Stripling v. State

The defendant's possession of a Florida license is not a defense to the charge of driving while an habitual violator.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

William Stripling appeals his convictions for speeding and for being an habitual violator by operating a motor vehicle after his driver’s license was revoked. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction as an habitual violator and contends that the jury was improperly charged as to the State’s burden of proof. He also claims he was incorrectly sentenced on the speeding count. Finding no error, we affirm. “On appeal from a criminal conviction, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence.”1 We do not weigh the evidence or evaluate the credibility of witnesses; we only determine whether there is competent evidence to establish the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.2 So viewed, the evidence shows that Stripling was stopped by Officer William Pierce for speeding in Norman Park, Georgia on July 5, 2004. Stripling showed Officer Pierce a driver’s license issued to him by the State of Florida. After administering a roadside breath test, which was positive for alcohol, Officer Pierce arrested Stripling and transported him to the Colquitt County Jail. At the jail, Stripling was given an intoxilyzer test which showed his blood alcohol level to be .75, and he was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol to the degree it was less safe for him to drive.

Stripling was subsequently charged with operating a motor vehicle while an habitual violator. At trial, the State introduced a copy of the notice Stripling received declaring him an habitual violator as of June 24, 2002, informing him that it was unlawful for him to operate a motor vehicle in Georgia, and stating that he would be eligible for reinstatement of his driving privileges after a minimum of five years. Stripling admitted that he received the notice.

Stripling v. State

The defendant's possession of a Florida license is not a defense to the charge of driving while an habitual violator.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report