# ED Vehicle Never Registrated for 3 yrs, lease turn in?



## kjboyd (Apr 13, 2006)

Like Ibiza cares about what's right and wrong.


----------



## Ibiza (Jun 15, 2007)

BravoMikeWiskey said:


> sounds like admission of a crime. Up to 30 days in jail per violation. Hopefully no accidents with injuries or significant property damage.
> 
> S.C. Code Ann. §56-3-840 provides that "[a] person who drives, moves, or operates on a highway a vehicle for which a registration and license are required but have not been obtained within thirty days of the date when required is guilty of a misdemeanor." Registration and licensing and the accompanying fees are requirements under Title 56 of the Code and are separate and distinct from the ad valorem taxes required pursuant to Section 12-37-2610.
> 
> A defendant may be charged and convicted of two separate crimes arising from the same conduct where the conduct consists of two distinct offenses. State v. Pace, 337 S.C. 407, 523 S.E.2d 466 (1999). Accordingly, if the facts dictate, the same driver could be ticketed for violations of Sections 12-37-2615 and 56-3-840.


For all to read, this is the Lexis Case Summary for State v. Pace, 523 S.E.2d 466 (not all the festers have legal access):

Case Summary

Procedural Posture
Defendant appealed from the Greenville County Circuit Court's (South Carolina), which convicted her of forgery and fraud, arguing the court erred in admitting certain evidence, and in refusing to grant a mistrial following the jury's request for a telephone log.

Overview
When a car was stolen from defendant's company, defendant filed an insurance claim, although she had allegedly been notified of its recovery by the New York Department of Transportation (NYDT). Defendant was convicted of forgery and insurance fraud. At trial, evidence of a second set of notice letters mailed from NYDT to defendant was admitted. Furthermore, the jury requested to see evidence of NYDT's phone log, which had been referred to in NYDT's in-camera interview, documenting its calls to defendant. The trial court refused to grant a mistrial based on the jury's improper request. On appeal, defendant's conviction was affirmed. The court held that admission of the notice letters was not prejudicial because the jury could properly have inferred that defendant purposely ignored them. The lower court's refusal to grant a mistrial based on the jury's request for a telephone log was not properly preserved for appellate review.

Outcome
Defendant's conviction affirmed. Admission of notice letters was not prejudicial because the jury could have inferred defendant purposely ignored them. Refusal to grant a mistrial based on the jury's request for a telephone log was not preserved for appellate review because defendant did not object to the court's curative instruction.


----------



## Ibiza (Jun 15, 2007)

kjboyd said:


> Like Ibiza cares about what's right and wrong.


My new M4 vert had tags issued yesterday as dealership sent me this time the receipt for paid sales tax/ MCO and power of attorney to register the vehicle on behalf of BMWFS. Had some explaining at the DMV why the MCO/sales tax was paid in October, but the tag request was mid December. The ED process causes a lot of confusion.

Fraud would have been scanning the temp tag and changing the expiration date via photoshop every 45 days which did not occur in this situation. The dealership should have removed the ED rear plates.


----------



## Gary J (Dec 18, 2013)

Ibiza said:


> The ED process causes a lot of confusion.


Both of my South Carolina EDs (one a new tag, one a transfer) were smooth and uneventful.

Unlike this thread which is about tax evasion and character issues.


----------



## DDGator (Mar 4, 2013)

Ibiza said:


> For all to read, this is the Lexis Case Summary for State v. Pace, 523 S.E.2d 466 (not all the festers have legal access):
> 
> Case Summary
> 
> ...


I don't understand what point you are making here?


----------



## ard (Jul 1, 2009)

Gary J said:


> Unlike this thread which is about tax evasion and character issues.


There is something very small and petty about your need to say this.


----------



## Gary J (Dec 18, 2013)

ard said:


> There is something very small and petty about your need to say this.


Really hitting home, huh?


----------



## Ibiza (Jun 15, 2007)

DDGator said:


> I don't understand what point you are making here?


Ask BravoMikeWiskey why he cited the case in the first place.


----------



## Ibiza (Jun 15, 2007)

Gary J said:


> Both of my South Carolina EDs (one a new tag, one a transfer) were smooth and uneventful.
> 
> Unlike this thread which is about tax evasion and character issues.


Thus why SC Dept of Revenue sent me a refund check for overpayment of estimated taxes last week.


----------



## Gary J (Dec 18, 2013)

An independent contractor or their accountant estimates taxes not the state. But keep the characters revealing untruths coming for our amusement.


----------

