 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Taylor v. State2/9/1999
the State to declare the defendant an habitual offender and to bar him from driving a motor vehicle did not amount to double jeopardy, even though the convictions used to invoke the Habitual Offenders Act also allowed the suspension of his license for an indefinite period of time. The Court said that a matter is criminal (thus subjecting the defendant to jeopardy) only if imprisonment or the assessment of a fine may follow conviction. 639 S.W.2d at 436. The courts thus make a distinction between criminal statutes and remedial statutes that do nothing more than deprive the defendant of a privilege. 639 S.W.2d at 437.
We think the laws disenfranchising convicted felons are simply remedial statutes and are not laws that invoke or increase criminal penalties. Therefore, they are not ex post facto laws within the prohibition of the State or Federal Constitution.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand the cause for any further proceedings necessary. Tax the costs on appeal to the appellant.
BEN H. CANTRELL PRESIDING JUDGE, M.S.
CONCUR:
WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE
WILLIAM B. CAIN, JUDGE
Page 1 2 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|