State v. Collins
| Decision Date | 06 November 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 18980,18980 |
| Citation | 253 S.C. 358,170 S.E.2d 667 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Jerry COLLINS, Appellant. |
Arrowsmith & Jackson, Florence, for appellant.
Solicitor T. Kenneth Summerford, Asst. Solicitor David W. Keller, Florence, for respondent.
The defendant-appellant was convicted by a jury and sentenced on June 3, 1969 on a charge of a second offense violation of Sec. 46--192.1 of the 1962 Code of Laws, as amended by Act No. 146 of the 1967 Acts of the General Assembly, which prohibits one from operating an automobile upon a public highway at a time when his license to drive or privilege to do so is 'canceled, suspended or revoked'. Admittedly, an order of suspension issued by the South Carolina State Highway Department, pursuant to Secs. 46--722 et seq., of the 1962 Code of Laws, on August 7, 1968 and effective August 28, 1968, was in force and effect on the date of the alleged offense.
Upon the trial of the case the appellant moved for a directed verdict of not guilty on the sole ground that the State had presented no evidence that a driver's license had ever been issued to him pursuant to Sec. 46--163 of the Code, and accordingly, that he could not be guilty of the offense charged against him. The appeal is from the denial of such motion for a directed verdict.
The record does not contain a transcript of the testimony. The statement of the case concedes that the State presented no evidence that the appellant had ever had a driver's license, but the record shows that there was evidence that a beginner's permit had been issued to the appellant pursuant to Sec. 46--155 of the Code, and that the case was submitted to the jury on the theory that a beginner's permit was a 'privilege to drive' within the purview of Code Sec. 46--192.1.
While the exceptions on the part of the appellant and the questions stated by him are several, there is actually only one contention properly preserved and presented to this court for decision on appeal. Such contention is that a beginner's permit does not constitute a 'privilege' to operate a motor vehicle within the purview of Code Sec. 46--192.1. It is urged, inter alia, that the offense of which appellant was convicted 'is not enumerated' in the statute under which he was charged, there being no express reference therein to the revocation or suspension of a beginner's permit.
The appeal, we think, is clearly without merit. No one has an absolute right to operate a motor vehicle upon a public highway. The operation of such is a privilege which may be and has been extended to individuals under various circumstances, by sundry statutory provisions of this State. See generally 7 Am.Jur. (2d) 668, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, Sec. 97; S.C. State Highway Dept. v. Harbin, 226 S.C. 585, 86 S.E.2d 466 (1955). Code Sec. 46--153 exempts various persons from the statutory requirement of a license to drive a motor vehicle and, hence, accords them the privilege of operating a vehicle without a license. Sec. 46--157 provides for a temporary driver's permit and thus grants, within the purview of that section, the privilege to operate a motor vehicle without a regular driver's license. Sec. 46--156 authorizes a student's instruction permit extending, within the limitations of that section, the privilege to drive a motor vehicle without a driver's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peake v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles
...privilege subject to reasonable regulations under the police power in the interest of the public safety and welfare. State v. Collins, 253 S.C. 358, 170 S.E.2d 667 (1969); Summersell v. South Carolina Dep't of Public Safety, 334 S.C. 357, 366, 513 S.E.2d 619, 624 (Ct.App. 1999), vacated in ......
-
State v. Price
...civil sanction). Second, the ability to operate a motor vehicle on the highways is a privilege, rather than a right.6 State v. Collins, 253 S.C. 358, 170 S.E.2d 667 (1969). See also S.C. State Hwy. Dept. v. Harbin, 226 S.C. 585, 86 S.E.2d 466 (1955) (recognizing that Legislature has authori......
-
Eli's, Inc. v. Lemen
... ... In his answer, Lemen generally denied the allegations and further alleged that counts I, II, III, and IV failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Lemen also alleged that certain allegations made by Eli's were frivolous and sought attorney fees and ... ...
-
State v. Newton
...automobile is not a property right, but a privilege which may be extended to individuals under various circumstances. State v. Collins, 253 S.C. 358, 170 S.E.2d 667 (1969). Such a privilege is always subject to such reasonable regulation and control as the proper authorities see fit to impo......