Medina v. State
312 Ga. App. 399
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Medina was convicted by bench trial of speeding and driving without a valid Georgia license after being stopped for driving 85 in a 65 mph zone and failing to produce a license or ID.
- The State charged Medina with two offenses; the bench trial focused on the license statute OCGA § 40-5-20(a).
- Medina argued that § 40-5-20 violates the Supremacy Clause because it conflicts with the 1943 Convention on the Regulation of Inter-American Automotive Traffic.
- Medina presented a Mexican driver's license (untranslated copy) at trial to support his claim under the Convention.
- The trial court denied Medina’s directed-verdict motion, noting lack of standing and the need for a certified copy of the Convention to judicially notice it.
- This Court held the trial court could have judicially noticed the Convention, but Medina lacked standing to challenge the statute; the verdict was upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Georgia license statute conflict with the Convention? | Medina contends the Convention exempts him. | Medina’s conduct falls outside the Convention’s protected class. | No conflict; no standing to challenge. |
| Did Medina have standing to challenge the statute based on the Convention? | Medina has rights under the Convention as an immigrant operator. | Medina failed to show he is within the Convention’s protected class and harmed by the statute. | Lacks standing. |
| Was judicial notice of the Convention proper in the trial court? | Convention should be considered if properly certified. | Not properly noticed or authenticated at trial. | Trial court could judicially notice; error in ruling otherwise. |
| Does Medina’s translated status of the Mexican license affect the Convention analysis? | Untranslated Mexican license should satisfy Convention. | Lack of translation and requirements under Convention not met. | Constitutional analysis fails; license translation deficiency undermines compliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marks v. State, 280 Ga. 70 (2005) (declines to resolve constitutional questions not addressed below)
- Camp v. Sellers & Co., 158 Ga.App. 646 (1981) (treaty obligations trump conflicting state law when properly noticed)
- Diaz v. State, 245 Ga.App. 380 (2000) (undocumented aliens prohibited from driving if cannot obtain license)
- Rocha v. State, 250 Ga.App. 209 (2001) (evidence requirements for licenses under conventions)
- Dowis v. State, 243 Ga.App. 354 (2000) (doctrine on when a person may challenge a statute under treaty)
- Schofield v. Hertz Corp., 201 Ga.App. 830 (1991) (treaty supersedes state provisions only to the extent of conflict)