State v. Randy Watson
This text of State v. Randy Watson (State v. Randy Watson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
SEPTEMBER 1997 SESSION FILED September 17, 1997
Cecil Crowson, Jr. STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) Appellate C ourt Clerk ) NO. 02C01-9610-CR-00377 Appellee, ) ) SHELBY COUNTY VS. ) ) Hon. Bernie Weinman, Judge RANDY S. WATSON, ) ) (Habitual Motor Vehicle Offender) Appellant. )
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
BRETT B. STEIN JOHN KNOX WALKUP 100 N. Main Street Attorney General and Reporter Number 3102 Memphis, TN 38103 KENNETH W. RUCKER Assistant Attorney General Criminal Justice Division 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, TN 37243-0493
WILLIAM L. GIBBONS District Attorney General
REGINALD HENDERSON Assistant District Attorney General 201 Poplar Avenue, Suite 301 Memphis, TN 38103
OPINION FILED:
AFFIRMED
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE OPINION
Appellant contends the Habitual Motor Vehicle Offender Act (HMVO Act)
violates double jeopardy principles. On May 9, 1996, appellant was declared an
Habitual Motor Vehicle Offender (HMVO) based upon appropriate prior convictions.
His motion to dismiss based upon double jeopardy was denied.
We AFFIRM the order of the trial court.
DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND THE HMVO ACT
State v. Conley, 639 S.W.2d 435, 437 (Tenn. 1982), found the double
jeopardy defense to be unavailable to the HMVO declaration since the revocation of
driving privileges is remedial and not punitive in nature. This reasoning has been
followed in recent months by this Court in State v. Spears, C.C.A. No. 02C01-9606-
CR-00197 (Tenn. Crim. App. filed July 10, 1997, at Jackson), and State v. Rowlett,
C.C.A. No. 01C01-9605-CC-00211 (Tenn. Crim. App. filed August 22, 1997, at
Nashville). Upon review of the record before us, we find nothing to cause us to hold
differently.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court.
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
CONCUR:
JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. Randy Watson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-randy-watson-tenncrimapp-1997.