Reeves v. City of Crystal Springs
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-01362-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-15-2011 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: First offense DUI - Timeliness of appeal - URCCC 5.07 - M.R.A.P. 4(g) - M.R.A.P. 1 - URCCC 12.02 - Intoxilyzer test - Section 63-11-5 Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Myers, P.J., Irving, Griffis and Roberts, JJ. Dissenting Author : Maxwell, J. Dissent Joined By : Lee, P.J., Ishee and Carlton, JJ. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CRIMINAL - MISDEMEANOR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-20-2009 Appealed from: COPIAH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: LAMAR PICKARD Disposition: DISMISSAL OF APPEAL FROM CONVICTION OF DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Case Number: 2009-0076CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | James Edwin Reeves |
DANIEL WESLEY KITCHENS |
||
| Appellee: | City of Crystal Springs, Mississippi | ROBERT W. LAWRENCE |
|
|
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: | First offense DUI - Timeliness of appeal - URCCC 5.07 - M.R.A.P. 4(g) - M.R.A.P. 1 - URCCC 12.02 - Intoxilyzer test - Section 63-11-5 |
| Summary of the Facts: | James Reeves was involved in a one-vehicle accident when he ran his SUV into a telephone pole. Reeves was taken to the police station and given an Intoxilyzer test. The test showed that Reeves was over the legal limit, and he was arrested and charged with first-offense DUI, a misdemeanor. At a hearing on October 8, 2008, the Crystal Springs Municipal Court requested that Reeves’s counsel prepare and submit a brief prior to the court’s entry of judgment. Counsel complied with the order, and the municipal judge took the matter under advisement. According to a letter contained in the record, defense counsel submitted a “motion to dismiss” prior to November 26, 2008, and counsel informed Reeves that the municipal judge was going to rule on the motion without conducting a hearing. On February 13, 2009, Reeves’s counsel received a notice from the municipal court for an unpaid fine resulting from Reeves’s DUI conviction. This notice was dated February 3, 2009, and stated that Reeves had ten days to pay his fine. On February 16, 2009, Reeves’s counsel sent a letter to the municipal court clerk, stating he was unaware that Reeves had been found guilty and that he would file a notice of appeal within the week. Reeves’s counsel also sent a letter to the municipal judge, requesting that an appeal bond be set. In the process of obtaining the bond, Reeves claims that the bail bondsman was told by the municipal court clerk that the date of conviction was February 11, 2009. On March 3, 2009, Reeves filed a notice of appeal from his DUI conviction and his appeal bond with the Copiah County Circuit Court. The circuit court dismissed Reeves’s appeal without prejudice, finding that it was not filed in a timely manner. The dismissal was based upon an “Abstract of Court Record” filed on March 30, 2009, which stated that the date of Reeves’s conviction was January 14, 2009. The abstract also stated that Reeves had entered a plea of nolo contendere. Reeves appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Reeves argues that the circuit judge should not have dismissed his appeal since the judge could not determine the date of conviction by reviewing the record. Although the City of Crystal Springs acknowledged that the judge did retain the case “for quite sometime,” it informed the circuit judge of the January 14, 2009 conviction date, and the circuit court allowed the City to provide an abstract of the record the day after the trial. URCCC 5.07 allows the circuit court to require the filing of any supplemental pleadings to clarify the issues. Thus, there was no error in the circuit court’s decision to allow the City to submit the abstract of record to furnish Reeves’s date of conviction. Although Reeves notes that the appeal bond had a conviction date of February 11, 2009, this information is hearsay. Reeves admits that this date came from a phone conversation between the bail bondsman and the municipal clerk’s office, and he admits that the date given was not certain. Reeves has not provided any evidence that the January 14, 2009 conviction date is incorrect; neither has Reeves addressed nor refuted the fact that the abstract of the record states he entered a plea nolo contendere. Although a letter to Reeves from his counsel states that a motion to dismiss was filed, this motion is absent from the record. Thus, there is no error in the circuit court’s finding that Reeves’s notice of appeal was not filed timely. Citing M.R.A.P. 4(g), Reeves also argues that his notice of appeal to the circuit court should have been considered a motion for enlargement of time. Reeves contends that he was misled by the municipal court because he did not receive his notice of conviction until it was too late to file a timely appeal. Thus, he claims there was evidence of excusable neglect. Pursuant to M.R.A.P. 1, Rule 4(g) is not applicable to appeals from municipal court to circuit court. Appeals from municipal court are governed by URCCC 12.02, and there is no excusable neglect provision or condition for an extension applicable to that rule. Reeves also argues that the circumstances surrounding the administration of the Intoxilyzer test should have resulted in an acquittal. He states that law enforcement failed to observe him for at least fifteen minutes prior to the test, as required by section 63-11-5. However, the officer stated unequivocally at the appeal hearing that he observed Reeves for the statutorily-required amount of time prior to Reeves’s submitting to the Intoxilyzer test. Another officer, who was also present and who administered the Intoxilyzer test, testified that he observed Reeves personally for at least twenty minutes before administration of the test. While he later admitted that he did not really observe Reeves until he started the test, there is no indication that the proper procedure was not followed in administering the Intoxilyzer test. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
