ÿWPCV% …# VUNa %¯ 0 (µ4Ýñb 0§ 0D¯ ó û  w ) 0J1 { 0Tƒ 0^× 0h5 0r 0| 0†‹ 0 1u¡ 0d BzU>—B)ÕDCþU*A AMk踒 O2  0@! D3aË”Ç_v~&vÓ¤U:w# AO±#Æ$ 0DÆ$ D/ % B9%˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡R¦"½¬ @ d3|xŸ - ù-(W(2–$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ€>XÛøXXXÔÒ4°ÒÒ„°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó/W DX Y DZ [ D\ ] [^ _ D` a b c Dd De Df Dg Dh )ei Dj k m en Do Up Õ e€  e‚ r‚ƒ D„ e… † ‡ Dˆ D‰ Š ‹ DŒ b bŽ b D ‘ b’ b“ ” Ó€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ! ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d,,,,7Border 1dd< Œ 9p`(Arial€5.Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÞÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÔ€/ÔÔ€/ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€/XÔÌÌò òMay€22,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€/ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ˆÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÔ€/ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòThe€record€reveals€that€the€appellant€was€sentenced€to€11€months€and€29€dayÏincarceration.€€The€trial€judge€did,€however,€state€he€would€consider€a€petition€for€suspendedÏsentence€after€120€days.óóÌ EÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÔ€/ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€/ôÔAlthough€this€Court€does€not€think€similarity€between€a€foreign€state's€DUI€statute€andÏTennessee's€statute€is€required€to€use€the€foreign€conviction€for€enhancement,€we€feel€thatÏGeorgia's€DUI€statute€is€very€similar€to€Tennessee's.€€Both€Georgia€and€Tennessee€prohibit€aÏperson€from€driving€or€being€in€physical€control€of€a€vehicle€while€under€the€influence€of€alcohol€orÏdrugs.€€Furthermore,€in€both€states€proof€of€.10€percent€or€more€concentration€of€alcohol€givesÏrise€to€a€conclusive€presumption€that€the€accused€was€impaired.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„408;ÏGa.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„6„392(b)(4).€€Ô€/XÔÌ –Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÔ€/ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€/ôÔThe€copy€of€the€Georgia€conviction€lacked€a€judge's€signature.€€Furthermore,€it€did€notÏindicate€the€appellant€was€represented€by€counsel€or€waived€her€right€to€counsel.€€€€Ô€/XÔÌ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò$$$$'ÿÿdxd ÁÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÔ€/ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€/ôÔIn€òòMackeyóó,€the€Court€expanded€upon€the€òòBoykinóó€directives.€€In€addition€to€the€òòBoykinóóÏlitany,€defendants€must€be€apprised€of€the€future€enhancement€possibilities€resulting€from€theirÏpleas€of€guilty.Ô€/XÔÌ ½Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÔ€/ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€/ôÔWe€note€that€although€the€appellant's€Georgia€conviction€cannot€be€used€to€classify€herÏas€a€second€offender,€it€can€be€considered€in€determining€the€appropriate€sentence€within€theÏrange€for€first€offense€DUI.€€Ô€/XÔÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular€5‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€+ÔÝ  Ý›Ò 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ќـ€ÙÔ€/ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€01.A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÓ ` ܆XDp”X Óà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€à à€€€€àQ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÓ` °‡XDp”XÓà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à ààQ àà àMARCH€1997€SESSIONó óÌÌÌÌÌà àÓ ` ®DÓò òÌÓ` cÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àó ó)€ÌÓ ` ¸ cÓà àà à)€C.C.A.€No.€€03C01„9608„CR„00307€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àAppellee,à à)Ìà àà à)€Hamilton€CountyÌV.€€€€€€€à à)Ìà àà à)€Honorable€Douglas€A.€Meyer,€JudgeÌò òà àó óà à)ò òÌDONNA€R.€WHALEY,ó óà à)€(DUI€„€Second€Offense)à àà à)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àAppellant.à à)ÌÌÌÌÌÓ` ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌJerry€H.€Summersà àCharles€W.€BursonÌJimmy€F.€Rodgers,€Jr.à àAttorney€General€&€Reporter€ÌAttorneys€at€LawÌ500€Lindsay€Streetà àSandy€R.€CopousÌChattanooga,€TN€37402„1490à àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àWilliam€H.€Cox€IIIÌà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àJohn€Bobo,€Jr.€à àAssistant€District€AttorneyÏGeneralÌà àCity€and€County€BuildingÌà à600€Market€StreetÌà àChattanooga,€TN€37402ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€___________________ÌÌÌò òREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌó óÌÌò òPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,ó óÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÑ  ÑÑ7€–GXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÓ ` ¸ pÓò òÔ  Ôà àà ààQ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÓÓÌÓ ` °§XÓà àThe€appellant,€Donna€R.€Whaley,€was€convicted€of€driving€under€theÏinfluence€(DUI),€second€offense.€€She€was€sentenced€to€11€months€29€days€withÏœprobation€consideration€after€120€days€service.× ƒ2 ××  ×›€€€The€trial€court€ordered€theÏsuspension€of€her€driver's€license€for€two€years€and€the€payment€of€a€$510€fine.€ÏShe€appeals€raising€the€following€issues€for€review:ÌÓÓà8 àI.€€Whether€the€appellant's€prior€DUI€conviction€in€Georgia€can€beÏused€to€enhance€her€current€DUI€charge€because€the€statutes€areÏnot€sufficiently€similar;Ìà8 àÌà8 àII.€€Whether€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„403(1)€is€unconstitutionallyÏoverbroad€and€void€for€vagueness;ÌÌà8 àIII.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€the€appellant€guilty€ofÏsecond€offense€DUI€when€the€record€of€the€conviction€was€faciallyÏinvalid;€and€ÌÌà8 àIV.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€the€appellant'sÏmotion€to€suppress€the€results€of€the€intoximeter€test.ÌÌUpon€review,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€ÌÌÌÌò òÓ  ÓFACTSÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àó óThe€appellant€was€stopped€by€a€Chattanooga€police€officer€for€weavingÏand€driving€at€night€without€lights.€€She€smelled€of€alcohol€and€had€slurredÏspeech.€€She€admitted€to€the€officer€that€she€had€drunk€five€or€six€beers.€€TheÏappellant€failed€three€field€sobriety€tests€and€registered€a€.23€BAC€on€theÏintoximeter€test.€€She€was€charged€with€DUI€and€taken€into€custody.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓIÌÓ  Óó óÌà àIn€her€first€issue€the€appellant€contends€that€her€Georgia€DUI€convictionÏcannot€be€used€to€enhance€her€sentence€because€Georgia's€statute€isÏdissimilar€to€Tennessee's€DUI€statute.€€She€avers€that€the€TennesseeÏlegislature€only€intended€the€use€of€prior,€out„of„state,€€DUI€convictions€fromÏstates€that€have€DUI€statutes€similar€to€Tennessee.€€€Respectfully,€this€CourtÏfinds€the€appellant's€contentions€misguided.€€Furthermore,€we€find€thatÏGeorgia's€DUI€statute€is€substantially€similar€to€Tennessee's.× ƒ3 ××  ×ÌÌà àUpon€review€of€the€plain€language€œof›€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„403(l),Ïwe€find€nothing€suggesting€that€the€DUI€statute€of€a€foreign€state€must€be€similarÏto€that€of€Tennessee's€in€order€to€be€used€as€a€sentence€enhancer.€€It€appearsÏthat€the€state€legislature€simply€intended€to€enhance€the€punishment€for€repeatÏDUI€offenders.€This€Court€has€held€that€a€defendant's€prior€DUI€conviction€fromÏanother€state€could€be€used€to€enhance€the€sentence€for€a€defendant'sÏsubsequent€DUI€conviction€in€Tennessee.€€òòState€v.€Reaóó,€865€S.W.2d€923,€924Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€This€holding€remains€true€regardless€of€how€DUI€isÏdefined€in€a€foreign€state.€€€€€€ÌÌà àA€state€adopts€DUI€laws€for€the€protection€of€its€citizens.€€If€a€personÏcommits€the€offense€of€DUI,€that€person€has€disregarded€the€laws€of€the€stateÏand€endangered€the€lives€of€its€citizens.€€If€a€person€is€convicted€of€DUI€in€aÏforeign€state€the€conviction€should€be€used€to€enhance€a€subsequent€DUI€inÏTennessee.€€A€valid€conviction€from€a€foreign€state€should€not€be€ignored€orÏnegated€simply€because€the€foreign€state's€DUI€statute€contains€dissimilarÏelements€from€Tennessee's€statute.€€Recidivist€offenders€endanger€society.€€DUIÏsentencing€statutes€are€designed€not€only€to€punish€but€to€deter€andÏrehabilitate.€€The€severity€of€the€deterrence€and€rehabilitation€efforts€increaseÏwith€each€subsequent€DUI.€€If€this€Court€held€that€dissimilar€foreign€DUI€statutesÏcould€not€be€used€to€enhance€Tennessee€convictions,€this€policy€of€deterrenceÍwould€be€undermined.€€We,€therefore,€find€the€appellant's€first€issue€withoutÏmerit.€€€ÌÌò òÓ  ÓIIÌÓ  Óó óÌà àIn€her€second€issue€the€appellant€contends€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ì€ðð€55„10„403(l),€the€DUI€enhancing€statute,€is€unconstitutionally€overbroad€andÏvague.€€She€contends€the€absence€of€a€similarity€requirement€between€theÏforeign€state's€DUI€statute€and€Tennessee's€DUI€statute€effectively€allowsÏcreative€and€discriminatory€use€of€the€statute.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àA€statute€is€void€for€vagueness€if€it€is€so€vague,€indefinite,€and€uncertainÏthat€persons€must€speculate€as€to€its€meaning,€and€if€it€fails€to€give€a€person€ofÏordinary€intelligence€fair€notice€that€his€or€her€conduct€is€forbidden€by€theÏstatute.€€òòUnderwood€v.€Stateóó,€529€S.W.2d€45€(Tenn.€1975).€€The€pertinentÏstatute€states:€€"[f]or€the€purposes€of€enhancing€the€punishment€of€a€personÏconvicted€of€violating€55„10„401,€the€state€shall€use€a€conviction€for€the€offenseÏof€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€that€occurred€in€another€state.ðð€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€òòððóó€55„10„403(l)€(1990).€€This€Court€finds€that€this€statute€is€notÏoverbroad€or€vague.€€A€person€of€ordinary€intelligence€should€find€this€statuteÏunmistakably€clear.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌò òà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€à àIIIÌÌó óà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€her€prior€Georgia€DUI€conviction€wasÏinvalid€on€its€face€and€therefore,€could€not€be€used€to€establish€her€status€as€aÏsecond€offense€DUI€offender.€€€The€state€argues€that€the€appellant's€contentionÏis€moot€because€she€explicitly€stipulated€to€the€fact€that€she€had€been€convictedÏin€Georgia€of€DUI.€€€It€argues€that€the€appellant€should€not€now€be€allowed€toÏÑ Ð Ñœassert›€that€the€Georgia€conviction€was€facially€invalid.€€From€a€fairnessÏviewpoint,€we€agree€with€the€state.€€However,€in€light€of€òòState€v.€McClintockóó,€732ÏS.W.2d€268€(Tenn.€1987),€we€must€agree€with€the€appellant.€€In€the€òòMcClintockóóÏcase,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€announced€that€a€facially€invalid€judgmentÏcould€not€be€used€to€enhance€punishment€in€a€subsequent€prosecution.€€òòId.óó€atÏ272.€€In€this€case€the€evidence€offered€by€the€state€to€prove€the€appellant's€priorÏGeorgia€conviction€was€facially€invalid.œ× ƒ4 ××  ×›€€€Had€the€previous€conviction€beenÏfrom€a€Tennessee€court,€the€facially€deficient€document€could€not€form€a€basisÏfor€enhancement€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ55„10„403(g)(1)€(Tenn.€1993).€ÏTenn.›€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„403(g)(2)€should€be€read€in€conjunction€with€„(g)(1).€ÏThis€Court€believes€the€General€Assembly€did€not€intend€to€give€credence€toÏfacially€invalid€foreign€convictions€when€a€court€would€not€do€so€with€a€similarÏTennessee€conviction.€€Although,€as€the€state€points€out,€the€appellantÏstipulated€that€she€was€convicted€of€DUI€in€Georgia,€she€did€not€stipulate€thatÏthe€conviction€was€facially€valid€or€that€it€met€the€constitutional€requirements€ofÏòòBoykin€v.€Alabamaóó,€395€U.S.€238€(1969)€or€the€rules€of€òòState€v.€Mackeyóó,€553ÍS.W.2d€337€(Tenn.€1977).× ƒ9 ××  ×€€Accordingly,€the€appellant's€Georgia€convictionÏcannot€be€used€to€enhance€her€current€conviction€to€DUI,€second€offense.€€TheÏappellant€is,€however,€convicted€of€DUI,€first€offense.€€The€trial€court€shallÏsentence€the€appellant€accordingly.€× ƒ: ××  ×€€€Ì€Ìò òà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€à àIVÌÌà àó óIn€her€final€issue€the€appellant€alleges€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€toÏsuppress€the€blood€alcohol€evidence€obtained€through€an€intoximeter€œtestÏbecause›€the€implied€consent€form€was€vague€and€misleading.€€The€appellantÏÑ ° Ñœcontends›€that€the€form€she€signed€failed€to€inform€her€of€the€consequences€ofÏsubmitting€to€such€a€test.€€As€a€result,€the€appellant€asks€this€Court€to€find€theÏimplied€consent€form€unconstitutional.€€We€decline€to€do€so.€ÌÌà àThe€implied€consent€form€unambiguously€states:€ÌÓÓà8 à[y]ou€are€under€arrest€and€there€are€reasonable€grounds€toÏbelieve€you€were€driving€or€in€physical€control€of€a€motor€vehicleÏwhile€under€the€influence€of€alcohol€and/or€drugs.€€As€requiredÏunder€T.C.A.€55„10„406,€I€am€hereby€requesting€you€to€submit€to€aÏchemical€test€to€determine€the€alcohol€and/or€drug€content€of€yourÏblood.Ì€€€ÌÓÓThe€form€clearly€indicates€that€the€purpose€of€the€test€is€to€determine€the€drugÏand€alcohol€content€of€the€accused's€blood.€€If€the€results€of€this€test€were€notÏgoing€to€be€used€to€prosecute€the€charged€crime,€there€would€be€no€purpose€forÏadministering€the€test.€€€This€Court€has€held€that€admonitions€prior€to€submittingÏto€a€blood€alcohol€test€are€not€required€to€sustain€a€valid€consent.€€òòKing€v.€Stateóó,Ï598€S.W.2d€834€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€The€average€person€understandsÏthat€the€results€of€a€intoximeter€test€will€be€used€against€them.€€The€form€isÏneither€vague€nor€misleading.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓ  Óà àà àCONCLUSIONÌÓ  Óó óÌà àAfter€reviewing€the€record€and€the€issues€presented€for€review,€weÏreverse€the€appellant's€conviction€for€DUI,€second€offense.€€However,€she€isÏconvicted€of€DUI,€first€offense.€€We€remand€the€case€for€resentencing.€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€Special€Judge