 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
ESKRIDGE v. STATE12/19/1997
The appellant, David Eskridge, was convicted in 1996 of the felony offense of driving while under the influence of alcohol (D.U.I.), a violation of §§ 32-5A-191(a) and 32-5A-191(f), Code of Alabama 1975, and driving while his license was revoked, a violation of § 32-6-19, Code of Alabama 1975. He was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment and was fined $5,000 for the D.U.I. conviction; he was sentenced to 60 days' imprisonment in the county jail and was fined $300 for the conviction of driving while his license was revoked. At the time this case was tried, this Court had not yet decided State v. Parker, [Ms. CR-95-1435, September 27, 1996] ___ So.2d ___ (Ala.Cr.App. 1996), opinion on rehearing [Ms. CR-95-1435, September 26, 1997] (Ala.Cr.App. 1997)
The appellant contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to try his case because, he says, the indictment charged him only with committing two misdemeanor traffic offenses — driving while under the influence of alcohol and driving while his license was revoked. It did not, he argues, charge him with committing the Class C felony found in § 32-5A-191(f).
The indictment returned against the appellant states, in pertinent part, as follows:
"COUNT I: The Grand Jury of said County charge that before the finding of this Indictment, DAVID ESKRIDGE, on or about July 3, 1995, did drive or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while he was under the influence of alcohol, in violation of § 32-5A-191(f) of the Code of Alabama,
"COUNT II: The Grand Jury of said County further charge that before the finding of this Indictment DAVID ESKRIDGE did unlawfully drive a motor vehicle upon a highway of this County and State after his driver's license had been lawfully cancelled, suspended or revoked
by the Director of Public Safety of the State of Alabama, in violation of § 32-6-19, of the Code of Alabama."
(C.R.8.)
Our examination of the record reveals that during a pretrial hearing the court heard argument on the appellant's motion to quash the indictment. The appellant argued that although the indictment charged him with driving while under the influence of alcohol, and stated that the offense was a violation of § 32-5A-191(f), it should be quashed because, he claimed, it failed to charge a felony offense. The appellant claimed that the indictment merely charged two misdemeanor traffic infractions. The appellant maintained that to properly charge him with felony D.U.I., the indictment must have specifically charged that he had had three prior D.U.I. convictions within the past five years. The appellant contended that because the indictment failed to charge that he had had three prior D.U.I. convictions within the past five years, the indictment charged only a misdemeanor offense; therefore, he argued, the circuit court did not have original trial jurisdiction over his case. He argued that the district court was the court with proper jurisdiction.
In Hunt v. State, 642 So.2d 999 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993), aff'd, 642 So.2d 1060 (Ala. 1994), this Court set out the standard of review with regard to the sufficiency of indictments:
"Appellate courts review the legal sufficiency of indictments de novo. United States v. Schmidt, 947 F.2d 362, 369 (9th Cir. 1991).
" 'The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require that an indictment be a "plain concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged." An indictment need only contain those facts and elements of the alleged offense necessary to inform the accused of the charge so that she may prepare a defense and invoke the Double Jeopardy Clause when appropriate. Court
Page 1 2 3 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|