Albert Moore appealed from the judgment of conviction entered by the county court of Mercer County which found him guilty of driving while his driver’s license was under revocation. We affirm.
From January 1980 to January 1982 the Driver’s License Division of the State Highway Department had suspended on various occasions Moore’s license for numerous
The Driver’s License Division had previously received from Moore his driver’s license. In November 1979 a law officer told Moore to send his driver’s license to the Driver’s License Division after he was charged with driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Moore’s license was returned to him in May or April of 1980. When he was charged later with speeding, he was told to mail his license to the Driver’s License Division. In June 1980 he sent his license to the Driver’s License Division in an envelope indicating Hazen, North Dakota, as his return address.
On October 4, 1982, Moore was charged with driving while his driver’s license was under revocation, in violation of Section 39-06-42, N.D.C.C. At the time of this charge Moore did not have his driver’s license because he had sent it in more than two years earlier. At his trial to the court without a jury Moore admitted that he was driving at the time the law officer apprehended him but denied that he had received any of the notices of opportunity for a hearing and the orders of suspension. The trial court found him guilty of driving while his license was under revocation and sentenced him to five days in jail and ordered him to pay $200 in court costs, with the jail sentence suspended for one year on the conditions that he pay the costs and have no criminal violations for one year.
On appeal Moore argues that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of driving while his license was under revocation because he testified that he did not receive the notices of an opportunity for a hearing and the orders for suspension.
This court has established the standard of review in cases where a defendant challenges the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction. In
State v. Manke,
“In such cases we do not weigh conflicting evidence, nor do we judge the credibility of witnesses; instead, we look only to the evidence most favorable to the verdict and the reasonable inferences therefrom to see if there is substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.” [Citations omitted.]
See also
State v. Flamm,
Moore contends that the facts of this case are similar to the facts present in
State v. Knittel,
Although the facts in
Knittel
are similar to some of the facts in the present case, the eases nevertheless are clearly distinguishable. In the present case Moore’s actions and testimony reveal that he knew that his license was revoked at the time he was apprehended for driving while his license was under revocation. Moore twice sent his license to the Driver’s License Division. The first time he sent it in a law officer told him that his license was suspended. Shortly after the Driver’s License Division returned his license to him, Moore sent it in again. At trial Moore admitted that he mailed his license in a second time because he was told that his license was revoked. The license was not returned, nor did he apply for another license. Thus, when he was charged with driving while his license was under revocation, Moore did not have a license. Under these circumstances Moore cannot collaterally attack the revocation of his license. See
State v. Mehlhoff,
Moore had actual knowledge that his license was revoked. Moore should have inquired about his right to challenge the status of his license before he boldly defied Section 39-06-42, which prohibits a person from driving while his license is under revocation.
We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court,
Notes
. In
State
v.
Knittel,
. Section 31-11-03 lists rebuttable presumptions, including:
"24. That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail.”