State v. CastañedaState v. Castañeda
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Lansing, Walters, Perry
By this appeal, we are asked to determine whether Idaho‘s double punishment statute,
On the evening of January 29, 1992, Officer Tony Chapa of the Cassia County Sheriff‘s office observed Castañeda sleeping in his car. Officer Chapa awakened Castañeda, and believing Castaneda to be intoxicated, warned him not to drive. Later that evening, Officer Chapa and Officer Les Nye saw Castañeda‘s vehicle in the parking lot of a cafe. As they entered the cafe, they observed Castañeda leave that establishment and drive away in his vehicle. Officer Nye pursued in his patrol car and, with his emergency lights, signaled Castaneda to stop. Upon seeing the flashing lights, Castañeda increased his speed. He then stopped near his home, exited the vehicle and attempted to flee on foot. Officer Nye apprehended Castañeda and arrested him for driving under the influence of alcohol,
On March 13, 1992, Castañeda pled guilty to the misdemeanor citation for fleeing from a police vehicle. For that offense he was sentenced to serve five days in jail. The citation for driving without privileges was
On appeal Castañeda raises only one issue: Does
Castaneda argues that dismissal of the DUI charge against him is mandated by our recent decision in State v. Smith, 121 Idaho 20, 822 P.2d 539 (Ct.App.1991), where we held that
Section 18-301 provides:
An act or omission which is made punishable in different ways by different provisions of this code may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case can it be punished under more than one; an acquittal or conviction and sentence under either one bars a prosecution for the same act or omission under any other.
The protection afforded by this statute is broader than that created by the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment prohibits double jeopardy for the “same offense,” while Section 18-301 proscribes double punishment or prosecution for the same “act or omission.” Thus, in the constitutional arena the inquiry is whether the charged crimes involve separate elements, United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 2849, 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993), whereas our inquiry under
The operation of
The applicability of section 301 depends upon whether a separate and distinct act can be established as the basis for each prosecution, regardless of whether the offenses require proof of differing elements. State v. Werneth, 101 Idaho 241, 611 P.2d 1026 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1129, 101 S.Ct. 951, 67 L.Ed.2d 118 (1981); State v. Ledbetter, 118 Idaho 8, 794 P.2d 278 (Ct.App.1990). The term “act,” as defined by the statute, refers to that term in its ordinary sense, but also includes a course of conduct of such a nature as to amount to a single act, that is, a course of conduct which does not consist of divisible transactions. Compare Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773, 105 S.Ct. 2407, 85 L.Ed.2d 764 (1985) (rejecting a single-transaction test for purposes of applying former jeopardy protection contained in the fifth amendment).
In determining whether a defendant‘s conduct is divisible into separate, distinct events, we employ a “temporal test” — a test of time. State v. Sterley, 112 Idaho 1097, 739 P.2d 396 (1987); State v. Chapman, 112 Idaho 1011, 739 P.2d 310 (1987);
State v. Horn, 101 Idaho 192, 610 P.2d 551 (1980); State v. McCormick, 100 Idaho 111, 594 P.2d 149 (1979). Under this test, if one of the offenses was completed prior to the commission of the second crime, then the two cannot be said to arise from the “same act,” and the provisions of section 18-301 do not apply. (footnote omitted)
While Smith establishes that a single, indivisible course of conduct may not be treated as separate “acts” in applying
Applying these standards in the instant case, we conclude that the offenses for which Castaneda was convicted were predicated upon separate acts. When Castañeda entered his automobile, started the motor, and drove away he was “in actual physical control of a motor vehicle” while under the influence of alcohol in violation of
We recognize that the DUI offense was continuing as Castañeda was fleeing from the police officer. However, this overlap of the two offenses is not fatal to the DUI charge, for the DUI prosecution was not dependent upon Castañeda‘s driving that occurred after Officer Nye signalled him to stop. The DUI charge could properly be predicated upon Castaneda‘s actions before that signal was given. The existence of that substantial, clearly identifiable period when Castañeda‘s actions constituted only one of the offenses distinguishes this case from Smith. In Smith the commission of DUI and the commission of inattentive driving were entirely simultaneous. Under the facts presented in that case, separate prosecutions were impermissible because the charges for inattentive driving and DUI “were based upon one continuous and indivisible act of driving erratically, while under the influence of alcohol.” Smith, 121 Idaho at 24, 822 P.2d at 543. Such total simultaneity of the offenses did not occur in Castañeda‘s case.
Accordingly, we conclude that the district court properly denied Castañeda‘s motion to dismiss. The conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol is affirmed.
WALTERS, C.J., and PERRY, J., concur.