Bailey v. State11/26/1997
t. Puckett v. Abels, 684 So. 2d 671, 673 (Miss. 1996) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks and other punctuation omitted).
. The statute regarding third-offense DUI charges has not been changed such that Bailey would be receiving a stronger punishment than that enumerated in the statute at the time Bailey committed his third DUI. That is not the issue here; and, therefore, the ex post facto analysis is inapplicable.
. Furthermore, in a similar context, this Court held that crimes committed before the habitual offender statutes were enacted could be used to enhance penalties for crimes committed after the statute was enacted, without violating the ex post facto constitutional provisions.
The sentence as a fourth offender or habitual criminal is not to be viewed as either a new jeopardy or additional penalty for the earlier crimes. It is a stiffened penalty for the latest crime, which is considered to be an aggravated offense because a repetitive one. Smith v. State, 465 So. 2d 999, 1003 (Miss. 1985).
Therefore, Bailey's argument on this point is without merit.
IV. CONCLUSION
. This Court holds that a judgement based on a plea of nolo contendere is a conviction for purposes of interpreting the implied consent statute. Furthermore, Bailey's contention that an ex post facto violation has occurred is without merit. Therefore, the judgement of the trial court denying Bailey's motion to dismiss the felony portion of the indictment is affirmed. The indictment stands, and this case is remanded for further proceedings thereunder.
. DENIAL OF MOTION TO DISMISS AFFIRMED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
PITTMAN, BANKS, ROBERTS, SMITH AND MILLS, JJ., CONCUR.
SULLIVAN, P.J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY LEE, C.J., AND McRAE, J.
McRAE, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY SULLIVAN, P.J.
SULLIVAN, PRESIDING JUSTICE, DISSENTING:
. This Court, by citing to two other Mississippi cases, stated, "the plea of nolo contendere is available in a petty or light misdemeanor case, ... that it has no effect beyond the particular case." Bruno v. Cook, 224 So. 2d 567, 569 (Miss. 1969) (citing Williams v. State, 130 Miss. 827, 94 So. 882 (1922) and Chester v. State, 107 Miss. 459, 65 So. 510 (1914)).
. The case law in this state, is that "evidence of a previous conviction, based on a plea of nolo contendere, is not admissible in another case." Keyes v. State, 312 So. 2d 7, 10 (Miss. 1975). The Court in Keyes held that a final judgement based upon a plea of nolo contendere does not constitute a conviction under Miss. Code Ann. § 13-1-13 (1972). Id. at 10. This same conclusion is equally relevant to Miss. Code Ann. § 63-11-30 (1996). Under existing law, a conviction, based on a plea of nolo contendere, can not be used to enhance punishment under Miss. Code Ann. § 63-11-30 (1996), and therefore I respectfully dissent.
LEE, C.J., AND McRAE, J., JOIN THIS OPINION.
McRAE, JUSTICE, DISSENTING:
. A nolo contendere plea does not admit guilt; rather, it merely communicates to the court that the criminal defendant does not wish to contest the State's accusations and will acquiesce in the imposition of punishment. To the extent a nolo contendere plea is an implicit admission of guilt, it is such an admission only for the purposes of the criminal proceeding in which the plea is entered. "Except as otherwise provided in this rule, evidence of the following is not, in any civil or criminal proceeding, admissible against the defendant who made the plea or was a participant in the plea di
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|