing the trial judge's order and permanently enjoining appellant from imposing sanctions against respondent for driving under the influence, second offense.
Appellant now contends that the trial judge was without the authority or jurisdiction to review the legality of or set aside respondent's first conviction, and hence, the lower court was in error when it issued an injunction enforcing the trial judge's order. We agree.
A circuit court's jurisdiction over a magistrate court's judgment is appellate in nature. State v. Dickert, 260 S.C. 490, 197 S.E.2d 89 (1973); See also: Sections 18-3-10, Et seq. and 18-1-150, S.C.Code of Laws (1976)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Atkins, 23281
...trial was not the proper forum for collateral attack upon that conviction. See, Dewitt v. South Carolina Department of Highways, 274 S.C. 184, 262 S.E.2d 28 II. JURY INSTRUCTION REGARDING 1970 MURDER CONVICTION Atkins next contends that the trial Court failed to fully instruct the jury on t......
-
State v. Payne, 2873.
...record on appeal). The case most relevant to the resolution of this issue is DeWitt v. South Carolina Dep't of Highways & Pub. Transp., 274 S.C. 184, 262 S.E.2d 28 (1980) (per curiam), in which our supreme court When the State is prosecuting a person for an offense that carries an enhanced ......
-
Spratt v. State, 2020-UP-292
...was the subject of the prior conviction.'" Id. at 272, 504 S.E.2d at 338 (quoting DeWitt v. S.C. Dep't of Highways & Pub. Transp., 274 S.C. 184, 187, 262 S.E.2d 28, 29-30 (1980) (per curiam)). Because we find Spratt had the right to appointed counsel during the 1998 Plea, the presumption of......
-
Spratt v. State, Appellate Case No. 2016-001346
...was the subject of the prior conviction.'" Id. at 272, 504 S.E.2d at 338 (quoting DeWitt v. S.C. Dep't of Highways & Pub. Transp., 274 S.C. 184, 187, 262 S.E.2d 28, 29-30 (1980) (per curiam)). Because we find Spratt had the right to appointed counsel during the 1998 Plea, the presumption of......