State v. Roberts

403 N.E.2d 971, 62 Ohio St. 2d 94, 16 Ohio Op. 3d 102, 1980 Ohio LEXIS 695
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedApril 23, 1980
DocketNo. 79-1236
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 403 N.E.2d 971 (State v. Roberts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Roberts, 403 N.E.2d 971, 62 Ohio St. 2d 94, 16 Ohio Op. 3d 102, 1980 Ohio LEXIS 695 (Ohio 1980).

Opinion

William B. Brown, J.

Appellee’s conviction for driving under a suspended license is lawful only if his suspension continued after the expiration of the explicit six-month suspension period described in R. C. 4507.40(K).1 The Court of Appeals reversed appellee’s conviction for reason that his suspension had earlier terminated by operation of law, i.e., when the above six-month period expired. The state herein argues that the Court of Appeals should have sustained the conviction because such suspensions do not terminate by operation of law but continue unless and until the Registrar returns driving privileges pursuant to R. C. 4507.41.2

The state’s argument is without merit. R. C. 4507.40(N), in part, provides:

[96]*96“Upon termination of*** [a driver’s] suspension*** and upon request of [that driver]* * *, the registrar shall return the license* * *upon determining that all provisions of section 4507.41 of the Revised Code have been met.” (Emphasis added.)

Based on the above provision, appellee could not seek the return of his driving privileges pursuant to R. C. 4507.41 until his six-month suspension had terminated. As such, appellee’s compliance with R. C. 4507.41 is not the event which would terminate his suspension. Therefore, the Court of Appeals properly reversed the conviction for reason that, prior to the alleged infraction, appellee’s license suspension had terminated by operation of law, upon expiration of the six-month period described in R. C. 4507.40(K).3

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Celebrezze, C. J., Herbert, P. Brown, Sweeney and Hofstetter, JJ., concur. Holmes, J., dissents. Hofstetter, J., of the Eleventh Appellate District, sitting for Locher, J.

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

Related

State v. Hale
2023 Ohio 980 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
State v. Angelo
2019 Ohio 422 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2019)
State v. Davis, Unpublished Decision (9-2-2005)
2005 Ohio 4877 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2005)
State v. Resendiz-Fortanel
959 P.2d 845 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1998)
State v. Gasser
504 N.E.2d 73 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1985)
State v. Batchelder
484 A.2d 1186 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
403 N.E.2d 971, 62 Ohio St. 2d 94, 16 Ohio Op. 3d 102, 1980 Ohio LEXIS 695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-roberts-ohio-1980.