{
  "id": 1875367,
  "name": "Ronald SATTERLEE v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Satterlee v. State",
  "decision_date": "1986-07-07",
  "docket_number": "CR 86-35",
  "first_page": "450",
  "last_page": "451",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "289 Ark. 450"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "711 S.W.2d 827"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "283 Ark. 425",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1879959
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/283/0425-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 N.E.2d 358",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1945,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 S.W.2d 191",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10190144
      ],
      "year": 1948,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sw2d/209/0191-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 So. 2d 784",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "So. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        9904283
      ],
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/so2d/114/0784-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "274 U.S. 352",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        81168
      ],
      "year": 1927,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/274/0352-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "545 S.W.2d 606",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1616825,
        1616690,
        1678846
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/260/0857-01",
        "/ark/260/0785-01",
        "/ark/261/0026-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "260 Ark. 857",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1616825
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/260/0857-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 221,
    "char_count": 2269,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.92,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4571211405715386e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6561411495419232
    },
    "sha256": "092b53bac8e822082e557904beed4dc198d91b792df1c918ae3bf98a55b85e15",
    "simhash": "1:03c6ca0775adde08",
    "word_count": 391
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:22:34.211418+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Hickman, J., would affirm under Rule 9 of Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Ronald SATTERLEE v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "David Newbern, Justice.\nThe appellant was convicted in a municipal court of driving a motor vehicle on a public highway without a driver\u2019s license. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 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\u2019s 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.\n1. Constitutionality of the Statute\nThe state has the \u201cpolice power\u201d 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).\n2. Propriety of Proceedings\nThe 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.\nNo grand jury action, indictment, or information was necessary. Driving without a license, as charged in this case, is a misdemeanor. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 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).\nAffirmed.\nHickman, J., would affirm under Rule 9 of Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "David Newbern, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Appellant, pro se.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Mary Beth Sudduth, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Ronald SATTERLEE v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 86-35\n711 S.W.2d 827\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered July 7, 1986\n[Rehearing denied September 15, 1986.]\nAppellant, pro se.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Mary Beth Sudduth, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0450-01",
  "first_page_order": 480,
  "last_page_order": 481
}