State v. Williams
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. NO. COA12-1097 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 3 December 2013 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Pasquotank County No. 09-CRS-50937 DENNIS ANTHONY WILLIAMS Appeal by defendant from order entered 20 March 2012 by Judge Walter H. Godwin, Jr. in Pasquotank County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 February 2013. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Christopher W. Brooks, for the State. Teague & Glover, P.A., by Danny Glover, Jr., for defendantappellant. HUNTER, Robert C., Judge. Defendant Dennis Anthony Williams appeals the trial court s order denying his motion to dismiss his driving while impaired ( DWI ) charge. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred because: (1) prosecuting him for DWI violated double jeopardy; and (2) disqualification of his commercial driver s license ( CDL ) violated due process. Based on our Supreme -2Court s opinion in State v. McKenzie, __ N.C. __, 748 S.E.2d 145 (2013), we affirm in part and reverse and remand in part the trial court s order. Background Defendant was charged with DWI on 23 May 2009. At the time he was charged, defendant was driving his personal vehicle. Defendant was given a chemical analysis test, and he registered a 0.17. Defendant Pasquotank sentenced County to 60 was convicted District Court days the 25 of February 2010 impaired driving Defendant imprisonment. 2010, on appealed in and to Superior Court. On 9 defendant April a letter Division informing him of Motor that his Vehicles CDL would sent be automatically disqualified for one year pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-17.4(a)(7). The disqualification was effective on 19 April 2010 and would end 19 April 2011. On 7 March 2011, defendant filed a motion to dismiss in Superior Court alleging that his criminal prosecution for DWI constituted a violation of double jeopardy and contending that the failure to provide him with a method to appeal the CDL disqualification violated due process. defendant s motion to dismiss, The trial court denied concluding that the -3disqualification of his CDL constituted a civil revocation, not a criminal charging clause. to punishment, him with DWI for double did not jeopardy violate purposes. the double Thus, jeopardy In addition, the trial court concluded that the failure provide defendant with a method to appeal the disqualification did not violate due process. On 20 March 2012, the The jury found defendant guilty of DWI. trial court sentenced defendant to 60 days imprisonment but suspended his sentence for 12 months of unsupervised probation. Defendant appealed. Arguments On appeal, defendant argues that prosecuting him for DWI in addition to revoking his CDL pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 2017.4(a)(7) subjects him to multiple punishments for the same offense in violation of the double jeopardy clause. Additionally, defendant contends that disqualification of his CDL without notice and the opportunity for a hearing violates his substantive and procedural due process rights. Arguments identical to defendant s were recently raised in State v. McKenzie, __ N.C. App. __, 736 S.E.2d 591 (2013) (J. Robert C. Hunter dissenting). In McKenzie, the defendant s CDL was disqualified after he was charged with DWI. Id. at __, 736 -4S.E.2d at 593-94. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals concluded that the automatic CDL disqualification constituted a prior criminal punishment after applying the two-part test outlined in Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 99, 139 L. Ed. 2d 450, 459 (1997). Id. at __, 736 S.E.2d at 598. Therefore, prosecuting the defendant for DWI violated double jeopardy. However, in concluding his that dissent, the CDL Judge Robert disqualification C. Hunter 736 S.E.2d at 603. disagreed, constituted sanction, not a criminal one, under the Hudson test. Id. a civil Id. at __, Thus, the disqualification and the criminal DWI prosecution did not constitute multiple punishments for the same offense, and the defendant s jeopardy was not violated. protection against double Id. With regard to defendant s second argument, the McKenzie majority held that the defendant s due process claim was moot because the defendant s period of disqualification had already ended prior to his appeal. However, in the dissent, Id. at __, 736 S.E.2d at 598-99. after applying an exception to the mootness doctrine, Judge Robert C. Hunter noted that the CDL disqualification and the defendant s separate and distinct proceedings. 603. DWI conviction were two Id. at __, 736 S.E.2d at Thus, the defendant was improperly attempting to raise a -5civil due process claim in an appeal of his criminal DWI charge, and the trial court erred in ruling on this issue as it had no jurisdiction to address it. Id. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-30(2), the matter was appealed to our Supreme Court. Supreme Court reversed and In a per curiam opinion, the remanded the matter back to the Superior Court for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion. McKenzie, __ N.C. at __, 748 S.E.2d at 145. Therefore, with regard to the issue of double jeopardy, we affirm the trial court s order denying defendant s motion to dismiss because sanction, not a the CDL disqualification criminal punishment. constituted Thus, conviction did not violate double jeopardy. a civil defendant s DWI With regard to defendant s substantive and procedural due process claims, while reiterating the concern noted by both the McKenzie majority and dissent that the failure to provide defendant with any mechanism to challenge the CDL disqualification may violate due process, we will not address this issue as it was improperly raised in defendant s criminal trial. Therefore, the Superior Court erred in addressing this argument, and we reverse and remand this matter back to the Superior consistent with this opinion. Court for entry of an order -6Conclusion Based on the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court s order denying jeopardy. defendant s motion to dismiss based on double With regard to defendant s due process claims, we reverse and remand the matter back to the Superior Court for entry of an order consistent with this opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART. Judges McCULLOUGH and DAVIS concur. Report per Rule 30(e).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
