New Case Alert State v Wenzler

In State v Wenzler, a March 6th decision from the Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge Woodall has clarified that a prior judgment for DUI is admissible, even if it is silent as to whether the defendant had an attorney or waived his right to counsel in the prior case.
 In this case a Mississippi prior was used to enhance the DUI to a third offense. The prior was silent as to whether the defendant had counsel or waived counsel. Judge Woodall in a unanimous decision said, we follow Hickman and the valid conviction is a valid conviction and not prior case law that is in conflict with Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 16 (Tenn. 2004).
In Hickman the Court stated that: “The judgment’s silence as to whether the petitioner was represented by counsel or waived the right to counsel does not defeat the presumption of regularity and render the judgment void. Judge Woodall concludes that State v Whaley and it’s progeny are no longer valid as they conflict with Hickman.
 The Court States: “In summary, we reject the State’s argument that since the Mississippi judgment did not require actual incarceration, rather than just a suspended jail sentence and probation, that the rule in McClintock would not apply. However, under the definition of a “facially invalid” or “facially void” judgment set forth in Hickman, we conclude that O’Brien, Whaley, and their progeny no longer offer relief to Defendant. Furthermore, the applicable case law does not require the State to affirmatively prove that Defendant had counsel or waived counsel in Defendant’s case. Accordingly, Defendant is not entitled to relief in this appeal.”
Read the case at:
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/wenzlerchristopherbomaropn.pdf