{
  "id": 8525684,
  "name": "CLINTON ROLAND SYKES, Petitioner v. WILLIAM S. HIATT, Commissioner, North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sykes v. Hiatt",
  "decision_date": "1990-06-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 8914SC346",
  "first_page": "688",
  "last_page": "693",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "98 N.C. App. 688"
    }
  ],
  "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": "223 S.C. 20",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "S.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2091889
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1953,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sc/223/0020-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "S.C. Code Ann. \u00a7 56-5-2940",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "S.C. Code Ann.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "262 S.C. 89",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "S.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2145590
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "91"
        },
        {
          "page": "646"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sc/262/0089-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "S.C. Code Ann. \u00a7 56-7-10",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "S.C. Code Ann.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "Law. Co-op. 1976"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 S.E.2d 904",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "260 N.C. 375",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574842
      ],
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/260/0375-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 S.E.2d 696",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1948,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "699"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 N.C. 584",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627584
      ],
      "year": 1948,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/228/0584-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 437,
    "char_count": 10157,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.757,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7505472326764997
    },
    "sha256": "39301d216d0e7eb50627e1bd1e7fc9bcba71db30faafbcb9d5de5f81c3cdc1fd",
    "simhash": "1:a70ad306b2078458",
    "word_count": 1651
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:26:07.401162+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Eagles and Greene concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "CLINTON ROLAND SYKES, Petitioner v. WILLIAM S. HIATT, Commissioner, North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles, Respondent"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nOn appeal, petitioner first argues that no valid bond forfeiture occurred in South Carolina and that the trial court erred in holding that the DMV had validly suspended his driving privileges based on this bond forfeiture.\nGeneral Statutes Chapter 20, Article 2, reads as follows:\n20-16. Authority of Division to suspend license.\n(a) The Division shall have authority to suspend the license of any operator with or without a preliminary hearing upon a showing by its records or other satisfactory evidence that the licensee:\n(7) Has committed an offense in another state, which if committed in this State would be grounds for suspension or revocation.\nG.S. 20-16(a)(7).\nGeneral Statute 20-23 authorizes DMV to suspend or revoke a resident\u2019s license \u201cupon receiving notice of the conviction as defined in G.S. 20-24(c) of such person in another state of the offenses hereinafter enumerated which, if committed in this State, would be grounds for the suspension or revocation of the license of an operator.\u201d The section applies only to offenses set forth in G.S. 20-26(a).\nGeneral Statute 20-26(a), in turn, cross references to G.S. 20-17 for an additional list of offenses to which G.S. 20-23 and G.S. 20-24(c) are applicable. General Statute 20-17(2) reads as follows:\n20-17. Mandatory revocation of license by Division.\nThe Division shall forthwith revoke the license of any driver upon receiving a record of such driver\u2019s conviction for any of the following offenses when such conviction has become final:\n(2) Impaired driving under G.S. 20-138.1.\nPetitioner contends that DMV could not validly suspend his driver\u2019s license pursuant to these statutes because he was not convicted of the offense of driving while impaired in South Carolina. Petitioner argues that conviction under G.S. 20-24(c) is defined as \u201ca final conviction of a criminal offense or a determination that a person is responsible for an infraction.\u201d\nPetitioner admits that he received a citation in South Carolina for which he posted a cash bond in the amount of $218.00 to insure his appearance in court. Relying on In re Revocation of License of Wright, 228 N.C. 584, 46 S.E.2d 696 (1948), petitioner argues, however, that no bond forfeiture occurred in South Carolina when he failed to appear because the notice from South Carolina stated only that a uniform traffic ticket was issued. There could be no legal bond forfeiture without a legal proceeding, and there could be no pending legal proceeding unless a warrant had been issued. Id. at 588, 46 S.E.2d at 699. See also In re Donnelly, 260 N.C. 375, 132 S.E.2d 904 (1963).\nSince the Supreme Court\u2019s decisions in Wright and Donnelly, the South Carolina Code and the North Carolina General Statutes have been amended to permit service of process by citation for misdemeanor traffic violations. South Carolina Code Ann. \u00a7 56-7-10 states:\nThere will be a uniform traffic ticket used by all law enforcement officers in arrests for traffic offenses ....\n. . . The service of the uniform traffic ticket shall vest all traffic, recorders\u2019, and magistrates\u2019 courts with jurisdiction to hear and to dispose of the charge for which the ticket was issued and served.\nS.C. Code Ann. \u00a7 56-7-10 (Law. Co-op. 1976). This section has been interpreted by the South Carolina Supreme Court to vest jurisdiction in the traffic court to hear and dispose of traffic charges without the necessity of an arrest warrant. State v. Prince, 262 S.C. 89, 91, 202 S.E.2d 645, 646 (1974).\nUnder G.S. 15A-302, North Carolina now also permits criminal process by issuance and service of a citation. General Statute 15A-92K1) provides that a citation may serve as the pleading in a criminal case. A citation directs a person to appear in court and answer a misdemeanor or infraction charge or charges. G.S. 15A-302(a).\nIn view of these statutory changes which now permit the institution of legal proceedings without a warrant, Wright, supra, and Donnelly, supra, do not preclude revocation of petitioner\u2019s license in this case. From the face of the record and the Uniform Traffic Ticket issued to petitioner the following facts are made to appear. Defendant was stopped on Highway 1-95 south of Hardeeville, South Carolina, on 31 October 1987 at 2:49 a.m. He was taken to jail, where he was given a breathalyzer examination at 4:20 a.m. by an officer of the South Carolina Highway Patrol. Petitioner\u2019s blood alcohol level was 0.12. In lieu of jail, a cash bond in the amount of $218.00 was set and accepted by D. Youngblood. Petitioner was summoned to appear before trial officer R. E. Grayson on 16 November 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall of Hardeeville, South Carolina. On 16 November 1987 petitioner did not appear and trial officer Grayson entered a disposition of \u201cforfeited bond.\u201d The face of the violator\u2019s copy of the ticket states, \u201cPresent this summons to the trial officer shown above.\u201d The ticket further states in bold letters:\nIf you forfeit bail ... THIS violation will be placed against YOUR DRIVING RECORD. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS SUMMONS WILL RESULT IN THE SUSPENSION OF YOUR DRIVERS LICENSE BY YOUR HOME STATE.\nPetitioner stipulated that he received a copy of this Uniform Traffic Ticket.\nUnder S.C. Code Ann. \u00a7 56-5-2940, the forfeiture of bail in a driving under the influence case is the equivalent of conviction for purposes of punishment. See State v. Langford, 223 S.C. 20, 73 S.E.2d 854 (1953). General Statute 20-24(c) defines \u201cconviction\u201d as a \u201cfinal conviction of a criminal offense.\u201d General Statute 2046(a)(7) authorizes the DMV to suspend the license of an operator upon a showing by its records that the licensee \u201chas committed an offense in another state, which if committed in this State would be grounds for suspension or revocation.\u201d Driving while impaired is grounds for revocation in this State. G.S. 20-17(2). Respondent stipulated to the breathalyzer report showing 0.12 blood alcohol concentration. Under G.S. 20-138.1(a)(2) a person who has an alcohol concentration of 0.10 or more at any relevant time after driving commits the offense of driving while impaired. From the evidence in this case, defendant clearly committed an offense in South Carolina for which his license could be revoked if committed in North Carolina, and his forfeiture of bond amounted to a conviction of the offense of impaired driving in South Carolina.\nPetitioner also contends the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of the similarity between the South Carolina impaired driving statutes and the North Carolina statute. This argument is without merit, as G.S. 8-4 permits the court to take judicial notice of other states\u2019 statutes.\nBased on the foregoing, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Eagles and Greene concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rudolph L. Edwards for petitioner-appellant.",
      "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General William B. Ray, for William S. Hiatt, Commissioner, North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles, respondent-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CLINTON ROLAND SYKES, Petitioner v. WILLIAM S. HIATT, Commissioner, North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles, Respondent\nNo. 8914SC346\n(Filed 5 June 1990)\n1. Automobiles and Other Vehicles \u00a7 2.5 (NCI3d) \u2014 South Carolina DWI \u2014citation rather than warrant \u2014failure to appear \u2014North Carolina license suspended\nThe trial court did not err by holding that the Department of Motor Vehicles had validly suspended petitioner\u2019s driving privileges based on a bond forfeiture in South Carolina where defendant was stopped on Highway 1-95 in South Carolina; he was given a breathalyzer examination by an officer of the South Carolina Highway Patrol; his blood alcohol level was .12; cash bond was set in lieu of jail; petitioner was summoned to appear before a trial officer; petitioner did not appear and the trial officer entered a disposition of forfeited bond; South Carolina notified the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles that petitioner had forfeited his bond when he failed to appear in court; and DMV subsequently notified petitioner that his driving privileges were being suspended pursuant to the N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-16(a)(7) and N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-23. Both the South Carolina Code and the North Carolinia General Statutes now permit criminal process by issuance and service of a citation; N.C.G.S. \u00a7 2046(a)(7) authorizes the DMV to suspend the license of an operator upon a showing that the licensee had committed an offense in another state which would be grounds for suspension or revocation if committed in North Carolina, and driving while impaired is grounds for revocation in North Carolina. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-302.\nAm Jur 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic \u00a7\u00a7 133, 135, 978; Evidence \u00a7 45.\n2. Evidence \u00a7 2 (NCI3d)\u2014 DWI in South Carolina \u2014 license revocation in North Carolina \u2014 judicial notice of similarity between impaired driving statutes\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 8-4 permits the court to take judicial notice of other states\u2019 statutes and the trial court did not err in a license revocation proceeding by taking judicial notice of the similarity between the South Carolina impaired driving statutes and the North Carolina statute.\nAm Jur 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic \u00a7\u00a7 133, 135, 978; Evidence \u00a7 45.\nAPPEAL by petitioner from judgment entered 2 December 1988 by Judge Anthony M. Brannon in DURHAM County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 September 1989.\nPetitioner instituted this action to recover his North Carolina driver\u2019s license. On 31 October 1987 petitioner received a citation for driving under the influence of alcohol in South Carolina. He was summoned to appear in court in South Carolina on 16 November 1987 but failed to appear. South Carolina notified the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles (herein \u201cDMV\u201d) that petitioner had forfeited his bond when he failed to appear in court. The DMV subsequently notified petitioner that his driving privileges were being suspended pursuant to G.S. 2046(a)(7) and G.S. 20-23. After appealing the suspension through an administrative hearing, petitioner appealed to the trial court. The trial court affirmed the action of the DMV, and petitioner appeals.\nRudolph L. Edwards for petitioner-appellant.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General William B. Ray, for William S. Hiatt, Commissioner, North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles, respondent-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0688-01",
  "first_page_order": 716,
  "last_page_order": 721
}