{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;} {\f36\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f171\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f172\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;} {\f174\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f175\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f176\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f177\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);} {\f178\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f179\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255; \red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192; \red255\green255\blue255;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\* \ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden footnote reference;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid2699661 \rsid3825236\rsid9508377\rsid9780620\rsid16332239}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info{\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min6}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy10\hr7\min55}{\version4} {\edmins3}{\nofpages15}{\nofwords6183}{\nofchars35248}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}{\nofcharsws41349}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440\margb1080 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\notabind\wraptrsp\transmf\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\truncatefontheight\subfontbysize\sprsbsp\wpjst\lytprtmet\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3 \jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot3825236 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid3825236 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid3825236 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid3825236 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid3825236 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery1080\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid3825236\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\insrsid3825236 People v. Manila}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 , Opinion\tab \tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid3825236 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid2699661 14} }}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 of 22 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid3825236 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl-14\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid2699661 {\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1440\shptop0\shpright10800\shpbottom14\shpfhdr1\shpbxpage\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt1\shpz0\shplockanchor\shplid2049{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}} {\sp{\sn fillColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fillBackColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fShadow}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fBehindDocument}{\sv 1}} {\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxpage\dobypara\dodhgt0\dprect\dpx1440\dpy0\dpxsize9360\dpysize14\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{\insrsid3825236 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid3825236 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 PEOPLE OF GUAM,}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \par Plaintiff-Appellant, \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 v.}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 JESSE QUICHOCHO MANILA,}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \par Defendant-Appellee.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 OPINION}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Filed: February 21, 2005}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Cite as: 2005 Guam 6}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Supreme Court Case No.: CRA03-005 \par Superior Court Case No.: CM0754-01}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam \par Argued and submitted on October 13, 2003 \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \par \par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trgaph127\trleft0\trftsWidth1\trpaddl127\trpaddr127\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4680 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9360\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid9780620 {\ul\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellant:}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \par James J. Casey, }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Esq}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ., AAG \par Office of the Attorney General \par Prosecution Division \par Suite 2-200E, Judicial Ctr. Bldg. \par 120 W. O}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Brien Dr. \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell }{\ul\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Appearing for Defendant-Appellee:}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \par Thomas J. Fisher, }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Esq}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 . \par Associated Defense Advocates, P.C. \par 194 Hernan Cortes Ave., Ste. 213 \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910 \par \par \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trgaph127\trleft0\trftsWidth1\trpaddl127\trpaddr127\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt \brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4680\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9360\row }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \par BEFORE: F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice; FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, Associate Justice; ROBERT J. TORRES, JR., Associate Justice.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 \par \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, J.:}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [1]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab The Plaintiff-Appellant, People of Guam (}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 People}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ), appeal the dismissal of the underlying criminal case against the Defendant-Appellee, Jesse Quichocho Manila (}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Manila}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ), on double jeopardy grounds. The facts giving rise to the charges against Manila in the instant case, Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol, Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol (B.A.C.), and Reckless Driving, were considered by the Super ior Court (}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 revocation court}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ) in a prior probation revocation proceeding relating to a DUI conviction previously entered against Manila.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The trial court in the present case held that the probation revocation court had already punished Manila for the offenses charged in the present case, and that further prosecution would violate Manila}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s rights against double jeopardy.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 We hol d that the trial court correctly found that the prosecution for the DUI charges in the instant proceeding was barred under the double jeopardy clause, but erred in dismissing the prosecution for the Reckless Driving charge.}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 We affirm the lower court}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s decision in part and reverse it in part. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 I. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [2]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab On June 16, 2000, Manila pled guilty to Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol (B.A.C.) and Reckless Driving with Injuries, both misdemeanors, in Superior Court Case No. CF470-97 (}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 First DUI case}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ).}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 As part of the plea, Manila was sentenced as a first time DUI offender, and received two years probation.}{\cs15\super\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid3825236 \chftn }{\insrsid3825236 }{\fs20\insrsid3825236 Under Title 16 GCA }{ \fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 18104, courts are required to punish first-time offenders to a mandatory minimum of 48 hours}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 imprisonment (with a maximum not to exceed one year), and a minimum fine of $1,000 (with a maximum not to exceed $5,000). Title 16 GCA }{ \fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 18104 (2002). Under 16 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt \f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 18102, a person guilty of a DUI may also be sentenced as permitted by law for a misdemeanor. Title 16 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{ \fs20\insrsid3825236 18102(g)(2) (2002). Title 9 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 80.64 governs the terms of probation, and provides that the maximum probation term for misdemeanors is two years. Title 9 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{ \fs20\insrsid3825236 80.64(a) (1998). }}}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 As a condition of Manila}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s probation, Manila was instructed to refrain from consuming alcohol and from violating the laws of Guam during the two-year probationary period.}{\insrsid3825236 \par }{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [3]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab On October 8, 2001, during the probationary period, Manila was charged with DUI, DUI (B.A.C.), and Reckless Driving in the underlying case, Superior Court Case No. CM754-01 (}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Second DUI case}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ). \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [4]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab One week later, the People filed a motion to revoke Manila}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s probation in the First DUI case.}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The motion was based on the People}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s contention that the charges in the Second DUI case amounted to a viol ation of the two aforementioned conditions of probation.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The trial court conducted a probation revocation hearing, and ultimately found that Manila violated his probation in two respects: }{\insrsid3825236 \par }{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 \par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 (1)\tab }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [Manila] violated the law by }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 on October 8}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{\insrsid9780620 ; and}{ \insrsid3825236 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 \par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 (2)\tab }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [Manila consumed] alcohol during the term of his probation.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 " }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \par Appellant}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s Excerpts of Record (}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ER} {\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ), Tab. 4, p. 4 (Disision Yan Otden}{\cs15\super\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid3825236 \chftn }{\insrsid3825236 }{\fs20\insrsid3825236 Decision and Order. }}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , Feb. 20, 2003) (emphasis in original).}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The revocation court consequently imposed punishment for the second DUI and sentenced Manila to seven days imprisonment in accordance with the statutory minimum for second DUI offenders.}{ \cs15\super\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid3825236 \chftn }{\insrsid3825236 }{ \fs20\insrsid3825236 Neither Manila nor the People challenged the revocation court}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 s order. A challenge made by either party during the revocation proceeding may have averted the double jeopardy question at issue in the present case. The failure to previously contest the revocation court}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 s decision does not, however, affect our holding today.}{\insrsid3825236 }}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [5]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab Manila thereafter filed a motion to dismiss the Second DUI case, arguing that prosecution of the case was precluded under the double jeopardy clause.}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 On February 20, 2003, the lower court issued a }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Disision Yan Oten }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 (}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Decision and Order}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ) granting Manila}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s motion to dismiss.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 In the order, the court found that by proceeding with the Second DUI case, Manila may face multiple punishments for the offense for which he was already punished during the probation revocation proceeding for the First DUI case.}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Appellant}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s ER, Tab 4, pp. 6-7 (}{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Disision Yan Otden}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , Feb. 20, 2003).}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The People thereafter filed the instant appeal. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 II. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [6]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab We have jurisdiction over the People}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s appeal pursuant to 48 U.S.C. }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 1424-1(a)(2), Title 7 GCA }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 3107(b) (2004), and Title 8 GCA }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 130.20(a)(5) (1996) which permits an appeal by the Government from }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [a]n order or judgment dismissing or otherwise terminating the action before the defendant has been placed in jeopardy or where the defendant has waived jeopardy.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 " }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 8 GCA }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 130.20(a)(5).}{\cs15\super\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid3825236 \chftn }{\insrsid3825236 }{\fs20\insrsid3825236 Section 130.20(a) provides in pertinent part: \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid3825236 (a) An appeal may be taken by the government from any of the following: \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid3825236 . . . \par (5) An order or judgment dismissing or otherwise terminating the action before the defendant has been placed in jeopardy or where the defendant has waived jeopardy. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid3825236 Title 8 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 130.20(a). \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid3825236 Jurisdiction under section 130.20(a)(5) exists where two requirements are present: }{\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 (1) [a]n order or judgment dismissing the action; and (2) [t]hat such order or judgment must issue before jeopardy has attached or jeopardy must have been waived.}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 }{\i\fs20\insrsid3825236 People v. San Nicolas}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 , 1999 Guam 19, }{\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 6. \par The lower court}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 s order dismissing CM0754-01 is a }{\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 dismissal}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 of the }{\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 action,}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 thereby satisfying the first requirement for jurisdiction under section 130.20(a)(5). Furthermore, }{\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 [j]eopardy attaches only in a criminal proceeding when the jury is empanelled and sworn, or in a bench trial when the court begins to hear evidence.}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}} }{\fs20\insrsid3825236 }{\i\fs20\insrsid3825236 United States v. Bizzell}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 , 921 F.2d 263, 266 (10th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). Neither event has occurred in the underlying case.}{\i\fs20\insrsid3825236 }{ \fs20\insrsid3825236 Thus, jeopardy has not }{\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 attached.}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction over the instant appeal under section 130.20(a)(5). \par }}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 III.}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [7]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab In its Decision and Order granting Manila}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s motion to dismiss, the trial court relied heavily on the fact that in the earlier decision revoking Manila}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s probation, the revocation court found that Manila committed the offense of Driving Under the Influence, which itself was a violation of the probation conditions relating to compliance with Guam laws and the consumption of alcohol.}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Furthermore, the revocation court made the following determination: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\insrsid9780620 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 In this matter, the Court has determined and found that the Defendant as [sic] }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , an offense against the laws of Guam, on or about October 8, 2001. . . .}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The Court notes this violation of the law is the Defendant}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s second DUI offense within a five year period.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 By invoking swift }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 imposition of punishment for this second offense}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , the best interests of the people are served.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 In revoking his probation, the Court has re-sentenced and imposed general punishment against the Defendant as a second DUI offender.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The Court has imposed this punishment in a swift and expeditious manner without the Defendant having to be tried for the second offense.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Irregardless of the pace the Defendant}{ \i\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s current case (CM754-01) takes,}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 he has been punished for the offenses he has been charged with in that case.}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The ends of justice and the best interest of the people have been served because this proceeding has been swift and expeditious and its punishment has been ordered. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \par Appellant}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s ER, Tab. 4, p. 4 (}{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Disision Yan Otden}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , Feb. 20, 2003) (quoting the Decision and Order revoking Manila}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s probation) (emphasis added).}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [8]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab Referencing the language of the revocation order, above, the lower court in the present case}{\cs15\super\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid3825236 \chftn }{\insrsid3825236 }{\fs20\insrsid3825236 The same Superior Court judge presided over Manila}{ \fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 s probation revocation and the present Second DUI case.}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 concluded that because the revocation court had }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 in a prior proceeding . . . found the [d]efendant guilty of the crime he is charged with in this action and has likewise punished him f or commission of the offense, [then] [a]llowing the present action against him to continue will violate his Double Jeopardy rights under the Organic Act of Guam.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 " }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Appellant}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s ER, Tab. 4, p. 7 (}{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Disision Yan Otden}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , Feb. 20, 2003). \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [9]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab In determining whether the lower court erred in dismissing the instant prosecution, we must first outline the principles governing the double jeopardy analysis. \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 A.}{\b\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Double Jeopardy Principles and the Probation Revocation Hearing. \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [10]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab The grant of a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds is reviewed }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 de novo}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 .}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 See People v. Florida}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , Crim. No. CR96-00060A, 1997 WL 209044, at *6 (D. Guam App. Div. Apr. 21, 1997); }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 People v. San Nicolas}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 2001 Guam 4, }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 8 (}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 A double jeopardy claim is a question of law reviewed }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 de novo }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 . . . .}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ) (citation omitted). \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [11]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that no person shall }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '" }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 San Nicolas}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 2001 Guam 4 at }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 8 (quoting U.S. CONST. amend V).}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Section 1421b(u) of the Organic Act of Guam extends the Fifth Amendment}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s Double Jeopardy Clause to Guam.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 See}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 48 U.S.C. }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 1421b(u) (WEST, WESTLAW through P.L. 108-468).}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The Bill of Rights of the Organic Act of Guam similarly provides that }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [n]o persons shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of punishment . . . .}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '" }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 San Nicolas}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 2001 Guam 4 at }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 8 (quoting 48 U.S.C. }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 1421b(d) (1950)).}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The double jeopardy clause under both the United States Constitution and the Organic Act prohibit successive prosecutions as well as successive punishment for the same crime.}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Id}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 . at }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 8-9; }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 see also People v. Palisoc}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 2002 Guam 9, }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 35 (}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The Double Jeopardy clause, made applicable to Guam through the Organic Act, precludes courts from imposing multiple punishments for the same offense.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ). \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [12]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab The People argue that a probation revocation hearing is not a criminal prosecution and is not intended to punish the defendant for th e criminal action which forms the basis of the revocation.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Rather, the People contend, the revocation proceeding concerns the crime for which probation was imposed, and the sentence imposed upon the revocation of probation is for that earlier crime.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Therefore, the prohibition against double jeopardy cannot bar later prosecution for a criminal act which also formed the basis of a probation revocation. \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [13]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab We agree that probation revocation proceedings }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 are not new criminal prosecutions but, rather, [are] continuations of the original prosecutions which resulted in probation . . . .}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 " }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Hardy v. United States}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 578 A.2d 178, 181 (D.C. 1990); s}{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ee Johnson v. United States}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 763 A.2d 707, 711 (D.C. 2000); }{ \i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 State v. Chase}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 588 A.2d 120, 122 (R.I. 1991) (}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 It is a well-established proposition that a probation-revocation hearing is not part of a criminal prosecution and therefore does not give rise to the full panoply of rights that are due a defendant at trial.}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ); }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 State v. Brunet}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 806 A.2d 1007, 1011 (Vt. 2002) (}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [I]t is universally acknowledged that a revocation proceeding is not essentially }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 criminal}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 in nature . . . .}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ).}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 This court has previously recognized that a probation revocation hearing is not a criminal prosecution.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 People v. Angoco}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 1998 Guam 10, }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 8 (}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Because a revocation hearing is not a formal criminal prosecution}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , traditional rules of evidence do not apply, and conventional substitutes for live testimony, including affidavits, depositions, letters and other documentary evidence are admissible.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ) (emphasis added).}{\cs15\super\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid3825236 \chftn }{ \insrsid3825236 }{\fs20\insrsid3825236 The }{\i\fs20\insrsid3825236 Angoco}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 court discussed the characteristics of probation revocation hearings in the context of the defendant}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 s claim that his due process rights were violated when the trial court revoked his probation. }{\i\fs20\insrsid3825236 People v. Angoco}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 , 1998 Guam 10, }{ \fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 7-8. }{\insrsid3825236 }}}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The goal of a revocation hearing is not to decide guilt or innocence, but to determine whether the defendant remains a good risk for probation.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 " }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Brunet}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 806 A.2d at 1011; }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Chase}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 588 A.2d at 122 (}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The sole purpose of the [probation revocation] hearing is to determine whether the defendant has breached a condition of the existing probation, not to convict a defendant for a new criminal offense.}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ). \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [14]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab Furthermore, courts agree that probation revocation proceedings }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 are not designed to punish a defendant for violation of a criminal law.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 " }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Jones v. United States}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 669 A.2d 724, 727 (D.C. 1995) (quoting }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Hardy v. United States}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 578 A.2d 178, 181 (D.C. 1990)).}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 As stated earlier, } {\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [t]he purpose of a revocation hearing is to determine whether the defend ant is a good risk for continued probation and not to punish him for a new criminal offense.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 " "}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 State v. McDowell}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 699 A.2d 987, 989 (Conn. 1997).}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Any sentence imposed as a result of revocation is not premised on the new criminal charges, but derives exclusively from the original sentence on the earlier offense.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 " }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Brunet}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 806 A.2d at 1011. \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [15]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab Because revocation proceedings are not new criminal prosecutions, and do not punish the defendant for the criminal actions committed while on probation, }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 double jeopardy does not attach at a revocation hearing to bar a trial of the new criminal charges.}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{\i\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Id.}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ; }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 see also Hardy}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 578 A.2d at 181 (}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [J]eopardy does not attach in probation . . . revocation proceedings.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "} {\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ); }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Thomas v. State}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 845 So. 2d 751, 753 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [A] petition to revoke probation or to revoke suspension of a sentence is not a criminal case and not a trial on the merits of the case.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Therefore, double jeopardy protection does not apply to such hearings.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ); }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Johnson}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 763 A.2d at 711 (}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [A] probation revo cation hearing cannot be the basis for a claim of . . . multiple prosecution . . . .}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ).}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Thus, }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [t]he same actions by a probationer can lead to direct punishment and ca n also constitute the basis on which his probation for a prior offense is revoked.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 " }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 United States v. Redd}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 759 F.2d 699, 701 (9th Cir. 1985). \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [16]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab The application of the above-mentioned principles is dependent, however, upon the underlying premise that in revoking probation, the revocation court limited the imposition of its sentence to the crime for which probation was imposed.}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The People contend that such was the case here.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The People assert that during the revocation proceeding in the First DUI case, the revocation court }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 did not}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 impose a punishment for the offenses charged in the Second DUI case.}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 We disagree with this contention in light of the stat ements expressed by the revocation court, which reflect that the revocation court was apparently sentencing Manila for the offenses charged in the Second DUI case.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The revocation court specifically stated that it was invoking }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 swift . . . punishment and for this second offense,}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 and that the punishment was being imposed }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 in a swift and expeditious manner without the [d]efendant having to be tried for the second offense.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 " }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Appellant}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s ER, Tab. 4, p. 4 (}{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Disision Yan Otden}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , Feb. 20, 2003) (quoting }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Disision Yan Otden }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 revoking Manila}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s probation).}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The revocation court further stated that }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [i]rregardless of the pace the Defendant}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s current case (CM754-01) takes, he has been punished for the offenses he has been charged with in that case.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 " }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Appellant}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 ' }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s ER, Tab. 4, p. 4 (}{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Disision Yan Otden}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , Feb. 20, 2003) (quoting }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Disision Yan Otden}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 revoking Manila}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s probation). \par \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [17]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab Unlike the cases cited by the People wherein the defendant was sentenced for the underlying crime for which probation was imposed, the problem present in the case }{ \i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 sub judice }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 lies in the fact that in revoking probation, the revocation court explicitly stated that it was punishing Manila for the offenses committed while Manila was on probation and which are charged in the Second DUI case.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The question, therefore, is what effect the revocation court}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s actions have on the prosecution of the underlying Second DUI case. \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [18]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab Manila argues that the revocation court}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s actions i n sentencing him for the Second DUI precludes prosecution for the same offenses in the underlying matter.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Specifically, Manila argues that under the United States Supreme Court case of }{ \i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 United States v. Dixon}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 509 U.S. 688, 113 S. Ct. 2849 (1993), the doub le jeopardy protection prohibits a subsequent prosecution when the subject of the first case and the subject of the second prosecution }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 cannot survive the same elements analysis of }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Blockburger v. United States}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 52 S. Ct. 80 (1932).}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 " }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Appellee}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s Brief, p. 4 (July 12, 2003).}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 He contends that the revocation of his probation was based on the court}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s finding that he committed a Second DUI, and that he was punished for that Second DUI.}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Manila maintains that }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [b]ecause there are no elements which exist in the allegation of DUI litigated at the revocation hearing which do not exist in the pendent misdemeanor, }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Blockburger}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 requires dismissal.}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 " }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Appellee}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s Brief, p. 4 (July 12, 2003). \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [19]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab Essentially, Manila argues that the revocation court sentenced him for the Second DUI, and not merely for the underlying crime for which probation was imposed (i.e., the First DUI).}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Therefore, in accordance with }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Dixon }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 and }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Blockburger}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , he cannot now be prosecuted for the Second DUI.}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The lower court apparently relied on }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Dixon }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 in deciding to grant Manila}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s motion to dismiss.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 We agree that }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Blockburger}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 precludes prosecution for the Second DUI, but not precisely under the authority of }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Dixon}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 . \par \par }\pard \qj \fi-360\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1080\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 1.\tab }{\b\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 United States v. Dixon}{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1080\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [20]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab In }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Dixon}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , the defendant (Dixon)}{\cs15\super\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid3825236 7}{\insrsid3825236 }{\fs20\insrsid3825236 The }{\i\fs20\insrsid3825236 Dixon}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 case involved two defendants, Alvin J. Dixon and Michael Foster.}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 was released on bond on a murder charge.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 United States v. Dixon}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 509 U.S. at 691, 113 S. Ct. at 2853.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 A condition of his release was that he not commit any further crimes.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{ \i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Id}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 .}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 While on pre-trial release, he was arrested and indicted for possession with the intent to distribute cocaine.}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Id}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 .}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Based on the cocaine charge, the defendant was found guilty of criminal contempt for violating the terms of his release, and was sentenced to prison.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Id}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ., 509 U.S. at 691-92, 113 S. Ct. at 2853.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The defendant thereafter moved to dismiss the cocaine charge arguing that punishment for the charge would violate the double jeopardy clause.}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Id}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 .}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The trial court granted the motion and the United States Supreme Court affirmed. }{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The Court found that }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 criminal contempt, at least the sort enforced through nonsummary proceedings, is }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 a crime in the ordinary sense.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '" }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Id}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ., 509 U.S. at 696, 113 S. Ct. at 2856 (citation omitted).}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The majority of the Court found that because the defendant was punished in the contempt proceedings for the cocaine possession, he could not be punished for the same offense in a later criminal proceeding.}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Id}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 . 509 U.S. at 700, 113 S. Ct. at 2858 (J. Scalia, delivering the opinion with J. Kennedy joining, and with J. White, J. Stevens and J. Souter concurring in result).}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Whether the contempt proceeding punished the defendant for the same offense as the criminal prosecution was determined by using the same-elements test announced in }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Blockburger v. United States}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 .}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Id}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 .}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Under }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Blockburger}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , the question is whether }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 each offense contains an element not contained in the other; if not, they are the }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 same offence}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 and double jeopardy bars additional punishment and successive prosecution.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 " }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Id}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ., 509 U.S. at 696, 113 S. Ct. at 2856.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 A majority of the }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Dixon}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Court found that because the defendant was punished in the prior criminal contempt proceeding, the double jeopardy clause barred later prosecution for the cocaine offense.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Id}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ., 509 U.S. at 690, 113 S. Ct. at 2853. \par \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [21]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab The People argue that }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Dixon }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 is inapplicable under the circumstances of this case.}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 We recognize that courts have consistently found that }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Dixon }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 does not control in situations where the defendant}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s prior punishment was the result of a probation revocation.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 In}{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 United States v. Woods}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 127 F.3d 990 (11th Cir. 1997), the Eleventh Circuit offered a succinct explanation for this result.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 In }{ \i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Woods}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , the court pointed out that in }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Dixon}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , the }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 prosecution and conviction for criminal contempt [wa]s punishment for the conduct constituting contempt of court, not for any underlying crime,}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 and that }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [i]n }{ \i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Dixon}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , there was no underlying crime to punish.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 " }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Woods}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 127 F.3d at 992.}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The court stated that by contrast, }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 the punishment imposed in the form of probation revocation, . . . [i]s part of [the] original sentence and thus constituted punishment for the crime underlying that sentence.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 " }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Id}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 .}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Accordingly, the court held consistently with }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 every other circuit to have addressed this precise claim in the context of }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Dixon}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ,}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 that }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 subsequent prosecution for the criminal conduct committed while on probation constitutes prosecution for an entirely new offense and is not precluded by the Double Jeopardy Clause.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 " }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Id. }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 (citing cases from the Seventh, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits).}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [22]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab Under normal circumstances, }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Dixon }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 would not influence a double jeopardy analysis where the prior punishment was imposed upon the revocation of probation.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 See also United States v. Soto-Olivas}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 44 F.3d 788, 792 (9th Cir.) (}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Nothing in }{ \i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Dixon}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 contradicts our holding in this case.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 A prosecution for criminal contempt, unlike revocation of supervised release, is punishment for the act constituting contempt of court, not for any underlying crime.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ), }{ \i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 cert. denied }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 515 U.S. 1127, 115 S. Ct. 2289 (1995); }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 United States v. Woodrup}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 86 F.3d 359, 363 (4th Cir.), }{ \i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 cert. denied}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 519 U.S. 944, 117 S. Ct. 332 (1996).}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Blockburger}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 analysis was employed in }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Dixon}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 precisely because the contempt proceeding under the facts of }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Dixon }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 was designed to punish the defendant for the conduct that constituted the contempt.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The present case is akin to the circumstances of }{ \i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Dixon}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 because, here, the revocation court punished Manila for the conduct which resulted in the probation revocation, and not simply the crime for which Manila}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s probation was imposed.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Consistent with }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Dixon}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , if Manila was punished during the revocation proceeding for the criminal conduct committ ed while on probation, further prosecution for the crimes charged in the instant case would be barred under the double jeopardy clause if the crime for which Manila was previously punished is the }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 same offense}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 as those charged in the underlying proceeding as determined under the }{ \i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Blockburger}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 test.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 What sets the instant case apart from }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Dixon}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , however, is that in }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Dixon}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , there was no irregularity with the initial contempt proceeding in which the defendant was prosecuted and punished.}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Specifically, there was no question in }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Dixon}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 that jeopardy attached during the first proceeding, that is, the criminal contempt proceeding.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 This distinction is important.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [23]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab As with any double jeopardy claim, in determining whether a double jeopardy violation exists, the court must first determine whether jeopardy has previously attached.}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 See}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 State v. Corrado}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 915 P.2d 1121, 1124 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996).}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [A]n accused must suffer jeopardy before he can suffer double jeopardy.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 " }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Serfass v. United States}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 420 U.S. 377, 393, 95 S. Ct. 1055, 1065 (1975).}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Once it is found that jeopardy has attached, courts employ the same-elements test of }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Blockburger}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 to determine whether the two offenses are the same offense for double jeopardy purposes.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Corrado}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 915 P.2d at 1126 (determining that the same elements test of }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Blockburger}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 only applies after it is first determined that }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 jeopardy has attached and terminated}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ); }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 see also Harris v. State}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 617 A.2d 610, 616\~(Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1992) (}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Double jeopardy is not an automatic defense-- the court must determine whether a prior jeopardy did occur and whether the offenses in question constitute the same offense.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ).}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [24]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab In }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Dixon}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , because there was no issue as to whether jeopardy attached in the first criminal contempt proceeding, the Court employed the }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Blockburger}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 analysis to determine whether the later prosecution for the cocaine charge was barred under the double jeopardy clause.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 In the present case, by contrast, the revocation court committed error in sentencing Manila for the criminal conduct committed while on probation.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 See }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Title 9 GCA }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 80.66(b) (1998) (providing that upon revoking probation, the lower court may }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 impose on the offender any sentence that might have been imposed originally for the crime of which he was convicted}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ).}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The resolution of the question we confront in the instant case depends upon whether the revocation court}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s error in sentencing M anila for the Second DUI case bars further prosecution for those crimes.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 This question was not answered in }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Dixon}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ; therefore, }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Dixon}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 does not control the analysis of the double jeopardy claim in the instant case.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 We must instead turn to other relevant principles of double jeopardy law in reviewing the lower court}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s decision dismissing the underlying criminal case. \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [25]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab The parties here offer different conclusions based upon the revocation court}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s error.}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The People dismiss the error as inconsequential, while Manila seizes upon this error as affecting his rights in the underlying prosecution.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 While the parties recognize that the revocation court erred in sentencing Manila for the criminal conduct committed while on probation, they fail to identify the reason the lower court}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s error should be treated in the divergent manners advanced.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 We find that the present effect of the revocation court}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s action in punishing Manila is dependent upon the basic question underlying any double jeopardy analysis; specifically, whether jeopardy attached during the revocation proceeding as to the criminal c onduct which Manila was punished during that proceeding. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri1080\nowidctlpar\tx-1080\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\faauto\rin1080\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\b\insrsid9780620 \par }\pard \qj \fi-360\li1080\ri1080\nowidctlpar\tx-1080\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\faauto\rin1080\lin1080\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 2.\tab Whether Jeopardy Attached at the Revocation Hearing:}{\b\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{ \b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Jurisdiction of the Revocation Court. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1080\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \par [26]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab Here, Manila was punished for the second DUI offense and served the sentence.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 T he question is whether jeopardy attached during the revocation proceeding as to that criminal conduct.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 It is well established that }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [j]eopardy . . . can only attach when a court acts in a manner within its jurisdiction and authority.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 " }{ \i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Peppers v. State}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 696 So. 2d 444, 445 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997); }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 see also People v. Superior Court (Marks)}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 820 P.2d 613, 615 (Cal. 1991) (}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Bo th the history of the Double Jeopardy Clause and its terms demonstrate that it does not come into play until a proceeding begins before a trier having jurisdiction to try the question of guilt or innocence of the accused.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ) (citation and quotation marks omitted). }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [U]nder the jurisdictional exception to the bar of former jeopardy, [a] party who has been tried and convicted by a court not having jurisdiction of the offens e cannot plead prior jeopardy if subsequently indicted for the same offense in a court having jurisdiction thereof.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 " }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 State v. Perkins}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 580 S.E.2d 523, 525-26 (Ga. 2003) (quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted).}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 In other words, }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [t]he prohibition does not apply where there is a lack of fundamental jurisdiction . . . . [but] [t]he double jeopardy clause does however bar retrial of a defendant where the original court had fundamental jurisdiction over the cause but acted in excess of jurisdiction.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 " }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 People v. Malveaux}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 59 Cal. Rptr. 2d 371, 379-380\~ (Cal. Ct. App. 1996).}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [27]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab The jurisdictional exception to the double jeopardy rule has been codified in Guam at least with regard to multiple prosecutions.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Title 9 GCA }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 1.30 provides: }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 A prosecution is not a bar within the meaning of }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 1.24, 1.26 and 1.28 under . . . the following circum stances: (a) The former prosecution was before a court which lacked jurisdiction over the defendant or the offense tried in that court.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 " }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Title 9 GCA }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 1.30 (1996).}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The comment to Title 9 GCA }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 1.30 further explains that there is no bar to prosecution where the }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 court before which the prior proceeding was held lacks jurisdiction over the defendant or the offense.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 " }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 9 GCA }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 1.30 cmt.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 While section 1.30(a) speaks to prior prosecutions, the jurisdictional exception codified therein should similarly apply to the situation in the present case where the claim of former jeopardy is based on prior punishment.} {\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 We hold, consistent with section 1.30(a), that where a defendant is punished or sentenced in a proceeding over which the trial court lacked jurisdic tion over the defendant or the offense, later prosecution for the offense is not barred by the double jeopardy clause.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Conversely, if the defendant is punished or sentenced in a proceeding over which the court possessed fundamental jurisdiction, later prosecution for the offense is prohibited under the double jeopardy clause.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 In light of these principles, the question in this case, therefore, is whether the revocation court had fundamental jurisdiction during the revocation proceeding so as to preclude further prosecution in the instant case.}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 We find that it did. \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 B.}{\b\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Jurisdiction and the Bar to Further Prosecution: DUI Offenses. \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [28]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 A trial court has jurisdiction for purposes of double jeopardy when it has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the person of the defendant.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 " }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Parks v. State}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 410 A.2d 597, 601 (Md. 1980).}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 There is no question that the revocation court had jurisdiction over Manila}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s person so the focus must be on whether the court had jurisdiction over the criminal conduct which forms the underlying charges.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [T]he kind of jurisdiction encompassed by the rule of no jurisdiction no jeopardy is }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 jurisdiction in the most basic sense.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 It does not mean that an error in the exercise of jurisdiction permits judicial proceedings to be treated as a nullity.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '" }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Id}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 . (quoting }{ \i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Block v. State}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 407 A.2d 320, 322 (Md. 1979)).}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 For the jurisdictional exception to apply, there must have been }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 an entire absence of power to hear or determine the case, an absence of authority over the subject matter or the parties.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 " }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Marks}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 820 P.2d at}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 617 (citation omitted). \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [29]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab We re-emphasize that the revocation court clearly committed error in punishing Manila for the Second DUI upon the revocation of his probation.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 In imposing imprisonment upon the revocation of probation, a trial court cannot punish the defendant for the violation of probation.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 See People v. Bouyer}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 769 N.E.2d 145, 149 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002); }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 State v. Herrera}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 588 P.2d 305, 308 (Ariz. 1978) (en banc) (}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [P]unishment flowing as a result of probation being revoked is not punishment for the probationary breach , but is instead punishment on the original charge.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ) (quoting }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 State v. Pietsch}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 508 P.2d 337, 339 (Ariz. 1973).}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 This is evident under the language of the probation statutes which provide that upon revoking probation, the lower court may }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 impose on the offender any sentence that might have been imposed originally }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 for the crime of which he was convicted}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 .}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 " }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 9 GCA }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 80.66(b) (1998).}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The statutory language clearly indicates that sentencing upon the revocation of probation is for the original crime only, and not the crime which results in the revocation of probation.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 In fact, other courts have similarly recognized that criminal action which forms the basis of a probation revocation cannot be punished through sentencing upon revocation.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 After revoking probation, a trial court can }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 consider}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 }{ \i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 the crime that resulted in the revocation}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 and defendant}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s conduct during the probationary period }{ \i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 only as evidence}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 of his or her rehabilitative potential}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 .}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The new sentence, however, cannot punish the defendant for anything other than the original underlying offense.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 " }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Bouyer}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 769 N.E.2d at 149 (citation omitted).}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [30]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab Additionally, relaxed evidentiary procedures exist in revocation proceedings.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Any attempt by the revoc ation court to punish a defendant for the crimes committed while on probation seriously compromises the various rights afforded to criminal defendants under the Organic Act and the United States Constitution, including the right of due process of law and the right to a jury trial.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 See }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 People v. Chung}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 2004 Guam 2, }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 13, 20; }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Henderson v. Morgan}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 426 U.S. 637, 644-45, 96 S. Ct. 2253, 2257-58 (1976).}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Manila was punished here apparently without being afforded any of the well-established constitutional protections due individuals who are at risk of being deprived of their liberty.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The revocation court plainly and substantially erred in this regard. \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [31]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab Moreover, the revocation court may only revoke probation if it determines that }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 revocation . . . will best satisfy the ends of justice and the best interests of the public.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 " }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 9 GCA }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 80.66(a)(2).}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The existence of this lower standard of proof illustrates the distinction between revocation proceedings and criminal prosecutions where the Government bears the heavy burden of proving all elements o f the criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and clearly demonstrates that the lower court is not authorized to adjudge a defendant criminally guilty for the later crime, nor punish him, in a revocation proceeding.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 } {\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 One court has aptly described the r elationship between punishment for the original offense upon revocation of probation and punishment for the crime which results in the probation revocation, and the implication of this relationship on a double jeopardy analysis:}{\insrsid3825236 \par }{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-1080\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 It is clea r that upon revocation of probation, sentence may be imposed for the original offense upon the conviction of which the defendant was granted probation.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 If the act alleged to be a violation of probation constitutes another crime and sentence is to be imposed for the subsequent act, the defendant should be tried for such crime and sentence imposed under the orderly criminal processes.}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 This does not preclude sentence on the original offense and the distinction is drawn so as to obviate any question of double jeopardy.}{\i\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1080\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \par }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 People v. Deskin}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 361 N.E.2d 1188, 1189 (Ill. App. Ct. 1977) (quoting }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 People v. White}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 235 N.E.2d 393 (Ill. App. Ct. 1968), overruled on other grounds by }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 People v. Jones}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 647 N.E.2d 589 (1995)) (emphasis added).}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The double jeopardy clause is generally not implicated in a revocation proceeding specifically because a revocation court is not authorized to punish for the criminal conduct which amounts to a violation of probation.}{ \insrsid3825236 \par }{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [32]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab The present case presents the unique issue of whether the revocation court}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s apparent punishment for the Second DUI is legally effective as punishment, and if so, the double jeopardy implications which result from the prior punishment. \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [33]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab Becau se the trial court is not permitted to sentence the defendant for the criminal offense which constitutes the probation violation, it is not surprising that there is scant authority for a case like the present one.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 In the many cases where the trial court }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 properly}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 sentenced the defendant upon the revocation of probation for the original offense, courts have easily found that the double jeopardy clause was not implicated.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 However, where the trial court commits an error and apparently sentences the defendant for the crime which constitutes the probation violation, there is little authority on whether the double jeopardy clause bars further prosecution or punishment.}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 We are unfortunately working from a clean slate. \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [34]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab While the revocation cour t clearly exceeded its authority in punishing Manila for the Second DUI, we nonetheless find that jeopardy attached as to the DUI crime charged in the present case.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The revocation court had subject matter jurisdiction to revoke probation for the First DUI.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 See }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 9 GCA }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 80.66.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Furthermore, Manila}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s criminal conduct committed while on probation was properly before the revocation court for the limited purposes of determining whether Manila}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s probation should have been revoked and determining the punishment for the crime for which probation was imposed.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 See Bouyer}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 769 N.E.2d at 149 (}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 After revoking probation, a trial court can consider the crime that resulted in the revocation and defendant}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s conduct during the probationary period only as evidence of his or her rehabilitative potential.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ). \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [35]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab Importantly, the revocation court was a court of general jurisdiction, with subject matter jurisdiction over criminal cases.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{ \i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 See }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Title 7 GCA }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 3101, 3105 (2004).}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 While the revocation court clearly erred and exceeded its authority in imposing punishment for the Second DUI due to procedural deficiencies, }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 see}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Title 8 GCA }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 1.15 (2000) (stating that criminal offenses must be prosecuted by either indictment, information, or complaint), the court nonetheless had fundamental jurisdiction over the case.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 See Marks}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 820 P.2d at 620 (}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 We there fore conclude that the trial court does not lose subject matter jurisdiction when it fails to hold a competency hearing, but rather acts in excess of jurisdiction by depriving the defendant of a fair trial.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Although the judgment may be a nullity, for double jeopardy purposes the proceedings are not.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ) (citation omitted).}{\insrsid3825236 \par }{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [36]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab Since the revocation court had fundamental jurisdiction in the revocation proceeding and generally over the offense of DUI, Manila was pl aced in jeopardy in being punished and serving his punishment for the second DUI offense.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Because the DUI and DUI (B.A.C.) offenses charged in the underlying proceeding are the same offenses as the DUI offense for which Manila was punished during the revocation proceeding, he cannot be further prosecuted for those DUI offenses.}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 See People v. Palisoc}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 2002 Guam 9, }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 35 (}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The Double Jeopardy clause, made applicable to Gu am through the Organic Act, precludes courts from imposing multiple punishments for the same offense.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ).}{\cs15\super\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid3825236 \chftn }{\insrsid3825236 }{\fs20\insrsid3825236 For purposes of the }{\i\fs20\insrsid3825236 Blockburger }{ \fs20\insrsid3825236 analysis, the underlying DUI and DUI (B.A.C.) are the same offense. The elements of a DUI offense are found in Title 16 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{ \fs20\insrsid3825236 18102(a), which provides: \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid3825236 It is unlawful for any person, while under the influence o f an alcoholic beverage or any controlled substance, or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and any controlled substance, to operate or be in physical control of a motor vehicle. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid3825236 16 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 18102(a). \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid3825236 The elements for a DUI (B.A.C.) are found in 16 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{ \fs20\insrsid3825236 18102(b) which provides: \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid3825236 It is unlawful for any person, while having eight one-hundredths of one percent (0.08%) or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to operate or be in physical control of a motor vehicle. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid3825236 16 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 18102(b). \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid3825236 Under Title 16 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 18101(a), DUI is defined as follows: \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid3825236 (a) }{\i\fs20\insrsid3825236 Driving under the influence (}{\i\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{ \i\fs20\insrsid3825236 DUI}{\i\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\i\fs20\insrsid3825236 ) or while intoxicated}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 means any person driving a vehicle under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or a controlled substance or a combination there of, when as a result of consuming such alcoholic beverage or controlled substance or the combination thereof, his or her physical or mental abilities are impaired to such a degree that he or she no longer has the ability to drive a vehicle with the cautio n characteristics of a sober person of ordinary prudence, under the same or similar circumstance, and includes any person operating or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle who has eight one-hundredths of one percent (0.08%) or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid3825236 Title 16 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 18101(a) (2002). Under section 18101, a finding that a person has a 0.08% blood alcohol content equates to a finding that the person is driving under the influence of alcohol. \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid3825236 Courts discussing the relationship between DUI statutes which criminalize either driving while under the influence }{\i\fs20\insrsid3825236 or}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 driving with a specified blood alcohol content have found that such statutes merely set forth different }{\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 methods of proving the same offense.}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 }{\i\fs20\insrsid3825236 Young v. City of Brookhaven}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 , 693 So. 2d 1355, 1358 (Miss. 1997). In other words, the subsections governing regular DUI and blood alcohol DUI }{\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 are not separate offenses, but are two methods of proving the same offense }{\fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 66 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 driving under the influence of alcohol.}{ \fs20\insrsid3825236 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 }{\i\fs20\insrsid3825236 Id}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 . (quoting }{\i\fs20\insrsid3825236 Buckner v. City of Huntsville}{ \fs20\insrsid3825236 , 549 So. 2d 451, 452 (Ala. 1989)); }{\i\fs20\insrsid3825236 see also Johnston v. City of Fort Smith}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 , 690 S.W.2d 358, 359-60 (Ark. Ct. App. 1985). Thus, the two provisions are essentially one offense, and not two separate offenses, and the double jeopardy clause bars a court from convicting or punishing a defendant for both. }{\i\fs20\insrsid3825236 See generally Hadden v. State}{\fs20\insrsid3825236 , 349 S.E.2d 770, 772 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986) (finding that because the two offenses were the same in law or fact, two convictions for the offenses were barred). \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid3825236 Because the revocation court punished Manila for the conduct of Driving Under the Influence, Manila may not be prosecuted for either the DUI or DUI (B.A.C.) offenses charged in the underlying proceeding. }}}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 C.}{\b\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Reckless Driving: Application of }{\b\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Blockburger}{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [37]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab The People contend that even assuming Manila}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s double jeopardy claim is accepted with regard to the DUI offenses in the underlying case, the double jeopardy p rohibition does not in any event require a dismissal of Reckless Driving charge because the DUI and Reckless Driving charges are not the same offense under the }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Blockburger }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 same elements}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 test.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 We agree. \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [38]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab During the revocation proceeding, the revocation court only imposed punishment for the DUI offense.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The prior punishment only bars prosecution for the Reckless Driving offense if the two crimes, DUI and Reckless Driving, are the }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 same offense.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 " }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Pursuant to }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Blockburger}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , two crimes are the same offense if }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 " }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Palisoc}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 2002 Guam 9 at }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 36 (quoting }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Blockburger v. United States}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S. Ct. 180, 182 (1932)). \par \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [39]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab The offense of Reckless Driving is described as follows: }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}} {\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Every person who drives any vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 " }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Title 16 GCA }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 9107(a) (1996). \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [40]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab To prove the commission of DUI, the prosecution must establish that the defendant was: (1) under the influence (defined as being impaired to a degree that }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 he or she no longer has the ability to drive a vehicle with the caution characteristics of a sober person of ordinary prudence}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ); (2) of alcohol; and (3) operating or being in physical control of a motor vehicle.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Title 16 GCA }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 18101, 18102 (2002); }{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 see also }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 n. 8,}{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 supra}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 .}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The Reckless Dr iving charge required proof that: (1) the defendant was driving; (2) upon a highway; and (3) }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 " }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 16 GCA }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 9107(a) (1996).}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [41]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab The DUI offense requires proof that the defendant was impaired by alcohol, while the Reckless Driving charge does not.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Additionally, the Reckless Driving charge requires proof that the defendant was driving in willful or wanton disregard for others}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 safety, while the DUI does not require a finding of willful or wanton disregard for safety; it merely requires impairment (i.e., the inability to drive with caution of a sober person).}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Therefore, the two offenses required proof of a different fact than the other.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [42]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab Courts which have compared DUI and Reckless Driving statutes similar to ours have reached the same conclusion.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{ \i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 See State v. Mourning}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 664 P.2d 857, 861-62 (Kan. 1983) (}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [The offenses of reckless driving and DUI] required proof of an additional element which the others did not. . . . [R]eckless driving and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, are neither the same offense and neither is a lesser included offense of the other.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ) (quoting 7A AmJur 2d, Automobiles & Highway Traffic }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 389);}{\i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Ray v. State}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 563 S.W.2d 218, 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [C]onsidering the difference in the elements of reckless driving and D.U.I., . . . we hold that reckless driving is not a lesser included offense of D.U.I.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ); }{ \i\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 see also City of Bellevue v. Redlack}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 , 700 P.2d 363, 367 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985) (}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Each statute requires proof of an element which is not included in the other.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Driving while under the influence requires proof that the driver was under the influence of intoxicating liquor . . . and negligent driving requires proof that the driver was operating the vehicle in a negligent manner . . . .}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 "}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 ). \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [43]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab The DUI offense and the Reckless Driving offense require proof of a different fact and they are not the same offense for double jeopardy purposes.}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The revocation court}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s imposition of punishment for the DUI offense during the revocation proceeding does not preclude the People from prosecuting Manila for Reckless Driving in this case. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1080\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 IV. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1080\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9780620 {\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [44]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab This case is one of first impression, and hopefully the last of its kind.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The revocation court}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s error in punishing Manila for the Second DUI is not easily understood, nor is it favorably received.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The result reached today simply serves to protect the right held by defendants who have already suffered punishment from being twice placed in jeopardy by the hands of those with jurisdiction to impose punishment upon them.}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 We expect trial court judges to conduct revocation proceedings in accordance with statutory guidelines and with regard to the rights of defendants.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 We further expect all counsel to be observant of the purpose and scope of revocation proceedings.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Counsel}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s obligations in this regard serve to prevent tactical manipulation of the charges filed during revocation proceedings, because any such conduct would be disappro ved by this court with as much earnestness as our disdain of the revocation court}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s disregard of legal authority governing the scope of punishment which may be imposed during a revocation proceeding. \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [45]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab Upon review of the circumstances of this case, we find that in revoking Manila}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s probation, the revocation court possessed jurisdiction over the offense for which probation was imposed, and could consider Manila}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s criminal conduct committed while on probation in determining whether Manila}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s probation could be revoked.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 The revocation court was also a court of general jurisdiction over criminal cases.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 While the revocation court plainly erred and exceeded its authority in punishing Manila for the Second DUI offense charged in the underlying proceeding, the revocation court possessed fundamental jurisdiction with regard to the crime of DUI.}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 Jeopardy therefore attached during the probation revocation proceeding with regard to the DUI offenses for which Manila is charged in this case, and double jeopardy principles preclude further prosecution of the DUI offens es charged in the instant proceeding. \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [46]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab The double jeopardy clause does not, however, bar prosecution of the Reckless Driving offense in this case because the DUI offense for which Manila was already punished is not the same offense as the underlying Reckless Driving charge. \par }{\b\insrsid9780620 \par }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 [47]}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 \tab Accordingly, we }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 AFFIRM}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 the trial court}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 '}{ \insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 s decision dismissing the DUI charges in the underlying matter, but }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 REVERSE}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 the decision dismissing the Reckless Driving charge.}{ \insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 }{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 We }{\b\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 REMAND}{\insrsid3825236\charrsid9780620 for further proceeding}{\insrsid9780620 s consistent with this opinion.}{\insrsid9780620\charrsid9780620 \par }}