 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Barker8/24/1993
Submitted on Briefs July 20, 1993.
The District Court for the Twenty-First Judicial District, Ravalli County, vacated a justice court's ruling which found appellant Barker guilty of reckless driving, on the grounds that the defendant had not been charged with reckless driving. The District Court further held that any retrial for the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol would violate defendant's constitutional protection against double jeopardy. The State appeals. We affirm.
The issues are:
1. Does a district court have authority to vacate a justice court decision when the prosecution charged the defendant with driving under the influence of alcohol, and the justice court found the defendant guilty of reckless driving?
2. Does a district court have authority to dismiss an appeal from a justice court decision on the grounds that the appellate issues are barred by the defendant's Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy?
Following a February 8, 1992 accident on Highway 93 near the Rustic Hut Bar in Florence, Montana, Ravalli County Sheriff's officers arrested Gary Lee Barker and subsequently charged him with driving under the influence of alcohol, in violation of § 61-8-401, MCA, and operating a motor vehicle without seatbelts in use, in violation of § 61-13-103, MCA. Barker entered pleas of not guilty to both charges and waived his right to a jury trial.
The Ravalli County Justice of the Peace found Barker guilty of the seatbelt violation and guilty of reckless driving, in violation of § 61-8-301, MCA. In finding the reckless driving violation, the Justice Court reasoned that reckless driving is a lesser included offense of driving under the influence of alcohol.
The Justice Court denied Barker's motion to set aside the judgment, and sentenced Barker accordingly. Upon Barker's motion, the sentence imposed for reckless driving was stayed pending appeal to the District Court. Barker paid a fine for the seatbelt violation, and does not further challenge that charge.
Barker appealed to the District Court and then filed a motion to dismiss the case. He argued that reckless driving is not a lesser included offense of driving under the influence of alcohol, and that a retrial on the original driving under the influence of alcohol charge is barred by the double jeopardy protection provided under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The State argued that unless Barker pleaded guilty under the provisions of § 46-12-204, MCA (plea alternatives), the District Court must hold a trial de novo on the all the issues.
The District Court vacated the reckless driving charge; dismissed the driving under the influence of alcohol complaint with prejudice; and affirmed the seatbelt violation.
I
Does a district court have authority to vacate a justice court decision when the prosecution charged the defendant with driving under the influence , and the justice court found the defendant guilty of reckless driving?
Our standard of review relating to conclusions of law is to determine whether the tribunal's interpretation of the law is correct. Steer, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue (1990), 245 Mont. 470, 474-75, 803 P.2d 601, 603.
Criminal justice in Montana is subject to the mandates of the United States Constitution, the Montana Constitution, and statutory law. The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees accused defendants the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. The Montana Constitution, Article II, § 24, similarly provides that an accused shall have the right to de
Page 1 2 3 4 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|