Millsaps v. the State
341 Ga. App. 337
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On May 22–23, 2014, Millsaps was cited for related conduct during a high-speed chase: county citations (unincorporated Bartow County) for fleeing/eluding, reckless driving, and speeding; city citations (Emerson) for reckless driving, resisting an officer, and speeding.
- Millsaps pleaded guilty in Emerson Municipal Court to reckless driving and resisting an officer; the speeding citation merged with reckless driving.
- The next month the State filed a Superior Court accusation charging fleeing/eluding, obstruction, reckless driving, and speeding based on the same overall incident.
- Millsaps moved to dismiss the superior-court accusation on double jeopardy grounds, arguing (1) OCGA § 16-1-7(b) barred separate prosecutions because the municipal prosecutor knew the related facts, and (2) the superior-court offenses were included in the municipal convictions under the required-evidence test.
- The superior court denied the motion; on appeal the court reviewed factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo and affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Millsaps) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OCGA § 16-1-7(b) bars the superior-court prosecution because the municipal prosecutor knew of other crimes arising from the same conduct | Municipal prosecutor was an expert who had actual knowledge of facts supporting county charges, so all crimes known at the time of the first prosecution must be prosecuted together | The municipal prosecutor received only city citations and had no knowledge of facts occurring outside Emerson; thus § 16-1-7(b) does not bar later county prosecution | Affirmed: No evidence municipal prosecutor had actual knowledge of out-of-city conduct, so § 16-1-7(b) does not bar the superior-court charges |
| Whether the superior-court offenses were "included in" the municipal offenses under the required-evidence test (double jeopardy merger) | The offenses arose from the same chase and thus are the same conduct, so the required-evidence test bars the second prosecution | Record does not show that the same precise conduct established both sets of offenses; victims and temporal points differ (e.g., resisting vs. obstruction), so crimes are not shown to be included | Affirmed: Plaintiff failed to meet burden; record does not demonstrate that superior-court offenses were included in municipal offenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 294 Ga. 506 (review standard: factual findings for clear error; legal conclusions de novo)
- Billups v. State, 228 Ga. App. 804 (prosecutor is expected to know facts/evidence in file; actual knowledge can bar later prosecution)
- State v. Hill, 333 Ga. App. 785 (lack of prosecutor knowledge in first file—despite same transaction—means later prosecution not barred)
- Drinkard v. Walker, 281 Ga. 211 (adopts required-evidence test for determining when offenses merge for double jeopardy)