 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] State v. Batten3/18/2003
UNPUBLISHED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).
Robert Douglas Batten (defendant) appeals from a judgment filed 14 March 2002 entered consistent with a jury verdict finding him guilty of Driving While Impaired (DWI).
Defendant was charged with DWI on 13 December 1999. Subsequently, defendant's North Carolina driver's license was revoked for thirty days pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-16.5 by an order dated 13 December 1999 because there was probable cause defendant had an "alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more at any relevant time after . . . driving."
The matter of defendant's DWI charge was initially tried in district court, where defendant moved to dismiss the charge againsthim on the basis that a prosecution for DWI following the thirty-day suspension violated prohibitions against double jeopardy. The district court denied the motion, and defendant was found guilty as charged. Defendant appealed de novo to the superior court, where he again moved to dismiss the charges against him based upon double jeopardy violations.
The issue is whether the immediate thirty-day drivers 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 the prohibition against double jeopardy. As noted in State v. Newsome, --- N.C. App. ---, ---, --- S.E.2d ---, --- (Mar. 18, 2003) (No. COA02-792), and State v. Little, --- N.C. App. ---, ---, --- S.E.2d ---, --- (Mar. 18, 2003) (No. COA02-957), two opinions filed contemporaneously with the case sub judice, this issue has been previously addressed by this Court and decided contrary to defendant's position. See State v. Reid, 148 N.C. App. 548, 559 S.E.2d 561 (2002); State v. Evans, 145 N.C. App. 324, 550 S.E.2d 853 (2001); see also State v. Oliver, 343 N.C. 202, 470 S.E.2d 16 (1996) (holding that the ten-day drivers 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 a double jeopardy violation). In light of existing authority, wedecline 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) (providing that one panel of this Court may not overrule the decision of another panel of this Court). As previously held, the principles of double jeopardy are not violated when a defendant's license is revoked for thirty days under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-16.5 for an implied consent offense and the defendant is subsequently prosecuted for DWI. See Reid, 148 N.C. App. 548, 559 S.E.2d 561; Evans, 145 N.C. App. 324, 550 S.E.2d 853; see also Oliver, 343 N.C. 202, 470 S.E.2d 16. Thus, defendant's argument is overruled.
No error.
Judges HUNTER and ELMORE concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
|