DUNN v. THE STATE
S09A1369
Supreme Court of Georgia
November 23, 2009
286 Ga. 238 | 686 SE2d 772
HINES, Justice.
5. Finally, Mr. Killingsworth claims that the trial court erred when it refused to allow his attorney to make a closing argument at the evidentiary hearing on the contempt motions. In Wilson v. Wilson, 277 Ga. 801, 802 (596 SE2d 392) (2004), this Court recognized that closing argument is a material right in trials, even bench trials. However, a contempt proceeding is not a separate lawsuit, and as such, an evidentiary hearing on a contempt motion is not the equivalent of a trial. See Phillips v. Brown, 263 Ga. 50, 51 (426 SE2d 866) (1993) (“It is axiomatic that an action for contempt is ancillary to the primary action and, as such, is not a pleading but a motion.“); Opatut v. Guest Pond Club, Inc., 254 Ga. 258, 258 (327 SE2d 487) (1985) (“[A]n application for contempt may not, standing alone, serve to commence a civil action for damages as it is not a complaint.“). Moreover, in Bull v. Bull, 280 Ga. 49, 50-51 (622 SE2d 326) (2005), we held that where a party does not request closing argument, the right to closing argument recognized in Wilson v. Wilson is waived. A review of the hearing transcript shows that Mr. Killingsworth did not request closing argument. Accordingly, there was no error.
Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and case remanded with direction. All the Justices concur.
DECIDED NOVEMBER 23, 2009.
Johnston, Owen & Bullard, Lance N. Owen, for appellant.
R. Edwin Joyner, for appellee.
HINES, Justice.
This Court granted Derrick Todd Dunn‘s application for a discretionary appeal from the trial court‘s order revoking his probation, to determine whether
Dunn is a convicted sexual offender,1 required to register with the sheriff of the county in which he resides, as set forth in
The State filed a petition to revoke Dunn‘s probation, alleging that he failed to register his address change when he moved into the Calhoun Lodge, and that he failed to obtain prior permission from his probation officer before an earlier move. Dunn filed a “Motion to Strike and Quash as Unconstitutional O.C.G.A. § 42-1-12 as Applied to Registered Sex Offenders Living at a Temporary Address.” After a hearing, the trial court revoked Dunn‘s probation, rejecting his constitutional attacks on
1. Dunn asserts that
The Due Process Clause requires that the law give a person of ordinary intelligence fair warning that specific conduct is forbidden or mandated. Vagueness may invalidate a criminal law on either of two bases: a statute may fail to provide notice sufficient to enable ordinary people to understand what conduct it prohibits or requires, or the statute may authorize and encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Vagueness challenges to criminal statutes that do not implicate First Amendment freedoms must be examined in the light of the facts of the case to be decided.
Santos v. State, 284 Ga. 514, 514-515 (1) (668 SE2d 676) (2008)
Under
“[A] criminal statute is sufficiently definite if its terms furnish a test based on normal criteria which men of common intelligence who come in contact with the statute may use with reasonable safety in determining its command.” [Cits.] Indeed, “[a]ll the Due Process Clause requires is that the law give sufficient warning that men may conduct themselves so as to avoid that which is forbidden.” [Cits.]
Smith v. State, 285 Ga. 725, 726 (2) (681 SE2d 161) (2009). “[W]hen the phrase challenged as vague has a commonly understood meaning, then it is sufficiently definite to satisfy due process requirements.” Bradford v. State, 285 Ga. 1, 3 (2) (673 SE2d 201) (2009) (citation and punctuation omitted).
First, under the facts of this case, it is clear that Dunn did not find the term “temporary residence” vague; in fact, he had reported changes of his address at least four times. Second, under common understanding of the term, “temporary residence” is not unconstitutionally vague. “Temporary” means “[l]asting for a time only; existing or continuing for a limited (usu. short) time; transitory.” Black‘s Law Dictionary (7th ed. 1999). “Residence” means “[t]he place where one actually lives, as distinguished from a domicile.” Black‘s Law Dictionary (7th ed. 1999).4 Thus, a “temporary residence” is where one lives for a limited time, which is in keeping with the long recognized concept that a person may have more than one residence. See Daniel v. Allstate Ins. Co., 290 Ga. App. 898, 902 (4) (660 SE2d 765) (2008); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Mixon, 118 Ga. App. 31, 33 (162 SE2d 830) (1968). The term “temporary residence” provides fair warning to persons of ordinary intelligence as to what is required
Nor does the statute‘s use of the term “temporary residence” in any way “authorize and encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Santos, supra. Rather,
2. Dunn also asserts that
The Georgia and U. S. Constitutions require government to treat similarly situated individuals in a similar manner. The person who is asserting the equal protection claim has the burden to establish that he is similarly situated to members of the class who are treated differently from him. If the person asserting the violation cannot make the foregoing showing, there is no need to continue with an equal protection analysis.
Rodriguez v. State, 275 Ga. 283, 284-285 (1) (565 SE2d 458) (2002) (citations and punctuation omitted). “Criminal defendants are ‘similarly situated’ for purposes of equal protection ‘only if they are charged with the same crime or crimes.’ [Cit.]” State v. Jackson, 271 Ga. 5 (515 SE2d 386) (1999).
Dunn contends that, as a sexual offender residing in Georgia, he has the obligation to notify the sheriff of his resident county of any change of his residence within 72 hours, but that a sexual offender who is not a full-time resident of Georgia is provided at least 14 days before he or she must provide any residence information to the sheriff. But, his argument is based on a misreading of the statute.
nonresident sexual offender who enters this state for the purpose of employment or any other reason for a period exceeding 14 consecutive days or for an aggregate period of time exceeding 30 days during any calendar year regardless of whether such sexual offender is required to register under federal law, military law, tribal law, or the laws of another state or territory[.]
Thus, under
Dunn fails to establish that he is treated differently from a similarly situated nonresident sexual offender entering this state, and thus both his constitutional challenges to
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
HUNSTEIN, Chief Justice, concurring.
While I concur in the majority‘s holding regarding Dunn‘s challenge to
DECIDED NOVEMBER 23, 2009.
Christopher G. Paul, for appellant.
T. Joseph Campbell, District Attorney, Sharon M. Fox, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Notes
“Sexual offender” means any individual:
(A) Who has been convicted of a criminal offense against a victim who is a minor or any dangerous sexual offense; or
(B) Who has been convicted under the laws of another state or territory, under the laws of the United States, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or in a tribal court of a criminal offense against a victim who is a minor or a dangerous sexual offense.
