 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Matlock v. State1/28/1999
e may not accomplish through Matlock's guilty plea what it could not have accomplished through trial. Under Mayfield, a jury conviction on both counts of Matlock's indictment would not have survived this Court's review. Similarly, we hold that under Mayfield Matlock has been subjected to double jeopardy. Even though his drunk driving resulted in the deaths of two people, he committed one act of drunk driving.
. Consequently, Matlock's second conviction constitutes double jeopardy and must be reversed. For the foregoing reasons, Matlock's Motion for Post-Conviction Relief should have been granted. Therefore, we affirm Matlock's first conviction and reverse and render his second conviction, as he has requested.
. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART.
PRATHER, C.J., SULLIVAN, P.J., BANKS, McRAE, ROBERTS SMITH, MILLS AND WALLER, JJ., CONCUR. ROBERTS, J., SPECIALLY CONCURS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY PITTMAN, P.J., SMITH, MILLS AND WALLER, JJ.
ROBERTS, JUSTICE, SPECIALLY CONCURRING:
. Presiding Justice Pittman has written correctly as I understand the law, and I have joined his opinion because I believe it to be legally correct.
. However, the Legislature may wish to amend the applicable statutes in order to provide for enhanced punishment in similar factual situations.
. In Gentry v. MacDougall, 685 F.2d 322 (9th Cir. 1982), the Court of Appeals held that: (1) consecutive sentences imposed on the Appellant who was convicted on two counts of vehicular homicide as a result of a drunk driving accident, were authorized by the Arizona legislature; and (2) the double jeopardy clause did not prohibit the legislature from authorizing consecutive sentences for a single unintentional act. The court stated that, "It is settled law that without legislative authorization a court may not constitutionally impose consecutive sentences." Gentry, 685 F.2d at 323. Although, the court also found that " he Fifth Amendment double jeopardy guarantee serves principally as a restraint on courts and prosecutors. The legislature remains free under the Double Jeopardy Clause to define crimes and fix punishments." Gentry, citing Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (1977).
. While it is true that only one act of drunken driving was involved, it is equally true that this act deprived two innocent human beings of their lives. Such a serious consequence of one wrongful act is one borne by society, as well as by the families and friends of the victims, but society, as expressed through the will of the Legislature, may wish to take another look.
PITTMAN, P.J., SMITH, MILLS AND WALLER, JJ., JOIN THIS OPINION.
|