 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Matlock v. State1/28/1999
DATE OF JUDGMENT: November 20, 1997
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. MARCUS D. GORDON
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: NEWTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
BY: W. GLENN WATTS
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: KEN TURNER
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST CONVICTION RELIEF
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART - January 28, 1999
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
. This is an appeal from the Newton County Circuit Court's denial of post-conviction relief. Willie Mack Matlock (hereinafter "Matlock") pled guilty under Miss. Code Ann. § 63-11-30(4) (1996) to two counts of driving negligently while intoxicated resulting in the deaths of two people. Matlock was sentenced to 15 years on each of the two counts of the indictment to be served consecutively.
. Matlock filed his Motion for Post-Conviction Relief on March 13, 1995, asserting that his sentence subjected him to double jeopardy. After a hearing before the trial court on November 17, 1997, Matlock's motion was denied. Matlock timely filed his Notice of Appeal to this Court and asks that his second conviction be reversed and rendered leaving his first conviction intact.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
. On August 8, 1993, Matlock had been fishing with friends and drinking beer. Subsequently, he drove his vehicle and collided with another vehicle operated by Ricky Harrison. As a result of the collision, Crystal and Jesse Harrison were killed. Matlock's blood alcohol content was measured at .17.
. Matlock was indicted by the Newton County Grand Jury on December 11, 1993 for two counts of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and for negligently causing the deaths of Crystal and Jesse. Matlock pled guilty to both counts and was sentenced to fifteen (15) years on each count.
. Matlock filed his Motion for Post-Conviction Relief in the Circuit Court of Newton County arguing that his sentence subjected him to double jeopardy. At a hearing on his motion, the State argued that by pleading guilty, Matlock had waived his constitutional rights, including his right against double jeopardy. The trial court found that Matlock had knowingly and voluntarily pled guilty with the advice of counsel and that Matlock had waived his constitutional rights. Therefore, the motion was denied. He now appeals to this Court and assigns the following issue for this Court's consideration.
I. DOES MATLOCK'S TWO-PART CONVICTION UNDER MISS. CODE ANN. § 63-11-30(4) VIOLATE THE STATE AND FEDERAL PROHIBITIONS AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY?
DISCUSSION OF LAW
I. DOES MATLOCK'S TWO-PART CONVICTION UNDER MISS. CODE ANN. § 63-11-30(4) VIOLATE THE STATE AND FEDERAL PROHIBITIONS AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY?
. Matlock argues that this Court's decision in Mayfield v. State, 612 So. 2d 1120 (Miss. 1992), is controlling in the case sub judice. In Mayfield, the defendant was tried on an indictment which charged him with two counts of manslaughter by culpable negligence pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-47 (1972). Mayfield was granted a lesser included offense instruction on vehicular homicide pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 63-11-30(4) (1988). The jury found Mayfield not guilty of manslaughter by culpable negligence but guilty of two counts of aggravated D.U.I. Mayfield argued on appeal that because he had committed only one act of drunk driving , his conviction for two counts of vehicular homicide amounted to double jeopardy. This Court reversed Mayfield's second conviction and held that:
"In our view, it is fairly clear that § 63-11-30 p
Page 1 2 3 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|