 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Monroe3/31/2000
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jasper County, Hon. Jon Dermott
Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Crow, P.J., and Parrish, J., concur.
Opinion:
A jury found Defendant guilty of the class D felony of driving while intoxicated (DWI), section 577.010. The trial court found Defendant was a persistent DWI offender, section 577.023. Defendant contends on appeal that the trial court erred when it allowed the State to introduce and use his Arkansas DWI convictions as proof that he was a persistent DWI offender. We affirm Defendant's DWI conviction. We reverse Defendant's sentence as a persistent DWI offender and remand for resentencing.
FACTS
After he was stopped by a sheriff's deputy, Defendant failed field sobriety tests and was noted to have red and watery eyes and slurred speech. The deputy arrested Defendant and took him to the Jasper County jail. After arriving, the deputy read Defendant his Miranda rights and interviewed him. In the interview, Defendant admitted driving, drinking alcohol, and that he was "under the influence of an alcoholic beverage." Defendant refused to take a breathalyzer test.
The State charged Defendant as a persistent DWI offender, alleging he had two municipal convictions for DWI, both in the city of Van Buren, Arkansas. In a pre-trial hearing, the prosecutor first offered Exhibit 2, a document entitled "Transcript of Judgment" from the Van Buren, Arkansas, municipal court. This exhibit recited, inter alia, that Defendant was charged with DWI on July 12, 1998, and pleaded guilty thereto on September 16, 1998. The exhibit also contained the pre-printed word "ATTORNEY" and beside that word was written "Waiver." A pre-printed form entitled "Plea Statement and Waiver of Counsel" was attached to Exhibit 2. This form was filled out and contained what purported to be Defendant's signature and initials. The singular "authentication" of Exhibit 2 was by Donna Parrish, court clerk.
Defense counsel objected to the admission of Exhibit 2, saying it was not "double certified, it's an out-of-state judgment." Thereon, the State proffered Exhibit 1, a document entitled "Certificate of Authentication." This document contained a clerk's "authentication" (signed by Donna Parrish) which recited, among other things, that "the writings annexed . . . are true copies of originals on file and of record in said office." Beneath the clerk's authentication, the municipal judge signed to "certify the foregoing authentication by Donna Parrish, Clerk of said Court, to be in due form." In opposing the use of Exhibit 1 as a curative document, defense counsel pointed out that Exhibit 1 did not have "writings annexed" as recited and that the "double certification" document (Exhibit 1) "was obviously sent at a later date than the initial documents." Based on the prosecutor's representation that the phrase "writings annexed" in Exhibit 1 was a reference to Exhibits 2 and 3, the court admitted all three exhibits.
The additional documentary evidence received on the issue of Defendant's prior convictions was Exhibit 3. This exhibit, which bore the heading "Transcript of Judgment," pertained to a charge of DWI lodged against Defendant on July 9, 1994, to which he pleaded guilty on July 25, 1994. On this exhibit was the pre-printed word "ATTORNEY" and beside it was written, "Waiver." Attached to Exhibit 3 was a pre-printed "WAIVER" form. It had what purported to be Defendant's signature. The municipal clerk's "authentication" of Exhibit 3 was identical to that on Exhibit 2. See note 3.
Following Defendant's conviction and resultant judgment, he appealed to this cour
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|