 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Tyler v. State5/18/2001
No. 1743
David A. Tyler was convicted of felony DWI - i.e., driving while intoxicated after having been twice before convicted of DWI and/or breath-test refusal within the preceding five years. He now appeals his conviction to this court. Tyler concedes that he is guilty of driving while intoxicated on the date alleged in the indictment, but he asserts that his two prior convictions are invalid and, thus, his present offense should be a misdemeanor rather than a felony.
Tyler's opening brief has been filed, and the State's brief is pending. But the State now asks us to dismiss Tyler's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The State contends that Tyler's appeal is based on an invalid Cooksey plea.
Attorney Eugene B. Cyrus represents Tyler. In his opening brief, Mr. Cyrus declared that Tyler went to trial on stipulated facts in order to preserve his attacks on his two prior convictions. Mr. Cyrus stated the same thing in paragraphs 4-6 of an affidavit that he previously filed in this case.
But the State contends that this is false - that there was no trial. Rather, Tyler entered a Cooksey plea - a plea of no contest to the felony DWI charge, reserving Tyler's right to attack his prior convictions on appeal. The State declares that Mr. Cyrus convinced the superior court to accept this Cooksey plea over the express objection of the prosecuting attorney. The State further contends that Tyler's Cooksey plea is invalid because the issue preserved for appeal - the validity of Tyler's prior convictions - is not dispositive of whether Tyler could lawfully be convicted of felony DWI. (The State's argument on this point is explained in more detail below.)
Mr. Cyrus has filed an opposition to the State's motion to dismiss. However, Mr. Cyrus concedes that the State's version of events is correct - that there was no trial, and that Tyler entered a Cooksey plea over the objection of the prosecutor. Mr. Cyrus nevertheless argues that, even though Tyler was convicted based on a Cooksey plea rather than a trial verdict, the Cooksey plea was valid and thus Tyler's appeal should not be dismissed.
The jurisdictional issue confronting this Court: whether an attack on a defendant's prior, foundational convictions is "dispositive" for purposes of entering a plea under Cooksey v. State
In Cooksey, the Alaska Supreme Court announced an exception to the normal rule that a plea of guilty or no contest waives all non-jurisdictional defects in the prosecution. The court held that a criminal defendant need not go to trial to preserve an appellate issue that is dispositive of the defendant's case. Instead, the defendant and the State (with the trial court's approval) can stipulate that the defendant will enter a special kind of no contest plea - a plea that preserves the defendant's right to litigate the dispositive issue on appeal.
But in Oveson v. Anchorage , the supreme court declared that the validity of a Cooksey plea - and, thus, the appellate court's jurisdiction to hear the defendant's appeal - hinges on (1) whether the parties followed correct procedure in the trial court and (2) whether the issue preserved for appeal is in fact dispositive of the charge against the defendant.
ppeals under the Cooksey doctrine will not be approved unless it is clearly shown, and the parties have stipulated with trial court approval, that [the appellate court's] resolution of the issue reserved for appeal will be dispositive of the entire case. Oveson, 574 P.2d at 803 n.4.
Later cases have clarified that the appellate court has an independent duty to assess whether the issue preserved in a Cooksey plea is disp
Page 1 2 3 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|