WPC| 7# U: %W 0]w@a4 0H 0D 0JX 0T 0^ 0hT 0r 0|. 0 00 1u 0d5 0@ D3 B U *) AQS 0Dj 0D D/ B!B)>DCg AM{Xv~+vHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLH,  AZ"Arial RegularX(g$XTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7YXXdXXd7    D{eӀ*#3|x((3Gb$ g!XTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdd7        0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X("$    $$$$'dxd d<  9p`(Arial*+ ,-C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ($$   1  ..' dxdP Pd% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd* 0C << G  !  #d#(      X \RA'\#d#     +"  (   YYY FILED(X September10,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.(AppellateCourtClerk  q !#d#(      X \RA'\#d#      $       (In1995,thelegislatureamendedthestatutetopermitdistrictattorneystoseekhabitualmotorvehicleoffenderstatusagainstanoffenderatthesameproceedingwhichdeterminestheguiltorinnocenceontheoffensemakingtheoffendereligibleforthisstatus.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.5510618(b)(Supp.1996).Thisamendmentsimplyprovidedanalternativeprocedure;theStatemaystillpursuethisclassificationoftheoffenderinaseparateproceeding.Tenn.CodeAnn.5510618(a)(Supp.1996).  !#d#(      X \RA'\#d#      $       (Werealizethattheseopinionswerenotreleaseduntilafterappellantsbriefwerefiled.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ! . (      X \RA'\#Xd##Xd#     ݛ*R120A1-j|` , `@Rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATJACKSON@ APRIL1997SESSIONSTATEOFTENNESSEE,   ) No.02C019611CR00393      ) Appellee    )       ) SHELBYCOUNTYV.      )      ) HON.JAMESC.BEASLEY,JR.,SAMMYL.GOLDEN,   ) JUDGE      ) Appellant.    ) (HabitualMotorVehicleOffender)      )       )FortheAppellant:     FortheAppellee:JosephS.Ozment     JohnKnoxWalkup217ExchangeAvenue    AttorneyGeneralandReporterMemphis,TN38103              JanisL.Turner       AssistantAttorneyGeneral       450JamesRobertsonParkway       Nashville,TN372430493       JohnW.Pierotti       DistrictAttorneyGeneral       LeeV.Coffee       AssistantDistrictAttorney       201PoplarStreet       Suite301       Memphis,TN38103OPINIONFILED:___________________AFFIRMEDWilliamM.Barker,Judge@ OPINION  Appellant,SammyL.Golden,appealsasofrighttheShelbyCountyCriminalCourtsorderdeclaringhimanhabitualmotorvehicleoffender.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.5510601to618.Onappeal,hecontendsthattheprocedureoutlinedintheHabitualMotorVehicleOffenderAct( theAct)violatestheconstitutionalprotectionagainstdoublejeopardy.Healsochallengesa1991amendmenttotheActastheapplicationofanexpostfactolaw.Wefindnomerittoeitherofappellantsargumentsandaffirmtherulingofthetrialcourt. AtthehearingontheStatespetitiontodeclareappellantanhabitualoffender,theStateofferedproofthatappellantwasconvictedofdrivingundertheinfluencein1990andagainin1992.In1995,appellantwasconvictedofrecklessdriving.ThecombinationofthesethreeoffensesinafiveyearperiodwassufficientundertheActforsuspensionofappellantsdriverslicenseanddeclarationasanhabitualmotorvehicleoffender.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.5510603(2)(A)(Supp.1996).IncontestingtheStatespetition,appellantfiledamotiontodismissbasedupondoublejeopardygrounds.Afteracceptingproofandhearingargument,thetrialcourtoverruledthemotionanddeclaredappellantanhabitualmotorvehicleoffender. Appellantarguesthattheinstitutionofaseparateproceedingtoadjudicateanindividualasanhabitualmotorvehicleoffender,afterconvictionandsentencehavebeenpronouncedonthetriggeringcriminalacts,violatesprinciplesofdoublejeopardy.AppellantdoesnotrefutetheStatesauthoritytodepriveapersonoftheprivilegetodrive,ratherheattacksthedeprivationwhenaccomplishedinaseparateproceeding. 3   ׀ OursupremecourthaspreviouslyaddressedthedoublejeopardyargumentundertheAct.Statev.Conley,639S.W.2d435(Tenn.1982).InConley,thecourtsaidthataproceedingtodeclareadefendantanhabitualoffenderandrevokehisdrivingprivilegesdoesnotsubjecttheoffendertodoublejeopardy.Idat437.Thecourtexplainedthattheprohibitedmultiple punishmentattheheartofdoublejeopardyisthedeprivationofthelibertyofapersonortheimpositionofafinewheninflictedtovindicatepublicjustice.Idat436.Sincerevocationofadriverslicenseisnothingmorethandeprivationofaprivilege,whichisremedialinnatureandnotintendedtohavetheeffectofimposingpunishment,thereisnodoublejeopardy.Id.Wefindnothingsignificantaboutthefactthatthewithdrawalofthisprivilegemaybeaccomplishedinaseparateproceeding. AppellanturgesustoreconsidertheholdingofConleyinlightofmorerecentUnitedStatesSupremeCourtauthorityondoublejeopardy.SeeMontanaDepartmentofRevenuev.KurthRanch,511U.S.767,114S.Ct.1937,128L.Ed.2d767(1994);UnitedStatesv.Halper,490U.S.435,109S.Ct.1892,104L.Ed.2d487(1989).Contrarytoappellantsassertion,panelsofthisCourthavereconsideredtheholdingofConleyinlightofthisauthorityandreiterateditsvalidity. 4   ׀SeeStatev.MiltonSpears,Jr.,No.02C019606CR00197(Tenn.Crim.App.atJackson,July10,1997);Statev.RandyA.McClureandTeddyG.Ownby,No.03C019605CC00198(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,January29,1997).SeealsoStatev.JonathanMalady,No.02C019506CR00166(Tenn.Crim.App.atJackson,July26,1996)(upholdingConleyinlightofauthorityondoublejeopardyandcivilforfeitures).Insimilarfashion,webelievetherationaleandholdingofConleyremainssound.Moreover,weareboundbyrulingsofoursupremecourt.̀ InMcClure,apanelofthisCourtevaluatedtheActinlightofHalperandalsoconsideredrecentSupremeCourtauthorityondoublejeopardyinthecontextofcivilforfeituresofproperty.Inanalogizingtocivilforfeitureprocedures,apanelofthisCourtheldthattheforfeitureofadriverslicense,acivilproceedingintendedtoberemedialinnatureandnotpunitive,doesnotviolateprinciplesofdoublejeopardy.Slipop.at4.InSpears,apanelofthisCourtspecificallyconsideredtheConleyholdingintermsofHalperandKurthRanchandfoundnothingtoindicatethatsuchauthoritywouldchangetheholdingofConley.WeagreethattheauthorityuponwhichtheappellantrelieswouldnotalteroursupremecourtsholdinginConley. AppellantalsocontendsthatapplicationoftheActtohisoffenseviolatestheprohibitionagainstexpostfactolaws.TheActwasamendedin1991andenlargedtoencompassoffenderswhoaccumulatedthreeoftheenumeratedoffenseswithinafiveyearperiod.Tenn.CodeAnn.5510603(2)(A)(Supp.1992).Becauseoneofappellantsqualifyingconvictionsoccurredpriorto1991,appellantarguesthatapplicationofthestatutetohimconstitutesanexpostfactolaw.Thisargumentiswithoutmerit. Theconstitutionalprohibitionagainstexpostfactolawsappliesonlytopenalstatuteswhichpunishtheoffenderandareinapplicabletocivilpenalties.Statev.CarlG.Laney,etal,No.03C019303CR00088(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,November23,1993).Asdiscussedabove,thedeclarationofanindividualasanhabitualoffenderisconsideredacivilpenalty,notacriminalprosecution.Conley,639S.W.2dat437.SeealsoBankstonv.State,815S.W.2d213,215(Tenn.Crim.App.1991).Therefore,anycontentionthatapplicationofthestatuteisanexpostfactolawisuntenable. AppellantarguesthattherationaleofLaneyisinapplicable,reasoningthattheActdoesimposeapunishment sincethelegislaturehasnowdeterminedthatthedeclarationisasentenceandasentenceequatestopunishment.Thiscontentionisnotsupportedbythecitationofauthorityandweareunawareofanysuchindicationbythelegislature.TheholdingofLaneyremainsvalidandtheapplicationofthestatutetoappellantdoesnotviolatetheprovisionagainstexpostfactolaws. Weconcludethatbothofappellantsargumentsaredevoidofmeritandaffirmtheorderofthetrialcourtdeclaringappellantanhabitualmotorvehicleoffender.       _______________________________       WilliamM.Barker,Judge____________________________JosephM.Tipton,Judge____________________________DavidG.Hayes,Judge