ÿWPCj –lHõу:—ãzr@ß'>Ý DÔð×€Ô;‹of]ýZ×¼’¥ P"‡±ËZì#˜üÞ»dm& Jõ wÃÝ‚p1iôPïýÒ¾Œ•%u}E +ð.:Ì´XŸ8hÙùVdT¯cxm3$sBkøC_®ãtÍ ÁèV ¨áÀØH¶Êóèæ/…Drcn7}D£¬R~æŒÍ©ŸFÌ'$¸éQóbB¹L ”{CÇÀ¦ +Õ›dœŒ¤7e¨ëƒ½H‘O/ǵ &+f¿L"$\±]¤Ã¶ôºCl‡î8 Ê¿ÐßÌAÙ1€Z´¢çïÌ€»x¢×:_ç·6ÿ~© fäP¥)ÅxB¢¥Ì8鈿M‚ôî@$¥æÇ—/ùsµÔ’&Ïqì‚È&¹ºWªóM$îùeå"¦-Éì0h½R°º#᯿¯½àT„Ûl;ÜñÝPÐæô<)UŒ)‘©.78àâ– ô¤üN^•-dÛà‘µ¨y4=`ùýn°‚O©)Eɸޝ%-j–á85çb{¾“5ð|½c÷Ùb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz ‘ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë N±N³fµµEU@b]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] 0ëeeee BPP 0¤m D5 D-F 0Kss AS¾Æ 0¤× 0D{ A«¿˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»š°p+ (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÖJ~'¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 \Ñ\R3Ø' Letter\Ñ(ÈhH  Z(Times New Roman - ù-(|G28û$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F•»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôõÍò»»Ô d(|3G„$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F•»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G„$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F•»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F•»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼F•»»»ÔÑ8€IXXdì»»d8ÑÑ€³/Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î\äF•ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼F•»îî\ä#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€August€15,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡XIX»¼F•ÔÌò òÔ#†¼F•»XXI1#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€JOHNNY€LEWISòòóóÔ‡XIX»¼F•Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Warren€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€F„7970€€€€€€Charles€D.€Ô_ÔHastonÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„02809„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€November€16,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant€appeals€his€conviction€of€violating€the€motor€vehicle€habitual€offender€law.€€BecauseÐ xÈ  Ðwe€find€that€his€motor€vehicle€offender€status€was€terminated€before€he€was€discovered€driving€aÐ d´ Ðmotor€vehicle,€we€conclude€that€the€convicting€evidence€was€insufficient.€€We€reverse€the€convictionÐ P  Ðand€dismiss€the€charge.Ô#†¼F•»XXI¥#ÔÔ‡XIX»¼F•ÔÐ <Œ ÐÓåÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Reversed€and€Charge€Dismissed.ó óÐ d ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼F•»àXI‘#ÔÔ‡XIX.¼F•ÔJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€H.€Wellesóó€andÐ ì< ÐòòJoe€G.€Riley,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð Ø( ÐÌDan€T.€Bryant,€Ô_ÔMcMinnvilleÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Johnny€Lewis.Ð ° ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Elizabeth€T.€Ryan,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€andÐ ˆØ ÐDale€Potter,€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð tÄ ÐÓEÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼F•»XXIt#ÔÔ‡XIX»¼F•ÔÐ L œ ÐòòóóÔ#†¼F•»XXI+ #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XIX»¼F•Ôà0  àÓÓÓÓà ` àÐ (#(# Ðà  àà ` àOn€October€30,€1991,€the€Warren€County€Circuit€Court€entered€an€order€declaring€Ð $"t! Ðthe€defendant,€Johnny€Lewis,€a€motor€vehicle€€habitual€offender€(Ô_ÔMVHOÔ_Ô)€and€prohibiting€him€fromÐ #`" Ðoperating€a€motor€vehicle€for€a€period€of€ten€years.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„613€(1997).€€OnÐ ü#L# ÐJanuary€12,€1999,€in€response€to€a€petition€by€the€defendant€seeking€relief€from€the€1991€order,€theÐ è$8 $ Ðcourt€entered€an€order€reflecting€that€the€defendantððs€ð ðdriving€privileges€should€not€at€this€time€beÐ Ô%$!% Ðrestoredðð€but€granting€the€defendant€ð ðrestrictive€privileges€of€driving€a€motor€vehicle€on€the€roadsÐ À&"& Ðof€Tennessee€from€his€home€to€his€place€of€employment€and€back€to€his€home,ðð€pending€review€onÐ ¬'ü"' ÐApril€9,€1999.€€Ð ˜(è#( ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€April€9,€the€court€entered€two€further€orders.€€One€recited€that€the€defendant€hasÐ p*À%* Ðobtained€motor€vehicle€insurance,€has€paid€his€fines€for€past€violations,€and€has€become€ð ðqualifiedÐ \+¬&+ Ðto€have€his€driving€license€reinstated€under€the€provisions€of€€[Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section]Ð H,˜', Ð55„10„615,€and€his€license€should€be€reinstated.ðð€€In€that€order,€the€court€decreed€that€the€defendantððsÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôlicense€be€reinstated€ð ðwith€all€privileges€of€operating€a€motor€vehicle€on€the€highways€of€the€StateÐ ° Ðof€Tennessee€upon€the€payment€of€the€fees€as€required€by€the€rules€and€laws€of€the€[S]tate€ofÐ œì ÐTennessee€for€such€purposes.ððÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€second€April€9,€1999€order,€the€lower€court€recognized€that€ð ðit€will€take€weeksÐ `° Ðto€file€for€the€restoration€of€his€license€and€to€pay€the€proper€fees€and€file€the€order€of€the€restorationÐ L œ Ðof€the€license€under€[Code€section]€55„10„615ðð€and€ordered€that€the€defendant€be€vested€with€anÐ 8 ˆ Ðinterim€restrictive€driving€privilege.€€The€order€provides€that€this€ð ðrestrictive€driving€privilegeððÐ $ t Ðwould€continue€until€May€10,€1999.€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€August€16,€1999,€a€McMinnville€police€officer€arrested€the€defendant€for€drivingÐ è 8  Ðin€violation€of€the€motor€vehicle€habitual€offender€law.€€During€the€defendantððs€April€26,€2000€juryÐ Ô$  Ðtrial€on€this€charge,€the€state€established€that€the€defendant€was€driving€a€motor€vehicle€on€a€publicÐ À  Ðroad€in€Warren€County.€€Further,€the€state€established€ð!ð€and€the€defendant€conceded€ð!ð€the€validityÐ ¬ü  Ðof€the€1991€MVHO€order.€€In€the€defendantððs€case€in€chief,€he€placed€into€evidence€the€three€1999Ð ˜è  Ðorders.€In€rebuttal,€the€state€showed€that€the€defendant€had€not€paid€fees€to€the€Department€of€SafetyÐ „Ô  Ðand€had€not€obtained€reinstatement€of€his€driverððs€license.€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€the€close€of€the€proof€in€the€case,€the€defendant€moved€for€an€order€of€dismissalÐ H˜ Ðbased€on€the€theory€that,€via€the€1999€orders,€the€trial€court€had€vacated€the€1991€MVHO€order€andÐ 4„ Ðhad€placed€the€defendant€in€the€position€of€obtaining€a€driverððs€license€upon€tendering€the€requiredÐ  p Ðfees€to€the€Department€of€Safety.€The€state€argued€that€the€1999€orders,€via€statutory€authority,Ð  \ Ðplaced€terms€and€conditions€upon€the€termination€of€the€defendantððs€MVHO€status€ð!ð€in€particular,Ð øH Ðthat€he€pay€the€fees€and€obtain€a€license€from€the€Department€of€Safety,€which€the€defendant€hadÐ ä4 Ðfailed€to€do.€€The€trial€court€agreed€with€the€state€and€declared€that,€as€a€matter€of€law,€theÐ Ð  Ðdefendantððs€MVHO€status€had€not€been€affected€by€the€1999€orders.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€court€further€ruled€that€the€certified€copies€of€the€1999€orders€that€were€placedÐ ”ä Ðinto€evidence€should€not€be€submitted€to€the€jury€during€their€deliberations.€€During€deliberations,Ð €Ð Ðthe€jury€requested€the€1999€orders.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€request€and€informed€the€jury€that€theÐ l¼ Ð1999€orders€were€irrelevant.€The€defendant€moved€for€an€order€declaring€a€mistrial,€but€the€trial€courtÐ X ¨ Ðdenied€the€motion.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€violating€the€MVHO€law,€a€Class€E€felony,€andÐ #l! Ðfollowing€the€courtððs€acceptance€of€the€verdict,€the€defendant€moved€orally€for€a€judgment€ofÐ $X" Ðacquittal€and€for€a€new€trial.€€On€May€12,€2000,€the€trial€court€conducted€a€sentencing€hearing,€afterÐ ô$D # Ðwhich€it€imposed€a€sentence€of€two€years€and€eight€months€to€be€served€in€the€Tennessee€DepartmentÐ à%0!$ Ðof€Correction.€€Because€the€defendant€was€a€Range€II€offender€with€a€35%€release€eligibility€date,Ð Ì&"% Ðthe€release€eligibility€date€for€the€sentence€as€imposed€was€substantially€attained€at€the€time€ofÐ ¸'#& Ðsentencing€by€virtue€of€the€allowance€of€270€days€of€pretrial€jail€credit.€The€judgment€of€convictionÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwas€entered€on€June€6,€2000.€€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àà ` àOn€August€29,€2000,€the€defendant€filed€a€written€motion€for€a€new€trial,€in€whichÐ ° Ðâ âhe€claimed€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€ruling€that€the€1999€orders€were€irrelevant,€in€not€submittingÐ œì Ðthe€exhibit€containing€the€1999€orders€to€the€jury,€despite€the€juryððs€request€to€see€the€exhibit,€€inÐ ˆØ Ðdenying€a€mid„trial€interlocutory€appeal,€and€in€denying€the€defendantððs€post„trial€motions€forÐ tÄ Ðdismissal€and€judgment€of€acquittal.Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€appeal,€the€defendant€raises€these€issues€and€further€claims€that€the€trial€courtÐ 8 ˆ Ðerred€in€denying€the€mistrial€motion€and€in€refusing€to€submit€to€the€jury€the€ð ðfactðð€issue€of€whetherÐ $ t Ðthe€1999€orders€had€terminated€the€defendantððs€MVHO€status.€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àInitially,€we€must€hold€that€this€courtððs€review€of€all€of€the€issues,€except€for€theÐ è 8  Ðdenial€of€the€motions€for€dismissal€and€judgment€of€acquittal,€is€waived.€€The€defendant€failed€toÐ Ô$  Ðperfect€his€oral€motion€for€a€new€trial€by€reducing€it€to€writing€within€30€days€of€the€entry€of€theÐ À  Ðjudgment€of€conviction.€€ð ðA€motion€for€a€new€trial€shall€be€made€in€writing,€or€if€made€orally€in€openÐ ¬ü  Ðcourt€shall€be€reduced€to€writing,€within€thirty€days€of€the€date€the€order€of€sentence€is€entered.ðð€òòóóÐ ˜è  ÐTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€33(b).€€ð ðThis€provision€is€mandatory,€and€the€time€for€the€filing€cannot€beÐ „Ô  Ðextended.ðð€òò€State€v.€Martinóó,€940€S.W.2d€567,€569€(Tenn.€1997);€òòseeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€45(b).€€TheÐ pÀ Ðfailure€to€timely€file€the€motion€for€new€trial€ð ðdeprives€the€appellant€of€the€opportunity€to€argue€onÐ \¬ Ðappeal€any€issues€that€were€or€should€have€been€presented€in€the€motion.ðð€€òòMartinóó,€940€S.W.2d€atÐ H˜ Ð569.€€Issues€which€should€be€raised€in€a€motion€for€new€trial€include€evidentiary€issues,€juryÐ 4„ Ðinstruction€complaints,€misconduct€of€jurors,€parties€or€counsel,€ð ðor€other€action€committed€orÐ  p Ðoccurring€during€the€trial€of€the€case,€or€other€ground€upon€which€a€new€trial€is€sought.ðð€€Tenn.€R.Ð  \ ÐApp.€P.€3(e).€€€€Ð øH ЀÌà  àà ` àOn€the€other€hand,€it€is€not€necessary€to€file€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€in€order€to€obtainÐ Ð  Ðappellate€review€of€a€claim€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€conviction.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€StateÐ ¼  Ðv.€Pattersonóó,€966€S.W.2d€435,€440€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€Because€ð ð[w]e€apply€the€same€standardÐ ¨ø Ðof€review€both€to€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€[a]€motion€for€a€judgment€of€acquittal€and€to€theÐ ”ä Ðsufficiency€of€the€evidence€underlying€the€juryððs€verdict,ðð€€òòState€v.€Carrollóó,€36€S.W.3d€854,€869Ð €Ð Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999),€the€defendantððs€appellate€claim€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€hisÐ l¼ Ðmotion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€effectively€raises€the€issue€of€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€Thus,Ð X ¨ Ðthis€issue€is€not€waived€by€failing€to€raise€it€in€a€timely€motion€for€new€trial,€and€we€now€address€it.€Ð D!” Ðà  àà ` àÌÔ‡XIXXXIÔà  àà ` àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€this€courtÐ #l! Ðmust€review€the€record€to€determine€if€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial€is€sufficient€ð ðto€support€theÐ $X" Ðfinding€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€This€ruleÐ ô$D # Ðis€applicable€to€findings€of€guilt€based€upon€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€aÐ à%0!$ Ðcombination€of€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€253€(Tenn.Ð Ì&"% ÐCrim.€App.€1990),€òòoverruled€on€other€grounds€by€State€v.€Hooper,óó€29€S.W.3d€1€(Tenn.€2000).Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àà ` àBecause€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€it€withÐ )à$( Ða€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused,€as€the€appellant,€has€the€burden€in€this€court€of€illustrating€whyÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639Ð h+¸&* ÐS.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€This€court€will€not€disturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€due€to€the€sufficiencyÐ ° Ðof€the€evidence€unless€the€facts€contained€in€the€record€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€aÐ œì Ðrational€trier€of€fact€to€find€that€the€accused€is€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòId.óó€at€914.Ð ˆØ Ðà  àÔ#†XIXXXIC.#ÔÌà  àà ` àIn€this€case,€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€issue€is€simply€a€narrow€question€of€law:Ð `° Ðwhether€the€1999€orders€of€the€trial€court€vacated€the€1991€MVHO€order€or,€in€other€words,€whetherÐ L œ Ðthe€1999€orders€terminated€the€defendantððs€MVHO€status€prior€to€August€16,€1999,€the€date€of€hisÐ 8 ˆ Ðð ðoffenseðð€and€arrest.€€For€the€reasons€explained€below,€we€conclude€that€the€1999€orders€did,€as€aÐ $ t Ðmatter€of€law,€terminate€the€MVHO€status.€€The€result€is€that€the€defendant€was€not€an€MVHO€onÐ  ` ÐAugust€16,€1999,€and€accordingly,€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€convict€him€of€violating€theÐ ü L  ÐMVHO€law.€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` à€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55„10„613(a)€provides€that€after€a€court€finds€thatÐ À  Ða€defendant€is€a€MVHO,€it€ð ðshall€make€an€order€directing€that€such€person€shall€not€operate€a€motorÐ ¬ü  Ðvehicle€on€the€highways€of€this€state€and€that€such€person€shall€surrender€to€the€court€all€licenses€toÐ ˜è  Ðoperate€a€motor€vehicle€.€€.€€.€€.ðð€€The€clerk€shall€ð ðforthwith€transmit€a€copy€of€such€order,€togetherÐ „Ô  Ðwith€any€license€or€licenses€surrendered,€to€the€department€of€safety.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„Ð pÀ Ð613(b)€(1998).€€It€is€a€Class€E€felony€to€operate€a€motor€vehicle€while€the€MVHO€order€ð ðremains€inÐ \¬ Ðeffect.ðð€òòIdóó.,€ðð€55„10„616€(1997).Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àà ` àð ðIn€no€event€shall€a€license€to€operate€motor€vehicles€in€this€state€be€issued€to€anÐ  p Ðhabitual€offender€for€a€period€of€three€(3)€years€from€the€entry€date€of€the€order€.€.€.€finding€suchÐ  \ Ðperson€to€be€an€habitual€offender.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„615(a)€(Supp.€2000).€€However,€afterÐ øH Ðthe€expiration€of€three€years,€the€habitual€offender€may€petition€the€court€ð ðfor€restoration€of€€theÐ ä4 Ðprivilege€to€operate€a€motor€vehicle.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€ðð€55„10„615(b).€€In€this€event,€if€the€habitual€offender€hasÐ Ð  Ðmet€all€financial€responsibility€requirements,€òòidóó.€ðð€55„10„615(a),€and€for€good€cause€shown,€the€courtÐ ¼  Ðmay€ð ðrestore€to€such€person€the€privilege€to€operate€a€motor€vehicle€in€this€state€upon€such€terms€andÐ ¨ø Ðconditions€as€the€court€may€prescribe.€.€.€.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€55„10„615(b).€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Tennessee€Department€of€Safety€is€charged€with€the€responsibility€of€issuingÐ l¼ Ðdriverððs€licenses.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€55„50„302€(1998),€„331€(Supp.€2000).€€Among€the€personsÐ X ¨ Ðwho€are€ineligible€for€licenses€are€those€who€are€required€to€furnish€proof€of€financial€responsibilityÐ D!” Ðbut€have€failed€to€do€so€and€those€who€are€convicted€of€any€offense€requiring€mandatory€revocationÐ 0"€  Ðof€driving€privileges€who€fail€to€present€certification€that€ð ðall€fines€and€costs€have€been€paid€to€theÐ #l! Ðcourt€of€jurisdiction.ðð€òòIdóó.,€55„50„303(a)(7);€(b)(1),€(2)€(1997).€The€department€is€required€to€examineÐ $X" Ðapplicants€for€reinstatement€of€canceled,€suspended€or€revoked€licenses€when€the€license€ð ðhas€beenÐ ô$D # Ðexpired€in€excess€of€one€(1)€renewal€cycle.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€ðð€55„50„322(a),€(e)€(1997).€€The€Code€establishesÐ à%0!$ Ða€schedule€of€fees€that€the€department€must€charge€for€issuing€driverððs€licenses.€€òòIdóó.,€ðð€55„5„323Ð Ì&"% Ð(Supp.€2000).€€The€department€is€authorized€ð ðto€impose€restrictions€suitable€to€the€licenseeððs€abilityððÐ ¸'#& Ðto€drive.€€òòIdóó.,€ðð€55„50„331(d)€(Supp.€2000).€The€department€is€required€to€ð ðforthwith€revokeðð€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðlicense€of€any€driver€upon€receiving€a€record€of€a€final€conviction€of€enumerated€offenses,€includingÐ )à$( Ðð ð[a]ny€felony€in€the€commission€of€which€a€motor€vehicle€is€used.ðð€€òòId.óó,€ðð€55„50„501(a)€(1998).Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðѳ/Ñâ âÑTRY,3Ø' LetterXà3Ø' Letter 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑâ âÑ  Ñà  àà ` àWe€glean€from€these€statutes€a€distinction€between,€on€the€one€hand,€the€judicialÐ ° Ðfunctions€of€declaring€and€terminating€a€personððs€status€an€a€MVHO€and,€on€the€other€hand,€theÐ œì Ðadministrative€function€of€assuring€fulfillment€of€the€technical€requirements€for€obtaining€a€driverððsÐ ˆØ Ðlicense€and,€ultimately,€issuing€a€license.€€The€legislature€has€entrusted€to€the€courts€the€power€andÐ tÄ Ðduty€to€adjudicate€a€personððs€MVHO€status.€€It€has€entrusted€to€the€executive€branch,€through€theÐ `° ÐDepartment€of€Safety,€the€responsibility€for€determining€that€only€qualified€persons€are€licensed€toÐ L œ Ðoperate€motor€vehicles.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€April€9,€1999,€more€than€three€years€after€the€lower€court€declared€the€defendantÐ  ` Ðto€be€an€MVHO,€that€court€decreed€that€the€defendantððs€driving€privileges€be€restored€to€ð ðallÐ ü L  Ðprivileges€of€operating€a€motor€vehicleðð€on€the€public€highways€ð ðupon€the€payment€of€the€fees€asÐ è 8  Ðrequired€by€the€rules€and€laws€of€the€state.€.€.€for€such€purposes.ðð€€€In€that€order,€the€lower€courtÐ Ô$  Ðfound€that€the€defendant€had€paid€his€ð ðfines€for€past€violations,ðð€and€we€conclude€that€the€provisionÐ À  Ðthat€the€defendant€be€restored€to€driving€privileges€ð ðupon€the€payment€of€the€fees€as€requiredðð€refersÐ ¬ü  Ðmerely€to€the€fees€scheduled€in€Code€section€55„50„323,€which€the€department€is€obligated€to€collectÐ ˜è  Ðbefore€issuing€a€new€driverððs€license.€€We€discern€from€this€order€that€the€court€was€discharging€itsÐ „Ô  Ðjudicial€function€of€terminating€the€defendantððs€MVHO€status€and€was€properly€deferring€to€theÐ pÀ Ðdepartment€to€perform€its€administrative€duty€to€collect€the€fees,€assure€compliance€with€all€technicalÐ \¬ Ðrequirements,€and€issue€in€due€course€a€new€license€to€the€unlicensed€defendant.€In€part€becauseÐ H˜ Ðthese€latter€functions€are€by€statute€executive€and€administrative€and€are€independent€of€the€courtððsÐ 4„ Ðrole€pursuant€to€the€MVHO€law,€€we€are€unpersuaded€by€the€stateððs€argument€that€the€court€orderÐ  p Ðin€€question€established€conditions€precedent€to€a€judicial€termination€of€the€MVHO€status.€€In€ourÐ  \ Ðview,€the€administrative€function€of€license€issuance€cannot€be€performed€until€the€court€adjudicatesÐ øH Ðan€end€to€the€MVHO€status.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àEven€though€the€state€posits€that€the€second€April€9,€1999€order€established€at€most€Ð ¼  Ða€thirty„day€hiatus€in€the€defendantððs€MVHO€status,€we€believe€that€this€second€order€is€congruentÐ ¨ø Ðwith€our€interpretation€of€the€first€order.€€We€infer€from€the€wording€of€the€second€order€that€theÐ ”ä Ðcourt€recognized€the€defendantððs€concern€that€his€transition€from€a€former€MVHO€to€a€duly€licensedÐ €Ð Ðdriver€would€be€delayed€while€he€attempted€to€get€a€new€license€issued.€€In€the€second€order,€theÐ l¼ Ðcourt€addressed€this€delay€by€attempting€to€grant€an€interim€license€or€privilege€to€drive€for€a€periodÐ X ¨ Ðof€thirty€days.€€It€is€immaterial€whether€the€court€had€the€authority€to€grant€this€privilege€or€that€theÐ D!” Ðthirty€day€period€expired€before€August€16,€1999,€when€the€defendant€was€arrested.€€The€court€hadÐ 0"€  Ðalready€terminated€his€MVHO€status,€and€the€second€order€merely€attempted€to€address€hisÐ #l! Ðunlicensed€status.€€Clearly€he€was€unlicensed€on€August€16€when€he€was€caught€driving€a€truck,€butÐ $X" Ðhe€was€also€no€longer€an€MVHO.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àà ` àThus,€because€the€MVHO€order€did€not€ð ðremain[]€in€effectðð€on€August€16,€1999,€theÐ Ì&"% Ðproof€as€a€matter€of€law€did€not€establish€a€violation€of€Code€section€55„10„616.€€The€convictionÐ ¸'#& Ðmust€be€reversed€and€the€charge€dismissed.Ð ¤(ô#' Ðà  àà ` àÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð |*Ì%) Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGE