 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Myers12/4/2002
Defendant-appellant Jerad Myers appeals from a district court judgment of conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor ("DUI"). Myers contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the DUI charge following his non-judicial punishment for the same conduct pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 815 (2002). The single issue in this case is whether an Article 15 non-judicial punishment is equivalent to a criminal conviction as defined in Hawaii Revised Statutes ("HRS") § 701-110(3) (2001).
We hold that the district court did not err by denying Myers's motion to dismiss the DUI charge. By its terms, the military proceeding resulting in Myers's non-judicial punishment pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 815 does not amount to a "criminal prosecution." Hence, no criminal conviction resulted from this proceeding. Accordingly, the district court trial was not barred by HRS § 701-112(1).
I. BACKGROUND
The facts of this case are undisputed. On November 14, 2000, Myers, an active duty member of the United States Coast Guard ("USCG"), was arrested by Officer Lum of the Honolulu Police Department ("HPD") for DUI. Myers was arraigned in the District Court of the First Circuit on December 14, 2000, and entered a plea of not guilty.
Prior to Myers's trial in the district court, the commanding officer of USCG Cutter Jarvis charged Myers with DUI, in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice ("UCMJ") Article 111(2), 10 U.S.C. § 911(2) and imposed a non-judicial punishment upon Myers pursuant to UCMJ Article 15, 10 U.S.C. § 815.
Thereafter, Myers moved in the district court to dismiss his DUI charge with prejudice. In his motion, Myers contended that, because he had already been "punished" by the military for his DUI, any prosecution by the state was barred on statutory grounds based on HRS §§ 701-112(1) and 701-110(3). The prosecution filed its memorandum in opposition on May 9, 2001 and argued that HRS §§ 701-112(1) and 701-110(3) did not bar the state from prosecuting Myers. The prosecution contended that, although Myers had been subjected to an Article 15 non-judicial proceeding, pursuant to congressional intent and federal case law, his non-judicial punishment is not a criminal conviction, and, thus, the state could prosecute him for violation of state DUI laws.
After a hearing on May 14, 2001, the district court took the matter under advisement. The district court later denied the motion by written order filed on June 12, 2001. Following a stipulated facts trial, the court found Myers guilty of DUI. The district court imposed the minimum sentence, which included a fine of $150, along with court costs and fees of $132. Sentence was stayed pending appeal. This appeal followed.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
As the issue on appeal is strictly a matter of law, the standard of review is de novo. Shimabuku v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 79 Hawaii 352, 357, 903 P.2d 48, 52 (1995).
III. DISCUSSION
In this jurisdiction, statutory authority precludes separate sovereigns from prosecuting the same defendant for the same offense. HRS §§ 701-110(3) and 701-112(1) read respectively as follows:
§ 701-110. When prosecution is barred by former prosecution for the same offense.
When a prosecution is for an offense under the same statutory provision and is based on the same facts as a former prosecution, it is barred by the former prosecution under any of the following circumstances:
(3) The former prosecution resulted in a conviction. There is a conviction if the prosecution resulted in a judgment of conviction which has not been reversed or va
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|