 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Adamson v. State4/28/2000
The appellant, Ricky Ray Adamson, was convicted of driving under the influence in violation of §§ 32-5A-191(a)(2) and 32-5A-191(h), Ala. Code 1975. Adamson was sentenced to eight years in prison pursuant to the Habitual Felony Offender Act ("HFOA"), § 13A-5-9, Ala. Code 1975. In addition, Adamson was ordered to pay a $5,000.00 fine, $1,000.00 to the Alabama Crime Victim's Compensation Commission and court costs, and he was ordered to complete a substance abuse program.
On February 26, 1996 Alabama State Trooper Kenneth Reynolds responded to the scene of an accident on County Road 45 in Russell County. When Trooper Reynolds arrived on the scene he noticed that a red Jeep sport utility vehicle had driven through a barbwire fence and he saw Ricky Ray Adamson standing next to the vehicle. An initial investigation into the cause of the accident revealed that Adamson had been driving the Jeep before the accident. While Trooper Reynolds was investigating the cause of the accident, he smelled a strong odor of alcoholic beverages coming from Adamson. When asked if he had been drinking, Adamson responded that he had been up late with friends and that he had been drinking all night.
At that point, Trooper Reynolds asked Adamson to perform two field sobriety tests. Adamson failed both tests and was subsequently placed under arrest for driving under the influence . After he was arrested, Adamson was transported to the Russell County Sheriff's Department where he was given a breathalyzer examination. There, Officer William Alexander conducted two breathalyzer tests on Adamson. The first test indicated that Adamson had a .143 blood alcohol level and the second test registered Adamson's blood alcohol level at .147. Based on Adamson's level of intoxication and his prior DUI convictions, he was indicted for committing a felony DUI offense.
I.
On appeal, Adamson contends that he was denied a fair trial because the trial court allowed the State to read to the jury his three prior DUI convictions. This issue has not been properly preserved for review. After the prior convictions were admitted into evidence, the State rested its case and Adamson moved for a judgment of acquittal. As grounds for the motion Adamson argued that the State failed to make a prima facie case of DUI because, he says, it did not prove that he was actually operating the vehicle while he was under the influence. Adamson never objected to the introduction of evidence of his prior DUI convictions.
The Court of Criminal Appeals cannot consider matters that have not been first presented to the trial court. Trawick v. State, 431 So.2d 574 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). Moreover, this Court has held that the trial court cannot be placed in error for grounds not assigned at trial. Boyd v. State, 699 So.2d 967, 973 (Ala.Cr.App. 1997) (citing Ex parte Frith, 526 So.2d 880, 882 (Ala. 1987)). " equiring timely objections allows the trial court to develop a full record on the issue, consider the matter, and correct any error before substantial resources are wasted on appeal and then in an unnecessary retrial." Thomas v. State, [Ms. CR-96-1876, December 30, 1999] * v. State, ___ So.2d ___ (Ala.Cr.App. 1999). Thus, because Adamson failed to make a timely objection at trial, we cannot review this issue on appeal.
II.
Adamson also contends that he was denied a fair trial because, he says, the trial court erred in overruling his objection to testimony regarding his consent to submit to the breathalyzer exam. Before the test was administered, Officer Alexander informed Adamson that under Alabama's implied consent statute, his driver's license would be suspended if he did not take the test. Adamson obj
Page 1 2 3 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|