 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cameron v. State12/29/1994
Opinion by Alpert, J.
Lest we be misunderstood by our ultimate holding, we declare at the outset that an intoxicated litigant who disrupts the proceedings of the court by contumacious or stupefied conduct may be held in contempt of court.
Appellant, John Jeffrey Cameron, appeals two judgments entered by the Circuit Court for Allegany County, the first finding him in contempt for appearing in court in an intoxicated condition and the second denying his motion to dismiss on the basis of double jeopardy. Appellant asks:
I. Did the trial court err in finding him in contempt of court?
II. Did the trial court err in striking the judgment based on a guilty plea?
III. Did the trial court err in permitting evidence of a chemical test in a criminal contempt proceeding?
IV. Did the trial court err in denying his motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy?
We answer numbers I, II, and IV in the affirmative and therefore reverse; we need not address issue III.
Facts and Proceedings
On July 16, 1993, appellant, John Jeffrey Cameron, was stopped by Department of Natural Resources officers and charged by citation with driving while intoxicated, a charge subsequently amended to include a charge of driving under the influence . On or about December 20, 1993, appellant appeared before the Circuit Court for Allegany County, at which time he was found to be in an apparently intoxicated condition. At that time, the court ordered appellant to be held without bond pending a determination of whether detoxification was necessary, and the next day, the court ordered that Cameron be released from the sheriff's custody on his own recognizance pending completion of his alcohol treatment. Appellant was then subpoenaed to appear in court on March 16, 1994, at 9 a.m.
On March 16, appellant returned to court as scheduled and, pursuant to a plea agreement, entered a plea of guilty to driving under the influence . Before accepting the plea, the court questioned Cameron on his present sobriety, obtaining assurances from Cameron that he was not currently under the influence of alcohol. The court asked other questions of Cameron to determine whether he entered the plea voluntarily, understood all of his rights, and comprehended the consequences of his plea. Then, the court accepted the plea as "freely and intelligently made."
Appellant was sentenced to sixty days, suspended. He was placed on probation for three years under the supervision of the Drinking Driver Monitor Program. As a condition of the probation, appellant was ordered to proceed to the Health Department that day. Additionally, he was ordered to abstain from the consumption of alcohol.
Pursuant to the court's order, Cameron proceeded to the Health Department following the plea and sentencing proceeding. When Cameron appeared at the Department at approximately 10:20 a.m., the Supervisor for the Drinking Driver Monitor Program, Randall Blough, "detected a strong odor of alcohol." Mr. Blough proceeded to administer a passive breath test and a portable breathalyzer test, the passive breath test yielding "a point two oh " reading. The parties then returned to court.
Cameron testified on his own behalf before the trial judge, who first advised Cameron of his right not to testify.
BY THE COURT: Mr. Malone, before you ask Mr. Cameron any questions, he ought to understand that there . . . there lies in all of this the potential for a contempt citation.
MR. MALONE: I understand, sir.
BY THE COURT: And that in that regard he need not testify, if he chooses not to. But if he does
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Maryland DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|