State v. Johnson, Cr. N
| Decision Date | 23 December 1965 |
| Docket Number | Cr. N |
| Citation | 139 N.W.2d 157 |
| Parties | STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Darrel Wayne JOHNSON, Defendant and Appellant. o. 328. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where a defendant is served with order of suspension of his driver's license by the mailing of copy of such order to him at the address shown on his application for driver's license or address shown on such license, he cannot complain on the ground that he no longer lives at that address. The law requires the holder of a driver's license to notify the Highway Commissioner in writing of any change of address within ten days after such change. Sec. 39-06-20, N.D.C.C.
2. The authority of the Commissioner to suspend the driver's license of any operator of a motor vehicle without preliminary hearing is limited to a showing on the records of his department, or other sufficient evidence, that the licensee has committed offenses which come within the provisions of Section 39-06-32, N.D.C.C. Where the evidence shows but one conviction of reckless driving, the Commissioner is without authority to so suspend the license of an operator.
3. Where an order of the Commissioner suspending a driver's license is void because of lack of authority under the statute, it follows that the defendant could not be convicted of the charge of operating a motor vehicle while his driver's license is suspended.
Helgi Johanneson, Atty. Gen., Bismarck, and M. C. Hiassen, State's Atty., Minnewaukan, for plaintiff and respondent.
Melvin Christianson, Devils Lake, for defendant and appellant.
The defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction in the county court of increased jurisdiction of Benson County on a charge of operating a motor vehicle while his driver's license was suspended. He contends that his driver's license never had been lawfully suspended or revoked and that, at the time of the alleged offense of so operating his motor vehicle, his driver's license was, in fact, in full force and effect.
The facts as disclosed by the record are these:
The defendant was charged in police magistrate court in Esmond, North Dakota, with a traffic violation. He was found guilty of reckless driving by the magistrate on October 5, 1964, and, as part of the sentence imposed upon him on his conviction, he was required to pay a fine.
The defendant, however, failed to pay the fine and thereafter, on October 21, 1964, the police magistrate wrote to the Safety Responsibility Division of the State Highway Department in Bismarck, at which time the magistrate stated that he recommended----
* * *'
The defendant's license was ordered suspended by the North Dakota Safety Responsibility Division on October 27, 1964, and a copy of such order of suspension was mailed to him at Esmond. A second copy of such order of suspension was mailed to the sheriff's office at Minnewaukan, North Dakota. The defendant failed to surrender his license and, thereafter, a second order of suspension, dated November 16, 1964, was issued by the Safety Responsibility Division, which order stated, in part:
'* * * you have permitted unlawful or fraudulent use of license in that you failed to comply with suspension order #90756 of October 27, 1964';
and providing that his driving privileges were suspended for an additional year.
The evidence shows that after the sheriff's office had received copies of such orders of suspension, the sheriff saw the defendant driving on the public highways and arrested him for operating a motor vehicle while his driving privileges were suspended. The only proof of service of such orders on the defendant was that a copy had been mailed to him at Esmond. No service of either order of suspension was made on the defendant by the sheriff or the highway patrolman, or in any other manner except by mailing to him at Esmond.
At the close of the State's case, the defendant moved for a dismissal of the charges against him. He urged such dismissal on two grounds. The first was that the only service made upon him was by mailing a notice addressed to him at Esmond, North Dakota, and that there was no proof that he actually had received such notice and that, in fact, at the time his address was Minnewaukan, North Dakota. A second ground urged in support of his motion for dismissal was that the offense for which the defendant had been convicted in magistrate court was not such as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Egan
...39-06-20, N.D.C.C., requires a licensee to inform DOT of a change of address within ten days after changing addresses. In State v. Johnson, 139 N.W.2d 157 (N.D.1965), we addressed a defendant's argument he could not be convicted of driving under suspension, because he had not actually recei......
-
City of Fargo v. Malme, 20070043.
...had no statutory authority to adjudicate Malme's alleged violations of the municipal ordinances, its decision is void. See State v. Johnson, 139 N.W.2d 157, 158 Syll. 3 (N.D.1965). It is unnecessary to address the other issues raised. The judgment affirming the board's decision is reversed,......
-
State v. Hughes
...731, 123 N.W.2d 638 (registered or certified mail); State v. Wenof, 102 N.J.Super. 370, 246 A.2d 59 (ordinary mail); State v. Johnson, (Supreme Ct. of N.D.), 139 N.W.2d 157 (opinion does not specify whether ordinary, certified or registered mail); State v. Hebert, 124 Vt. 377, 205 A.2d 816 ......
-
State v. Sinner
...performed by the Safety Responsibility Division of the North Dakota State Highway Department. In addition, in the case of State v. Johnson, 139 N.W.2d 157 (N.D.1965), where the defendant driver claimed the State did not prove that such driver had received notice of suspension orders since t......