Godbold v. Water Valley
| Docket Number: | 2006-KM-00572-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-07-2007 Opinion Author: IRVING, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: DUI first offense - Admission of intoxilyzer test results - Sufficiency of citation Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: KING, C.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-16-2006 Appealed from: YALOBUSHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Ann H. Lamar Disposition: CONVICTED OF DUI FIRST OFFENSE (ALCOHOL) AND SENTENCED TO NO JAIL TIME AND A FINE OF $751. District Attorney: J. Katharine Ward (County Attorney) Case Number: CR-2005-46-LY2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JAMES E. GODBOLD |
JEFFREY JUDE PADGETT |
||
| Appellee: | WATER VALLEY, MISSISSIPPI | TOMMY W. DEFER |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | DUI first offense - Admission of intoxilyzer test results - Sufficiency of citation |
| Summary of the Facts: | James Godbold was convicted of first offense driving under the influence by the Water Valley Municipal Court and was sentenced to pay a $751 fine. Godbold appealed to circuit court which also found Godbold guilty. Godbold appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Godbold argues that the court erred in allowing the admission of his Intoxilyzer 8000 test results, because a statutorily-required fifteen-minute observation period was not performed. The record clearly reflects that the test in question began twenty-seven minutes after the observation period began, well beyond the statutorily-required fifteen-minute waiting period. Godbold also argues that the citation issued him was insufficient because it contained a post office box address for the Water Valley Municipal Court rather than a physical address. However, Godbold admits that the relevant statute, section 63-9-21, contains no requirement that a citation contain a court’s physical address. In addition, any error in the citation for not including the physical address of the court was clearly harmless and does not require a reversal of this case. Godbold has alleged no prejudice resulting from the absence of the court’s physical address on his citation. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
