Seabolt v. State
Seabolt v. State
Opinion of the Court
Andrew J. Seabolt was convicted of a misdemeanor-traffic violation and sentenced to a fine alternatively to a period of twelve months’ confinement. The facts giving rise to this conviction reflect that Seabolt was a carrier for customized vans from a manufacturer in the midwest to various parts of the country. On May 4, 1984, he was driving a tractor trailer along 1-75 in Catoosa County. It is agreed that Seabolt’s trailer upon which the vans were loaded could be extended to a length of no more than 46 feet 4 inches and when combined with the tractor, the overall length of the tractor trailer was no more than 57 feet 7 inches. As the trailer was loaded on May 4, the last van on the trailer extended over the rear end of . the trailer so as to make the actual length of the carrier hauler and load 61 feet 2 inches. Seabolt was issued a citation for violating OCGA § 32-6-24 (a) (4), i.e., operating a tractor trailer with load that exceeded 60 feet. Ultimately an accusation was issued charging Seabolt with violating OCGA § 32-6-24 by operating a trailer in excess of 45 feet. However, the face of the accusation summarized the charge as operating a motor carrier having over-length. Seabolt moved to dismiss the citation/accusation as failing to sustain a crime. The trial court denied this motion and entered findings of guilty and the sentence as indicated. It is from this judg- . ment of guilty and sentence that Seabolt brings this appeal. Held:
OCGA § 32-6-24 (a) (4), the section Seabolt was charged with violating by the arresting officer, proscribes an extension of a combined vehicle (tractor-trailer) together with load of more than 60 feet unless excepted by subsection 32-6-24 (b). OCGA § 32-6-24 (a) (2) likewise proscribes a combined length of 60 feet but adds that the maximum length of a semi-trailer may not exceed 48 feet. OCGA §
From an analysis of the facts that Seabolt’s semi-trailer did not exceed 48 feet (being 46 feet 4 inches) and the overall extended length of the rig plus load did not exceed 65 feet (being 61 feet 2 inches in fact), it appears that the trial court erred in denying Sea-bolt’s motion to dismiss the accusation in that the facts as agreed clearly establish that no violation of OCGA § 32-6-24 occurred when the provisions of § 32-6-24 (b) (3) are applied.
Judgment reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.