8 results for 'cat:"DUI" AND cat:"Jurisdiction"'.
J. Sullivan finds the lower court properly elevated defendant's DUI case to a felony based on his previous convictions. While defendant was denied counsel during two previous DUI trials that resulted in convictions, the error did not deprive those trial courts of jurisdiction and, therefore, defendant's collateral attacks on the previous convictions were untimely. Affirmed.
Court: Colorado Court Of Appeals, Judge: Sullivan, Filed On: April 18, 2024, Case #: 2024COA38, Categories: Constitution, dui, jurisdiction
J. Zahn holds that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify defendant's sentence for a felony DUI conviction. A stay pending an appeal that failed did not toll the clock on his modification motion, which came three years after sentencing. His original sentence of six years with one year fixed is reinstated. Vacated.
Court: Idaho Supreme Court, Judge: Zahn, Filed On: April 3, 2024, Case #: 50765-2023, Categories: Sentencing, dui, jurisdiction
J. Welch finds the district court improperly reversed the county court's dismissal of a DUI case. Although defendant requested a continuance to retain counsel, the county court did not advise defendant of the effect of a continuance, and it found that the time from that date to the continued arraignment date was not excludable. The district court reversed this after the state filed a notice of intent to take exception but failed to pay the docket fee. Because the state acknowledged failing to pay the docket fee, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Reversed.
Court: Nebraska Court Of Appeals, Judge: Welch , Filed On: April 2, 2024, Case #: A-23-001, Categories: dui, Speedy Trial, jurisdiction
J. Rowland finds the trial court properly dismissed the DUI under suspended license case. The court lacks jurisdiction, as the offense occurred in Indian territory by the Indian defendant. Though it is true that a case cited by the state offers no guidance as to how the balancing test should be applied to Indian defendants, the General Crimes Act is logically read to preempt state jurisdiction over Indians, while not preempting another class, without mentioning either class. Affirmed.
Court: Oklahoma Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Rowland , Filed On: March 7, 2024, Case #: S-2023-409, Categories: dui, jurisdiction
J. Gibbons finds the county court properly denied defendant's petition for a writ of mandamus. Defendant seeks to challenge the court's denial of his motion to dismiss his DUI charge, claiming he faces fines in excess of $1,000, which raises the offense above that of a misdemeanor, depriving the court of jurisdiction. The legislature has shown its clear intent in requiring payment of a civil penalty, and defendant has failed to show he will pay a criminal penalty. Affirmed.
Court: Nevada Court of Appeals, Judge: Gibbons , Filed On: February 20, 2024, Case #: 87000-CoA, Categories: dui, jurisdiction
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. Lee finds the lower court improperly dismissed defendant’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Defendant drove through a cemetery causing $30,490 in damages. He pleaded guilty to DUI and leaving the scene of an accident. Defendant violated the terms of his probation for driving on a revoked license and the trial court revoked his probation, ordered him to serve the balance of his sentence in confinement, and ordered him to pay restitution while incarcerated. Defendant appealed to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, who dismissed on grounds that the trial court’s order was not a final order. The instant court finds that the trial court’s order is a final order and reverses the lower court’s dismissal, but it also finds that the trial court did not properly consider defendant’s ability to pay when it ordered restitution. The matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Vacated.
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court, Judge: Lee, Filed On: June 8, 2023, Case #: M2020-00359-SC-R11-CD, Categories: Restitution, dui, jurisdiction