DocketNumber： 11-04-00278-CR
Filed Date： 9/8/2005
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 9/10/2015
11th Court of Appeals
Eastland, Texas
Opinion
Al-Yahnai Fountain Hawkins a/k/a Allen Fountain
Appellant
Vs. No. 11-04-00278-CR -- Appeal from Taylor County
State of Texas
Appellee
This is an appeal from county court. Al-Yahnai Fountain Hawkins a/k/a Allen Fountain was originally convicted in municipal court of driving without valid license plates and fined $20. TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. ' 502.407 (Vernon Supp. 2004 - 2005). He appealed to Taylor County Court at Law No. 1. The county court jury convicted him, and the county court assessed his punishment at $150 plus court costs. Appellant appeals his conviction, pro se, and brings two discernible arguments in a single issue. Appellant=s first argument is that Section 502.407 infringes upon his constitutional right to travel. Appellant=s second argument is that the statute does not have the proper enacting language; therefore, the statute is not a valid law. We affirm.
Right To Travel
The burden rests upon the individual who seeks to have a statute declared unconstitutional. Rodriguez v. State, 93 S.W.3d 60, 69 (Tex.Cr.App.2002). This court begins with the presumption that the statute is valid and that the legislature did not act arbitrarily in enacting the statute. Rodriguez v. State, supra at 69. All reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of the lawful exercise of the legislature=s power. Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782 (Tex.Cr.App.1991).
Appellant argues that Section 502.407 is unconstitutional because Athe right of the citizen to travel...is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.@ Appellant seems to make a distinction between the use of a public road for gain or monetary purposes and the use for personal, noneconomic travel, arguing that travel for economic gain is a privilege while use for personal travel is a right.
We disagree with appellant=s underlying proposition that driving a motor vehicle for personal purposes is a constitutionally protected right rather than a state‑granted privilege. Driving is not a constitutionally protected right but a privilege. Tharp v. State, 935 S.W.2d 157, 159 (Tex.Cr.App. 1996). This privilege is subject to reasonable regulations by the State under its police power in the interest of the welfare and safety of the general public. Gillaspie v. Department of Public Safety, 259 S.W.2d 177 (Tex.1953). As such, driving a motor vehicle is subject to reasonable regulations formulated under the police power to protect the welfare and safety of the general public. Tharp v. State, supra at 159; City of Coleman v. Rhone, 222 S.W.2d 646 (Tex.Civ.App. - Eastland 1949, writ ref=d). Requiring current license plates as a condition of operating a motor vehicle on the state=s highways is a proper subject of the state=s police power. See generally Riggle v. State, 778 S.W.2d 127, 129 (Tex.App. ‑ Texarkana 1989, no pet=n). Section 502.407 does not violate the constitutional protections under U.S. CONST. amend. 5 or TEX. CONST. art. I, ' 19. The statute is not vague, ambiguous, or overly broad.
Enacting Language
Appellant asserts in his second argument that the statute is invalid because the proper enacting language is not present. Specifically, appellant contends that the statute does not contain the words Abe it enacted.@ Appellant is apparently confusing the wording of the statute set out in Vernon=s Texas Codes Annotated with the version of the statute contained in the session laws. Other than the publication of the session laws, Texas does not publish an official set of its laws. For this reason, most Texas practitioners use publications prepared by Vernon=s as their source of the laws of Texas. Vernon=s routinely omits the enacting language in its publication of the State=s statutes. The fact that Vernon=s does not transcribe the enacting language is of no consequence. As long as the official session law was enacted properly, the statute is valid. See Murphy v. State of Texas, 95 S.W.3d 317, 321 n.4 (Tex.App. - Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet=n ref=d). This court has reviewed the enrolled version of TEX. H.B. 924, 76th Leg., R.S. (1999), as well as the published Session Law, and found that the proper enacting language is present. Therefore, Section 502.407 is a valid law.
All of appellant=s contentions on appeal have been considered. Appellant=s sole issue is overruled.
This Court=s Ruling
The judgment of the trial court that appellant was convicted of operating a vehicle with expired license plates is affirmed.
PER CURIAM
September 8, 2005
Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, J., and McCall, J.[1]
[1]W. G. Arnot, III, Chief Justice, retired effective July 31, 2005. The chief justice position is vacant.