 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Schrimsher v. Maryland12/20/1991
S.Ct. at 2094.
Schrimsher notes that driving an automobile is the common element in the three Maryland offenses with which he was charged. Schrimsher submits that, under Grady, that common element either makes all three offenses the same offense under Blockburger, or predicates the DWI prosecution on the same conduct as that for which he was previously convicted. But, the bare fact of driving an automobile does not constitute a crime. The prior conduct in Grady to which the Court referred was criminal conduct, specifically, driving while intoxicated and failing to keep to the right of the median. In any event, the criminally neutral circumstance of driving an automobile cannot be conduct giving rise to a double jeopardy bar within the meaning of Grady. In that case the Court specifically stated that its "holding would not bar a subsequent prosecution [of Corbin] on the homicide and assault charges if the bill of particulars revealed that the State would not rely on proving the conduct for which Corbin had already been convicted (i.e., if the State relied solely on Corbin's driving too fast in heavy rain to establish recklessness or negligence)." Id. at 523, 110 S.Ct. at 2094 (footnote omitted).
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR WORCESTER COUNTY VACATED. CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR THE ENTRY OF AN ORDER REMANDING THIS CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND SITTING IN WORCESTER COUNTY FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. COSTS IN THIS COURT AND IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR WORCESTER COUNTY TO BE PAID BY THE PETITIONER, FRANK LONNIE SCHRIMSHER.
Disposition
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR WORCESTER COUNTY VACATED. CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR THE ENTRY OF AN ORDER REMANDING THIS CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND SITTING IN WORCESTER COUNTY FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. COSTS IN THIS COURT AND IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR WORCESTER COUNTY TO BE PAID BY THE PETITIONER, FRANK LONNIE SCHRIMSHER.
ROBERT M. BELL, Judge, dissenting.
For the reasons set out in my dissenting opinion in Huff v. State, 325 Md. 55, 599 A.2d 428 (1991), I dissent from Part I of the majority opinion.
Page 1 2 Maryland DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|