Miller v. State, A--17567

• Decision Date: 15 November 1972
• Docket Number: No. A--17567,A--17567
• Citation: Miller v. State, 503 P.2d 886 (Okla. Crim. App. 1972)
• Parties: Raymond E. MILLER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
• Court: United States State Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Page 886

503 P.2d 886

Raymond E. MILLER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. A--17567.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Nov. 15, 1972.

Michael P. Atkinson, Enid, for appellant.

Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., Michael Cauthron, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

OPINION

BRETT, Judge:

Appellant, Raymond E. Miller, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was convicted in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. TR--72--5603, of failure to have a vehicular inspection in violation of 47 O.S.1971, § 851--861, with punishment fixed at a fine of $10.00. Judgment and sentence was imposed on January 23, 1972, and this appeal perfected therefrom.

After entering a plea of not guilty, the defendant appeared in district court for a non-jury trial and stipulated that he was operating a motor vehicle in Tulsa County without a current safety inspection certificate or sticker. The defendant advised the court that he was challenging the constitutionality of the Act requiring motor vehicle safety inspections. The trial court found the Act constitutional and convicted defendant thereunder.

On appeal it is defendant's first contention that the trial court erred in convicting the defendant, as the State failed to establish the material elements of the crime charged. In substance, the Motor Vehicle Inspection Act, 47 O.S.1971, § 851, provides that no person shall drive or move on any highway any motor vehicles 'which are licensed by the Oklahoma Tax Commission and operated on the streets or highways of this State' unless said vehicle is adjusted as required in this Act and said vehicle bears an official inspection certificate. Defendant contends that the burden is always upon the State to prove every element of the offense charged, and that there was no evidence in the trial court that he defendant's vehicle was 'licensed by the Oklahoma Tax Commission and operated on the streets or highways of this State.'

From a review of the record, it is obvious that the defendant fully admitted his guilt of driving a motor vehicle without a vehicle inspection certificate. Defendant's statements, while represented by counsel, fully admit his guilt to the offense charged. When the defendant so admits his guilt, he absolves the State's burden to prove the material element of crime charged. Accordingly, we find that the defendant's stipulation and admission, which were voluntarily and intelligently given, supported a guilty verdict and conviction.

As to the constitutionality of the Motor Vehicle Inspection Act, the defendant contends that the Act is an arbitrary abridgement of the right of a citizen to travel upon public highways in violation of Article II, Section 7, of the Oklahoma Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. In this connection, it is further argued that the inspection Act 'may' violate the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as it 'imposes a form of servitude before one may properly drive a car.'

It is fundamental that the 'Legislature, in exercise of right to regulate use of highways and of inherent police power of state alone, has power to regulate circumstances under which automobiles may be operated upon highways of state.' State v. Moyers, 86 Okl.Cr. 101, 189 P.2d 952 (1948). The right of the Legislature to enact laws for the preservation of the public health, safety, and welfare is beyond question. Polk v. Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, Okl., 420 P.2d 520. It is only when the exercise of police power becomes unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, or violates a fundamental constitutional guarantee that it may be successfully challenged. When a law operates on all alike and does not subject individuals to arbitrary exercise of the Government, and provides a regular course of administration and enforcement, it is generally said to satisfy the due process of law requirement. Shaw v. State, 76 Okl.Cr. 271, 134 P.2d 999, 138 P.2d 136 (1943).

We find that the Motor Vehicle Inspection Act operates equally on all alike and does not subject individuals to arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable exercise of governmental power. The law provides for a regular course of administration through the courts and otherwise satisfies the general...