 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] State v. Newsome3/18/2003
UNPUBLISHED
A decision without a published opinion is authority only in the case in which such decision is rendered and should not be cited in any other case in any court for any other purpose, nor should any court consider any such decision for any purpose except in the case in which such decision is rendered. See Rule of Appellate Procedure 30 (e)(3).
Shane Michael Newsome (defendant) appeals from judgment dated 13 February 2002 entered consistent with jury verdicts finding him guilty of Driving While Impaired (DWI), driving after consuming alcohol while under 21 years of age, transportation of an open container of an alcoholic beverage, and defendant's plea of responsible to a charge of failing to wear a seatbelt.
As a consequence of being charged with driving while impaired, defendant's North Carolina driver's license was revoked on 29 April2001 for thirty days pursuant to section 20-16.5 of the North Carolina General Statutes.
This matter was initially tried in district court on 29 November 2001, where defendant was found guilty on all charges. Defendant appealed for trial de novo to the superior court. Prior to trial in superior court, defendant moved to dismiss the charges against him, alleging the automatic thirty-day suspension followed by a trial for DWI and driving after consuming alcohol while under the age of 21 violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The superior court denied defendant's motion to dismiss and proceeded to trial.
The issue is whether the immediate thirty-day driver's license revocation for persons charged with implied consent offenses under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-16.5 bars subsequent prosecution for DWI and other alcohol related offenses.
Specifically, defendant contends that such prosecution violates prohibitions against double jeopardy. As conceded by defendant, however, this issue has been previously addressed by this Court in State v. Reid, 148 N.C. App. 548, 559 S.E.2d 561 (2002) and State v. Evans, 145 N.C. App. 324, 550 S.E.2d 853 (2001) and decided contrary to his position. See also State v. Oliver, 343 N.C. 202, 470 S.E.2d 16 (1996) (ten-day driver's license revocation for persons charged with implied consent offenses pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-16.5 is a civil penalty, and therefore, subsequent prosecution for DWI does not result in adouble jeopardy violation); N.C.G.S. § 20-16.5 (2001). We decline defendant's invitation to revisit this issue. See In re Appeal from Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 384, 379 S.E.2d 30, 37 (1989) (one panel of this Court may not overrule the decision of another panel of this Court). As held by our Supreme Court in Oliver and this Court in Evans and Reid, prosecution of a defendant for DWI or other alcohol-related offenses following revocation of a defendant's license for thirty days under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-16.5 for an implied consent offense does not implicate prohibitions on double jeopardy. Thus, this argument is overruled.
No error.
Judges HUNTER and ELMORE concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
Page 1 North Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|