On March 20, 2000, Robert David Wickham was charged by accusation in the City Court of Atlanta with driving under the influence of alcohol, in violation of OCGA § 40-6-391 a 1; disobeying a traffic control device, in violation of OCGA § 40-6-20; and failing to obtain a Georgia license within 30 days of becoming a resident, in violation of OCGA § 40-5-20a. Wickham moved to dismiss the charges or, in the alternative, to transfer his case to the State Court of Fulton County, contending that there is no proper constitutional basis for the existence of the City Court of Atlanta. The constitutional challenge to the court was denied, and this Court granted Wickham interlocutory review to address his assertion that the City Court of Atlanta is unconstitutional. For the reasons which follow, we affirm the denial of the constitutional challenge.
Wickham enumerates nine errors by the City Court in denying his challenge; however, Wickham’s attack on the constitutionality of the City Court of Atlanta can be summarized as threefold: 1 The City Court, under 1996 Ga. Laws 627, offends the exclusivity and uniformity provisions of the 1983 Georgia Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. I, Pars. I1 and V2 ; alternatively, the enacting provisions of the 1996 Act exceed the bounds of permissible legislation under the 1983 Georgia Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. I, Par. IV,3 and the 19674 and 19865 constitutional amendments under which the City Court existed prior to 1996; 2 the City Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over traffic misdemeanors cannot be justified on the ground that the City Court is a municipal court; and 3 inasmuch as the City Court lacks constitutional existence and jurisdiction under the 1983 Georgia Constitution, its exercise of traffic misdemeanor jurisdiction violates due process under the State and Federal Constitutions.