State v. Charles Taylor

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: April 22, 1998
• Docket: 02C01-9704-CR-00153
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

FEBRUARY 1998 SESSION FILED April 22, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9704-CR-00153 Appellee, ) ) SHELBY COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. JOHN P. COLTON, JR. CHARLES E. TAYLOR, ) JUDGE ) Appellant. ) (Habitual Motor Vehicle Offender)

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

A C WHARTON, JR. JOHN KNOX WALKUP Public Defender Attorney General & Reporter

WALKER GWINN ELIZABETH T. RYAN Asst. Public Defender Asst. Attorney General 201 Poplar, Suite 201 425 Fifth Ave., North Memphis, TN 38103 Cordell Hull Bldg., Second Fl. Nashville, TN 37243-0493

JOHN W. PIEROTTI District Attorney General

ALANDA HORNE Asst. District Attorney General 201 Poplar, Suite 301 Memphis, TN 38103

OPINION FILED:____________________

AFFIRMED

JOHN H. PEAY, Judge OPINION

The defendant was declared a habitual motor vehicle offender on

December 10, 1996. He now appeals and argues that such a declaration violated the

double jeopardy provisions of the state and federal constitutions. He does not contest

the underlying facts which led him to be declared such an offender.1

The Habitual Motor Vehicle Offenders Act seeks to deny the privilege of

operating a motor vehicle to those who have demonstrated “their indifference to the

safety and welfare of others and their disrespect for the laws of the state.” T.C.A.

§ 55-10-602(2). The defendant was convicted of four driving offenses between January

1991 and June 1995, thus he falls within the statutory definition of a habitual offender.

T.C.A. § 55-10-603(2).

The defendant now argues that his being declared a habitual offender is

violative of the due process clause. He argues that he was convicted of four offenses

and was punished accordingly. He further contends he “has already suffered mandatory

temporary revocation of his drivers license” and is now being punished a second time for

the same conduct.

The Supreme Court of Tennessee has addressed this very issue and has

determined that the revocation of driving privileges under the Habitual Motor Vehicle

Offenders Act does not subject one to double jeopardy. State v. Conley, 639 S.W.2d

1 In its b rief, th e Sta te arg ues that th e def end ant fa iled to time ly file his Notic e of A ppe al. Th is conten tion is in error. A n order w as ente red on D ecem ber 2, 19 96, denying the defe ndant’s m otion to dism iss th e Sta te’s p etition . How ever , the o rder actu ally dec laring the d efen dan t a ha bitua l mo tor ve hicle offender was not entered until December 10, 1996. It is from this latter date that the time for filing a Notice o f Appea l begins. T he defe ndant filed his notice o n Janu ary 9, 1997 . This is within the thirty days as tim e is com puted un der T.R .A.P. Ru le 21(a).

2 435, 437 (Tenn. 1982). The defendant, however, invites this Court to reconsider the

Conley case using the analysis of a more recent United States Supreme Court case,

United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 (1989). This Court has previously performed such

an analysis and has concluded that even under the most recent federal cases, a

defendant’s declaration as a habitual motor vehicle offender and subsequent revocation

of his license is not violative of his right against double jeopardy as provided by both the

federal and state constitutions. State v. Jeffery L. Becton, No. 02C01-9611-CR-00431,

Shelby County (Tenn. Crim. App. filed Dec. 3, 1997, at Jackson)(no perm. app. filed);

State v. Milton Spears, Jr., No. 02C01-9606-CR-00197, Shelby County (Tenn. Crim. App.

filed July 10, 1997)(no perm. app. filed); State v. Randy A. McClure and Teddy G.

Ownby, No. 03C01-9605-CC-00198, Sevier County (Tenn. Crim. App. filed Jan. 29, 1997,

at Knoxville)(no perm. app. filed). The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

______________________________ JOHN H. PEAY, Judge

CONCUR:

______________________________ JOSEPH B. JONES, Judge

______________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, Judge