{
  "id": 11919211,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES ROBERT ELLISON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Ellison",
  "decision_date": "1996-06-04",
  "docket_number": "No. COA96-2",
  "first_page": "638",
  "last_page": "641",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "122 N.C. App. 638"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-111",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(2)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-28",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-4.01",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(23)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-8",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(2)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 S.E.2d 542",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "544"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 N.C. App. 285",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548832
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "287"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/18/0285-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 S.E.2d 82",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1950,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "83"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "232 N.C. 696",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8613381
      ],
      "year": 1950,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "697"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/232/0696-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "162 S.E.2d 140",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "141",
          "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Correll, 232 N.C. 696, 697, 62 S.E.2d 82, 83 (1950)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 N.C. App. 608",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554948
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "609",
          "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Correll, 232 N.C. 696, 697, 62 S.E.2d 82, 83 (1950)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/1/0608-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "331 S.E.2d 665",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "314 N.C. 99",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4688200
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/314/0099-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 L. Ed. 2d 1377",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "388 U.S. 924",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6194450,
        6194707
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/388/0924-01",
        "/us/388/0924-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "386 U.S. 738",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6182629
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/386/0738-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-28",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 413,
    "char_count": 7422,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.737,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.748221228341884
    },
    "sha256": "30e4e2c8e722064aec26865a80d24da9fa7cefae5cfe74cb6baaedd6d0d9ec17",
    "simhash": "1:4a8594f5b15b3ca8",
    "word_count": 1228
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:39:52.508825+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges JOHNSON and LEWIS concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES ROBERT ELLISON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MARTIN, John C., Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s counsel does not bring forward any assignments of error on appeal. Instead, he states that he \u201cfinds no basis to challenge evidentiary rulings concerning admissibility, jury instructions or even procedural aspects of the case,\u201d and asks this Court \u201cto look for any plain error that exists . . . .\u201d\nBy letter dated 27 December 1995, defendant\u2019s counsel informed defendant that in his opinion there was no error in defendant\u2019s trial and that defendant could file his own arguments in this Court if he so desired. Copies of the transcript, record, and the brief filed by counsel were sent to defendant. On 12 February 1996, defendant filed a pro se brief in this Court.\nWe hold that defendant\u2019s counsel has fully complied with the holdings in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, reh\u2019g denied, 388 U.S. 924, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1377 (1967), and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985). Pursuant to Anders and Kinch, we must determine from a full examination of defendant\u2019s pro se brief and all the proceedings whether the appeal is wholly frivolous.\nIn defendant\u2019s pro se brief, he argues that the Uniform Driver\u2019s License Act either was unconstitutionally applied to his case or, in the alternative, that he qualified under an exemption from licensing. First, defendant argues that since he cut up his driver\u2019s license and returned it to the Division of Motor Vehicles, he effectively rescinded his contract with the State and should be able to travel freely without having to meet the statutory requirements. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-28 provides that \u201c[a]ny person whose drivers license has been revoked, other than permanently, who drives any motor vehicle upon the highways of the State while the license is revoked is guilty of a misdemeanor.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-28(a). This Court has recognized that regardless of the driver\u2019s intentions, the right to operate a motor vehicle upon State highways \u201c \u2018is not an unrestricted right but a privilege which can be exercised only in accordance with the legislative restrictions fixed thereon.\u2019 \u201d State v. Tharrington, 1 N.C. App. 608, 609, 162 S.E.2d 140, 141 (1968) (quoting State v. Correll, 232 N.C. 696, 697, 62 S.E.2d 82, 83 (1950)). \u201cThe doing of the act itself is the crime, not the intent with which it was done.\u201d State v. Hurley, 18 N.C. App. 285, 287, 196 S.E.2d 542, 544 (1973). Defendant\u2019s intent to liberate himself from statutory requirements, therefore, had no bearing on the fact that he committed an offense expressly forbidden by statute. Id. Defendant\u2019s argument is without merit.\nFurthermore, we find no merit in defendant\u2019s argument that he was operating a \u201croad machine\u201d and not a motor vehicle, thereby exempting him from having to have a driver\u2019s license under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-8 (1993). That statute provides that a person is exempt from license if \u201cdriving or operating any road machine, farm tractor, or implement of husbandry temporarily operated or moved on a highway[.]\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-8(2). Although \u201croad machine\u201d is not defined in the statute, when read in pari materia with the other terms used in the statute, a road machine differs from an automobile in that it involves only temporary operation for purposes other than travel. A \u201cmotor vehicle\u201d on the other hand is defined as \u201c[e]very vehicle which is self-propelled and every vehicle designed to run upon the highways which is pulled by a self-propelled vehicle.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-4.01(23) (1993). In this case, defendant was driving a 1983 Plymouth automobile. Clearly, defendant was operating a motor vehicle and not a \u201croad machine.\u201d His argument that he is exempt from license requirements is therefore overruled.\nUpon review of defendant\u2019s pro se brief and the entire record, we find the appeal to be wholly frivolous. We hold defendant had a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges JOHNSON and LEWIS concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MARTIN, John C., Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth Rouse Mosley, for the State.",
      "Fred A. Biggers for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES ROBERT ELLISON\nNo. COA96-2\n(Filed 4 June 1996)\n1. Automobiles and Other Vehicles \u00a7 141 (NCI4th)\u2014 driving while license revoked \u2014 cutting up license and mailing it to DMV\nDefendant\u2019s argument in a prosecution for driving with a revoked license that he had rescinded his contract with the State by cutting up his license and returning it to the Division of Motor Vehicles and that he should be able to travel freely without having to meet the statutory requirements was without merit. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-28 provides that any person driving a motor vehicle upon the highways with a revoked license is guilty of a misdemeanor and it has been held that the right to operate a motor vehicle upon the State\u2019s highways is not unrestricted but a privilege which can be exercised only in accordance with legislative restrictions. Defendant\u2019s intent to liberate himself from statutory requirements had no bearing on the fact that he committed an offense expressly forbidden by statute.\nAm Jur 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic \u00a7 148.\n2. Automobiles and Other Vehicles \u00a7 141 (NCI4th)\u2014 driving while license revoked \u2014 1983 Plymouth not a road machine \u2014 defendant not exempted\nThere was no merit in a defense argument in a prosecution for driving with a revoked license that defendant was operating a \u201croad machine\u201d and not a motor vehicle and was exempted from having a license under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-8. Although not defined in the statute, when read in pari materia with the other terms used in the statute, a road machine differs from an automobile in that it involves only temporary operation for purposes other than travel. In this case, defendant was driving a 1983 Plymouth automobile.\nAm Jur 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic \u00a7 148.\nAppeal by defendant from judgments entered 20 July 1995 by Judge Catherine C. Eagles in Cabarrus County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 May 1996.\nDefendant was charged with driving while licensed revoked in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-28(a) (1993) and driving with fictitious tag in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-111(2) (1993). Evidence presented at trial tended to show that on 15 November 1994 at 11:00 p.m., Sergeant Keith Cauthen of the Concord Police Department stopped defendant, who was operating a 1983 Plymouth automobile on Burrage Road, based on information that defendant was driving without a license. Sergeant Cauthen called in the license tag to the police department, which notified him that the tag had too many letters to have been issued by the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles. Sergeant Cauthen approached the car and asked defendant for a driver\u2019s license. Defendant responded that he did not have one and that he did not keep a license tag on the vehicle because \u201cit was a personal consumer good[.]\u201d\nUpon determining that defendant\u2019s driver\u2019s license was in a state of revocation from 5 November 1993 until 5 November 1995, Sergeant Cauthen issued a citation to defendant for driving while license revoked and driving with a fictitious license tag. A jury found defendant guilty as charged. He was sentenced to forty-five days imprisonment for the driving while license revoked conviction and forty-five days suspended with three years supervised probation for the driving with fictitious tag conviction. Defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth Rouse Mosley, for the State.\nFred A. Biggers for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0638-01",
  "first_page_order": 674,
  "last_page_order": 677
}