Mobley v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Mobley v. State

557 S.E.2d 488, 253 Ga. App. 57, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 47, 2001 Ga. App. LEXIS 1409

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 14, 2001

DocketA01A2081

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 557 S.E.2d 488 (Mobley v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mobley v. State, 557 S.E.2d 488, 253 Ga. App. 57, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 47, 2001 Ga. App. LEXIS 1409 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Barnes, Judge.

Lloyd Mobley appeals from his conviction of driving with a suspended license, contending the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to go forward. Mobley asserts that the arresting officer failed [58]*58to comply with the following requirement of OCGA § 40-5-121 (b) (1): “The charge of driving with a suspended or disqualified license shall not be made where the suspension is a result of a failure to respond under Code Section 40-5-56 or an insurance cancellation unless the arresting officer hás verified a service date and such date is placed on the uniform citation.” The record in this case shows that Mobley’s license was suspended under OCGA § 40-5-56 for failing to appear at a hearing for a traffic offense and that the officer arrested him for driving with a suspended license. Instead of issuing a citation to Mobley, however, the officer took him into custody and obtained an arrest warrant. Mobley was never given a uniform citation listing the service date nor a copy of his arrest warrant.

Decided December 14, 2001. Robert L. Mack, Jr., for appellant. Keith C. Martin, Solicitor-General, for appellee.

In State v. Brooks, 194 Ga. App. 465 (390 SE2d 673) (1990), we interpreted a broader predecessor to the current version of OCGA § 40-5-121 (b) (1) in a case in which the officer did not verify and place the service date on the uniform citation issued to the appellant. We held that “under the clear mandate of; . . the statute ... , no charge of driving with a suspended license could be made against appellant.” Id. at 466. As in Brooks, supra, “we may not sanction noncompliance [with the statute] because we perceive it to be unnecessary or cumbersome.” Id.

Judgment reversed.

Smith, P. J., and Phipps, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Barnes, Judge.

Lloyd Mobley appeals from his conviction of driving with a suspended license, contending the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to go forward. Mobley asserts that the arresting officer failed [58]*58to comply with the following requirement of OCGA § 40-5-121 (b) (1): “The charge of driving with a suspended or disqualified license shall not be made where the suspension is a result of a failure to respond under Code Section 40-5-56 or an insurance cancellation unless the arresting officer hás verified a service date and such date is placed on the uniform citation.” The record in this case shows that Mobley’s license was suspended under OCGA § 40-5-56 for failing to appear at a hearing for a traffic offense and that the officer arrested him for driving with a suspended license. Instead of issuing a citation to Mobley, however, the officer took him into custody and obtained an arrest warrant. Mobley was never given a uniform citation listing the service date nor a copy of his arrest warrant.

Decided December 14, 2001. Robert L. Mack, Jr., for appellant. Keith C. Martin, Solicitor-General, for appellee.

In State v. Brooks, 194 Ga. App. 465 (390 SE2d 673) (1990), we interpreted a broader predecessor to the current version of OCGA § 40-5-121 (b) (1) in a case in which the officer did not verify and place the service date on the uniform citation issued to the appellant. We held that “under the clear mandate of; . . the statute ... , no charge of driving with a suspended license could be made against appellant.” Id. at 466. As in Brooks, supra, “we may not sanction noncompliance [with the statute] because we perceive it to be unnecessary or cumbersome.” Id.

Judgment reversed.

Smith, P. J., and Phipps, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

557 S.E.2d 488, 253 Ga. App. 57, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 47, 2001 Ga. App. LEXIS 1409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mobley-v-state-gactapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack