Gary Horn v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2001-KA-00236-COA
GARY HORN
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF TRIAL COURT
JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
01/12/2001
HON. MARCUS D. GORDON
LEAKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
WILLIAM MITCHELL MORAN
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS
KEN TURNER
CRIMINAL - FELONY
DUI, 3RD OR SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE, 3 ½ YEARS IN
THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS.
AFFIRMED - 9/10/2002
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
10/1/2002
BEFORE KING, P.J., LEE, AND IRVING, JJ.
KING, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Gary Horn was convicted of Felony DUI, third or subsequent offense, in the Leake County Circuit
Court. He was sentenced to serve a term of three and one-half years in the custody of the Mississippi
Department of Corrections and ordered to pay a fine of $1,500 and all costs of court. Aggrieved by his
conviction and sentence, Horn has appealed and assigned the following errors which we quote verbatim:
I. The trial court committed plain reversible error in allowing the introduction of Horn's
prior DUI convictions in the State's case-in-chief and by not conducting a bifurcated
sentencing hearing for enhancement purposes, and as a result, Horn was denied a
fundamentally fair trial in violation of the United States and Mississippi Constitutions.
II. Allowing evidence of Horn's prior DUI convictions to be admitted in the State's case-inchief denied Horn a fundamentally fair trial in violation of the double jeopardy guarantees of
the United States and Mississippi Constitutions.
FACTS
¶2. On April 2, 2000, at approximately 3:00 p.m., Officer Mark Wilcher of the Leake County Sheriff's
Department and Constable Randy Atkinson of Leake County responded to a call regarding a disturbance
at 4585 Midway Road.
¶3. Mrs. Janie Wilbanks testified that someone (later identified as Gary Horn) came to her door and stated
that he had run off the road and would pay her to pull him out of the ditch. Because Horn had been
drinking, Mrs. Wilbanks closed and locked the door, and phoned a neighbor and asked that he go to the
church and get her husband. Next, Mrs. Wilbanks called the sheriff's office for assistance. She testified to
being frightened when Horn started banging on her door and yelling, "Don't call the police, don't call the
police."
¶4. According to Mr. Wilbanks, upon returning home he could see Horn's car in the ditch. Mr. Wilbanks
walked across the street toward the car, as Horn sat in the car "revving the motor up." Wilbanks stated that
Horn was the only person in the car. Wilbanks testified that Horn "didn't have a shirt on, and, he had vomit
on his face and on his shoulder, and, the car was a total mess inside."
¶5. Mr. Horn testified that he and his wife had gone to the casino to eat and had several drinks. Horn stated
that he was escorted out of the casino by two security guards and placed in his wife's car. He indicated that
while his wife was driving down the road, he got sick and started to vomit. At trial, Horn testified that his
wife was driving the car and that he did not tell anyone because he did not want her to be charged with
DUI. Horn's wife testified that she was driving the car as well. She stated that she ran into the ditch, left the
vehicle and Mr. Horn and attempted to walk home.
¶6. When Officer Wilcher responded to Mrs. Wilbanks's call, he found Horn inside the vehicle. Officer
Wilcher testified that Horn was unsteady on his feet and had slurred speech. Through questioning, Officer
Wilcher found that Horn did not have a driver's license and placed him under arrest. Further investigation
revealed that Horn's driver's license had been suspended because of two previous DUI convictions. Horn
was transported to the Leake County Jail, where Officer Wilcher read to him his rights regarding the taking
of an intoxilyzer test. Horn was then asked to take the intoxilyzer 5000 test, but refused.
¶7. In January 2001, Horn was indicted for felony driving under the influence, third offense, in violation of
Mississippi Code Annotated Section 63-11-30(1)(a) (Rev. 1996).(1)
¶8. He was found guilty on January 9, 2001, and sentenced to serve a term of three and one-half years in
the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and ordered to pay a fine of $1,500 and all costs
of court.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
I.
Whether the trial court committed plain reversible error in allowing the introduction of
Horn's prior DUI convictions in the State's case-in-chief and by not conducting a bifurcated
sentencing hearing for enhancement purposes, and as a result, Horn was denied a
fundamentally fair trial in violation of the United States and Mississippi Constitutions.
¶9. Horn asks this Court to hold that it was plain error for the trial court to allow evidence of his prior DUI
convictions, in the State's case in chief, rather than requiring that they be introduced in a separate sentencing
hearing.
¶10. The record reflects that Horn offered no objection to this process at trial. Matters not called to the
attention of the trial court are waived, and will not be considered for the first time on appeal. Moore v.
State, 806 So. 2d 308 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001).
¶11. This Court, pursuant to M.R.A.P. 28(a)(3), may take notice of a matter which is plain error.
¶12. Plain error is defined as error that affects the substantive rights of a defendant. Dobbins v. State, 766
So. 2d 29 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). "The plain error doctrine has been construed to include anything
that 'seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.'" Id. The matter
which Horn seeks to raise for the first time before this Court does not constitute plain error, and this Court
declines to consider it as such.
¶13. While Horn objects on appeal, he did not assert this objection at trial nor did he request a bifurcated
hearing prior to the commencement of trial. Therefore, we find that it is procedurally barred from review by
this Court. Harris v. Lewis, 755 So. 2d 1199 (¶15) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999).
II.
Whether allowing evidence of Horn's prior DUI convictions to be admitted in the State's
case-in-chief denied Horn a fundamentally fair trial in violation of the double jeopardy
guarantees of the United States and Mississippi Constitutions.
¶14. Horn also asserts that he was subjected to double jeopardy by the utilization of his prior DUI
convictions to enhance his present sentence.
¶15. Double jeopardy, which is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and
Article 3, Section 22 of the Mississippi Constitution, occurs when an accused is subjected to being tried
twice for the same offense. State v. Fleming, 726 So. 2d 113 (¶8) (Miss. 1998).
¶16. In the present action, Horn is not being punished for his prior DUIs. Those prior convictions were
considered for the sole purpose of enhancing punishment. Prior convictions which are "constitutionally valid
in and of themselves" may appropriately be used to enhance punishment for subsequent convictions. Bailey
v. State, 728 So. 2d 1070 (¶12) (Miss. 1997).
¶17. Accordingly, we hold this issue to be meritless.
¶18. THE JUDGMENT OF THE LEAKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF CONVICTION OF
FELONY DUI, THIRD OR SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE AND SENTENCE OF THREE AND
ONE-HALF YEARS TO SERVE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS AND A FINE OF $1500 IS AFFIRMED. COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE
ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
McMILLIN, C.J., SOUTHWICK, P.J., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, MYERS,
CHANDLER AND BRANTLEY, JJ., CONCUR.
1. Miss. Code Ann. Section 63-11-30(1)(a) (Rev. 1996): Operation of vehicle while under the
influence of intoxicating liquor, drugs or controlled substances . . . (1) It is unlawful for any person to
drive or otherwise operate a vehicle within this state who (a) is under the influence of intoxicating
liquor . . . .
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
