FOURTH D I VI SI ON DI L LA RD, P. J. , B ROWN and PA DGETT, JJ.

N O T IC E : M o tions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be phy s ic a lly r

e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w
. ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

Au g u st 21, 2024



# In t he C ourt o f A ppe a ls o f G e o r g ia

A 24A 1042. TH E STA TE v

. H A RRI S.

B R O W N , J ud ge.
The State ap p eals f

ro m an o rd er b y the State Co u rt o f Carro ll Co u nty granting
Ted B ryant H arris’ p lea in bar to d riv ing u n d e r the inf lu enc e c harges and f

ailu re to
maintain a lane based u p o n his prev io u s p ayment o f f ines in the V illa Ric a M u nic ip al
Co u rt fo r a n o p en c o ntainer v io latio n and f ailing to maintain a lane. The State

c o ntend s that the trial c ou rt erred bec au se “ [t]he traf f ic tic k ets w ere no t ad j u d ic ated
and d isp o sed o f ” and the p ro sec u to r d id no t hav e ac t u al k no w led ge that t he tic k ets
had been p aid

. Fo r t he reaso ns exp lained belo w , w e r ev e rse the trial c o u r t’ s grant o f the p lea in bar.

On ap p eal f

r o m t he grant o r d enial o f a d o uble j eo p ard y plea in bar,

w e rev iew the trial c o urt’ s o ral and w ritten ru lings a s a w ho le tod etermin e w hether the trial c o u rt’ s f ind ings su p p o r t its c onc lu sio n. W hen the f

ac ts are u nd isp u ted , o u r rev iew o f the trial c o u rt’ s a p p lic atio n
o f the law to tho s e f

ac ts is d e no v o. The trial c o u rt’ s f ac t ual f ind ings a re assessed u nd er the stand ard o f c lear erro r.
(Citatio ns and p u nc t uatio n o mitted

. ) Ma xwell v . S t a te , 31 1 Ga. 6 7 3, 6 7 6 ( 2) (859 SE2d 58) (2021 ). I n this c ase, the trial c o u rt held a hearing o n H a rris’ p l e a in bar and
entered a w ritten or d e r a f t er the hearing stating that it “ weighed the ev id e nc e and

argu ments p resented by the State and D ef end ant” at t he hearing; it granted the p lea
in bar in the same o rd er w itho u t exp lanatio n.
The rec ord sho w s t h a t o n N o v ember 28, 201 9 , H arris rec e iv ed a sep arate

“ G eo rgia Unif

o rm Traf f ic Citatio n, Su mmo ns and A c c u satio n” f o r three o f

f enses (d riv ing u nd er the inf

lu enc e of alc o ho l, f

ailu re to maintain a lane, a nd p o ssessio n o f

an o p en alc o ho l c ontainer) that the p arties agree aro se f ro m t he same co nd u c t. On the

same d ay, H arris p o sted a bo nd in the amo u nt of $3,39 0 to the City o f V illa Ric a, in

w hic h he ac k no w led ged that he w as requ ired to ap p ear o n Febru ary 1 4, 2020.
H arris testif

ied that he w ent to the M u nic ip al Co u rt Of f ic e in V illa Ric a at least
three times, bu t he had to resc hed u le bec au se the o nly o p tio n “ at that p o int” o f the
COV I D p and emic w as to enter a p lea o f gu ilty. A t so me p o int b ef o r e A u gu st 1 2, 2020,

2he rec eiv ed a no tic e o f “Lic e nse Su sp ensio n W arning” f ro m the V illa Ric a M u nic ip al
Co u rt stating:

Yo u are hereby no tif

ied that yo u hav e o ne o r mo r e c itatio ns o v erd u e in this c o urt. Failu re to p a

y this f ine (by c a sh o r m o ney- o rd e r ) o r settle this
matter w ith th e c o u r t w ithin 30 d ays f ro m the abo v e d a te[, A u gu st 1 2, 2020,] W ILL R ESU L T I N YOUR LI CEN SE B EI N G SUSPEN D ED , A N FTA A CCUSA TI ON I SSUED , AN D A W A RR A N T I SSUED FOR YOUR A RREST.

Please resp o nd p ro mp tly t o hav e this matter d isp osed o f as so on as p o ssible.

A p r inted signatu re line f o r t he Clerk o f Co u rt f

o r t he V illa Ric a M u n i c i p a l C o u rt

ap p eared belo w the no tic e alo ng w ith a list o f the three t ic k ets, and a listing o f “ Fine

+ Fees” in the amo u nt o f $1 ,26 5 f or the d riv ing u nd er the inf lu enc e c itatio n and $1 6 5
f o r eac h o f the citatio ns f o r the o p en c o n t a i n er a nd f ailu re to maintain a lane. A n
assistant c o u rt c lerk f

o r the City o f V illa Ric a d esc ribed this no tic e as a “ 30- d ay letter”
issu ed af ter so meo ne misses a c ou rt d ate; H arris missed an A u gu st 7 , 2020 c ou rt d ate.
On Sep tember 30, 2020, H arri s p a i d $ 1 6 5 f o r e ac h of the tic k et nu mbers relating to the failu re to m a intain a lane and the o p en c o ntainer c harges, and a rec eip t
he rec eiv ed listed the balanc e f o r eac h tic k et as z ero an d a c o u rt d ate o f Oc to ber 9,

32020. H e also paid $200, w hic h he d esc ribed as the “ t h e bare minimu m t o get me

thro u gh, so I c o u ld k eep my lic ense” o n “ the big o ne. ”
On Oc to ber 9 , 2020, t he V illa Ric a Mu nic ip al Co u rt t r ansf erred the c ase to the
State Co u rt o f Carro ll Co u nty bec au se H a rris d emand e d a trial by j ury. On N o v ember

1 2, 2020, the so lic ito r in the State Co u rt o f Carro ll Co u nty c harge d H ar r i s i n an

ac c usatio n w ith tw o c o u nts o f d riv i n g u n d e r the inf lu enc e and f

a ilu re to maintain a
lane.
Co u nsel f

or H arris su bsequ ently f

iled a plea in bar, alleging that his p ayment o f
the tic kets und er threat o f a lic ense su sp ensio n was “ a gu ilty plea a s a matter o f law ”

p rec lu ding c o ntinu e d pro sec u tio n o f H arris in the State Co u rt o f Carro ll Co u nty. I n

a hearing o n the p lea in bar, the State asserted that the p ayments mad e by Harris w ere
bo nd p ayments that w e re nev er su bsequ ently ad j ud ic ated by a c o u rt and f o rf e ited

. I nd eed , the parties agreed that at the t ime o f the Febru ary 6 , 2024 hearing, H arris’
d riv ing r ec o r d d id no t inc lu de a d isp o sitio n f o r the o p en c o ntainer a nd f ailu re to
maintain a lane c itatio ns. The assistant c o u rt c lerk t estif ied that the $530 p rev io u sly

p aid b y H arris w as sent to the Clerk o f Co u rt f o r the State Co u rt o f Carro ll Co u nty o n
Oc to ber 9 , 2020, w hen the c ase w a s b o u nd o v er to that c o u rt. A f t er hearing the

4ev id enc e, the trial c o urt c o nc lu d ed H arris rec eiv ed a lic ense s u sp ensio n warning that

said “yo u h a v e t o d isp o se, tak e c are o f it and resp o nd p ro mp tly to hav e the matter
d isp o sed o f as so o n a s p o s sible.

. . . They ac c ep ted his mo ney. A nd I think that mo v ing
f o rw a rd here w o u ld be a v io latio n o f his rights. ”

W e a g r e e w ith t he State’ s c o ntentio n o n ap p eal that the trial c o u rt erred by granting the p lea in bar b e c au se the c itatio ns w e re no t ac tu al l y a d j u d ic ated and
d isp o sed o f

in the V illa Ric a M u nic ip al Co u rt.
The c o nstitu tio nal ru le against d o uble j eo p ard y is

... exp r essed in

v ario u s t e rms bu t b a sic ally p ro v id es t hat no p ers o n s h a l l be pu t in j eo p a rd y o f lif

e or liberty mo re than o nc e f o r the s ame of

f ense. I t is a simp le and c o nc i se statement o f law

. Unf o r tu nately, it has bec o m e
c o nf u sed bec au se many c o u rts hav e no t d istingu ished its ap p lic atio n to the bar o f su cc essiv e p ro sec utio ns and the b a r t o m u ltip le co nv ic t io ns. The bar to su c c essiv e p ro sec u tio ns is ref erred to as the p ro c ed ural asp ec t

o f the d ou ble j eo p ard y ru le. The ratio nale b ehind t he b a r t o s u c cessiv e p ro sec u t io ns is to p rev ent harassment o f t h e ac c u sed

. T he bar to

mu ltip le c onv ic tio ns is ref erred to as the su bstantiv e a s p e c t

. T he ratio nale behind the bar to mu ltip le c o n v i c t io ns is to p rev ent mu ltip le and exc essiv e p u nishments.

. . .

5These co nsti t u t i o n al d o u ble j eo p ard y p ro tec tio ns a re enhanc ed by

ad d itio nal statu t o ry p ro tec tio ns p ro v id ed u nd er state law

. B ec au s e the Geo r gia Co d e exp and s the p ro sc rip tio n o f d o uble j eo p ard y beyo nd that p ro v id e d f

or in the U nited St a tes a nd Geo r gia Co nstitu t io ns, all qu estio ns o f d o u ble j e o p ard y in Geo rgia mu st no w be d etermined u nd er OCGA §§ 16

- 1

- 6 t h r o u gh 1 6

- 1

- 8. Unlik e c o nstitu tio nally based d ou ble j eo p ard y, statu to ry pro c e d u ral d o u ble j eo p a r d y extend s t he co nc ep t o f

res j u d ic ata to the s u c c essiv e p ro sec u tio n o f d i ff erent c rimes arising f

ro m the same co nd uc t in situ atio ns w here t he State sho u ld hav e p ro sec u ted the d if ferent c rimes in a single p ro c e ed ing.
(Citatio n, p u nc tu atio n, and emp hasis o mitted

. ) Ma x well , 21 1 Ga. at 6 7 6 , 6 7 7 (2).

OCGA § 1 6- 1- 7 (b) requ ires all c rimes arising fro m the s ame c ou rse of c o nd u ct

to be p ro s ec u ted in a single pro sec u tio n, and u nd er OCGA § 1 6

- 1 -8 (b) (1 ), a sec o nd

p ro sec u tio n is b a rred if it is f o r a c rime that sho u ld hav e been bro u ght d uring the f irst

p ro sec u tio n. As relev ant here, OCGA § 1 6

- 1

- 8 (b) (1 ) p ro v id e s that a “ p ro sec u tio n is
barred if the ac c u sed was f o rmerly p ro sec u t e d f

o r a d if f erent c rime

... [and ] s u c h
f o rmer p ro sec u tio n . . . [r]esu lted in either a co n v i cti o n or a n a cqu i t

t a l a n d the

su bsequ ent p ro sec u tio n . . . is f o r a c r ime w ith w hic h the ac c u sed sho u ld hav e been

c harged o n the f

o rmer p r o sec u tio n[. ] ” (Emp hasis su p p lied

. )

6A s w e hav e p rev io u s ly exp lained , “ a ‘ co nv ic t io n’ inc lu des a f inal j u d gment o f

c o nv ic tio n entered u p o n a v erd ic t or f ind ing o f gu ilty o f a c rime o r u p o n a p lea o f

gu ilty. OCGA § 1 6

- 1

- 3 (4). Thu s, a ‘ c o nv ic tio n’ is no t the v erd ic t o r gu ilty plea; it is
the j u d gment entered o n the v erd ic t o r g u ilty p lea. ” (Citatio n and p u nc tu atio n

o mitted .) Ha n tz v . S ta te , 337 Ga. A p p . 6 7 5, 67 8 (7 88 SE2d 5 6 7 ) (201 6 ). W ith regard

to p a yment o f a f

ine f o r a traf f ic o f f ense, w e hav e rep eated ly held t hat a d ef end ant has

no t been su bj ec ted to a f

o rmer p ro sec u tio n und er OCGA §§ 1 6

- 1- 7 (b) and 16

- 1

- 8 (b)
in the absenc e o f a d isp ositio nal o rd er by a j u d ic ial o f fic er. See Bro wn v . S ta te , 251 Ga.

A p p . 56 9 , 57 1

- 57 2 (554 SE2d 7 6 0 ) (2001 ) (d ef end ant w as no t su bj ec t t o f o r mer

p ro sec u tio n by v irtu e o f hav ing p aid a f ine f o r a seat belt v io latio n); Co lli n s v . S ta te , 1 7 7
Ga. A p p . 7 58 (1 ) (341 SE2d 288) (1 9 86 ) (d ef end ant no t su bj ec t to fo rmer pro sec u tio n
af ter c lerk ac c e p t e d payment o f f ine f o r sp eed ing tic ket). Co mp are S ta te v . Ken n edy ,
21 6 Ga. A p p . 405 (454 SE2d 6 00) (1 9 9 5) ( af f irming t rial co u rt’ s grant o f plea in bar

o f v ehic u lar ho mic id e c harge w here def e nd a nt p aid t r a f

f ic tic ket f or d riv ing o n the

w ro ng sid e o f the ro ad , her bo nd w as f o rf eited in o p en c o urt, and a n o rd er fro m state

c o u rt j u d ge ap p ro v in g the b o nd f o rf eitu r e and d isp o s ing o f c ase w as f iled ). A s the

7rec o rd bef

o re the trial c o u rt c o ntained no ev id enc e o f a p rev io u s d isp o s itio n o rd er by a j u d ic ial o ff

ic e r, w e rev erse the trial c o u rt’ s grant o f H arris’ p lea in bar. 1

Ju dgmen t rev ers ed. D i

lla rd, P. J. , a n d Pa dgett, J. , co n c u r .

1 B ased o n this ho ld ing, w e need no t ad d ress the State’ s argu ment with regard to the k no w led ge o f

the p r o sec uting o f

f ic e r . 8