NO. COA02-957
Appeal by defendant from judgment filed 26 February 2002 by
Judge Ronald E. Spivey in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in
the Court of Appeals 4 March 2003.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney
General Isaac T. Avery, III and Assistant Attorney General
Patricia A. Duffy, for the State.
Neill A. Jennings, Jr. for defendant appellant.
BRYANT, Judge.
James Wayne Little (defendant) appeals from a judgment filed
28 February 2002 entered consistent with a jury verdict finding him
guilty of Driving While Impaired (DWI).
Defendant was charged with DWI on 25 February 2000.
Subsequently, defendant's North Carolina driver's license was
revoked for thirty days pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-16.5 by
an order dated 27 March 2000 because there was probable cause
defendant had an “alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more at any
relevant time after . . . driving.”
Prior to trial in the district court, defendant moved to
dismiss the charge against him on the basis that prosecution forDWI following the thirty-day suspension violated prohibitions
against double jeopardy. The district court denied the motion, and
defendant was subsequently found guilty as charged. Defendant
appealed de novo to the superior court. Again, prior to trial in
superior court, defendant moved to dismiss the charges against him
alleging a violation of the double jeopardy clause. The superior
court also denied defendant's motion.
______________________________
The issue is whether the immediate thirty-day driver's license
revocation for persons charged with implied consent offenses under
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-16.5 bars subsequent prosecution for DWI and
other alcohol related offenses.
Specifically, defendant contends that such prosecution
violates the prohibition against double jeopardy. As noted in
State v. Newsome, --- N.C. App. ---, ---, --- S.E.2d ---, --- (Mar.
18, 2003) (No. COA02-792), this issue has been previously addressed
by this Court in
State v. Reid, 148 N.C. App. 548, 559 S.E.2d 561
(2002) and
State v. Evans, 145 N.C. App. 324, 550 S.E.2d 853 (2001)
and decided contrary to defendant's position.
See also State v.
Oliver, 343 N.C. 202, 470 S.E.2d 16 (1996) (holding that the ten-
day driver's license revocation for persons charged with implied
consent offenses pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-16.5 is a civil
penalty, and therefore, subsequent prosecution for DWI does not
result in a double jeopardy violation). In light of existing
authority, we decline defendant's invitation to revisit this issue.
See In re Appeal from Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 384, 379 S.E.2d30, 37 (1989) (providing that one panel of this Court may not
overrule the decision of another panel of this Court). Again, the
principles of double jeopardy are not violated when a defendant's
license is revoked for thirty days under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-16.5
for an implied consent offense and the defendant is subsequently
prosecuted for DWI.
See Reid, 148 N.C. App. 548, 559 S.E.2d 561;
Evans, 145 N.C. App. 324, 550 S.E.2d 853;
see also Oliver, 343 N.C.
202, 470 S.E.2d 16. Thus, we overrule defendant's argument.
No error.
Judges HUNTER and ELMORE concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***