Williamson v. State
| Decision Date | 31 December 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. A--15284,A--15284 |
| Citation | 463 P.2d 1004 |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
| Parties | Dwight WILLIAMSON, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Title 47 O.S.1961, § 22.22a, which makes it a misdemeanor for any person convicted of soliciting or receiving any compensation for acting as a messenger, agent, or representative of another person in applying for the registration of a motor vehicle and obtaining the license plates therefor unless he shall furnish to the Motor License Agent of the county in which such service is performed a surety bond in the amount as said Motor License Agent shall determine to be commensurate with the amount of money which may be involved at any one time, is constitutional and valid.
2. Where a person, seeking to act as a messenger for a motor vehicle owner to obtain license plates from a Motor Vehicle Agent, offers a surety bond to said agent, which is not accepted, where the amount of the bond has not been determined, or request for determination made, there is no statutory compliance within the provision that such a messenger 'furnish a surety bond in such amount as said Motor License Agent shall determine.' 47 O.S.1961, § 22.22a.
Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County; James R. Hays, Judge.
Dwight Williamson was convicted of the crime of receiving compensation from a motor vehicle owner for obtaining an automobile license plate from a Motor License Agent without furnishing said agent a surety bond in an amount determined by the agent, or without being an appointed or authorized subagent of said Motor License Agent, was assessed a fine of $100.00 and appeals. Affirmed.
Johnson & Fisher, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
G. T. Blankenship, Atty. Gen., W. Howard O'Bryan, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error, Dwight Williamson, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. 153706, with receiving compensation from a motor vehicle owner for obtaining a 1969 license plate from the Tulsa County Motor License Agent without furnishing said agent a surety bond in an amount determined by the agent, or without being an appointed or authorized subagent of said Motor License Agent. Defendant was tried before a jury on March 24, 1969, and found guilty as charged. Judgment and sentence was imposed on April 4, 1969, with defendant's punishment assessed at a fine of $100.00 in accord with the jury's verdict.
The facts adduced at defendant's trial indicate that Cecil D. Gann, owner of a 1965 Chevrolet, on approximately December 26 or 27, 1968, left his automobile title with Mr. John Phelps at the Phelps' grocery store in Tulsa County to secure his 1969 automobile license plate. Mr. Gann subsequently returned to the grocery store and picked up his 1969 automobile license plate, having paid $37.26 for the plate plus a one dollar fee charged by Mr. Phelps. Mr. Phelps testified that he turned over Mr. Gann's papers, along with many others, to the defendant who secured the license plates and returned them to the store. The $1.00 fee for each customer was split with fifty cents to Mr. Phelps and fifty cents to defendant. Doris Beard, the Tulsa County Motor Vehicle Agent, testified that the defendant was not one of her twelve authorized subagents, that she had never designated a bond amount for the defendant, and that defendant had never requested to be appointed a subagent. Mrs. Beard testified that the defendant had mailed to her office a bond which she did not examine, but had her secretary return to the defendant. The defendant was apparently engaged in a 'messenger service' as a runner, whereby he takes an owner's automobile title and secures for the owner from the Motor License Agent or subagent an automobile license plate and receives a fee for his service.
47 O.S.1961, § 22.22a, provides as follows:
'It shall be unlawful for any person to display any sign or to advertise in any manner representing to the public that he is an official or authorized Motor License Agent of the State, or that he has authority to ergister motor vehicles and issue license plates therefor, unless such person is a duly appointed and qualified Motor License Agent under the provisions of § 22.22, Title 47, O.S.1951; and it shall be unlawful for any person to solicit, accept or receive any gratuity or compensation for acting as a messenger or for acting as the agent or representative of another person in applying for the registration of a motor vehicle and obtaining the license plates therefor from the Oklahoma Tax Commission or from any official and authorized Motor License Agent, or to advertise, solicit, or in any manner offer to render such services for hire or compensation unless he shall furnish to the Motor License Agent of the county in which such service is performed a surety bond in such amount as said Motor License Agent shall determine to be commensurate with the amount of money which may be involved at any one time.
'Any person violating the provisions hereof shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of not more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), or by imprisonment in the county jail for not exceeding one (1) year, or both, and each day that any such person advertises or in any manner offers to render such services to the public or to any person shall constitute a separate offense. * * *'
47 O.S.Supp.1969, § 22.30o provides as follows:
'Any person who serves as a duly appointed subagent of the motor license and tag agent in the registration of motor vehicles and the issuance of license plates therefor, as provided under the provisions of Section 22.22a, Title 47, O.S.1961, for the convenience of the public and who is responsible to the motor license agent for the proper performance of such duties, may make a charge therefor not in excess of fifty cents (50cents) per registration, to the person for whom the service is being rendered, provided that said charge by such subagent is approved and authorized by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Romano v. State
...562 P.2d 1177, 1179 (Okl.Cr.1977). The party attacking the constitutionality of the statute has the burden of proof. Williamson v. State, 463 P.2d 1004 (Okl.Cr.1969). When reviewing the constitutionality of a legislative act, we do not look to the Constitution to determine whether the Legis......
-
State v. Madden
...The party attacking the statute has the burden of proof since the statutes are presumed to be constitutional. Williamson v. State, Okl.Cr., 463 P.2d 1004 (1969) and Pugh v. State, Okl.Cr., 416 P.2d 637 (1966). When reasonably possible, and within the bounds of legitimate construction, statu......
-
Turner v. State
...party attacking a statute as unconstitutional has the burden of proof. Pugh v. State, Okl.Cr., 416 P.2d 637 (1966), and Williamson v. State, Okl.Cr., 463 P.2d 1004 (1969). Further, when reasonably possible, and within the bounds of legitimate construction, statutes should be construed so as......
-
State v. Koo
...the persons alleging their unconstitutionality have the burden of proof. Hilliary v. State, 630 P.2d 791 (Okl.Cr.1981); Williamson v. State, 463 P.2d 1004 (Okl.Cr.1969). Further, when reasonably possible, and within the bounds of legitimate construction, statutes should be construed so as t......