 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Doolie v. State7/15/2003
NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: GUILTY OF FELONY DUI. SENTENCED TO SERVE 5 YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC, 3 YEARS SUSPENDED, 2 YEARS POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION.
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED: 07/15/2003
. Bobby Doolie was found guilty of felony driving under the influence (DUI), third offense. Aggrieved, Doolie argues on appeal that the overwhelming weight of the evidence is against the verdict and that the documentation of his prior DUI convictions presented at trial were not properly authenticated. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
. On December 20, 1998, at approximately 3:30 a.m., Gill Baker, a DUI officer with the Jackson Police Department, observed the vehicle in front of him cross the fog line three times. Officer Baker attempted to initiate a stop by turning on his blue lights, but the vehicle did not stop. Officer Baker then hit his air horn, but the vehicle continued. After Officer Baker hit his air horn a second time, the vehicle crossed the center line of the highway and went into the path of an oncoming car and then eventually turned into a parking lot where the vehicle finally stopped. The driver of the vehicle was identified as Bobby Doolie.
. When Officer Baker approached the vehicle and spoke with Doolie, he smelled a strong odor of alcohol, observed that Doolie's eyes were bloodshot, and noticed that Doolie's speech was slurred. Upon being asked for a driver's license, Doolie fumbled through his wallet for a minute and a half before he finally produced a different form of identification, because his license was suspended.
. After Doolie exited the vehicle, he demonstrated a lack of coordination and unsteadiness on his feet. Officer Baker then conducted a field sobriety test, known as the horizontal gaze nystagmus test. Officer Baker, certified in standardized field sobriety testing and an instructor for field sobriety testing, determined that from the totality of his observations there was no need to perform any additional field sobriety tests. The officer determined that probable cause existed to offer Doolie the intoxilyzer test. Officer Baker then placed Doolie in his vehicle and transported him to the precinct where the intoxilyzer was offered.
. Doolie stumbled when he exited the vehicle at the precinct and staggered and stumbled as he walked toward the Intoxilyzer 5000 machine. Doolie accepted the test, but refused to give an adequate breath sample to complete the test. Despite instructions, Doolie repeatedly would blow and then stop prematurely. Doolie was then transported to the city jail and cited for driving with a suspended license.
. Doolie's subsequent indictment charged him with "unlawfully and feloniously driv or otherwise operat a vehicle . . . while under the influence of intoxicating liquor . . . having been previously convicted of two violations of Section 63-11-30(1)." Doolie requested a bench trial and waived his right to a jury trial. During trial, Officer Baker testified to the events of that night. Doolie's prior DUI convictions were then presented to the court. The trial judge found Doolie guilty of felony DUI.
ANALYSIS
1. Whether the court's verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
. Doolie asserts that the evidence presented failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was guilty of driving under the influence . This issue was addressed in Ford v. State, 753 So. 2d 489, 490 ( 8) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999), where this Court held that:
n determining whether a jury verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, this Court mu
Page 1 2 3 4 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|