 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Haynes v. State5/13/1998
his claims. This being the case, even if Haynes had meant to raise a double jeopardy claim based on the City of Ketchikan's action against his vehicle, any such claim would now be waived. See Marino v. State, 934 P.2d 1321, 1327 (Alaska App. 1997); Erickson v. State, 824 P.2d 725, 733 (Alaska App. 1991) (when the trial court overlooks or neglects to rule on a litigant's claim for relief, the litigant must press the court for a ruling or the claim will be deemed waived).
In his brief to this court, Haynes implicitly recognizes that he faces a procedural difficulty. He argues that, "to the extent double jeopardy arguments might not have been, or were inadequately, presented [to the district court], such failure is not fatal to this appeal" because "the constitutional protection against double jeopardy is ordinarily not forfeited by failure to raise an objection at trial". It is true that double jeopardy claims ordinarily can not be forfeited by inaction. See Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61, 63 n.2; 96 S.Ct. 241, 242 n.2; 46 L.Ed.2d 195 (1975); Horton v. State, 758 P.2d 628, 632 (Alaska App. 1988). However, this does not excuse a litigant from the rule that, absent plain error, a claim must be presented to the trial court before it can be raised on appeal. Because Haynes did not ask the district court to decide either his vehicle forfeiture claim or his vehicle impoundment claim, and because these claims can not be decided as matters of plain error, Haynes can not raise these contentions on appeal.
To conclude: We uphold the district court's ruling on the double jeopardy claim that Haynes preserved - the claim that the Department of Public Safety's administrative action against Haynes's driver's license precluded the State from prosecuting Haynes for driving while intoxicated. We find that Haynes failed to preserve the other double jeopardy claims that he raises in this appeal (claims based on the City of Ketchikan's in rem forfeiture action against his vehicle).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|