Martinez v. StateMartinez v. State
Defendant was charged in accusations with driving without proof of liability insurance, driving under the influence of alcohol, and failure to maintain lane. His blood alcohol level tested .132 grams percent on an Intoximeter 5000. Defendant filed a pretrial plea in bar based on double jeopardy, contending that he could not be criminally prosecuted on these charges because an administrative license suspension hearing had already been held and “resolved in defendant’s favor . . . when the arresting officer failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.”
The trial court denied defendant’s plea in bar and defendant pursued this direct appeal from that interlocutory order. See
Patterson v. State,
In two related enumerations, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his plea in bar, arguing that he will be prosecuted twice for the same crime, in contravention of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Art. I, Sec. I, Par. XVIII of the Georgia Constitution (1983), and the double jeopardy protections of
“We recently rejected this same argument in [the whole court decision,]
Nolen v. State,
Nor, does administrative suspension of a driver’s license upon conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs result in impermissible double punishment for a single offense. “ ‘Forfeiture of goods or their value and the payment of fixed or variable sums of money are other sanctions which have been recognized as enforceable by civil proceedings since the original revenue law of 1789. (Cit.) In spite of their comparative severity, such sanctions have been
*484
upheld against the contention that they are essentially criminal and subject to the procedural rules governing criminal prosecutions.’
[Helvering v. Mitchell,
Judgment affirmed.