 |
|
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hantman5/16/1991 d, so that a determination of guilt and punishment on one count of a multicount indictment immediately raises a double jeopardy bar to continued prosecution on any remaining counts that are greater or lesser included offenses of the charge just concluded.
467 U.S. at 501, 104 S.Ct. at 2541-42, 81 L.Ed.2d at 434.
Although this case does not involve an actual multicount criminal indictment, it is similar to Johnson. Although Root, unlike Johnson, did not plead guilty to the civil charge, because he failed to appear, the allegations in the complaint were deemed admitted, and the magistrate was required to enter a judgment against him. A.R.S. § 28-1076(D). Root paid the fine, thereby resolving only one of the charges against him, as was the case in Johnson. We note also that unsafe movement on the roadway is not a lesser-included offense of DUI, as grand theft and manslaughter are lesser-included offenses of aggravated robbery and murder. Thus, there is even less
danger of violating Root's double jeopardy rights than was true in Johnson. Root will neither be punished nor prosecuted twice for the same conduct.
We conclude that because all matters were pursued in one prosecution, there is no jeopardy problem in this case. Therefore, there was no reason to preclude the state from using the conduct of unsafe movement on the roadway in the DUI trial. If we were to hold otherwise, we would be permitting Root and others in similar situations "to use the Double Jeopardy Clause as a sword to prevent the State from completing its prosecution on the remaining charges." Johnson, 467 U.S. at 502, 104 S.Ct. at 2542, 81 L.Ed.2d at 435.
The superior court's order affirming the order of the city court is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
Judges Footnotes
Page 1 2 3 Arizona DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
|
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|