O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 40-5-65 (2019)

Restriction as to operation under foreign license during period of revocation or suspension

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any resident or nonresident whose driver’s license or privilege to operate a motor vehicle in this state has been suspended or revoked as provided in this chapter shall not operate a motor vehicle in this state under a license or permit issued by any other jurisdiction or otherwise during such suspension or after such revocation until the license is restored when and as permitted under this chapter.

History

Code 1933, § 68B-314, enacted by Ga.

L. 1975, p. 1008, § 1; Ga. L. 1990, p. 2048, § 4.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Legal operation of vehicle by one whose license was revoked. - Regardless of possession of a driver’s license from any other state, one who has had one’s Georgia driver’s license revoked by the Department of Public Safety can legally thereafter operate a vehicle in Georgia only if the Department reauthorizes that person to do so. Goblet v. State, 174 Ga. App. 675, 331 S.E.2d 56, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 1924 (1985). One who has been properly notified that one has been declared a habitual violator by this state can thereafter lose that status and drive in Georgia only after the passage of five years and, pursuant to that person’s application, the Department of Public Safety has determined that it will be safe to grant the person the privilege of driving a motor vehicle on the public highways. Goblet v. State, 174 Ga. App. 675, 331 S.E.2d 56, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 1924 (1985). An individual may not avoid prosecution for operating a motor vehicle in this state after having been declared a habitual violator by obtaining a valid license from another state. Tootle v. State, 203 Ga. App. 497, 417 S.E.2d 433, 1992 Ga. App. LEXIS 523 (1992). Effect of premature issuance. - Premature issuance of a driver’s license to

the defendant was not adequate to show as a matter of law that the defendant’s driving privileges had been properly reinstated, nor did that premature issuance refute the evidence that the defendant drove a motor vehicle on a public highway at a time when the defendant’s privilege to do so was suspended and before having the defendant’s license reinstated when and as permitted by statutory procedure. Payne v. State, 209 Ga. App. 780, 434 S.E.2d 543, 1993 Ga. App. LEXIS 985 (1993); Grisson v. State, 237 Ga. App. 559, 515 S.E.2d 857. Possession of Florida license not a defense. - Under O.C.G.A. § 40-5-65, possession of a valid license from another state was not a defense to a habitual violator charge and created no presumption that the defendant was authorized to drive in Georgia; since the defendant testified that the defendant never inquired about reinstating the defendant’s Georgia driving privileges, the evidence supported the defendant’s habitual violator conviction. Stripling v. State, 279 Ga. App. 856, 632 S.E.2d 747, 2006 Ga. App. LEXIS 708 (2006).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 7A Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § 111. C.J.S. 60 C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, § 328 et seq.

ALR. Constitutionality and construction of statutes with respect to nonresident motor vehicle operators’ or drivers’ licenses, 82 A.L.R. 1392.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1985–2014 · leading case: Tootle v. State, 417 S.E.2d 433 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Tootle v. State, 417 S.E.2d 433 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 18× “Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia, challenging the constitutionality of OCGA § 40-5-65. The Supreme Court transferred the appeal to the Court of Appeals, stating that there is “no basis for jurisdiction in this Court.”

Payne v. State, 434 S.E.2d 543 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “) OCGA § 40-5-65. Accordingly, the premature issuance of a driver's license to Payne on April 8, 1989 was not adequate to show as a matter of law that appellant's driving privileges had been properly reinstated.”

King v. State, 486 S.E.2d 904 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “has been suspended or revoked as provided in this chapter shall not operate a motor vehicle in this state under a license or permit issued by any other jurisdiction or otherwise during such suspension or after such revocation until the license is restored when and as permitted…”

Parks v. State, 348 S.E.2d 481 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 40-5-65. The undisputed evidence was that appellant had obtained a Florida driver’s license while his Georgia license was under revocation.”

Goblet v. State, 331 S.E.2d 56 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 40-5-65 provides: “Any resident or nonresident whose driver’s license or privilege to operate a motor vehicle in this state has been suspended or revoked as provided in this chapter shall not operate a motor vehicle in this state under a *676 license or permit issued by…”

Grisson v. State, 515 S.E.2d 857 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 40-5-65. The premature and erroneous issuance of a Georgia driver’s license to an habitual violator is not adequate to show as a matter of law that appellant’s driving privileges had been properly reinstated.”

Stripling v. State, 632 S.E.2d 747 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “However, the result here is governed by OCGA § 40-5-65, which provides that [a]ny resident or nonresident whose driver’s license or privilege to operate a motor vehicle in this [S]tate has been suspended or revoked as provided in this chapter shall not operate a motor vehicle in…”

Billy Wayne Christian v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “18 The testimony by the probate-court employee as to the status of Christian’s license at the time of his arrest was the only evidence the State presented that Christian was driving in violation of OCGA § 40-5-65, which makes it a crime to operate a motor vehicle in violation of…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.