{
  "id": 8552261,
  "name": "BETTY CASTLEBERRY RHYNE v. JOE GARRETT, N. C. COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rhyne v. Garrett",
  "decision_date": "1973-06-27",
  "docket_number": "No. 7319SC477",
  "first_page": "565",
  "last_page": "567",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "18 N.C. App. 565"
    }
  ],
  "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": "169 S.E. 2d 20",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 N.C. App. 575",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552164
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/5/0575-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 283,
    "char_count": 5432,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.497,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4117404142094771
    },
    "sha256": "4ecee9cc5596beb44cafd386a2ca89f253c6c7ac21c55468049fa687b81f030f",
    "simhash": "1:9717dbf782559439",
    "word_count": 869
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:14:36.293491+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Baley concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "BETTY CASTLEBERRY RHYNE v. JOE GARRETT, N. C. COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nG.S. 20-25 in pertinent part provides:\n\u201cAny person denied a license or whose license has been cancelled, suspended or revoked by the Department, except where such cancellation is mandatory under the provisions of this article, shall have a right to file a petition within thirty (30) days thereafter for a hearing in the matter in the superior court of the county wherein such person shall reside . . . and such court or judge is hereby vested with jurisdiction and it shall be its or his duty to set the matter for hearing upon thirty (30) days\u2019 written notice to the Department, and thereupon to take testimony and examine into the facts of the case, and to determine whether the petitioner is entitled to a license or is subject to suspension, cancellation or revocation of license under the provisions of this article.\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nThere is no right to appeal to the superior court from a mandatory revocation of one\u2019s operator\u2019s license. In re Austin, 5 N.C. App. 575, 169 S.E. 2d 20 (1969). Upon receiving notice of the bond forfeiture, which is equivalent to a conviction of driving while under the influence of an intoxicant, G.S. 20-24 (c), the Department of Motor Vehicles merely followed the mandate of the statute by permanently revoking plaintiff\u2019s driver\u2019s license for a third offense of driving while under the influence, G.S. 20-17 (2) and G.S. 20-19 (e); and because the departmental action was mandatory, the superior court was without authority to revoke or make any order with reference thereto.\nThe judgment appealed from is\nReversed.\nJudges Campbell and Baley concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Carlton & Rhodes by Graham M. Carlton and Gary C. Rhodes for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan and Assistant Attorneys General William W. Melvin and William B. Ray for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BETTY CASTLEBERRY RHYNE v. JOE GARRETT, N. C. COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES\nNo. 7319SC477\n(Filed 27 June 1973)\n1. Automobiles \u00a7 2\u2014 mandatory revocation of license \u2014 no right to appeal\nThere is no right to appeal to the superior court from a mandatory revocation of a driver\u2019s license.\n2. Automobiles \u00a7 2\u2014 permanent revocation of license \u2014 drunken driving.\u2014 bond forfeiture as conviction \u2014 mandatory revocation \u2014 no right to appeal\nPermanent revocation of plaintiff\u2019s driver\u2019s license for a third offense of drunken driving was mandatory where plaintiff had twice been convicted of drunken driving and plaintiff\u2019s bond was forfeited for failure to appear in the superior court upon her appeal after conviction of drunken driving in the district court, which bond forfeiture was equivalent to a conviction of drunken driving, G.S. 20-24 (c), and the superior court was without authority to revoke or make any order with reference to such revocation. G.S. 20-17(2); G.S. 20-19 (e).\nAppeal by defendant, Joe Garrett, North Carolina Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, from McConnell, Judge, 20 November 1972 Session of Superior Court held in Rowan County.\nPlaintiff, Betty Castleberry Rhyne, instituted this proceeding in the superior court on 17 April 1972 by filing a complaint in which she prayed that:\n\"... the Defendant be ordered to rescind and strike from its records the permanent revocation of Plaintiff\u2019s driver\u2019s license which was entered February 7, 1970.\u201d\nIt is uncontroverted that on 5 July 1957 and 27 February 1967, plaintiff was convicted of driving upon a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. On 17 August 1969, plaintiff was arrested for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. She appealed from a conviction in the district court and deposited a cash bond in the amount of $100.00 for her appearance in the superior court. Plaintiff failed to appear in the superior court; and on 2 February 1970, a judgment absolute was entered on the cash appearance bond. After receiving notice of the bond forfeiture, pursuant to G.S. 20-17(2) and G.S. 20-19(e), the Department of Motor Vehicles on 25 February 1970 mailed to plaintiff a notice of permanent revocation of her operator\u2019s license effective 7 March 1970.\nThe trial court made findings of fact substantially the same as those set out above and concluded:\n\u201c1. That the bond forfeiture recorded against the plaintiff as a conviction on February 2, 1970 in the Charlotte Superior Court is not a conviction upon which permanent revocation of operator\u2019s license may be based in that the plaintiff was not personally notified by the Court or counsel to appear before the Superior Court for Mecklen-burg County, North Carolina or of the date to appear, or of the scheduled date of her court appearance in the Superior Gourt of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina and therefore no valid conviction resulted from her bond forfeiture.\n2. That, as the February 2, 1970 conviction on the bond forfeiture is not a valid conviction against the plaintiff, the departmental action of the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles in permanently revoking the plaintiff\u2019s driver\u2019s license for three or more offenses of driving under the influence under G.S. 20-17 is invalid.\u201d\nThe trial court declared \u201cinvalid\u201d defendant\u2019s action in permanently revoking plaintiff\u2019s operator\u2019s license and ordered defendant to rescind and strike the permanent revocation from its records \u201con the ground that Plaintiff has not received three valid convictions for driving under the influence of . alcoholic beverages.\u201d\nDefendant appealed.\nCarlton & Rhodes by Graham M. Carlton and Gary C. Rhodes for plaintiff appellee.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan and Assistant Attorneys General William W. Melvin and William B. Ray for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0565-01",
  "first_page_order": 589,
  "last_page_order": 591
}