280 results for 'cat:"DUI"'.
J. Pirtle finds the county court properly terminated defendant from DUI court and sentenced her to a year in prison and 12 months’ post-release supervision. Charged for two counts of felony DUI and for refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test, defendant later drove on a suspended license several times and was once stopped and arrested for a new criminal offense. All witnesses, including law enforcement officers and administrators, were aware of defendant’s multiple infractions and dishonesty. That the witnesses were not sequestered had little prejudicial effect, if any. Affirmed.
Court: Nebraska Court Of Appeals, Judge: Pirtle, Filed On: November 7, 2023, Case #: A-23-348, Categories: Evidence, dui, Due Process
J. Lorello finds that defendant was not entitled to have evidence of drunk driving suppressed. The arresting officer's observation that defendant's shoulder was raised toward his ear provided the reasonable suspicion of distracted driving for a traffic stop even if the officer did not see a cell phone. The possibility that the "hands-free" mode exception applied is not a factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis. Affirmed.
Court: Idaho Court Of Appeals, Judge: Lorello, Filed On: November 2, 2023, Case #: 49825, Categories: Search, dui
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Windhorst vacates defendant's sentence of 30 years' imprisonment on his conviction for vehicular homicide while under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content of 0.20 percent or more and other drugs. In this case, since the bill of information charged defendant with a blood alcohol content of 0.20 percent or more and having two prior DUI convictions, his sentence should have been imposed with a restriction of benefits for any period of time as required by statute. Vacated.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Windhorst, Filed On: October 31, 2023, Case #: 23-KA-78, Categories: Sentencing, dui, Vehicular Homicide
J. Vargas finds the appeals court erroneously reversed the lower court's order granting suppression of evidence during defendant's DUI case. Although the apprehension of a suspect in a nearby stabbing incident is undoubtedly important, defendant - who was not the perpetrator of the stabbing - was pulled over one mile from the crime scene more than 30 minutes after the stabbing, which made the traffic stop and subsequent search unreasonable. Reversed.
Court: New Mexico Supreme Court, Judge: Vargas, Filed On: October 30, 2023, Case #: S-1-SC-38642, Categories: Evidence, Search, dui
J. Ives finds the trial court properly granted defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained at a sobriety roadblock and used to charge him with DUI. The state failed to establish the constitutionality of the roadblock and evidence of defendant's intoxication was not discovered until after he stopped his vehicle. Although such roadblocks are not inherently unconstitutional, the only testimony provided by the state was that of the arresting officer, who did not have reasonable suspicion to arrest defendant until after he stopped at the roadblock, and so the seizure was unconstitutional and violated defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. Affirmed.
Court: New Mexico Court of Appeals, Judge: Ives, Filed On: October 30, 2023, Case #: A-1-CA-39970, Categories: Constitution, Search, dui
J. Englander affirms the defendant’s conviction for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The booking video was not unfairly prejudicial just because a breathalyzer machine was seen in the video and the video was correct to show because it allowed the jury to view how the defendant performed the walk-and-turn test. The judge’s specific instruction about not considering the breathalyzer was also not an error.
Court: Massachusetts Court Of Appeals, Judge: Englander, Filed On: October 27, 2023, Case #: 22-P-551, Categories: Evidence, dui, Vehicle
J. Hodges finds that the trial court improperly granted defendant's motion for a new trial after a jury convicted her of homicide by vehicle, driving under the influence of alcohol and reckless driving. The trial court found that it had wrongly denied defendant's pre-trial motion to suppress medical records revealing her blood-alcohol content. The evidence was cumulative of other legally admitted evidence showing that defendant had been drinking before she ran over the 11-year-old victim with her car. Any error in the admission of the evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt. The case is remanded for the trial court to resentence defendant because her conviction for DUI less safe should have merged with her conviction for vehicular homicide based on DUI less safe. Reversed.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Hodges, Filed On: October 26, 2023, Case #: A23A1012, Categories: dui, Vehicular Homicide
J. McGrath finds that the lower court improperly imposed a felony sentence on defendant for a DUI conviction. The state failed to prove the existence of defendant's prior DUI convictions for purposes of enhancing his sentence. A pre-sentence report alone does not constitute adequate proof. Reversed.
Court: Montana Supreme Court, Judge: McGrath, Filed On: October 24, 2023, Case #: DA 21-0589, Categories: Sentencing, dui
J. Hart finds the trial court improperly suppressed the results of blood testing prior to defendant's trial on DUI charges. The results were not yet available when it made its ruling, which was not supported by any credible evidence and was made before a trial date had been set. The testing lab, a state agency over which the prosecution has no control, had not yet provided the results at the time of the court's decision to suppress, which could only be made if evidence proved the delay was unreasonable. Reversed.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court, Judge: Hart, Filed On: October 23, 2023, Case #: 2023CO55, Categories: Evidence, dui, Discovery
J. Boomgaarden finds that the lower court properly denied a motion from defendant, filing pro se, to correct what he alleges is an illegal sentence stemming from DUI convictions. Defendant claims he was not credited for time served spent on probation, but there is nothing in the law that would entitle him to that. The lower court did, in fact, credit him with his history of treatment during probation by reducing his sentence by one year. Affirmed.
Court: Wyoming Supreme Court, Judge: Boomgaarden, Filed On: October 18, 2023, Case #: S-23-0123, Categories: Probation, Sentencing, dui
J. Pagan finds the trial court properly denied defendant’s request to enter a diversion program as part of a conditional guilty plea. “Defendant’s prior diversion was successful and did not result in an uncounseled conviction.” Affirmed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Pagan, Filed On: October 18, 2023, Case #: A176773, Categories: Sentencing, dui
J. Pirtle finds the district court properly affirmed the county court’s denial of the DUI defendant’s motion for absolute discharge on speedy trial grounds due to delays occurring from the forensic scientist’s lack of availability. Scheduling issues were identified well in advance of the original trial date and measures were taken to secure the availability of the expert’s testimony; due diligence was exercised. Defendant’s motion and subsequent appeal caused proceedings to extend beyond the six-month trial period, and so he has waived his right to a speedy trial. Affirmed.
Court: Nebraska Court Of Appeals, Judge: Pirtle, Filed On: October 17, 2023, Case #: A-23-178, Categories: dui, Speedy Trial, Experts
J. Nichols finds that the lower courts properly sentenced defendants for driving under the influence in two separate cases that Pennsylvania now raises for appeal, arguing both sentences failed to properly take into account prior offenses. New sentences in these cases would violate the constitutional protections guaranteed to defendants by the double jeopardy clause. Affirmed.
Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court, Judge: Nichols, Filed On: October 10, 2023, Case #: J-S13004-23, Categories: Sentencing, Double Jeopardy, dui
J. McMullen finds the lower court properly revoked defendant’s probation. Defendant pleaded guilty to statutory rape and received a four-year sentence suspended to supervised probation. Defendant violated the terms of his probation when he was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. As a result of the violation, the lower court revoked his probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his four-year sentence in confinement. The instant court finds no abuse of discretion by the lower court in its order. Affirmed.
Court: Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge: McMullen, Filed On: October 9, 2023, Case #: W2022-01433-CCA-R3-CD, Categories: Probation, Sex Offender, dui
Per curiam, the appellate division properly convicted defendant of driving while intoxicated since the lower court properly admitted evidence obtained during a traffic stop instigated when the arresting officer observed defendant's vehicle swerve over the white fog line several times. Affirmed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: October 6, 2023, Case #: KA 23-00229, Categories: Search, dui
J. Egan finds the trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence discovered during a traffic stop that was used to convict him of DUII. “Momentary and minor deviation[s]” onto a fog line are not a violation. Reversed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Egan, Filed On: October 4, 2023, Case #: A177542, Categories: Evidence, dui
J. Stiles finds that defendant was properly given a 30-year sentence on his conviction for vehicular homicide over a fatal crash involving a pedestrian. The record shows that the trial court appropriately considered the aggravating circumstances and mitigating factors in imposing the sentence. Also, the sentence was not excessive since the mandatory fine was not imposed, and seven years of the sentence were suspended, while only the first three would be served without probation, parole or suspension. Affirmed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Stiles, Filed On: October 4, 2023, Case #: KA-23-162, Categories: Sentencing, dui, Vehicular Homicide
J. Riedmann finds the trial court properly convicted defendant for DUI. Defendant was arrested after the officer responded to a call that he was drunk in a grocery store. The officer confronted defendant while sitting in his car, parked in a handicapped spot, with a strong odor of alcohol coming from the vehicle. Defendant said that he was “waiting until he could leave to go home.” His car keys were on the ground and defendant was forcefully removed after not responding to requests to exit the vehicle. All evidence supports the conviction. A driver’s permit that, when photocopied, displayed the word “VOID” was properly allowed. Affirmed.
Court: Nebraska Court Of Appeals, Judge: Riedmann, Filed On: October 3, 2023, Case #: A-22-774, Categories: Evidence, dui
J. Crothers finds that the district court properly affirmed a North Dakota Department of Transportation’s suspension of an defendant's driving
privileges for one year for driving under the influence. Affirmed.
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court, Judge: Crothers, Filed On: October 2, 2023, Case #: 2023ND190, Categories: dui
J. Horton finds that the trial court improperly convicted defendant for felony DWI, third offense, and sentenced him to 99 years in prison. A prior DWI used as a sentencing enhancement was dismissed after defendant completed probation and did not result in a final conviction. The judgment is reformed according to this evidence. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Horton , Filed On: September 27, 2023, Case #: 09-22-00136-CR, Categories: Sentencing, dui
J. Hixson finds the lower court properly denied defendant’s motion for a new trial. Defendant was convicted of vehicular homicide by intoxication and driving under the influence (DUI), for crashing into another vehicle when he crossed the centerline of a road into oncoming traffic, killing the driver. Blood samples taken from defendant after the crash indicate that he was high on fentanyl when the crash occurred. Defendant argues that he was denied his right to confrontation because the lower court allowed a State’s witness to testify via Zoom, but the instant court finds the Zoom testimony did not prejudice defendant, and it was only utilized because the witness tested positive with Covid-19 and was contagious. Evidence is sufficient to support defendant’s convictions and 12-year sentence. Affirmed.
Court: Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge: Hixson, Filed On: September 25, 2023, Case #: M2022-00949-CCA-R3-CD, Categories: Evidence, dui, Vehicular Homicide
J. Greenholtz finds the lower court properly convicted defendant of two counts of driving under the influence and one count of reckless driving. Defendant claims statements he made to responding officers at the scene of his one-vehicle accident with a brick mailbox were illegally obtained because he was not given a Miranda warning. The lower court determined that defendant was not in custody at the time the statements were made, so Miranda was not required. Evidence is sufficient to support his convictions and effective 11-month, 29-day sentence. Affirmed.
Court: Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge: Greenholtz, Filed On: September 21, 2023, Case #: W2022-01560-CCA-R3-CD, Categories: Evidence, Miranda, dui
J. Randolph finds the lower court properly convicted defendant of driving under the influence (DUI) third offense. Defendant was pulled over after almost colliding with a police vehicle on a roadway. During the traffic stop, the officer saw an open beer can in the console of the vehicle and smelled alcohol on the defendant, resulting in a certified DUI officer being called to the scene. The certified DUI officer administered a field sobriety test, which defendant failed, and she was taken into custody and ticketed for careless driving and driving under the influence. Defendant argues the lower court’s handling of jury instructions prejudiced the outcome of her trial, and that she received ineffective assistance from trial counsel. The instant court finds no error in the lower court’s handling of jury instructions and that the defendant abandoned her ineffective assistance of counsel claim by failing to state an issue. Affirmed.
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court, Judge: Randolph, Filed On: September 21, 2023, Case #: 2022-KA-00754-SCT, Categories: Ineffective Assistance, dui, Jury Instructions