State v. White
| Decision Date | 24 April 2001 |
| Citation | 769 A.2d 827,2001 ME 65 |
| Parties | STATE of Maine v. Joshua WHITE. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Geoffrey A. Rushlau, District Attorney, Leane Zainea, Deputy Dist. Atty., Belfast, for State.
Jeffrey C. Toothaker, Esq., Toothaker & Chong, Ellsworth, for defendant.
Panel: WATHEN, C.J., and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, SAUFLEY, ALEXANDER, and CALKINS, JJ.
[¶ 1] Defendant, Joshua White, appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (Waldo County, Hjelm, J.) affirming a judgment entered on a guilty plea in the District Court (Belfast, Nivison, J.) finding defendant guilty of operating after suspension (Class E), 29-A M.R.S.A. § 2412-A(1) (1996 & Supp.2000) and finding him subject to the minimum mandatory sentence provisions set forth in 29-A M.R.S.A. § 2412-A(3) (Supp.2000). Defendant contends that the minimum mandatory sentence did not apply. Finding no error, we affirm.
[¶ 2] The relevant facts may be summarized as follows: In August 1998, when defendant was 19 years old, his driver's license was suspended for one year for operating a motor vehicle "with any amount of alcohol in the blood" pursuant to the juvenile provisional license statute, 29-A M.R.S.A. § 2472(3) (Supp.2000). In July 1999, defendant was stopped and arrested for operating after suspension pursuant to 29-A M.R.S.A. § 2412-A(1) (1996 & Supp.2000). Defendant pleaded guilty. The court determined that defendant was subject to the minimum mandatory sentence provisions of section 2412-A(3) because his underlying suspension was for an OUI. The court sentenced him to imprisonment for a term of seven days, imposed a fine of $500, and suspended his license for a period of one year. Defendant timely appealed the sentence to the Superior Court and it affirmed. Defendant now appeals.
[¶ 3] Before reaching the merits, we first determine that the matter is cognizable on direct appeal. Defendant may challenge his sentence as a matter of right if he has alleged a jurisdictional infirmity, and he may do so on direct appeal if that "`jurisdiction infirmity' appears on the record so plainly as to preclude rational disagreement as to its existence." State v. Cunningham, 1998 ME 167, ¶ 5, 715 A.2d 156 (quoting State v. Parker, 372 A.2d 570, 572 (Me.1977)). Although, in the present case, it was within the court's general authority to sentence defendant for the Class E offense of operating after suspension to the same length of imprisonment and the same amount of fine even if the mandatory provisions had not applied, 17-A M.R.S.A. §§ 1152, 1252(2)(E), 1301(1-A)(E) (1983 & Supp.2000), it was beyond the court's authority to suspend defendant's license for one year in the absence of the court's determination that the minimum mandatory provisions applied; compare 29-A M.R.S.A. § 2412-A(1) with § 2412-A(3).
[¶ 4] Defendant contends that the court misinterpreted the minimum mandatory sentence provisions of 29-A M.R.S.A. § 2412-A(3). He argues that the sentence provisions do not apply to a person whose license was suspended for consuming "any quantity of alcohol," but was never convicted of OUI. When the Superior Court acts as an intermediate appellate court, we review the District Court directly. State v. Black, 2000 ME 211, ¶ 13, 763 A.2d 109. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law. State v. Day, 2000 ME 192, ¶ 5, 760 A.2d 1039 (citation omitted). "A criminal statute must be strictly construed." Id. (citation omitted). To construe the statute in question and to give effect to the Legislature's intent, we will look to the statute's plain meaning, avoiding absurd, illogical, or inconsistent results. State v. Spaulding, 1998 ME 29, ¶ 7, 707 A.2d 378. We will "`consider the whole statutory scheme for which the section at issue forms a part so that a harmonious result, presumably the intent of the Legislature, may be achieved.'" State v. Day, 2000 ME 192, ¶ 5, 760 A.2d 1039 (citations omitted). We will also interpret statutes as being free from unnecessary and superfluous language. State v. Tauvar, 461 A.2d 1065, 1067 (Me.1983).
[¶ 5] The relevant minimum mandatory sentence for operating after suspension provides as follows:
3. Minimum mandatory sentences for certain suspension. If the [underlying] suspension was for OUI or an OUI offense, the court shall impose a minimum fine of $500, a term of imprisonment of 7 consecutive days and a suspension of license of not less than one year nor more than 3 years consecutive to the original suspension. The penalties may not be suspended.
29-A M.R.S.A. § 2412-A(3) (Supp.2000). "OUI" is statutorily defined as follows:
8. OUI. "OUI" means operating under the influence of intoxicants or with an excessive blood-alcohol level under section 2411, 2453, 2454, 2456, 2457 or 2472.
29-A M.R.S.A. § 2401(8) (1996). Section 2472 is the juvenile provisional license statute, which provides in pertinent part as follows:
29-A M.R.S.A. § 2472(3) (Supp.2000).
[¶ 6] Contrary to defendant's contention, excessive blood-alcohol as referred to in section 2401(8) is not confined to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Falcone
...which the section at issue forms a part so that a harmonious result, presumably the intent of the Legislature, may be achieved." State v. White, 2001 ME 65, ¶ 4, 769 A.2d 827, [¶ 6] To find a statute unconstitutionally vague, we must find that the statute "fails to define the criminal offen......
-
Sold, Inc. v. Town of Gorham
...result, presumably the intent of the Legislature, may be achieved." State v. Burby, 2003 Me 95, ¶ 4, 828 A.2d 796 (citing State v. White, 2001 ME 65, P4, A.2d 827, 828-29). Here, a reading of § 4354 must be coupled with a reading of the definition of impact fees provided in § 4301 (6-A). 'I......
-
State v. Lowden, Docket No. Yor–13–250.
...This runs afoul of the rules of construction by making the crime of criminal attempt redundant, yet carrying a lesser penalty. See State v. White, 2001 ME 65, ¶ 4, 769 A.2d 827 (stating that statutes will be interpretedas being free of “unnecessary and superfluous language”). [¶ 19] We will......
-
State v. McLaughlin
...a matter of law, de novo. Hailu v. Simonds, 2001 ME 155, ¶ 8, 784 A.2d 1, 3. We "must ... strictly" construe criminal statutes. State v. White, 2001 ME 65, ¶ 4, 769 A.2d 827, 828. Section 1251(1) provides in pertinent part: "A person commits an offense of operating a motor vehicle without a......