Second DUI Offense Requires Mandatory Confinement

Roger Dent struck two vehicles stopped at a red light and was charged with driving under the influence (DUI)(N.J.S.A. 39:4-50), careless driving (N.J.S.A. 39:4-97), possession of an open container of alcohol (N.J.S.A. 39:4-51(b)) and failure to wear a seatbelt (N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.2(f)). The defendant was convicted of DUI in municipal court and sentenced to 180 days in prison as a third offender, as well as 10 year loss of driving privileges and substantial fines. Dent had three prior convictions for driving while intoxicated (DWI). Due to one of the prior DUIs being without counsel, that particular DUI could not be used to enhance any future custodial sentences for DUI pursuant to State v. Laurick, 120 N.J. 1 (1990). Following appeal of the municipal court decision, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County. Dent was sentenced to 60 days in prison as a second-time DUI offender which, pursuant to the judge, he could serve in the County Supplemental Labor Service (CSLSP), frequently referred to as SLAP. In State v. Dent, the State appealed the sentence as contrary to N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a)(2) and (3) which specifies a minimum 48 hour period of incarceration which is also not to exceed 90 days and that said sentence “shall not be suspended or served on probation…” but the statute does allow for “county jail, to the workhouse of the county wherein the offense was committed, to an inpatient rehabilitation program or to an Intoxicated Driver Resource Center…” The NJ Appellate Division held that, pursuant to State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 174 (1964), “imprisonment was intended to be mandatory” for second-time or subsequent DWI offenders and remanded the matter to the Superior Court for resentencing. Dent’s argument that his 48 hours in an Intoxicated Driver’s Resource Center satisfied the 48 hour incarceration period may be considered by the Law Division as credit against any sentence he may be given thereby. If you are convicted of DUI you face serious penalties including loss of license for up to 10 years, incarceration for up to 180 days and substantial fines. You should obtain an experienced DUI attorney immediately to help fight your case. For more information about DWI, drug DUI (DUID), controlled dangerous substance (CDS) in a motor vehicle, reckless driving, refusal to submit to a breath test or other serious motor vehicle offenses in NJ visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Stay Of Suspension During DUI Appeals Becomes Unlikely

As a result of State v. Robinson, judges have been warned about the stay of license suspensions pending appeal in driving under the influence (DUI) cases. Brian Robertson was convicted of driving while intoxicated as a result of the officers observations and his Alcotest reading of .13% blood alcohol content (BAC) after Robertson provided breath samples. In an effort to eliminate the Alcotest results, the defendant sought records with regard to repairs and diagnostic tests with regard to the specific Alcotest machine used. The records were not provided and the defendant appealed. Both the municipal court judge and the state court judge stayed the sentence of 7 month license suspension pending appeal. The NJ Appellate Division affirmed the conviction as some of the records sought had been deleted in good faith and others would not sway the court from convicting the defendant based on the officers observations and totality of the circumstances. The most problematic issue with this case for the Appellate Division was the stays of sentence permitted without findings as to the factors set forth in Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982). The factors include the result of irreparable harm to the defendant if temporary relief is not afforded, whether any substantial issue remains unsettled, whether all material facts are controverted, and the whether a hardship would result to the defendant in the event the defendant's license suspension was not stayed. Neither the municipal court judge nor law division judge made findings with regard to defendant's driving or substance abuse history or any harms, such as loss of employment, he could have sustained as a result of the sentence imposed. As a result of the need to protect the public from the possibility of defendant's re-offending during the appellate process, judges are cautioned that stays pending appeal are not to be utilized "without giving good reason for it." A conviction for driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence in NJ has serious and lasting effects including the obvious loss of license as well as ramifications in later civil or criminal suits for wrongful death, damages and the like. A DUI, even if a first, can result in lengthy suspensions, fines and even jeopardize your ability to obtain certain professional licenses or other jobs. If you are charged with DUI in NJ, you should contact an experienced driving under the influence defense attorney to protect your rights. For more information about DWI, drug DUI, controlled dangerous substances (CDS) in a motor vehicle, reckless driving or other serious motor vehicle charges in New Jersey visit www.HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

How Likely is Jail in NJ Careless Driving Cases?

Under the NJ careless driving statute (N.J.S.A. 39:4-97), in addition to monetary penalties, offenders can be sentenced to jail. Until now, jail has been a very infrequent consequence of careless driving charges. However, the NJ Supreme Court is considering the criteria for sending careless drivers to jail. State v. Palma involved a driver who hit a pedestrian and dragged her down the road with the vehicle unknowingly. The pedestrian later died from her injuries. An investigation revealed Palma was not intoxicated and was not using a cellular phone while driving. The Judge sentenced Palma to 15 days in jail as a penalty for careless driving in addition to suspending her license. The Court considered the factors in State v. Moran, 202 N.J. 311 (2010) which include the nature of the conduct, the risk of harm, any harm actually caused and the drivers prior record. The Moran principles set forth considerations for suspension in the event of reckless driving and have no bearing on jail terms for careless driving. The NJ Appellate Division held the Moran factors to be acceptable in the determination of whether to impose a jail term for careless driving. The NJ Supreme Court accepted the prosecutor's appeal and is now considering the criteria for sending careless drivers to jail. Depending on the court's decision, jail for careless driver may be a mechanism used by prosecutors to pressure clients into plea agreements which include lengthy suspension or harsher fines in exchange for no jail time. If you are facing careless driving charges, the consequences may be more severe than you think. For more information about careless driving, reckless driving, driving while suspended, DUI, DWI or other motor vehicle charges in New Jersey, visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.