Timothy Meeks v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2000-KM-01593-COA
TIMOTHY MEEKS
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
09/25/2000
HON. JANNIE M. LEWIS
HOLMES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
JOHN MICHAEL GILMORE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JEAN SMITH VAUGHAN
JAMES H. POWELL III
CRIMINAL - MISDEMEANOR
DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE - FIRST OFFENSE:
FINED $437 AND BE REQUIRED TO PAY ALL COST OF
THE COURT; DEFENDANT'S DRIVER'S LICENSE AND
DRIVING PRIVILEGES SHOULD BE SUSPENDED FOR
NINETY DAYS
REVERSED AND RENDERED -12/4/01
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
12/26/2001
BEFORE KING, P.J., THOMAS, AND LEE, JJ.
KING, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Timothy Meeks was originally convicted of DUI-First Offense in the justice court of Holmes County,
Mississippi. He appealed this conviction to the Holmes County Circuit Court which affirmed the justice
court's conviction in a de novo bench trial. He now appeals that decision to this court. Aggrieved, Meeks
assigns the following issues as error:
I. Whether the trial court erred in denying Meeks' motion for directed verdict.
II. Whether there was probable cause to have Meeks take a breath test.
III. Whether there was probable cause to require Meeks to blow into the portable breath
test.
IV. Whether the trial court erred in allowing evidence of the breath test results without
requiring that the State show that the machine was properly calibrated.
V. Whether an Intoxilyzer 5000 reading of .10% is enough to prove Meeks is guilty of
Mississippi Code Annotated Section 63-11-30(1) (1972) beyond a reasonable doubt given
the margin of error of ± .003% for said machine.
¶2. Our analysis of Meeks' fourth issue results in our reversing and rendering the circuit court's judgment of
Meeks' conviction of DUI first offense.
FACTS
¶3. On May 21, 2000, at approximately 9:55 p.m., Timothy Meeks was driving north on Mississippi
Highway 17 while towing a trailer. Trooper Lecarius Oliver of the Mississippi Highway Safety Patrol,
traveling south on Mississippi Highway 17, passed Meeks and noticed that the trailer was being towed
without working taillights. Trooper Oliver stopped Meeks and asked him to step to the rear of the vehicle.
Trooper Oliver informed Meeks that he stopped him because the taillights on the trailer were not working.
While talking to Meeks, Trooper Oliver noted the smell of alcohol on Meeks' breath and asked if he had
been drinking. Meeks indicated that he had consumed a few beers.
¶4. Trooper Oliver gave Meeks a field sobriety test which consisted of asking him to recite the alphabet,
beginning with the letter "G" and ending with the letter "Z." Trooper Oliver testified that Meeks could not
recite the letters requested. Trooper Oliver then conducted a portable breath test. When Meeks failed both
tests, Trooper Oliver transported him to the Holmes County Sheriff's Department to give him the Intoxilyzer
5000 test. In route, Trooper Oliver radioed to request that the intoxilyzer be turned on. He testified that he
was certified to administer such a test. Before the test, Trooper Oliver advised Meeks of his rights, after
which, Meeks chose to take the test.
¶5. Trooper Oliver stated that he followed the operational checklist for the intoxilyzer, provided by the
Mississippi Department of Public Safety and checked the calibration log, which indicated the machine was
working properly at that time. The results indicated that Meeks had a blood alcohol content of .10.
ISSUE AND ANALYSIS
Whether the trial court erred in allowing evidence of the breath test results without requiring
that the State show that the machine was properly calibrated.
¶6. Meeks contends that the trial court should not have considered the breath test results without requiring
the State to show that the intoxilyzer machine was properly calibrated. Meeks argues that the State did not
produce any evidence that the machine was properly certified. He also contends that the court considered
the breath test results even though the results were not admitted into evidence.
¶7. A chemical analysis of a person's breath, blood, or urine is deemed valid only when performed
according to approved methods, performed by a person certified to do so, and performed on a machine
certified to be accurate. McIlwain v. State, 700 So. 2d 586 (¶17) (Miss. 1997). Certification of the
machines must take place at least quarterly. Miss. Code Ann. § 63-11-19 (Rev. 1996).
¶8. Trooper Oliver testified that he was certified to run the intoxilyzer, but not to calibrate it. He stated that
Pat Tribble of the Highway Patrol was responsible for calibration of the machine. In reading the machine
log, he noted an entry from Pat Tribble as to machine calibration.
¶9. However, this testimony was ineffective to establish proper calibration. Proper calibration of this
machine could have been established by the direct testimony of Pat Tribble or introduction of a certified
copy of the certificate of calibration, attested to by the custodian of records, consistent with M.R.E. 902.
Neither of these was done.
¶10. The State suggests that there is no harm in this failure because under Rule 12.02 (C)(1) of the Uniform
Circuit and County Court Rules, the judge was entitled to rely upon the copies of the certificate and test
results included with the file on appeal. Such a reading of this rule appears to be overbroad.
¶11. While a copy of the calibration certificate may have been included in the record sent up from the
justice court, it was not a part of the official record and was not in evidence, and not entitled to be
considered. Johnston v. State, 567 So. 2d 237, 238 (Miss. 1990).
¶12. In Hughston v. Cornish, 59 Miss. 372, 374 (1882), the Mississippi Supreme Court stated:
"Every justice of the peace shall keep a well-bound book, styled 'a docket,' in which he shall enter" all
the proceedings before him in every case. Code 1880, § 2193. That is the record of a case required
to be made by the justice of the peace; his "minutes" to serve as a memorial of his proceedings in
cases civil and criminal. It is of this record that the justice is to transmit a copy to the clerk of the
Circuit Court, when an appeal is taken from his decision.
¶13. Appeals from justice court to circuit court are tried de novo, and still require that the State go forward
with the burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt. Ball v. State, 202 Miss. 405, 406, 32 So. 2d
195, 196 (1947). In this case, the State failed in its burden of proof.
¶14. The State never offered the breath analysis into evidence. Even had it attempted to do so, there was
no evidence that its machine was properly calibrated.
¶15. This failure means there was insufficient evidence before the court to convict Meeks of DUI.
Accordingly, this Court reverses and renders this conviction.
¶16. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HOLMES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS REVERSED AND
RENDERED. ALL COSTS OF APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO HOLMES COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., SOUTHWICK, P.J., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, MYERS,
CHANDLER AND BRANTLEY, JJ., CONCUR.
1. URCCC 12.02(C): Proceedings. Upon the filing of the notice of appeal with the clerk, the prior
judgment of conviction shall be stayed by the higher court upon receipt of the bonds required by this
rule or excuse therefore.
The appeal shall be a trial de novo. In appeals from justice or municipal court when the maximum
possible sentence is six months or less, the case may be tried without a jury at the court's discretion.
The record certified to the court on appeal from the lower court is competent evidence. However, no
motions may be allowed which deprive the accused of the right to a trial on the merits. Amendments
will be liberally allowed so as to bring the merits of a case fairly to trial.
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.
