Pulido v. City of Oxford
| Docket Number: | 2006-KM-01277-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-KM-01277-COA ; 2006-CT-01277-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-22-2008 Opinion Author: KING, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Careless driving & DUI - Jurisdiction - URCCC 12.02 - Evidentiary foundation - M.R.E. 702 - M.R.E. 701 - Testing equipment Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - MISDEMEANOR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-28-2006 Appealed from: Lafayette County Circuit Court Judge: Andrew K. Howorth Disposition: CONVICTED OF CARELESS DRIVING AND DUI FIRST OFFENSE AND SENTENCED TO FORTY-EIGHT HOURS TO SERVE IN THE LAFAYETTE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER Case Number: LK-059 MC |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JAMES MICHAEL PULIDO A/K/A MICHAEL JAMES PULIDO |
JASON LEE SHELTON |
||
| Appellee: | CITY OF OXFORD, MISSISSIPPI | BELA J. CHAIN |
|
|
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: | Careless driving & DUI - Jurisdiction - URCCC 12.02 - Evidentiary foundation - M.R.E. 702 - M.R.E. 701 - Testing equipment |
| Summary of the Facts: | Michael Pulido was convicted of careless driving and driving under the influence in the Municipal Court of Oxford. He appealed these convictions to circuit court, which affirmed the convictions. Pulido appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jurisdiction Pulido argues that the failure of the Oxford Municipal Court to comply with URCCC 12.02 deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction to hear his appeal. Rule 12.02 (A) provides that it shall be the duty of the judge from whose judgment the appeal is taken to deliver to the clerk of the circuit court, within 10 days after the appeal bond and cost bond are given and approved, a certified copy of the record in the case with all of the original papers in the case. Pulido filed his notice of appeal on February 24, 2005. A copy of the record was not filed with the circuit court until October 20, 2005. Beyond question, this filing is not in compliance with Rule 12.02. However, the purely ministerial act of transmission of the record is not jurisdictional. Even if the Court were to find that act to be jurisdictional, the required result would be to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and thereby let stand the conviction and sentence of the municipal court. Issue 2: Evidentiary foundation Pulido argues that the officer’s testimony regarding the field sobriety tests should have been stricken because there was no evidentiary foundation laid that she was qualified to administer such tests or competent to analyze the tests results. Under M.R.E. 702, expert testimony, whether fact or opinion, requires scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge beyond a randomly selected adult. However, M.R.E. 701 provides that lay witnesses may testify about opinions as long as the inferences are rationally based on the perception of the witness, helpful to the clear understanding of the testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, and not based on scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge within the scope of 702. Under Rule 701, an officer can testify about her personal observations of the defendant and does not have to be tendered as an expert to testify. Here, the officer testified about the results of the walk and turn and the one-legged stand tests that she administered. Each of the tests administered by the officer relied upon her observation and did not require qualification as an expert. Issue 3: Testing equipment Pulido argues that the court erred by not allowing him to question the officer regarding whether the Intoxilyzer test she would have used was properly calibrated and functioning at the time of Pulido’s arrest. Because no Intoxilyzer test was given, and no Intoxilyzer test results were offered to establish Pulido’s guilt, the question of whether the machine was properly calibrated was irrelevant. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
