Watson v. State1/21/2003
penalty shall be imposed. The amount of fine and imprisonment imposed in previous convictions shall not be considered in calculating offenses to determine a second, third or subsequent offense of this section. Miss. Code Ann. § 61-11-30(8) (Supp. 2002).
. Watson is correct in his argument regarding the holding in Strickland. This Court, however, has held that, " ecause the Strickland decision is a plurality decision on the point of whether a bifurcated trial is required, it has no precedential value." Moore v. State, 806 So.2d 308 ( 5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). See Rigby v. State, 2000-KA-00221-SCT (Miss. July 18, 2002). This Court also takes note of the fact that Watson made no objection to the introduction of the prior DUI convictions at trial and therefore waived his right to object on appeal. Consequently, in addition to lacking merit, this issue is also procedurally barred from review by this Court. Harris v. Lewis, 755 So.2d 1199, 1204 ( 15) (Miss. Ct. App.1999).
IV. Did the trial court commit reversible error in the admission of statements made by Watson during the booking process?
. The arresting officer testified that during the booking process Watson made the following unsolicited statement, "I blew on the machine for my three other DUIs, but you're going to have to work to prove this one." It was the officer's testimony that the statement was unsolicited and not in response to any questioning or interrogation of any kind by anyone. Watson contends that he was under arrest at the time the statement was made, therefore, he should have been advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and that since he had not been so advised, it was reversible error for the court to admit the statement.
. The trial court ruled that the statement was admissible as a spontaneous statement and not in response to police interrogation. The standard of review for determining the admissibility of the statement was reiterated by the Mississippi Supreme Court in Balfour v. State, 598 So.2d 731, 742 (Miss.1992): "Determining whether a [statement] is admissible is a finding of fact which is not disturbed unless the trial judge applied an incorrect legal standard, committed manifest error, or the decision was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence." With regard to spontaneous statements, this Court has held that:
Any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences is, of course, admissible in evidence. The fundamental import of the privilege [against self-incrimination] while an individual is in custody is not whether he is allowed to talk to the police without the benefit of warnings and counsel, but whether he can be interrogated. . . . Volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment . . . . Alexander v. State, 736 So. 2d 1058 ( 11) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999).
. This Court finds that, with regards to the admissibility of Watson's statement, the trial court did not apply an incorrect legal standard, or commit manifest error, nor was its decision contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, therefore, its decision will not be disturbed.
. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF RANKIN COUNTY OF CONVICTION OF FELONY DUI AS AN HABITUAL OFFENDER AND SENTENCE OF FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO RANKIN COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., SOUTHWICK, P.J., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE, MYERS, AND CHANDLER, JJ., CONCUR. IRVING, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY. GRIFFIS, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
|