Kern County DUI Attorney Explains Timing of Convictions in a DUI Case

In California a DUI driver faces harsh penalties when they have priors for driving under the influence and are arrested on a new case.  The Legislature has declared that the timing of court proceedings should not permit a defendant convicted of a violation of Veh C §23152 or §23153 to avoid enhanced mandatory minimum penalties for multiple separate offenses occurring within a ten-year period. Veh C §23217. California lawmakers have expressed  intent that a defendant should be subject to these enhanced penalties regardless of whether the convictions were obtained in the same order in which the offenses were committed. Veh C §23217. See People v Snook (1997) 16 C4th 1210, 1213, 69 CR2d 615 (applying statute and finding it constitutional). According to one Kern County DUI Attorney, the current offense and the separate violations resulting in convictions must all occur within a ten-year period. See People v Munoz (2002) 102 CA4th 12, 16–20, 125 CR2d 182 (defendant wrongfully charged with a violation of Veh C §23152 punishable under Veh C §23550 (then requiring priors within seven-year period) that occurred in 1996, despite convictions for violations that occurred in 1990, 1997, and 1998; although all three separate violations occurred within seven years of the current offense, the three violations were themselves more than seven years apart).

Enjoying the Beach, Avoid coming on vacation and leaving on probation

With the summer here and temperatures soaring, many are visiting local beach communities but find themselves being arrested for a DUI. One Grover Beach DUI Attorney has warned that watch out for local police who ramp up the enforcement and DUI patrols when the temp warms up. Avoid being arrested by following these 3 basic rules: If you drink do not drive, If you have no one to drive for you take a cab home and If you are going out to party leave your car keys at the door. have fun this summer!

How to Challenge Identity For a Traffic Ticket

A person may contest a charge by claiming under penalty of perjury not to be the person to whom the notice to appear was issued when identification was made by thumbprint or fingerprint. The person must submit a thumbprint or fingerprint for comparison with the thumbprint or fingerprint on the notice. The traffic court may refer the print submitted together with the print on the notice to the prosecuting attorney for comparison. If there is no fingerprint on the ticket or a comparison of the prints is inconclusive, the court must refer the notice back to the issuing agency for further investigation, unless it determines that a referral is not in the interest of justice. Vehicle Code §§40303(c), 40305(b), 40500(e), 40504(c). According to one Kern County Speeding Ticket Attorney, this process will result in the continuance of the case and tolling of the speedy trial period for 45 days. Veh C §§40303(c)(2), 40305(b)(2), 40500(e)(2), 40504(c)(2). The court may make a finding of factual innocence under Penal Code §530.6 if the Judge determines there is insufficient evidence that the person cited is the person charged or if the prosecuting attorney or agency does not respond within 45 days. Except in the latter case, the court may determine that a finding of factual innocence is not in the interest of justice.  This process is available for most speeding tickets but not for DUI or misdemeanor charges.

Can a Medical Marijuana Defense be Lodged Against a DUI Charge

With many in California getting a doctor's recommendation to smoke marijuana comes the frequent question of whether a prescription for pot use can be a defense to a DUI? The short answer to this question is no. California law proscribes a person from driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Just as a person cannot go into Court and claim that they purchased alcohol legally or purchased pain killers legally, they cannot say that they can drive while under the influence of pot just because they had a prescription, period!

Is There a Crime of Parking While Drunk

More often nowadays attorneys are seeing cases involving individuals arrested for DUI that were not actually driving . The question many folks have is whether it is legal to arrest foe drunk driving when the suspect was actually parked. The officer is permitted under California law to arrest if he suspects that the person was driving when they were intoxicated even if they were not driving when the officer pulled up. Th bottom line is that there must be sufficient circumstantial evidence that shows a crime did occur, ie. that the person admitted to having too much to drink and driving or that the engine is running or that the car is blocking traffic, etc.

DUI Attorney In Orlando

Let the best DUI attorney in Orlando fight for your right
One of the most common trespassing of law, a dui or also known as the driving under influence situation requires expert lawful assistance. You are required to look for an attorney instantly. Try finding someone who focuses primarily on protecting in the drink and drive cases. An excellent dui attorney in Orlando can effectively help you take care of your situation and walk scot-free. To accomplish this, you should have an attorney who would strongly fight as your representative in any criminal law firm in Orlando FL. The major results in courtrooms and lawful workplaces are reliant on smart exchange of words and an important successful skill that would help in putting one's foot forward firmly is aggression.

When you have your individual reasoning that would defend your situation, you probably would not experience any repent for your criminal activity. No one wants repent and shame to take over. These emotions can convert relaxed individuals into damages. Your attorney should be able to tell you not to go under depression over your criminal activity and to have trust in him. Actually, the beneficial perception of the attorney in you should be able to help you come up with tangible reasoning protecting your scenario. He should be able to discover confirmed lawful results that are determined from your reasoning. Logic is the only way that can help you protect the freedom of yours. He should not assess you to take inconsistent factors in your discussion. When you are choosing an attorney, be sure enough that your speech is sensibly audible above the others.
The social angle often get the courts to reconsider a particular legal situation. See that your lawyer can picture the entire image of the social impact of your case and present it to the court. He should be able to present how useful and worthy you are when you are free. Stress should also be upon your otherwise obedience with the law. Supporting your case with these criteria, the Orlando dui attorney should be able to paint the right picture of you before the authorities. This often helps.

Try to contact the attorney as soon as possible. Many cases are resolved before they reach the courts. See whether you have a prospect to that. In fact, you should insist on finding someone who has good professional contacts to ensure that your case goes through the right channels. When the best dui attorney in Orlando commits to his best efforts in the initial legal consultations, you would know that you are hiring a good lawyer. The last thing you want is a lawyer who depresses your prospects. Instead, you want someone who brightens your prospects.
A lot depends on finding the right and the best dui attorney in Orlando. The attorney is the only person who can help you out of your trouble. Find someone who would take your sides, without any moral judgment. Unless the lawyer is wholehearted to your case, you cannot expect him to defend your rights.

Is a Felony DUI Defendant Eligible For Realignment?

California lawmakers initiated a program in California some time ago allowing for certain offenders to spend time in local county jails versus being sent to state prison.  A Felony DUI carries a sentence of state prison, however, can a convicted offender do that time in county?  The Coorts say no, according to a recent appeals case.  Appellant pled no contest to a section 23152, subdivision (b) violation, admitted a prior conviction under section 23550.5, and was sentenced to a two-year term in state prison. On appeal, he argued he was entitled to be sentenced to local custody because, absent disqualifying factors not present here, Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h) provides that where the term for the offense is not specified, the underlying offense shall be punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months, two years or three years. Vehicle Code section 42000 provides unless a different penalty is expressly provided by this code, every person convicted of a felony for a violation of a provision of this code shall be punished pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h). Under appellant's reasoning, since section 23550.5 provides for, "imprisonment in the state prison," but does not provide for a specific term, he was eligible for local custody. The appeals court upheld the sentence. Section 23550, subdivision (a), but not section 23550.5 provides for sentencing pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h). By failing to include language in section 23550.5 authorizing local custody, the Legislature intentionally excluded those convicted under this statute from serving the term in local custody.   So, no county jail time for felony DUI crimes in California.