 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Briggs v. State6/22/1999
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/11/1997
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ROBERT G. EVANS
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: SIMPSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: 04/11/1998: FELONY DUI (THIRD OFFENSE): SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF (3) YEARS IN THE MDOC, WITH (15) MONTHS TO SERVE AND (21) MONTHS SUSPENDED AND DEFENDANT PLACED ON PROBATION, CONDITIONED UPON THE DEFENDANT UNDERGOING ALCOHOL AND DRUG TREATMENT WHILE INCARCERATED IN THE MDOC.
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 6/22/99
. Howard Briggs has appealed his conviction for third offense driving under the influence of alcohol. He purports to raise eight issues, though we determine there is a measure of duplication in some of them. In all events, we find no merit in any issue properly presented to us for decision and, therefore, affirm the conviction.
A.
Facts
. Simpson County law enforcement officers were conducting a routine roadblock to check such items as proper drivers licenses, vehicle registration and such matters on July 23, 1995. One of the officers participating in the roadblock testified that, when he approached Briggs's vehicle at the roadblock, he smelled the odor of alcohol emanating from Briggs's person. Upon further investigation, the officer determined that there was reasonable ground to believe that Briggs may have been intoxicated to a sufficient to degree to constitute a criminal violation. As a result, he placed Briggs in his vehicle, transported him to the local jail, and administered a chemical breath analysis test commonly called the intoxilizer test to determine Briggs's blood alcohol content. The test results showed .211 one-hundredths percent blood alcohol concentration, well above the legal limit.
. Briggs had two prior convictions for driving under the influence in the five years previous to the date of his arrest. As a result, he was indicted under the felony provisions of Section 63-11-30(2)(c) of the Mississippi Code. He was subsequently tried before a jury and convicted. Having failed to obtain relief in his post-trial motion to the trial court, Briggs perfected this appeal.
B.
Discussion of Issues
. Briggs presents eight issues numbered I through VIII. For reasons that we will discuss, we find some of them to be without merit, one of them to be duplicative and we find that we are procedurally barred from considering one of the issues. We will consider the issues in the same order as raised in the appellant's brief.
I.
The Jury Was Not Fair and Impartial
. Without citing any authority for the proposition, Briggs argues that he was denied a fair trial because a number of prospective jurors, during voir dire by his counsel, expressed the view that a person should not operate a motor vehicle if that person has ingested any alcohol. Only one potential juror said that evidence that Briggs had consumed any amount of alcohol before driving his vehicle would be enough for that venire member to convict of criminal conduct. That person was excused for cause by the trial court. The remaining potential jurors each affirmatively stated on the record their ability to put their personal feelings aside and decide the case according to the law as given them by the trial court. The trial court, during jury selection in chambers, indicated that the court thought those statements were enough to qualify those persons as impartial jurors and refused to excuse them for cause.
. The trial court has substantial discretion in the matter of challenges for cause to jurors. Bell v. State, 725 So. 2d 836, 8
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|