State v. Robert Sission
Docket: W2001-01666-CCA-R3-CD
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; August 22, 1999; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Robert A. Sisson pleaded guilty to third offense driving under the influence (D.U.I.) and received a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, including 120 days of actual incarceration followed by probation. He reserved a certified question for appeal regarding whether the 1998 amendments to Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-403 (a)(1), which extended the use of prior D.U.I. convictions from ten to twenty years for penalty enhancement, violated the ex post facto and due process clauses of the federal and state constitutions. The court found no violations, affirming the conviction since Sisson committed the offense after the amendments took effect. Sisson's prior convictions occurred on December 7, 1987, and February 28, 1996, and he argued that he was misled about the enhancement period applicable to those convictions, believing it to be ten years. He filed a motion to dismiss the enhancement of his current offense based on this belief, which the trial court denied. The court explained that under the current law, the enhancement for multiple D.U.I. offenses applies if prior offenses occurred within ten years of the current violation, thus supporting the enhancement of Sisson's sentence as a third offense D.U.I. The code prohibits using a conviction that occurred more than twenty years prior for enhancing penalties under Tenn. Code Ann. 55-10-403 (a)(3), 1997, Supp. 2001. Under the previous 1987 statute, no D.U.I. convictions beyond ten years could be considered for enhancement, indicating a change in the law. The defendant argues that these amendments infringe on due process rights and ex post facto protections; however, courts have consistently rejected such claims. Relevant case law establishes that enhancement statutes do not punish past offenses but rather increase penalties for the current offense, thus complying with constitutional requirements. The defendant's third offender D.U.I. sentencing relates to a conviction dated July 9, 2001, and he does not challenge the accuracy of prior legal advice received. Prior convictions do not prevent new legislation from taking effect. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.