The Daily Citizen, Dalton, GA

Local News

Discussion

Welcome to our online comments feature. To join the discussion, you must first register with Disqus and verify your email address. Once you do, your comments will post automatically. We welcome your thoughts and your opinions, including unpopular ones. We ask only that you keep the conversation civil and clean. We reserve the right to remove comments that are obscene, racist or abusive and statements that are false or unverifiable. Repeat offenders will be blocked. You may flag objectionable comments for review by a moderator.
comments powered by Disqus
November 23, 2009

High court: Riding lawn mower not a motor vehicle

Mark Millican

The Georgia Supreme Court ruled Monday that a riding lawn mower cannot be defined as a motor vehicle stemming from a case in Dalton where a man was found guilty of felony motor vehicle theft and sentenced to 10 years in prison.

The 4-3 decision arose from the case of Franklin Lloyd Harris, 46, formerly of 1134 James St., who was charged with stealing a riding lawn mower from a Home Depot store in 2006. He will be returned to Whitfield County Superior Court from prison and re-sentenced on a different charge.

Harris’ attorneys, including circuit public defender Mike McCarthy, urged the trial judge and the Georgia Court of Appeals to throw out the motor vehicle theft charge on the grounds that a lawn mower does not fit the traditional description of a motor vehicle under state law. They each declined to do that and the case moved to the high court.

“First of all, the Legislature did not define the term ‘motor vehicle’ when the statute was passed,” McCarthy said. “A motor vehicle is primarily designed to transport persons and things while a lawn mower’s primary function is to cut grass.”

He added that since there was “doubt or ambiguity” as to whether a lawn mower was covered by the statute, those doubts must be resolved in favor of the defendant because “in this case, Mr. Harris had no constitutional notice that his actions would subject him to punishment for motor vehicle theft.”

District Attorney Kermit McManus said he is “very disappointed” in the decision.

“The dissent was much more reasoned, and the majority opinion muddies the water,” he said of the 25-page decision. “We would hope to ask the Legislature to change (the definition), but it’s kind of late in the game to try to do that for 2010.”

The General Assembly convenes in January. Any decision there would not affect Harris since state and federal law prohibits legislatures from enacting a law to punish conduct which occurred prior to the law’s passage, said McCarthy.

McManus noted Harris was charged in a second count with theft by taking, which like the theft by taking a motor vehicle count qualifies as a felony since the property stolen cost more than $500. At the Superior Court level, count two was merged into count one, but now the high court has essentially “unmerged” the two counts, he said.

“Both counts carry a maximum of 10 years,” said McManus. “At this point it is procedural, and the sentence will be predicated on what the Supreme Court says. Count one is no longer the viable charge, but count two still is. (Harris) will be sentenced on count two only.”

Harris will be brought out of the state prison system back to Whitfield County to be sentenced anew, he said, although a date has not been set. Harris has past felony convictions for theft by receiving stolen property, perjury and felony obstruction.

Text Only
Local News