 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Goins v. State8/4/2004
NOTICE Memorandum decisions of this court do not create legal precedent. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d) and Paragraph 7 of the Guidelines for Publication of Court of Appeals Decisions (Court of Appeals Order No. 3). Accordingly, this memorandum decision may not be cited as binding precedent for any proposition of law.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
Charles Goins Jr. was convicted of refusal to submit to a chemical test and sentenced to 60 days to serve - the mandatory minimum sentence for a third-time offender. In finding that Goins was a third-time offender, the court relied on proof that Goins had previously been convicted of driving while under the influence in California in 1971 and 1976.
Goins argues that the district court erred in relying on his 1971conviction in determining his mandatory minimum sentence because the State failed to prove that he received the rights to counsel and to a jury trial in that California proceeding. But when a defendant collaterally attacks a prior conviction in a sentencing proceeding, the defendant has the burden to offer evidence that the prior conviction is constitutionally infirm. Goins presented no such evidence. We therefore conclude that the district court properly rejected Goins's attack on his 1971 California conviction and, accordingly, properly sentenced Goins as a third-time offender.
Facts and Proceedings
In early 2003, Goins was charged with driving while under the influence, refusal to submit to a chemical test, and refusal to submit to a preliminary breath test. He ultimately pleaded guilty to refusal to submit to a chemical test, and the other charges were dismissed.
At Goins's sentencing hearing, the State presented certified copies of dispositions showing that Goins had previously been convicted of driving while under the influence in California in 1971 and 1976. With regard to the 1971 proceeding, the disposition record w as apparently the sole record retained by the California court - presumably because the full record of that proceeding had been lost or destroyed in the intervening three decades.
Goins did not dispute the fact that he had been convicted twice in California. However, he argued that the district court could not properly rely on his 1971 conviction (and thus could not treat him as a third offender) because the State had not shown that he was provided his rights to counsel and to a jury trial in that 1971 case. Go i n s conceded that, as a general rule, when a defendant challenges a prior conviction that is being used to enhance the defendant's sentence for a subsequent crime, the defendant has the initial burden of introducing evidence that casts doubt on the constitutionality of the prior conviction. Goins offered no such evidence. However, he urged the district court to excuse him from this burden because the California court system had lost or destroyed the records of the 1971 proceeding.
Magistrate Bruce E. Horton rejected Goins's claim. He ruled that Goins had the burden to show that his prior conviction was invalid, and that Goins had failed to meet that burden. Magistrate Horton then sentenced Goins to the 60-day mandatory minimum term for a third offender. More precisely, he sentenced Goins to 90 days of imprisonment with 30 days suspended. He also revoked Goins's driver's license for 3 years.
Did the sentencing court err in relying on Goins's 1971 conviction to establish his sentencing status as a third offender?
Goins renews his argument that, because California lost or destroyed the record of his 1971 criminal proceeding, the burden should be on the State to prove that his rights to counsel and to a jury trial we
Page 1 2 3 4 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|