 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Cuccia3/10/2003
equent prosecution for DUI does not violate Cuccia's double jeopardy protections.á The two provisions do not necessitate proof of identical elements.á One needs an age under twenty-one with a blood alcohol of above.02%, while the other is for any age driver whose faculties to drive are "materially and appreciably impaired."á Violation of one provision does not result in an automatic finding of a violation of the other provision.á Accordingly, pursuant to the Blockburger "same elements" test, suspending Cuccia's license under section 56-1-286 does not prohibit a subsequent prosecution under section 56-5-2930 for DUI, as the provisions require proof of different facts.
CONCLUSION
We find the administrative suspension of Cuccia's driver's license for driving with a blood alcohol level of two one-hundredths of one percent or more while under the age of twenty-one is a civil sanction and not a criminal penalty.á Additionally, we conclude even if it were transformed into a criminal penalty, the elements for suspension of the license under section 56-1-286 are not the same as the elements for prosecuting a DUI under section 56-5-2930.á Indubitably, Cuccia was properly prosecuted for DUI, subsequent to the revocation of his driver's license, without violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
AFFIRMED.
CONNOR and HUFF, JJ., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 South Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|