DiMeglio v. State
201 Md. App. 287
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Appellant challenged his DUI/DWI Treatment Court participation on Fifth Amendment double jeopardy grounds.
- DUI Court required admission to conditions including abstaining from alcohol and periodic sanctions for noncompliance.
- January 22, 2009 DUI Court appearance occurred while Appellant faced new charges; court warned it would not roll in the new case.
- Weekend jail sanction was imposed for drinking while on pretrial release, under DUI Court supervision.
- Appellant later pled guilty to the prior charge and not guilty to the current charge, with involved motions to dismiss based on double jeopardy.
- The circuit court affirmed; the Court of Appeals analyzed whether jeopardy attached and whether waiver was valid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DUI Court sanction violated double jeopardy | DiMeglio argues sanction was punishment for the new offense | State contends sanction was for noncompliance with DUI Court conditions, not the new charge | Not violated; sanction for DUI Court condition breach separate from charges. |
| Whether Appellant validly waived double jeopardy rights by entering DUI Court | Waiver not shown on record; no explicit knowing waiver | Waiver implied by participation in DUI Court | Waiver not dispositive; no reversible error found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dixon v. United States, 509 U.S. 688 (U.S. 1993) (contested multiple punishments and contempt prosecutions under double jeopardy considerations)
- Ex parte Lange, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 163 (U.S. 1874) (second sentence for same offense barred where first punishment completed)
- Blondes v. State, 273 Md.435 (Md. 1975) (jeopardy attaches in nonjury trials when evidence is heard; not here)
- In re Michael W., 367 Md. 181 (Md. 2001) (refused to adopt Grady v. Corbin approach in Maryland)
- Dixon v. State (Dixon and Foster discussions), 509 U.S. 688 (U.S. 1993) (multiple opinions on double jeopardy aspects in contempt and subsequent prosecutions)
- Warne v. State, 166 Md.App. 135 (Md. Ct. App. 2005) (double jeopardy distinguished in context of fatal accident and prior penalties)