# FILED
April 22, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JA CKSON FEBRUARY

1998 SESSION

STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) C.C.A. NO. 02C 01-9704-CR-00153 Appellee, ) ) SHELBY COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. JOHN P. COLTON, JR. CHARLES E. TAYLOR, ) JUDGE ) Appellant. ) (Habitual Motor Vehicle Offender)

FOR THE APPE LLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: A C WHARTON, JR. JOHN KNOX WALKUP Public Defender Attorney General & Repor ter WALKER GWINN ELI ZABE TH T. RYAN Asst. Public Defender Asst. Attorney General 201 Poplar, Suite 201 425 Fifth Ave., North Memphis, TN 38103 Cordell Hull Bldg., Second Fl. Nashville, TN 37243-0493 JOHN W. PIEROTTI District Attorney General ALANDA

HORNE Asst. District Attor

ney General 201 Poplar, Suite 301 Memphis, TN 38103

OPINION FILED:____________________

AFFIRMED JOHN H. PEAY, Judge1 In its b rief, th e Sta te arg ues that th e def end ant fa iled to time ly file his Notic e of A ppe al. Th is conten tion is in error. A n order w as ente red on D ecem ber 2, 19 96, denying the defe ndant’s m otion to dism iss th e Sta te’s p etition . How ever , the o rder actu ally dec laring the d efen dan t a ha bitua l mo tor ve hicle offender was not

entered unti l December 10, 1996. I t is fr om this latt

er date that

the ti me for fili ng a Notice o f Appea l begins. T he defe ndant filed his notice o n Janu ary 9, 1997 . This is within the thirty days as tim e is com puted un der T.R .A.P. Ru le 21(a). 2 O P I N I O N

The defend ant was de clared a h abitual motor ve hi cle offender on December

10, 1996. He now appeals and a rgues that s uch a d eclaration violated the double jeopardy provisi ons of the state and federal constitution s. He does not contest the underlying facts which led him to be declared such an offend er. 1

The Habi tual Motor Vehicle Offenders Act seek s to deny the privilege of opera tin g a motor vehicle to those w ho have demonstrated “their indifference to the safety and welfare of others and their disrespect for the law s of the state.” T.C.A. § 55-10-602(2). The defendant was convicted of four drivingoffenses between January 1991 and June 1995, thus he falls wi thin the statutory definition of a habitual offende r. T.C.A. § 55-10-603(2).

The defendant now argues that his being declared a habit u al offender is violat ive of the due process clause. He ar gues that he was conv icted of four offenses and was punished according ly. He further contends he “has already suffered mandatory temporaryrevocation of his drivers license” and is now being punished a second time for the same conduct.

The SupremeCourt of Tennesseehas addressed this very issue and has determi ne d that the revocation of driving privileges under the Habitual Motor Vehicle Offenders Act does not subject one to doubl e jeopardy. State v. Conley, 639 S.W.2d3

435, 437 (Tenn. 1982). The defendant, howe ver, invites this Court to reconsider the Conley case using the a nalysis o f a more recent United States Supr eme Court case, United States v. Halper , 490 U.S. 435 (1989). This Court has previously performed such
an analysis and has concluded that even under the most rec ent federal cases, a defendant’s declaration as a habitual motor vehicle offender and subsequent revocation of his license is not violative of his right against double jeopardy as provide d by both the federal and state constitutions. State v. Jeffery L. Becton , No. 02C01-9611-CR-00431, Shelby C ounty (Tenn. Crim. App. filed Dec. 3, 1997, at Jackson)(no perm. app. f iled); State v. Milton Spears, Jr. , No. 02C01-9606-CR-00197, Sh elby County (Tenn. Cr im. App. filed July 10, 1997)(no perm. app . filed); State v. Randy A. McClure and Teddy G. Ownby , No. 03C01-9605-CC-00198, Se vier County (Tenn. C rim. App. filed J an. 29, 1997 , at Knoxville)(no perm. app. filed). The judgment of the c ourt below is affirmed.

______________________________ JOHN H. PEAY, Judge

CONCUR:

______________________________ JOSEPH B. JONES, Judge

______________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, Judge