State Of Oklahoma v Leslie Doyle
S-2009-719
Filed: Mar. 22, 2010
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: Leslie Doyle
Summary
Leslie Doyle appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol. Conviction and sentence were upheld as a felony. Chapel dissented.
Decision
IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the order of the District Court of Ottawa County sustaining the defendant's motion to quash the Supplemental Information is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2010), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.
Issues
- Was the charge of Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol properly classified as a felony based on prior convictions?
- Did the ten-year rule for the enhancement of DUI charges apply in this case?
- Was the definition of "conviction" in the applicable statute correctly interpreted by the lower court?
- Did the effective date of prior convictions relate back to the date of commission of the current offense?
- Is a prior DUI conviction used for enhancement if it occurred more than ten years before the current charge was initiated?
Findings
- the court erred in sustaining the motion to quash the Supplemental Information
- the evidence was sufficient to support the State's position regarding the enhancement of the charge
- the specific statute regarding enhancement for DUI takes precedence over general statutes
- the defendant's previous DUI conviction must have occurred within ten years of the current charge to support a felony charge
S-2009-719
Mar. 22, 2010
State Of Oklahoma
Appellantv
Leslie Doyle
Appellee
v
Leslie Doyle
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
MICHAEL S. RICHIE LEWIS, JUDGE:
On May 9, 2001, Leslie Doyle was charged with Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol, Second and Subsequent Offense, Count I, Transporting Open Container of Beer, Count II, and Failure to Wear Safety Belt, Count III, in Ottawa County District Court Case No. CF-2001-256. The conduct was alleged to have occurred on April 1, 2001. On the same date, the State filed a Supplemental Information charging the conduct After Former Conviction of a Felony, alleging Doyle had been previously convicted on June 17, 1998, in the District Court of Sedgwick County, Kansas, with the misdemeanor offense of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol. In that case, Doyle was sentenced to six months imprisonment, and one year probation. Doyle was arrested on the outstanding warrant on December 29, 2008.
On April 23, 2009, counsel for Doyle made an oral motion to quash to the second page of the Information, arguing the charge should be a misdemeanor and not a felony because Doyle’s previous conviction was more than ten years old. On July 9, 2009, Special Judge Bill Culver heard arguments of counsel and sustained Doyle’s motion to quash, ruling the State could not proceed with a felony charge. On July 15, 2009, the State gave notice of its intent to appeal. On August 4, 2009, the reviewing District Court Judge, the Honorable Gary Maxey, Associate District Judge, issued a ruling affirming the magistrate’s ruling. Judge Maxey found 47 O.S.2001, Section 11-902 (C) clearly states convicted and not committed. The State announced its intent to appeal to this Court.
The State argues it timely filed a prior conviction of Driving Under the Influence, which elevates Doyle’s current charge from a misdemeanor charge to a felony. The State bases its position on the argument that the effective date of conviction relates back to the date of commission of the charge, as held by this Court in Coats v. State, 1978 OK CR 130, 589 P.2d 692. The State also relies on an unpublished opinion of this Court, Gray v. State, F-1999-1388, (Okl.Cr. August 24, 2000)(not for publication). Doyle argues that because he had not been convicted of Driving Under the Influence within ten years of his present appearance in this case, he can only be prosecuted with a misdemeanor charge. Specifically, Doyle claims the ten year rule set forth in 47 O.S.2001, Section 11-902 runs from the conviction date of the prior conviction to the conviction date of the current charge; and since he has not yet been convicted on the current charge, it cannot be prosecuted as a felony. Doyle relies on Kolberg v. State, 1996 OK CR 41, 925 P.2d 66.
In Coats, this Court held that under 21 O.S. Section 51A, if a person commits a crime prior to the complete running of the ten year statutory period which results in a conviction which does not fall within the statutory period, the effective date of the conviction will relate back to the date of the commission of the crime. (Emphasis added) Doyle was charged under 47 O.S. Section 11-902(A)(1). Thus, Section 51A is inapplicable to the case at bar.
However, in the unpublished Gray opinion, this Court, in a footnote, found the logic and reasoning of Coats persuasive and adopted the holding to enhancement under Section 11-902. Thus, in that case, though Gray’s subsequent conviction was obtained more than ten years after his previous conviction, this Court found his conviction was still properly enhanced because he had committed the current charge within ten years of his previous conviction. Previously, in Kolberg U. State, 1996 OK CR 41, 925 P.2d 66, this Court held that in Section 11-902, the use of the word conviction indicated that for a prior DUI to be used for enhancement, the conviction, not the expiration of the sentence, must have occurred within ten years before the commission of the subsequent crime.
In Kolberg, this Court noted that it had previously held the provisions of the general statute, 21 O.S. Section 51, were inapplicable to offenses under Section 11-902 of Title 47. In other words, this Court explained that the specific section dealing with enhancement for driving under the influence takes precedence over the general statute contained in Section 51. We believe this Court’s holding in Kolberg is better reasoned than the unpublished opinion in Gray, and more consistent with long-standing statutory interpretation. The statutes are explicit; the specific section dealing with enhancement for driving under the influence takes precedence over the general statute. We FIND the use of the word conviction indicates that for a prior DUI to be used for enhancement, the conviction, not the expiration of the sentence, must have occurred within ten years before the commission of the subsequent crime.
Decision
IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the order of the District Court of Ottawa County sustaining the defendant’s motion to quash the Supplemental Information is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2010), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.
AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTTAWA COUNTY
THE HONORABLE GARY MAXEY, ASSOCIATE DISTRICT JUDGE
ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL
JOHN M. WEEDN
STOCKWELL & CONNER
MIAMI, OKLAHOMA
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
BECKY R. BAIRD
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
OTTAWA COUNTY
MIAMI, OKLAHOMA
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
OPINION BY: LEWIS, J.
C. JOHNSON, P.J.: CONCURS
A. JOHNSON, V.P.J.: CONCURS
LUMPKIN, J.: CONCURS
CHAPEL, J.: DISSENTS
Footnotes:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 11-902 (C)
- Coats v. State, 1978 OK CR 130, 589 P.2d 692
- Gray v. State, F-1999-1388 (Okl.Cr. August 24, 2000)
- Kolberg v. State, 1996 OK CR 41, 925 P.2d 66
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 51A
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 51.1(C)
- Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 11-902 (C)(2)
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 51 (2011) - General Statute on Criminal Offenses
- Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 11-902 (2011) - Driving Under the Influence
- Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 11-902(C)(2) (2011) - Conviction after Prior DUI Conviction
Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:
No Oklahoma administrative rules found.
U.S. Code citations:
No US Code citations found.
Other citations:
No other rule citations found
Case citations:
- Coats v. State, 1978 OK CR 130, 589 P.2d 692
- Gray v. State, F-1999-1388 (Okl.Cr. August 24, 2000)(not for publication)
- Kolberg v. State, 1996 OK CR 41, 925 P.2d 66