 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. McKnight8/5/1999
In this appeal we determine whether the Defendant's sentences for two DUI convictions expired during the time the sheriff could not incarcerate the Defendant due to an overcrowded jail. The trial court ruled that the Defendant's sentences had not expired. We agree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
On May 7, 1997, the Defendant pleaded guilty to and was convicted of DUI, second offense and DUI, third offense. For these convictions, he received consecutive sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days in the county workhouse. He was ordered to serve 150 days in confinement for one of the convictions, followed by sixty days confinement for the other conviction, with the balance of his sentences to be served on probation. His effective sentence was thus two years, with 210 days to be served in confinement.
The Defendant immediately presented himself to the county sheriff's office to begin serving his sentences. He was told that no space was available for him to serve his sentences and that he would be notified when to report. In August of 1998, the Defendant received notice from the sheriff's office that he was to report to begin serving his effective 210- day sentence.
On September 3, 1998, the Defendant filed a "Motion for Post- Conviction Relief and/or Writ of Habeas Corpus." He asserted that the notification to report to jail came over one year after his sentences became final and stated that " o require the Defendant to serve a sentence after expiration of the sentence is a violation of the Defendant's due process rights, violation of the credit for time at liberty doctrine and is a violation of the principle of fundamental fairness."
The trial court conducted a hearing on the Defendant's motion, at which time the parties stipulated to the pertinent facts as stated herein. At the Conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied the Defendant relief from his sentences, relying on the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated § 55-10-403(p)(3). From this order, the Defendant now appeals.
In this appeal, the Defendant relies primarily on State v. Walker, 905 S.W.2d 554 (Tenn. 1995). The facts presented in Walker were quite similar to those presented in the case at bar. On August 27, 1990, Defendant Walker was convicted of DUI and received a jail sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, with all but twenty days suspended. Id. at 555. He reported to the sheriff's office to begin serving his sentence and was told that no space was available and that he would be notified when to report. Id. Almost two years later he received the notice to report to jail. Id. He sought relief from his sentence, alleging that it had expired. Id. The trial court denied Walker relief and this Court affirmed, however, our supreme court granted Walker relief. Id. The Court based its decision upon an interpretation of our statutes, holding that "where persons under a criminal sentence immediately present themselves to the appropriate authorities for incarceration and are turned away the sentence in each case shall begin to run when the judgment of conviction becomes final or the prisoner is actually incarcerated, whichever is earlier." Id. at 557.
In Walker, our supreme court first discussed the due process and fundamental fairness concerns, including the "credit for time at liberty" doctrine:
"The effect of an inordinate delay in the execution of a criminal judgment has been frequently litigated in other courts. Even where the delay results from simple negligence or oversight, the courts have recognized that relief from the sentence might be available on due process grounds. In [these] cases the courts also analyzed the claim
Page 1 2 3 4 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|