Source: http://gototrial.com/topics/penalties/page/2/
Timestamp: 2018-12-19 03:36:45
Document Index: 672164432

Matched Legal Cases: ['§23153', '§23554', '§23153', '§23153', '§12022', '§12022', '§23153', '§12022', '§2933', '§667', '§667']

Penalties Archives | Page 2 of 3 | Orange County DUI Attorney
2nd / 3rd – Restricted License
The Legislature amended the Vehicle Code to allow a restricted license sooner for 2nd and 3rd offenders. The law became operative on July 1, 2010. Many are wondering if it applies to them. Perhaps they were arrested before 7/1/2010. Maybe they were even convicted before then. Well, the DMV is telling everyone that the new law only applies to them if thier new DUI was committed after 7/1/2010. By that logic, a 3rd offender today could get a restricted license sooner than a 2nd offender who had their 2nd DUI prior to 7/1/2010. The DMV really missed the point of this new amendment.
The correct analysis of the amendment creates an incentive for ALL 2nd and 3rd offenders to put an ignition interlock device in thier car, and get a restricted license early. The only real limitation is that their most recent DUI needs to be an alcohol only offense. If the most recent DUI involved drugs (legal or illegal), then the new law does not apply to them.
Chad R. Maddox has already won a challenge against the DMV on this new law in Orange County, Order Granting Writ and has many more challenges pending in Los Angeles County. The Legislature has taken a new approach to repeat offenders as a result of the data they reviewed. They concluded that it is in the best interest of the public to give repeat offenders the incentive to install these devices. They concluded that public safety is increased by this incentive. They are trying to be proactive in the fight against drunk drivers. The DMV just hasn’t accepted these realities. See more at:
If you’ve been denied a restricted license under the new law, contact us today to find out how we can help.
This entry was posted in License Issues, Penalties.
Chad - 12/13/2010 .
CVC §23153 may be charged as a felony or a misdemeanor under CVC §23554. The prosecutor’s decision whether to charge a §23153 offense as a felony or a misdemeanor is generally based on the seriousness of the injury involved and the number of prior convictions. They consider whether or not the victim was hospitalized, or whether or not the victim suffered a permanent injury.
This crime is more difficult to prove than an ordinary DUI. The prosecutor must prove that the driver did an act forbidden by law, or neglected a duty imposed by law, and that act or neglect proximately caused bodily injury to someone other than the driver. The forbidden act or neglected duty, is known as the supporting offense. Basically, the supporting offense is some wrongful act, usually a Vehicle Code infraction, that is alleged to be the cause of the victim’s injuries. It must be proved beyond a reaonable doubt just like it would have to be proved at a trial on that charge alone.
The driver’s act must be the legally responsible cause of the injury. The Prosecution has the burden of proving proximate cause, and may satisfy that burden by producing “evidence from which it may be reasonably inferred that the defendant’s act was a substantial factor in producing” the harm.
If the injury is serious enough, the felony DUI under CVC §23153 constitutes a strike with a consecutive three year enhancement. See Penal Code §12022.7.
Pen. C. §12022.7, subd. (e) defines great bodily injury as “a significant or substantial physical injury.” It is an injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm. The question of what constitutes “great bodily injury” is a question for the jury, not the judge.
A defendant sentenced to state prison following a conviction of CVC §23153 with an allegation pursuant to P.C. §12022.7 found to be true must serve 85 percent of the sentence because such a conviction qualifies as a violent felony pursuant to P.C. §2933.1 and §667.5. P.C. §667.5 (c) (8) classifies a violent felony as: “Any felony in which the defendant inflicts great bodily injury on any person other than an accomplice which has been charged and proved as provided for in section 12022.7.”
This entry was posted in License Issues, Penalties, The Law, Your Defense.
If you were arrested for a DUI, the arresting officer likely took your physical license away from you and gave you a pink temporary license that is valid for 30 days.
The Temporary License that you got at the time of your release from jail in place of your Real Driver’s License has a HIDDEN TIME BOMB. You MUST CONTACT THE DMV WITHIN 10 DAYS OF YOUR ARREST AND REQUEST A HEARING. If you make a timely request, the suspension of your license will be stayed until the final determination of your case by the DMV. You also have the RIGHT TO APPEAL a decision against you to a REAL JUDGE
If you are going to hire an attorney, do so prior to contacting DMV. Your attorney will ensure that you are prepared for your DMV case. Furthermore, your attorney will need to coordinate your hearing date with your defense in Court. If you are approaching the 10 day limit, call the DMV immediately to request an in-person hearing and advise them that your attorney will be contacting them to set up a date. Request a stay and take note of the person you speak with. You must request a hearing through a Driver Safety Office; do not call a DMV Field Office. In Orange County, the Irvine Driver Safety Office is the appropriate office.
Fax a written request to them at (949) 440-4424. If you call them, you will not have any proof you asked for a hearing. (949) 440-4436.
DMV CASES CAN BE WON. Many people think that if their blood or breath test was 0.08% or more they will automatically loose their license. THIS IS NOT TRUE. There are many technical/scientific defenses including the failure to strictly comply with the California Code of Regulations, which can and do result in suspensions being set aside. Our Office has focused on finding systematic failures of government agencies to follow the rules set forth in Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations which has resulted in successful challenges to DMV suspensions in a majority of our cases over the last ten years.
( Learn more about Successful Challenges to DMV)
THE DMV HEARING OFFICERS ARE TRAINED TO SUSPEND YOUR LICENSE
In fact, they get in trouble if they don’t. Here is a public record request I used to get a copy of an internal DMV memo which demonstrates the kind of pressure on the DMV hearing officers to suspend your license: 08-10-27 memo SD driver safety office
The so-called Zero Tolerance law is found in Vehicle Code section 23136. If you are under 21, and drive with a BAC of .01% or more, you may lose your license for 1 year. Of course you may apply for a restricted license during that time – see VC 13353.8 and the DMV form DS2694 – Critical Need to Drive
But if you are over .01%, that does not mean you were impaired. You must be .05% or more at the time of driving to be in violation of the under 21 DUI statute found in VC 23140.
If you are under 21 and have a BAC test with a result of .01% or more (no matter how high), do not assume you have no hope. Consider cases like this one, where an expert testified that a reading of .01% does not necessarily mean the driver actually was .01% and the court overturned the DMV suspension. Nazerian v. Gourely
Chad - 06/09/2010 .