State v. Randy Watson

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedSeptember 17, 1997
Docket02C01-9610-CR-00377
StatusPublished

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.

Bluebook
State v. Randy Watson, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

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

State v. Conley
639 S.W.2d 435 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State v. Randy Watson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-randy-watson-tenncrimapp-1997.