Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Boyd v. State

Court of Appeals of Alaska

June 26, 2009

David T. BOYD, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

Page 1230

Jason L. Bergevin, Law Offices of Royce & Brain, Anchorage, for the Appellant.

Shawn D. Traini, Assistant District Attorney, Roman J. Kalytiak, District Attorney, Palmer, and Talis J. Colberg, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.

Before : COATS, Chief Judge, and MANNHEIMER and BOLGER, Judges.

OPINION

BOLGER, Judge.

David T. Boyd was convicted of operating an oversized vehicle on the state highway system without a permit.[1] He contends that the district court erred when it concluded that the permit requirements of 17 AAC 25.011 applied to the road grader he was operating. For the reasons explained here, we affirm the district court's decision.

Background facts and proceedings

On August 20, 2007, Boyd was operating a road grader on the Palmer-Wasilla highway. A commercial vehicle enforcement officer stopped Boyd to determine if the road grader was oversized, and, if so, whether Boyd had a permit to operate it on the state highway system. Under the Alaska Administrative Code, permits are required for all vehicles wider than eight and a half feet.[2] Boyd's road grader was nine and a half feet wide. He was consequently cited for operating the road grader without a permit.

At a bench trial, Boyd presented evidence that he was using the road grader as part of a road maintenance contract with the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Boyd's position was that the permit requirements in 17 AAC 25.011 did not apply to the road grader because it was " special mobile equipment" and not a commercial vehicle.

District Court Judge John W. Wolfe found that 17 AAC 25 applied to both commercial and non-commercial vehicles and that the regulation required a permit for any oversized vehicle that was driven or moved on the

Page 1231

state highway system, unless the vehicle fell under an exception. He found that a road grader was a " vehicle" and that no exception applied. Consequently, Judge Wolfe found Boyd guilty of operating an oversized vehicle on the state highway system without a permit.

Why we conclude that 17 AAC 25 applies to road graders

On appeal, Boyd renews his claim that the regulations in 17 AAC 25 do not apply to road graders. He contends that the regulations in this chapter apply only to the operation of commercial motor vehicles on state highways, not road maintenance ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.