Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | DUI Case Debunked | Cale Law Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office
If you’re looking for the best Tulsa criminal defense attorney, call the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation with attorney Stephen Cale is free. Attorney Cale will also develop a free defense strategy plan document for you. This will outline the criminal justice system and give you a guideline of the work that attorney Cale will do for you.
With aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol after former conviction of a felony DUI. The defendant elected to have a trial before the judge. The judge found the defendant guilty and sentenced her to five years suspended. The defendant appealed here’s a summary the facts of the case.
In November, the Tulsa officer stopped the defendant after he saw her hit the curb of her car three times run a stop sign. The defendant smelled strongly of alcohol, had slurred speech, bloodshot watery eyes and difficulty standing. She admitted to being drunk and felt simple field sobriety test. She also agreed to take a breath test. It showed a result of 0.22 blood alcohol content. This is 5100 over the limit.
The defendant had previously been convicted of felony DUI five years earlier. She was sentenced to two years imprisonment. Prior to the trial in this case, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss arguing that she can be convicted only of misdemeanor DUI in the case because her prior felony DUI conviction was committed more than 10 years before the crime in this case. The trial court denied defendants motion, finding that once a person is a felony, the tenure rule does not apply.
The defendant argued on appeal that her DUI case should be a misdemeanor, not a felony. This claims raised an issue of statutory interpretation. Therefore the question of law for the court reviewed de novo. The statute provides a person convicted of driving under the influence shall begin to the of a misdemeanor for the first offense. The section for the provides that if during the tenure probationary period the person commits a second offense, then he’s guilty of a felony.
As to aggravated driving under the influence, that section provides that any person is convicted a violation of driving under the influence of the blood alcohol concentration of 5100s or more pursuant to section shall be deemed guilty of aggravated driving under the influence. The federal principle of statutory construction acquires this court to determine to give effect to the mention of the legislature. Legislative intent is determined first by the plain and ordinary language of the statute. A statute should be given a construction courting a fair import of its words taken in the usual sense. Also to look at the context in reference with the purpose of the provision.
When the which a statute is unambiguous, resort to additional roles of construction are not needed. The appellate court must on the statute to me what a plane expresses and cannot resort interpretive devices to create a different meaning. The primary role statutory construction is a rule of lenity. This requires that the cork is just statutes strictly against the state deliberately in favor of the accused. Words not found in the text of the criminal statute will be read into for purposes of extending it or giving it interpretation in conformity with supposed policy.
A statute will not be large by application or in intended beyond the fair meaning of the language used. The terms recently justifiable be content included offenses and persons other than those that are clearly described in the statute. At the place of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to interpret statute to address the matter of the legislature and chose not to address. This is so even if the appellate court thinks that interpretation my produce original result.
The purpose of strict construction is not reward those who commit acts which should be punishable, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. Instead, it’s to ensure that when liberty is at stake, all citizens have a fair and clear warning about conduct is prohibited. It is equally important that the severity of the punishment be relative to the crime. In 1996 case, the appellate court addressed an issue similar to the one of the cases of the facts and circumstances here. The defendant was charged with the wind convicted. This was after a second subsequent offense. His prior conviction was for felony DUI. The felony DUI at issue in that case occurred or 10 years after his first felony DUI conviction.
The defendant argued that because his conviction the first felony and occurred over 10 years before committing the second felony, the time constraints of the statute require that his second felony DUI be modified to a misdemeanor. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals agreed. The plain language of the statute specifies that the first offense of DUI is a misdemeanor the second fence is the felony of committed within 10 years following the date of completion of sentence.
In another case, the defendant was a driver of the vehicle also held and all passenger. Police stopped the defendant for traffic violation. The police officer testified the preliminary hearing that the defendant had slurred speech, bloodshot eyes that are coming from her there was little and alcohol beverage. The testified that the defendant’s vehicle was thought to have been involved in a hit-and-run accident prior to been stopped. The judge from state offered no evidence to show that the defendant was related to the child. Specifically, there were no evidence that she was the parent, guardian or person in control or custody of a child the backseat of the car. He failed only that the person state prove to the relation with John was a passenger. This passenger was the child’s father. The judge concluded state to produce probable cause of the crimes of child neglect or child abuse were committed by the defendant. If you’re looking for the best Tulsa criminal defense attorney, call the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800.