Washington DUI Lawyer

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.

The End of Daylight Savings Time Increases Road Hazards

Every year at this time, we see an increase in auto accidents. The reason is simple ? with the end of daylight savings time comes an increase of darkness around the time of rush hour, when traffic is at a peak. Drivers aren?t used to the decreased visibility ? and neither for that matter are pedestrians, who might take chances crossing roads when they shouldn?t. Wrongful death cases as a result of auto accidents are a strong possibility when you have all these elements working together.

The National Road Safety Foundation has done studies proving that auto accidents increase after the clocks fall back an hour. Besides the lack of visibility, the NRSF notes that commuting in the dark can also make drivers drowsier than usual.

?Drowsy driving is a significant factor in traffic crashes. The risk increases as daylight savings time ends and we spend more time driving at night,? says the NRSF?s David Reich. “Drowsy driving is as dangerous as drunk driving.?

Studies show 60 percent of U.S. motorists have driven while fatigued ? resulting in many personal injury and wrongful death situations. A CNN report estimated that pedestrians walking at dusk after the time switch are three times more likely to be hit by a car.

Obviously, daylight savings time is not going to be abolished ? and obviously, even if it were, there would still be hours less of daylight due to the approach of winter. Therefore, it?s important for both drivers and pedestrians to be aware of the heightened danger that more darkness creates for all parties ? and to be extra-cautious at this time of the year to avoid motorcycle and auto accidents.

The NRSF also offers warning signs for drowsy drivers so they can avoid falling asleep at the wheel and causing auto accidents. These include:

? Difficulty focusing, rubbing eyes, frequent blinking ? Daydreaming or not remembering driving the last few miles ? Head snaps, yawning ? Drifting out of your lane, tailgating or hitting rumble strips

Should you find yourself with any of these warning signs, the NRSF advises you to pull over and take a break, have a caffeinated beverage or snack, or even take a nap. Of course, you should avoid alcohol before getting behind the wheel, as that also encourages sleepiness.

Always remember, if you do happen to be involved in an auto or motorcycle accident where personal injury or wrongful death occurs, consult with an attorney immediately. You may not need a lawyer?s services, but it?s important to be sure before you agree to anything with insurance companies.

Originally published here.

DUI criminal records may be a valuable source of criminal background history information about a person for someone like a prospective or current employer, insurance companies, universities, professional licensing entities, or whoever wishes to look up specific facts on DWI convictions or may be running a criminal background check against the DUI offender. Even if criminal information on someone has long been sealed or erased from other types of public records since long time ago, a DUI record may still contain it. Forever. The point is too many people fail to realize a DUI conviction will not clear from their criminal record automatically after a certain number of the years, be it even misdemeanor DUI charge, for DUI expungement is a civil action requiring plaintiff’s petition. DUI is the kind of record that can keep to appear on a person’s criminal record forever unless proper and required steps are taken towards its expungement. Moreover, not all states allow clearing record of driving under the influence, and some will have it done if certain requirement met only.

The general advice for the offenders is to consult their lawyer and get instructions on how it is possible to work proactively trying to clear your DUI conviction record. If you discover it’s impossible, you should at least make a bit of your own investigation to have an idea what exactly your prospective employer or landlord or someone else could discover when you consent to submit to a background check.

Another useful thing to know is that normally both DMV and the court will have a DUI public criminal records on file. Many people fail to realize that deleting the record from court files doesn’t mean automatic expungement from the police DUI record maintained by DMV, and vice versa.

Again, if you are an offender wishing to have your DUI record expunged, you should do that only with the help of a qualified lawyer specializing in the matter. Contact your DIU lawyer still before spending your time and money what possibly can’t be done. For the moment of writing this review, DUI records expungement was 100% possible in California and Utah, as well as there were chances for DUI record sealing in Nevada; certain expungements were possible in Minnesota. In Florida, New York, Washington and Texas, DUI expungement is possible if the case is dismissed, vacated, set aside or terminated in any other way. The DUI related legislature changes quickly, so don’t get into despair if your state is not on the list. The things may change.

Even if DUI regulations and laws, as well as DUI records expungement standards differ from state to state, the requirements determining whether offender’s DUI record can be cleared or not, are very similar and normally they take into account the following:

The time that passed since the conviction before expungement application was filed;
Any incidents while driving after the conviction took place;
Type of the offense, gravity of the consequences etc.
Compliance with the terms of sentence.

If you have a DUI history, it’s time to see if you have a DUI record you may wish to expunge or seal.

Originally published here.