5 NICS App. 154, FAWCETT v. MIC (November 1999)

IN THE METLAKATLA TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS

METLAKATLA INDIAN COMMUNITY

METLAKATLA, ALASKA

John Fawcett, Appellant,

v.

Metlakatla Indian Community, Respondent.

No. 96-10 (November 3, 1999)

SUMMARY

Appellant appeals a Magistrate Court’s judgment finding him guilty of speeding and imposing a $65.00 fine. Court of Appeals holds that the Metlakatla Motor Vehicle Code (the Code) does not require a law enforcement officer to issue warnings instead of tickets to first-time offenders. Court pf Appeals further holds that the magistrate did not abuse his discretion in imposing the $65.00 fines, as the fine was within the allowable limits of the Code. Affirmed.

FULL TEXT

Before:            Lorintha Warwick, Chief Justice; Douglas W. Luna, Justice; Rose E. Purser, Justice.

Appearances:  John Fawcett, Appellant, pro se; Leroy Wilder, counsel for Respondent Metlakatla Indian Community.

THIS MATTER came before the Metlakatla Court of Appeals pursuant to Appellant’s Notice of Appeal filed on January 18, 1996. Appellant appeals the January 11, 1996, judgment of the Magistrate’s Court finding him guilty of speeding and imposing a sixty-five dollar fine.

I. JURISDICTION

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Appellant because he is a member of the Metlakatla Indian Community. The act which is the subject of this appeal occurred within the exterior boundaries of the Metlakatla Indian Reservation, giving rise to this Court’s territorial jurisdiction. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Ordinance 653, Section 1 (Code of Criminal Offenses, Ordinance Relating to Law and Order) and Article V of the Metlakatla Constitution.

5 NICS App. 154, FAWCETT v. MIC (November 1999) p. 155

II. ISSUES ON APPEAL

1) Did the Magistrate’s Court err in finding Appellant guilty of speeding?

2) Did the Magistrate’s Court abuse its discretion in imposing a $65 fine?

III. DISCUSSION

On December 30, 1995, a Metlakatla police officer cited Appellant John Fawcett for driving 33 miles per hour in a 20-mile per hour zone. Pursuant to a hearing on January 12, 1996, Mr. Fawcett was fined sixty-five dollars ($65).

Mr. Fawcett argues the officer should have let him off on a warning and that his failure to do so constitutes reversible error. Further, Mr. Fawcett challenges the propriety of the $65 fine.

Mr. Fawcett was charged with violating §13.9.01 of the Motor Vehicle Code. Mr. Fawcett admits that he was speeding; however, he alleges that the police officer should have given him a warning instead of a ticket. The Motor Vehicle Code does not require a law enforcement officer to issue a warning instead of a ticket to first-time offenders. A police officer’s issuance of a warning instead of a a citation is discretionary and not mandatory. The record supports the conviction; the Magistrate’s Court did not err in finding Mr. Fawcett guilty of speeding.

Section 13.23.04 of the Motor Vehicle Code provides: “[a]ny violation of this Motor Vehicle Code is a Class C Offense, unless it is classified as a different offense under this Chapter 13.23.”

Section 13.23.03 provides:

Punishment for Class C Offenses shall be a fine not greater than $100 nor less than $50, or suspension of the driving privilege on the reservation . . ., or impoundment of the motor vehicle for a period not to exceed three months, or any combination thereof.

The Magistrate’s Court imposed a fine of $65, which falls squarely within the allowable limits of the Code. Therefore, the Magistrate’s Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the fine.

IV. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that the Magistrate Court’s judgment and fine are affirmed.