Court Opinion

ID: 9623787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:43:13.093804+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:50:32.773403
License: Public Domain

Hines, Justice,
dissenting.
As the majority opinion essentially rewrites the statute involved in a manner designed to render it unconstitutional, I respectfully dissent.
“It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that if possible a statute will be construed in such a way as to find it constitutional.” Garner v. Harrison, 260 Ga. 866, 869 (2) (400 SE2d 925) (1991). In this case, however, the majority opinion ignores the specific language of the statute, and apparently does so solely to reach the conclusion that the statute is unconstitutional.
The essential flaw in the majority opinion is its failure to recognize that in establishing the traffic violations bureau scheme, the General Assembly established a new category of crime — a traffic *432violation within the jurisdiction of a traffic violations bureau — that is not a felony, and is not a misdemeanor. The General Assembly has specifically stated that such an offense is “characterized and classified as a traffic violation and shall not be considered as a misdemeanor.” OCGA § 40-13-60. This Court has previously held that such a traffic violation is neither a felony, nor a misdemeanor. Duncan v. Ricketts, 232 Ga. 89, 91-92 (205 SE2d 274) (1974). See also Keller v. State, 183 Ga. App. 717, 719 (359 SE2d 714) (1987). And in the traffic violations bureau, trial is not before a jury, but before a judge alone. OCGA § 40-13-60. It is within the General Assembly’s power to establish this category of crime, and to provide for trial without a jury in this instance.
The majority is incorrect in finding that Article I, Section I, Paragraph XI of the Georgia Constitution of 1983 guarantees a jury trial in this instance. That provision proclaims that the right to a jury trial “shall remain inviolate,” but the provision does not apply in this case. Rather, it upholds the right to a jury trial that existed under common law at the time of the State’s adoption of the first Constitution. Kelley v. Dept. of Human Resources, 269 Ga. 384 (1) (498 SE2d 741) (1998). Accord Hill v. Mayor &c. of Dalton, 72 Ga. 314, 319 (1884) (concerning criminal violation of a city ordinance). Speeding was not a known offense in the common law prior to our first Constitution.
Although the majority states that speeding is a misdemeanor, and that Article I, Section I, Paragraph XI protects the right to a jury trial when one is charged with a misdemeanor, the simple fact is that Geng did not face a misdemeanor charge, and he was not convicted of a misdemeanor. Once an offense is in the traffic violations bureau’s jurisdiction, it is “characterized and classified as a traffic violation and shall not be considered as a misdemeanor.” OCGA § 40-13-60. Compare Clark v. State, 157 Ga. App. 486 (277 SE2d 738) (1981). As the majority notes, it is after the traffic violations bureau loses jurisdiction that the case is forwarded to the prosecuting attorney, an accusation is filed, and the case is thereafter treated as a misdemeanor. OCGA § 40-13-62. But within the jurisdiction of the traffic violations bureau, the violation is not a misdemeanor. Thus, Article I, Section I, Paragraph XI’s “inviolate” protection of the right to a jury trial in cases of State misdemeanor and felony crimes does not apply to violations under the jurisdiction of the traffic violations bureau. OCGA § 40-13-60’s provision that the defendant’s trial is before a judge alone does not violate Article I, Section I, Paragraph XI of the 1983 Constitution.
Further, the Constitution of the United States does not require a jury trial in this instance either. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that: “In all criminal prosecu*433tions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. . . .” However, “[i]t has long been settled that ‘there is a category of petty crimes or offenses which is not subject to the Sixth Amendment jury trial provision.’ [Cits.]” Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas, 489 U. S. 538, 541 (109 SC 1289, 103 LE2d 550) (1989). It is presumed that offenses carrying a maximum sentence of six months are petty offenses, id. at 543, and a maximum fine of $1,000 is well under the level that would render the offense nonpetty and trigger the right to a jury trial. Id. at 544-545. See also Smith v. Greene, 274 Ga. 815, 817 (559 SE2d 726) (2002) (maximum punishment of $500 fine and sentence of 60 days constituted petty offense).
In determining whether an offense is a petty offense, it does not matter whether the offense is a violation of a State law or a violation of a municipal ordinance. See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145 (88 SC 1444, 20 LE2d 491) (1968). See also Blanton, supra. Pursuant to the schedule of fines adopted for the traffic violations bureau, Geng faced only a fine of $315. Thus, he was accused of only a petty offense, and he did not have a right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment.
Contrary to the majority’s characterization, it is not the judges of the City Court of Atlanta that have determined that traffic offenses in traffic violations bureaus will not be misdemeanors. That decision was made by the General Assembly establishing the statutory scheme. Yet the majority gives no deference to that decision, but substitutes its own determination that “[t]he offense of speeding is a misdemeanor under state law. . . .” In doing so, the majority gives all convictions for speeding (and other traffic violations within traffic violations bureaus) the status of misdemeanor. Whether a defendant elects to plead guilty or forfeit his bond in a traffic violations bureau, or is tried before a jury in superior court, the majority labels him a misdemeanant, regardless of the General Assembly’s mandate to the contrary.
The majority also purports to confine the constitutional invalidity to that portion of OCGA § 40-13-60 which provides that trials in traffic violations bureaus cases will be before a judge only. But the majority has rendered void the statutory pronouncement that an offense within the traffic violations bureau is “characterized and classified as a traffic violation and shall not be considered as a misdemeanor.” OCGA § 40-13-60. Voiding this provision calls into question the statute’s declaration that traffic offenses in a traffic violations bureau are not to be recorded on the misdemeanor docket and that no accusation is to be taken or maintained by the prosecuting attorney, unless the defendant does not post a bond or fails to appear. See OCGA § 40-13-61.
The majority bases its outcome on the contention that Geng was *434fined $315, and that the “sentencing order” specified that he would be subject to a six-month period of incarceration if he failed to pay that fine. But the “sentencing order” to which the majority refers does not bear Geng’s name; all “name” fields on the form have been left blank. Nor does it show any case number that might indicate that it pertains to Geng. The form also states “For Clerk’s Use Only,” and there is nothing on the form to indicate that it should take precedence over the sentence imposed by the court. At trial, the court pronounced that the fine would be $315, “in accordance with [the] schedule of fines,” and specifically noted that there was “no jail sentence imposed in connection with this fine in accordance with the schedule of fines. . . .” The schedule of fines shows a $315 fine for going 21 to 30 miles over the speed limit; it says nothing about incarceration. The only sentence Geng faced was a $315 fine. The charge of speeding in the traffic violations bureau was merely a petty offense, and there was no constitutional requirement that Geng have a jury trial available to him.
Decided March 10, 2003
Reconsideration denied April 10, 2003.
Jackie G. Patterson, for appellant.
Joseph J. Drolet, Solicitor-General, Katherine Diamandis, Assistant Solicitor-General, for appellee.
Davis, Zipperman, Kirschenbaum & Lotito, Nicholas A. Lotito, amicus curiae.
I am authorized to state that Justice Benham joins in this dissent.