Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 40-13-60 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 40-13-60 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 40-13-60

TITLE 40 MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC

Section 13. Prosecution of Traffic Offenses, 40-13-1 through 40-13-64.

ARTICLE 3 TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS BUREAUS

40-13-60. Disposition of traffic violations; jurisdiction of bureau.

Any traffic violation under the jurisdiction of the traffic violations bureau shall be characterized and classified as a traffic violation and shall not be considered as a misdemeanor. Whenever any traffic violation is transferred from another court to a court which has a traffic violations bureau, if such offense is classified as a traffic violation on the traffic violations bureau schedule of the receiving court, such violation shall be handled and disposed of by such traffic violations bureau.Where a defendant demands a trial on a traffic violation, it shall be tried before a judge of the court which established the traffic violations bureau. The request for a trial shall not result in a loss of jurisdiction by the traffic violations bureau.

(Ga. L. 1966, p. 381, § 12; Ga. L. 1992, p. 2785, § 29.)

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

O.C.G.A. § 40-13-60 is unconstitutional to the extent the statute may be interpreted as limiting a traffic violator to a bench trial and because the written rights advisement form used with regard to the traffic violations charged against a defendant was tailored only to guilty pleas and did not adequately address the defendant's right to a jury trial. Smith v. State, 270 Ga. App. 759, 608 S.E.2d 35 (2004).

No right to counsel on speeding charge.

- Defendant was not entitled to counsel at the bench trial when the defendant was tried for speeding because, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 40-13-60, the defendant was tried for a traffic violation, and was not subjected to a misdemeanor prosecution. Miller-Roy v. State, 255 Ga. App. 575, 565 S.E.2d 899 (2002).

Right to trial by jury.

- O.C.G.A. § 40-13-60 manifestly infringes on Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. XI, Para. I insofar as the statute denies a criminal defendant, who is subject to potential punishment as a misdemeanant, the right to trial by jury; eliminating the language in O.C.G.A. § 40-13-60 that seemingly restricts a traffic violator to a bench trial would not undermine the general intent and overall scheme of O.C.G.A. § 40-13-50 et seq. Geng v. State, 276 Ga. 428, 578 S.E.2d 115 (2003).

Cited in Daniel v. State, 169 Ga. App. 722, 314 S.E.2d 737 (1984); Keller v. State, 183 Ga. App. 717, 359 S.E.2d 714 (1987); Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2003).

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 40-13-60

Total Results: 1  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Geng v. State, 578 S.E.2d 115 (Ga. 2003).

Cited 7 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 10, 2003 | 276 Ga. 428, 2003 Fulton County D. Rep. 1324

...e "classified as a traffic violation and shall not be considered as a misdemeanor," and "[w]here a defendant demands a trial on a traffic violation, it shall be tried before a judge of the court which established the traffic violations bureau." OCGA § 40-13-60....
...prosecuting attorney of the court who shall have an accusation issued against that person, and the case will thereafter be "handled as all other misdemeanors." OCGA § 40-13-62. Geng's demand for a jury trial was denied based on the language of OCGA § 40-13-60. 2. Constitutional right to trial by jury. Article I, Section I, Paragraph XI of the Georgia Constitution of 1983 guarantees a defendant in a criminal case the "inviolate" right to a "public and speedy trial by an impartial jury." OCGA § 40-13-60 restricts an offender whose case is disposed of in the traffic violations bureau to trial before a judge....
...ered fine. The statute also requires referral to the prosecuting attorney for issuance of an accusation and prosecution as a misdemeanor offense should one fail to appear to answer the charges. [3] OCGA § 40-13-62. It is of no consequence that OCGA § 40-13-60 characterizes the offense as a "traffic violation" rather than a "misdemeanor," when in fact the potential exists for prosecution as a misdemeanor under the statute....
...benefits our judicial system by allowing summary disposition of certain offenses thus freeing up resources in an overcrowded court system, and also benefits traffic violators by reducing the severity of their offenses. Nonetheless, we hold that OCGA § 40-13-60 manifestly infringes on Art....
...291, 303(7), 227 S.E.2d 761 (1976). See also Maples v. City of Varnell, 244 Ga. 163, 164, 259 S.E.2d 94 (1979) ("legislative intent should be effectuated rather than declare the Act as a whole inoperative"). We do not believe that eliminating the language in OCGA § 40-13-60 which seemingly restricts a traffic violator to a bench trial would undermine the general intent and overall scheme of this Act....
...An offender may elect to have his case summarily disposed of in the traffic violations bureau; but one who files a proper demand for jury trial is guaranteed that right under our constitution. We therefore conclude that the offensive portion of OCGA § 40-13-60 may be severed, and the remainder of the Act (OCGA § 40-13-50 et seq.) as a whole is not void for any of the reasons urged by Geng....
...fic violations bureau—that is not *118 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....
...nor a misdemeanor. Duncan v. Ricketts, 232 Ga. 89, 91-92, 205 S.E.2d 274 (1974). See also Keller v. State, 183 Ga.App. 717, 719, 359 S.E.2d 714 (1987). And in the traffic violations bureau, trial is not before a jury, but before a judge alone. OCGA § 40-13-60....
...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....
...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....
...ns 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....
...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. I am authorized to state that Justice BENHAM joins in this dissent. NOTES [1] We note that OCGA § 40-13-60 is somewhat ambiguous in that it does not specifically exclude trial by jury....