 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lampkin v. State6/24/1999
In this appeal, James E. Lampkin challenges the order of the Criminal Court of Knox County, entered on March 24, 1998. The order was entered in response to the appellant's motion to ascertain the status of his previously filed "Motion to be Discharged from Payment of Moot Fines and Costs." The trial court found that it had already ruled upon the appellant's motion and had dismissed the motion. The appellant now raises the following issues for our consideration:
"1. Whether the trial court erroneously declined to consider the appellant's 'Motion to be Discharged from Payment of Moot Fines and Costs.'"
"2. Whether the appellant should be discharged from fines and costs imposed pursuant to his 1986 convictions for receiving stolen property, leaving the scene of an accident, driving on a revoked license, and driving under the influence of an intoxicant, third offense."
"3. Whether Tenn. Code. Ann. § 67-1-1501 (1986) bars collection of the aforementioned fines and costs."
Following a thorough review of the record, we remand this case to the trial court.
I. Factual Background
The record reflects that, on September 12, 1986, the petitioner pled guilty to receiving stolen property (Case No. 27996), leaving the scene of an accident (Case No. 27997), driving on a revoked license (Case No. 27998), and driving under the influence of an intoxicant (Case No. 27999). The record only includes the minutes of the court documenting the appellant's judgment of conviction in case No. 27999. For the offense of driving under the influence, the trial court imposed a sentence of eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days in the Knox County Penal Farm and a fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). Additionally, the trial court provided that the appellant would be responsible for the costs of the prosecution.
On February 4, 1997, the appellant filed a motion asking that the trial court declare him indigent and waive the fines and court costs imposed pursuant to his convictions for leaving the scene of an accident (Case No. 27997) and driving on a revoked license (Case No. 27998). Subsequently, the appellant amended his motion to include fines and costs resulting from his conviction for driving under the influence (Case No. 27999). On April 30, 1997, the trial court dismissed the appellant's motion on the basis of the appellant's continuing incarceration.
On August 25, 1997, the appellant filed a "Motion to be Discharged from Payment of Moot Fines and Costs" in case No. 27999. In this motion, the appellant alleged that, pursuant to his conviction for driving under the influence , the trial court had, at some point in time, ordered the appellant to pay thirty-three dollars and fifty cents ($33.50) for each day of his sentence of eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days "or be confined or otherwise imprisoned until the fines and costs were satisfied." The appellant further alleged that he was, in fact, imprisoned and completed service of his sentence in satisfaction of the fines and costs. Moreover, notwithstanding the style of his motion, the appellant alleged that his service of concurrent sentences of imprisonment in cases Nos. 27996, 27997, and 27998 satisfied all fines and costs imposed in those cases.
On March 12, 1998, the appellant filed a motion to ascertain the status of his "Motion to be Discharged from Payment of Moot Fines and Costs." As mentioned earlier, the trial court entered an order on March 24, 1998, finding that the motion referred to in the appellant's "Motion to Ascertain Status of Case" had already been ruled upon by the trial court and dismissed on April 30, 1997.
II. An
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|