Winters v. State
52 So. 3d 1172
Miss.2010Background
- Winters, age 20 at arrest, was convicted of felony DUI after a third offense within five years and BAC above .08% at arrest.
- Indictment charged Winters under Section 63-11-30(l)(c) and headed FELONY DUI MCA Section 63-11-30(l)(c), alleging BAC of .02% or more.
- Winters admitted to consuming alcohol prior to driving; defense expert estimated BAC at arrest between .068% and .076%.
- State expert testified BAC at arrest was .09%, supporting felony DUI under the statute for a third offense.
- Indictment raised potential ambiguity between felony DUI and Zero Tolerance for Minors, prompting pretrial motions and a bench trial.
- Trial court convicted Winters of felony DUI and sentenced him to 1 year in MDOC Intensive Supervision Program followed by four years of probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the indictment sufficient to charge felony DUI? | Winters argues the indictment ambiguously alleges felony versus misdemeanor. | Winters contends the language does not clearly specify the applicable subsection and BAC threshold. | Indictment sufficient to notify of felony DUI. |
| Does .02% 'or more' plus 'feloniously' create ambiguity about grade of offense? | Winters contends wording makes it unclear whether the offense is misdemeanor or felony. | State argues the BAC language and prior convictions show felonious DUI was intended. | Indictment not fatally ambiguous; sufficient to charge felony DUI. |
| Should Broadus control the outcome? | Winters cites Broadus to require lesser penalty due to ambiguity. | State distinguishes Broadus due to specifics of BAC and prior offenses. | Broadus distinguished; indictment upheld and sentence affirmed. |
| Did Zero Tolerance for Minors apply given Winters’ age and BAC? | Winters argues Minors statute could apply with lesser penalty. | Court found Winters’ BAC > .08% so Zero Tolerance for Minors not applicable. | Zero Tolerance did not apply; felony DUI sentence remains valid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Broadus v. State, 392 So.2d 203 (Miss. 1980) (indictment ambiguity and choice of lesser penalty when unsure of statute)
- White v. State, 374 So.2d 225 (Miss. 1979) (could apply lesser penalty when two statutes possible)
- Ivy v. State, 589 So.2d 1263 (Miss. 1991) (indictment and penalty principles in DUI context)
- Clubb v. State, 672 So.2d 1201 (Miss. 1996) (indictment ambiguity requires applying lesser penalty)
- Hoffman v. State, 508 So.2d 669 (Miss. 1987) (need for clarity in charging language and notice)