Criminal Court Judge Gary McKenzie has taken under advisement a motion filed by Crossville attorney Randal Boston that claims his client’s constitutional rights were violated when he pleaded guilty in Municipal Court without benefit of legal counsel being provided.
Christopher Dean Thomas is in Criminal Court facing charges of second offense DUI, per se, and reckless endangerment in connection with his Dec. 4, 2019, arrest by a Crossville Police officer.
That officer also cited Thomas into Crossville Municipal Court on a charge of failure to maintain a lane of travel.
McKenzie described the practice of citing a citizen into Municipal Court and charging that person in state court for the same event as “poor policy,” which creates legal issues for judges and defense attorneys.
The problem, as Boston sees it, is that municipal courts are a creation of the state legislature with appointed judges, as opposed to state courts where judges are elected.
The additional difference is limited authority of municipal courts coupled with those courts not required to appoint legal counsel to advise defendants and protect their rights. State courts are mandated through the Miranda ruling to provide an attorney for a defendant if that person cannot afford one.
In the case of Dean, Boston argued, his client was arrested on Dec. 4, 2019, with charges filed in two different courts. On May 20, 2020, Dean pleaded guilty in city court — without benefit of counsel — to failure to maintain a lane of travel.
On Oct. 1, 2020, Dean was indicted by the Cumberland County Grand Jury on the charges of second-offense DUI, per se, and reckless endangerment.
The problem for Boston — and the court — is failure to maintain a lane of travel is an element of DUI. With Dean having pleaded guilty to that charge, Boston said motions to challenge the traffic stop and to defend Dean have been taken away.
“His Sixth Amendment constitutional rights are affected,” Boston argued. “I can’t proceed on motions … there is no other fix than to dismiss the charges … it is the only remedy for my client.”
To support his position, Boston cited a city of Franklin Municipal Court case during which a defendant was convicted of DUI and later was prosecuted in state court under the old habitual motor vehicle offender law. The habitual offender law was based, in part, on the municipal court’s actions.
Assistant District Attorney Rachel Bateman noted a blood alcohol content test showed .24% which is more than double the legal amount of alcohol in one’s system that constitutes DUI. That evidence is unrelated to the city court plea.
McKenzie pondered the issue, noting Dean was “made to go into two different courts … not asked if he needed or wanted an attorney … city court does not have power to appoint legal counsel, as far as I know …”
He went on to note Boston’s claim the Sixth Amendment right of defense against a charge could be deprived by the series of events. He added he recognized the disadvantage placed against Dean.
McKenzie said he was taking the case under advisement and would announce his decision during docket call on Oct. 1.