Source: https://www.thesessionslawfirm.com/2014/12/04/dui-statute-of-limitations-problems-transfers-to-superior-courts/
Timestamp: 2020-04-06 14:59:59
Document Index: 301685514

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 17', '§ 16', '§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 40']

The state contends that the superior court erred in granting Rustin’s plea in bar. We agree with the state’s position with regard to the violation of OCGA § 40-6-391(a)(1) which was originally charged on September 30, 1988, but not as to the violation of OCGA § 40-6-391(a)(4) which was initially charged in the accusation filed on November 19, 1991.
OCGA § 17-3-1(d) provides that prosecution for misdemeanors must be commenced within two years after commission of the crime. A prosecution is “commenced” when an accusation or indictment is filed, and continues until final disposition of the case on appeal. OCGA § 16-1-3(14); Smith v. State, 190 Ga.App. 246, 378 S.E.2d 493 (1989). A DUI charge may be prosecuted in a probate or state court on a uniform traffic citation, which constitutes the accusation. OCGA §§ 40-13-1,40-13-3; Boss v. State, 152 Ga.App. 169, 262 S.E.2d 527 (1979). Thus, Rustin’s prosecution in the probate court for the DUI charge alleging a violation of OCGA § 40-6-391(a)(1) was commenced when he was issued the uniform traffic citation and complaint on September 30, 1988. The filing of a formal accusation in any court with jurisdiction over such offenses, other than a superior court, would have been a superfluity. See Majia v. State, 174 Ga.App. 432(1), 330 S.E.2d 171 (1985).
The trial court’s grant of Rustin’s plea in bar resulted out of consideration of the passage of time from the date of the alleged offenses and the date of the formal accusation filed on November 19, 1991, following this court’s remand of the case because of the absence of a written waiver of the right to a jury trial. In Duncan v. State, 193 Ga.App. 793, 389 S.E.2d 365 (1989), this court held that the limitation period was not tolled during the pendency of a prior appeal, and that prosecution of the defendant under a subsequent formal accusation (which added a charge of simple battery) filed after the expiration of the limitation period was barred. However, prosecution of the defendant under the uniform traffic citation was still allowed, although the prosecution was limited to the offenses originally charged in that traffic citation. The same principle is applicable in the instant case.
Upon remand of this case to the probate court, Ruskin exercised his right to a jury trial, and the case was necessarily bound over to the superior court. Consequently, the state was then compelled to file a formal accusation because a uniform traffic citation and complaint cannot be made the basis for a trial in the superior court. OCGA § 40-13-3; Stone v. State, 151 Ga.App. 531, 260 S.E.2d 405 (1979). The prior appeal in this case did not result in a final disposition of the matter, and filing of the formal accusation in November 1991, as required by OCGA § 40-13-3 and as necessitated by Rustin’s demand for a jury trial, in no way constituted commencement of a new prosecution with regard to the alleged violation of OCGA § 40-6-391(a)(1). Under the circumstances presented by this case, although the filing of the accusation in the superior court could not be considered a superfluity because of the requirements of OCGA § 40-13-3, it must be regarded as a continuation of the prosecution previously commenced. For that reason, the trial court erred in granting Rustin’s plea in bar with regard to the charged violation of OCGA § 40-6-391(a)(1).
However, the accusation filed in November 1991 also included a new offense, i.e., an alleged violation of OCGA § 40-6-391(a)(4), driving with an unlawful blood alcohol level. Because that accusation was filed beyond the applicable limitation period, prosecution of this new offense was barred, notwithstanding the fact that it may have stemmed from the same conduct as the original DUI charge. Accordingly, the trial court properly granted Rustin’s plea in bar with regard to the alleged violation of OCGA § 40-6-391(a)(4). Duncan v. State, supra.