Satterlee v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Satterlee v. State

711 S.W.2d 827, 289 Ark. 450, 1986 Ark. LEXIS 1997

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedJuly 7, 1986

DocketCR 86-35

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 711 S.W.2d 827 (Satterlee v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Satterlee v. State, 711 S.W.2d 827, 289 Ark. 450, 1986 Ark. LEXIS 1997 (Ark. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

David Newbern, Justice.

The appellant was convicted in a municipal court of driving a motor vehicle on a public highway without a driver’s license. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 75-307 (Repl. 1979). He appealed the conviction, and it was affirmed by the circuit court. In the appeal to this court, the appellant, appearing pro se, has stated thirty points for reversal. Some of the points are incomprehensible to us. Others are lacking in authority or convincing argument, and we will not consider them. Dixon v. State, 260 Ark. 857, 545 S.W.2d 606 (1977). From the appellant’s argument, we have distilled two points with which we can deal. He argues (1) the statute is an unconstitutional intrusion upon his personal rights and (2) he was not properly proceeded against as there was no indictment or jury trial. We find merit in neither contention, and thus we affirm.

1. Constitutionality of the Statute

The state has the “police power” to promulgate regulations calculated to promote safety in the use of highways. Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352 (1927). Driving a motor vehicle on a public highway is a privilege, and not an unrestrained, natural right, and the state may require a license of those who exercise the privilege. Miami v. Aronowitz, 114 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 1959); Taylor v. State, 209 S.W.2d 191 (Tex. 1948); Cincinnati v. Wright, 67 N.E.2d 358 (Ohio 1945).

2. Propriety of Proceedings

The record shows that the appellant was to have a trial by jury but refused to accept a jury which would be limited to determining the facts as opposed to the law and the facts. He thus waived his right to be tried by a jury.

No grand jury action, indictment, or information was necessary. Driving without a license, as charged in this case, is a misdemeanor. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 75-346 (Repl. 1979). A misdemeanor may be charged by a citation as occurred here. Lowell v. State, 283 Ark. 425, 678 S.W.2d 318 (1984).

Affirmed.

Hickman, J., would affirm under Rule 9 of Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.

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

David Newbern, Justice.

The appellant was convicted in a municipal court of driving a motor vehicle on a public highway without a driver’s license. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 75-307 (Repl. 1979). He appealed the conviction, and it was affirmed by the circuit court. In the appeal to this court, the appellant, appearing pro se, has stated thirty points for reversal. Some of the points are incomprehensible to us. Others are lacking in authority or convincing argument, and we will not consider them. Dixon v. State, 260 Ark. 857, 545 S.W.2d 606 (1977). From the appellant’s argument, we have distilled two points with which we can deal. He argues (1) the statute is an unconstitutional intrusion upon his personal rights and (2) he was not properly proceeded against as there was no indictment or jury trial. We find merit in neither contention, and thus we affirm.

1. Constitutionality of the Statute

The state has the “police power” to promulgate regulations calculated to promote safety in the use of highways. Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352 (1927). Driving a motor vehicle on a public highway is a privilege, and not an unrestrained, natural right, and the state may require a license of those who exercise the privilege. Miami v. Aronowitz, 114 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 1959); Taylor v. State, 209 S.W.2d 191 (Tex. 1948); Cincinnati v. Wright, 67 N.E.2d 358 (Ohio 1945).

2. Propriety of Proceedings

The record shows that the appellant was to have a trial by jury but refused to accept a jury which would be limited to determining the facts as opposed to the law and the facts. He thus waived his right to be tried by a jury.

No grand jury action, indictment, or information was necessary. Driving without a license, as charged in this case, is a misdemeanor. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 75-346 (Repl. 1979). A misdemeanor may be charged by a citation as occurred here. Lowell v. State, 283 Ark. 425, 678 S.W.2d 318 (1984).

Affirmed.

Hickman, J., would affirm under Rule 9 of Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

711 S.W.2d 827, 289 Ark. 450, 1986 Ark. LEXIS 1997, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/satterlee-v-state-ark-1986.

Opinion

1. Constitutionality of the Statute

2. Propriety of Proceedings

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack