Defendant appeals his convictions of driving under the influence of alcohol, OCGA 40-6-391 (a) (1), and speeding, OCGA 40-6-181.

1. Defendant contends the trial court erred by denying his motion in limine to exclude evidence of a similar transaction because the evidence, a nolo contendere plea, was inadmissible under OCGA 17-7-95 (c). The code section expressly prohibits the use of a nolo contendere plea against a defendant in any court proceeding as "an admission of guilt or otherwise or for any other purpose." This case does not fit the previous exceptions provided by law.

While we have permitted the admission of such a plea in a civil case for impeachment purposes, Tilley v. Page, 181 Ga. App. 98, 100 (351 SE2d 464) (1986), we have not done so in a criminal case, and the purpose here was not impeachment. Allowing the State to introduce the plea as evidence of a prior similar crime is exactly what the code section was designed to prevent. See Fortson v. Hopper, 242 Ga. 81, 83 (247 SE2d 875) (1978). As in Beal v. Braunecker, 185 Ga. App. 429, 432 (2) (364 SE2d 308) (1987), we are not persuaded "that we should ignore the plain language" of the code.