Case Name: Wardell HICKS, Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1966-02-24
Citations: 217 A.2d 309
Docket Number: No. 3804
Parties: Wardell HICKS, Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee.
Judges: Before HOOD, Chief Judge and QUINN, and MYERS, Associate Judges.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 217
Pages: 309–309

Head Matter:
Wardell HICKS, Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee.
No. 3804.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Submitted Jan. 17, 1966.
Decided Feb. 24, 1966.
John B. Middleton, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Chester H. Gray, Corp. Counsel, Milton D. Korman, Principal Asst. Corp. Counsel, and Hubert B. Pair and Ted D. Kuemmer-ling, Asst. Corp. Counsel, for appellee.
Before HOOD, Chief Judge and QUINN, and MYERS, Associate Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was convicted by a jury of operating a motor vehicle during the period for which his District of Columbia operator's permit and operating privilege were revoked.
There was no contest at trial as to appellant's operating a motor vehicle in the District of Columbia after his privilege to do so had been revoked. His sole defense was -that he is now a resident of Virginia and has a valid Virginia motor vehicle operator's permit. He contends that because of this he is privileged to operate a motor vehicle in the District under the reciprocal benefits conferred on nonresident operators pursuant to Code 1961, § 40-303.
This is not a new question for we considered it in Rickard v. District of Columbia, D.C.App., 214 A.2d 476 (1965). There we held that the revocation of a license to drive in the District of Columbia continues until the privilege of operating has been officially restored by the revoking authority. Whether appellant was a resident of the District of Columbia or a resident of Virginia, he was barred from operating a motor vehicle in the District of Columbia. We find no error and the judgment of the trial court is
Affirmed.