Washington DUI Lawyer

Alcohol abuse effects are widespread and very dangerous for the alcoholic, which is why you need to be aware of them. Whether you are a loved one wants to stop drinking, it’s important to understand what’s at stake here so that you can be extra motivated to quit.

Some of the more common traits that alcoholism brings about are vomiting, depression, an inflamed liver, a yellow skin color, frequent illness, etc. there are many more symptoms, but the bottom line is, if you leave your alcohol problem unattended, you very easily could wind up with liver problems and failure down the road.

At this point, it’s usually too late, and it’s unfortunate how many people die because of not being able to control their alcohol problems. Of course, this doesn’t even take into account the many people that alcoholics can hurt by drunk driving, not to mention the affect on their family by always coming home drunk.

Therefore, getting treatment as fast as possible is not optional, it’s essential if you want to live a healthy life. The first thing I’d recommend to help you stop is to join a group that will hold you accountable, such as alcoholics anonymous.

]]>

There’s a reason this group is so adapt at helping people stop drinking-by coming together with other people who are trying to accomplish the same goal, it provides a tremendous amount of encouragement versus just trying to succeed on your own.

The statistics bare this out as well-the vast majority who attempt to stop drinking by themselves are unsuccessful. This is true of stopping smoking as well. Just having that human interaction during this process is vital, and should not be overlooked.

While joining AA should be enough in and of itself to help you stop drinking, I will provide some more tips that you can implement right away. First of all, knowing why you drink is essential to stopping, because it shows you the root cause of it.

While many treatment programs only focus on the physical aspect of alcoholism and how to reduce your cravings, this does nothing for the mental aspect.

Quite simply, almost certainly you started drinking as a method to help you deal with stress of some sort, and when you eliminate alcohol, it does nothing but leave a vacuum that will likely be filled by another bad habit.

However, if you understand why you began drinking (or any bad habit, for that matter) you can deal with it much more effectively.

This brings me to my next point: once you’ve joined a program and have begun to eliminate the drinking habit, it’s imperative you find something else to fill your time with. it doesn’t have to be anything fancy-just hiking, reading, or anything else that captures your interest and takes your mind of alcohol.

Hopefully this info on alcohol abuse effects will encourage you to stop drinking as quickly as possible and get your life back on track.

Originally published here.

ERIC TURKILL WASHINGTON v. STATE of MARYLAND
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND
January 28, 2010, Filed

Appellant told the officer that he had had two beers.  A second patrol officer, who responded as backup, administered one of the three standard field sobriety tests. Upon exiting his vehicle, appellant had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, his speech was very slurred, he was swaying, using the car for balance, and his steps were uncoordinated.  He claimed that he had taken an Oxycodone six hours earlier, that he walked with a cane and that he did not feel comfortable performing the walk indicating a level of alcohol intoxication that was way over the limit.  Appellant was arrested and took an alcohol breath test at the police station, resulting in a blood alcohol content reading of .25 more than three times the legal threshold of .08.  Appellant was convicted in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County of driving while under the influence of alcohol and driving while under the influence of alcohol per se, and sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment.  He appealed his consecutive sentences.

Issue:

Whether the imposition of consecutive sentences upon conviction of DUI and DUI per se is permitted?  Whether DUI per se sentence should have been merged into the DUI sentence?

]]>

The Court held that the two are separate offenses under the required evidence test because each has “an element not found in the other.” In support of that interpretation,  the Court reviewed legislative history leading to enactment of the DUI per se provision in 1995, including materials from legislative committees, the Task Force on Drunk and Drugged Driving, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). The Court concluded that the legislative history established that DUI per se was enacted as a separate offense in the statutory scheme to permit an intoxicated driving conviction based solely on blood alcohol content, as an alternative to the fact finder having to rely on the more subjective behavioral evidence necessary to prove intoxicated driving.  Because the two offenses are separate, the trial court was not required to merge appellant’s convictions for DUI and DUI per se. Indeed, appellant’s trial counsel acknowledged as much at sentencing, stating that “Count 3, the 21-902(a)(2), and the 21-902(a)(1), do not merge. They are distinct charges with separate elements.” Nevertheless, whether appellant’s DUI per se sentence must be merged into his DUI sentence is an analytically separate question. That is because, even when two offenses are separate under the required evidence test, in some circumstances multiple punishments may not be permitted in order to avoid a violation of the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy.  In the instant case, we agree with appellant that his sentences for DUI and DUI per se should have been merged under the rule of lenity. Appellant’s position presents an issue of first impression, because we have found no reported case addressing the propriety of consecutive sentences for DUI and DUI per se convictions arising out of a single act of driving.  In this case, the issue of sentencing merger is squarely presented by the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences on the DUI conviction and the DUI per se conviction. We hold that, when a defendant is convicted of both DUI and DUI per se, arising out of the same act of driving, the lesser sentence, in this case the one for DUI per se, merges into the greater sentence, in this case the sentence for DUI, under the rule of lenity. Therefore, we shall vacate the DUI per se sentence imposed on appellant.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

Originally published here.