Pickens v. State, No. 82A04-0101-CR-6.

Docket NºNo. 82A04-0101-CR-6.
Citation751 N.E.2d 331
Case DateJuly 10, 2001
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

751 N.E.2d 331

Maria E. PICKENS, Appellant-Defendant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff

No. 82A04-0101-CR-6.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

July 10, 2001.


751 N.E.2d 333
Mark A. Foster, Evansville, Indiana, Attorney for Appellant

Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Ellen H. Meilaender, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellee.

751 N.E.2d 332
OPINION

MATTINGLY-MAY, Judge

Maria Pickens appeals her conviction after a bench trial of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a Class A misdemeanor.1 She raises three issues on appeal; we consolidate and restate those issues as two: 1) whether Pickens' detention under Ind. Code § 35-33-1-62 and subsequent trial and conviction subjected her to double jeopardy, and 2) whether Pickens' conviction is supported by sufficient evidence. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In the early morning of September 17, 1999, Sheriff's deputies in Vanderburgh County observed Pickens driving a car erratically, crossing the center line, and almost hitting mailboxes. After stopping Pickens, the deputies noticed she smelled of alcohol and had bloodshot eyes. Pickens was confused and was unable to produce her license and registration when deputies requested them. Pickens failed three field sobriety tests, and the officers arrested her at 2:38 a.m. Pickens had an asthma attack while en route to the jail, so the officers took her to the hospital. A blood alcohol test taken at the hospital showed Pickens' blood serum alcohol content to be .220%.

After she posted bond, Pickens was held until 5:30 p.m. on September 17. She was

751 N.E.2d 334
subsequently charged with operating while intoxicated

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

1. Double Jeopardy

We first consider whether Pickens' detention on the day of her arrest combined with her later trial and conviction subjected her to double jeopardy. Pickens argues that the detention did subject her to double jeopardy, as she was punished twice (on separate occasions) for the same offense. In addition to her conviction and sentence, Pickens was detained on September 17, 1999, from 9:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m., or from the time she posted bond until she was presumably sober.3

We decline to find that a detention pursuant to Ind.Code § 35-33-1-6 is a "punishment" for double jeopardy purposes. The detention instead served the function of protecting the general public from Pickens while she was still intoxicated.

Additionally, we note that jeopardy does not attach until there exists an actual risk of trial and conviction:

Although the Fifth Amendment declares that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, this constitutional prohibition is not against being twice punished, but is against twice being put in jeopardy ... The Double Jeopardy Clause thus refers to the risk that a person will, for a second time, be convicted of the same offense ... see also Price v. Georgia, 398 U.S. 323, 90 S.Ct. 1757, 26 L.Ed.2d 300 (1970) (jeopardy is the risk of trial and conviction, not punishment). These cases are consonant with the well-known rule that jeopardy attaches when a jury has been impaneled and sworn.

Bryant v. State, 660 N.E.2d 290, 299 (Ind. 1995). Therefore, jeopardy would not attach for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
107 practice notes
  • Patel v. State, No. 71A04–1504–CR–166.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • July 22, 2016
    ...“[T]he evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict.” Pickens v. State, 751 N.E.2d 331, 334 (Ind.Ct.App.2001). “ ‘A reasonable inference of guilt must be more than a mere suspicion, conjecture, conclusion, guess, opportunity, or scintilla.’ ”......
  • Kirk v. State , No. 49A02–1110–CR–979.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 24, 2012
    ...“The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict.” Id. (quoting Pickens v. State, 751 N.E.2d 331, 334 (Ind.Ct.App.2001)).A. Neglect of a Dependent To convict Kirk of neglect of a dependent as a Class C felony, the State was required to prove......
  • Ackerman v. State, No. 29A02-0111-CR-745.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 12, 2002
    ...the odor of alcohol on the breath; (5) unsteady balance; (6) failure of field sobriety tests; and (7) slurred speech. Pickens v. State, 751 N.E.2d 331, 335 (Ind. The evidence of Ackerman's intoxication is overwhelming. Ackerman admitted to consuming two chocolate martinis, see Appellant's A......
  • Green v. State, No. 82A01–1411–CR–474.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 23, 2015
    ...evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict.” Id. at 147 (quoting Pickens v. State, 751 N.E.2d 331, 334 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) ).[30] A person who knowingly or intentionally manufactures methamphetamine, pure or adulterated, commits dealing in me......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
110 cases
  • Ackerman v. State, No. 29A02-0111-CR-745.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 12, 2002
    ...the odor of alcohol on the breath; (5) unsteady balance; (6) failure of field sobriety tests; and (7) slurred speech. Pickens v. State, 751 N.E.2d 331, 335 (Ind. The evidence of Ackerman's intoxication is overwhelming. Ackerman admitted to consuming two chocolate martinis, see Appellant's A......
  • Patel v. State, No. 71A04–1504–CR–166.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • July 22, 2016
    ...“[T]he evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict.” Pickens v. State, 751 N.E.2d 331, 334 (Ind.Ct.App.2001). “ ‘A reasonable inference of guilt must be more than a mere suspicion, conjecture, conclusion, guess, opportunity, or scintilla.’ ”......
  • Kirk v. State , No. 49A02–1110–CR–979.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 24, 2012
    ...“The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict.” Id. (quoting Pickens v. State, 751 N.E.2d 331, 334 (Ind.Ct.App.2001)).A. Neglect of a Dependent To convict Kirk of neglect of a dependent as a Class C felony, the State was required to prove......
  • Thompson v. State, No. 49A05–1106–CR–323.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 29, 2012
    ...). "The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict." Id. (quoting Pickens v. State, 751 N.E.2d 331, 334 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) ).Thompson challenges his conviction for Dealing in Cocaine, as a Class A felony. In order to obtain a conviction, the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT