 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Esco4/29/2005
The State of Alabama appeals the trial court's order dismissing a charge of driving under the influence of alcohol ("DUI"), a violation of § 32-5A-191(a)(2), Ala. Code 1975, against James Wesley Esco, Jr., on the ground of double jeopardy.
After a traffic stop on May 10, 2002, Esco was charged with improper lane usage and with DUI. The basis for the traffic stop and the improper-lane-usage charge was the arresting officer's observation that Esco had crossed a "fog line." (R. 4.) A jury found him not guilty of improper lane usage, but was unable to reach a verdict on the DUI charge. On March 4, 2004, before a retrial on the DUI charge, Esco moved to dismiss the charge on the ground that it violated the principle against double jeopardy. Specifically, Esco argued that his acquittal on the improper-lane-usage charge barred a subsequent prosecution for DUI. After a hearing, the trial court granted the motion. We reverse.
In Ex parte Wright, 477 So. 2d 492 (Ala. 1985), the Alabama Supreme Court was faced with a similar situation. After a traffic stop, Wright had been charged with improper lane usage and with DUI. He pleaded guilty to improper lane usage and paid a fine. Later, he was tried and convicted of DUI. In upholding the DUI conviction against Wright's double-jeopardy challenge, the Alabama Supreme Court explained:
"The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 9 of the Alabama Constitution provide that no person can twice be placed in jeopardy for the same offense. The double jeopardy provisions confer three separate guarantees: (1) protection against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; (2) protection against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and (3) protection against multiple punishments for the same offense. North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2076, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969).
"This case involves the second of the three types of double jeopardy protections. The defendant contends that the D.U.I. prosecution constituted a second prosecution for the lane violation. There are two aspects to the double jeopardy question, whether jeopardy has attached and whether the two offenses are the 'same' for double jeopardy purposes. See Cook, Constitutional Rights of the Accused; Post-Trial Rights, § 63-69 (1976); Comment, Double Jeopardy--Defining the Same Offense, 32 La.L.Rev. 87 (1971); Note, Twice in Jeopardy, 75 Yale L.J. 262, 268-69 (1965); Note, 7 Brooklyn L.Rev. 79 (1937).
"Jeopardy attaches on a guilty plea when the plea is accepted and entered by a court with jurisdiction. Odoms v. State, 359 So. 2d 1162, 1164 (Ala. Crim. App. 1978). See cases noted in Annot., 75 A.L.R.2d 683, 692 (1961). City magistrates are authorized to accept guilty pleas and collect fines for minor traffic violations. Ala. Rules of Judicial Admin., Rule 18(II)(B)(2)(c). Therefore, the entry of a guilty plea and acceptance of the fine by the magistrate constituted an adjudication of the lane violation charge and jeopardy attached. The dispositive issue, therefore, is whether the two charges constitute the 'same offense' for double jeopardy purposes.[ ]
"The test for determining the identity of offenses under the Fifth Amendment was set out in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). Blockburger provides that 'where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.' 284 U.S. at 304. Alabama has applied the Blockburger test to determine whether two of
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|