Goats v. State

Citation364 S.W.2d 889,211 Tenn. 249,15 McCanless 249
Parties, 211 Tenn. 249 John GOATS v. STATE of Tennessee.
Decision Date07 February 1963
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

Henry & Henry, Pulaski, for plaintiff in error.

George F. McCanless, Atty. Gen., Nashville, Walker T. Tipton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BURNETT, Justice.

Goats was convicted of the violation of § 59-716, T.C.A., driving an automobile while license was revoked or suspended, and sentenced to serve two (2) days in the County Jail, along with a fine of $5.00, from which he has appealed.

Goats on April 2, 1962, was convicted of driving while under the influence of an intoxicant in the General Sessions Court of Giles County and was fined $50.00 therefor and prohibited from driving his automobile for fifteen days. Subsequently thereto the Department of Safety of the State, by virtue of § 59-712, T.C.A., suspended Goat's driver's license. The exact period of time this suspension was to remain in effect does not appear in the record but apparently it was more than fifteen days. Sometime after the fifteen day prohibition period inflicted by the General Sessions Court was up Goats was arrested for driving while his license was suspended or revoked. The General Sessions Judge heard this matter and fined Goats $5.00 and sentenced him to two (2) days in jail. He seasonably perfected his appeal to the Circuit Court, where without the intervention of a jury he was again found guilty as set out in the outset of this opinion.

There are three assignments of error, and, when all are boiled down together as they may readily be, they present the question that the Department of Safety has no authority to revoke a driver's license because this is a judicial act and one department of the State cannot encroach upon another.

The assignments are the Chapter 100, Acts of 1955, was an unwarranted and illegal delegation of power of the judiciary to the executive branch. As a matter of fact this Act does nothing more or less than to say that certain duties and rights of the Safety Department, which had been delegated by the Legislature, are not affected by a subsequent statute which provides penalties for drunk driving, etc.

Second, it is said that this same Act, Chapter 100 of the Acts of 1955, was a usurpation of the powers of the judiciary in that it tells the court how to construe Chapter 202, § 5 of the Acts of 1953. These two Acts have now been incorporated in the Supplement to the Code as § 59-1035.

In many states including Tennessee the statutory procedure has been established whereby a motorist who has been convicted or adjudged guilty of certain traffic violations, as driving under the influence of an intoxicant, etc., may have his driver's license suspended or revoked for a period of time by a designated State official, in this State the Department of Safety. The reason for such a suspension or revocation is not to punish the driver but is to protect the general public by removing a potential menace from the highways.

These statutes regulating the granting of licenses to drivers of automobiles is governed by § 59, Chapter 7, and subsequent sections therein and is placed by the Legislature under the Department of Safety. This Department has the duty, right and privilege to grant licenses to those who drive within this State. Under the statutes which give them the right to grant the licenses, it also gives them the right for the revocation or the suspension of the license. The revocation of the grant to operate a motor vehicle upon the highways deprives the holder of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • State v. Kamalski
    • United States
    • Delaware Superior Court
    • January 14, 1981
    ...rejected the contention that they are criminal proceedings. See State v. Wilson, La.App., 354 So.2d 1077 (1978); Goats v. State, Tenn.Supr., 211 Tenn. 249, 364 S.W.2d 889 (1963); Campbell v. State, Dept. of Rev., Div. of Motor Vehicles, 176 Colo. 202, 491 P.2d 1385, 60 A.L.R.3d 419 (1971); ......
  • Archer v. State
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • March 22, 1993
  • State v. Conley
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • September 27, 1982
    ...a second time to punish criminally, for the same offense....' " 170 S.E.2d 732, 735-36. This Court recognized in Goats v. State, 211 Tenn. 249, 253, 364 S.W.2d 889, 891 (1963) that the revocation of a driver's license because of a violation of the statutes governing the conduct of motor veh......
  • State v. Thompson
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
    • December 15, 2000
    ...a public highway is not a fundamental "right." State v. Booher, 978 S.W.2d 953, 956 (Tenn.Crim.App.1997) (citing Goats v. State, 211 Tenn. 249, 364 S.W.2d 889, 891 (Tenn.1963); Sullins v. Butler, 175 Tenn. 468, 135 S.W.2d 930, 932 (Tenn. 1940) (citations omitted)). Instead, it is a revocabl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT