The Right To Rehabilitation for a DUI in California

In California, as is the case in many other states, the court must inform the defendant, either orally or in writing, of his or her right to apply for relief from all penalties and disabilities resulting from a misdemeanor DUI conviction after the passage of one year from the date of pronouncement of judgment, or longer if the defendant enters into a plea bargain with the prosecution.  This right is sometimes referred to as an expungement.  According to one Tehachapi DUI Attorney, this right to relief is available provided the defendant successfully performs his or her sentence and leads a law-abiding life during that period under Penal Code Section 1203.4a. Relief is afforded by permitting the withdrawal of a plea of guilty or no contest or by setting aside a verdict of guilty and dismissing the accusatory pleading. In DUI cases, the right is limited somewhat to a Judges discretion, unlike other misdemeanor crimes. Defendants convicted of an infraction are not entitled to relief under Pen C §1203.4a. Pen C §1203.4a(b). A defendant who is granted probation on a DUI may apply for relief from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the conviction on the successful completion of probation which under CA law is a minimum of 36 months.  Notice of this right to relief must be contained in the defendant’s probation papers

The Types of Probation in California DUI Cases

In California, the Court may impose two different types of probation in DUI cases, either formal or informal:

(1) Formal probation. Formal probation is the suspension of the imposition or execution of sentence and the order of conditional and revocable release into the community under the supervision of a probation officer.

(2) Informal Probation. A conditional sentence, also referred to as court or summary probation, is the suspension of the imposition or execu-tion of sentence and the order of conditional and revocable release into the community subject to the conditions of the court without the supervision of a probation officer.  A conditional sen-tence may be pronounced without referring the case to the probation officer. Pen C §1203b. If the case is not referred to the probation officer, the court may consider any information concerning the defendant that could have been included in a probation report.

A conditional probationary sentence on a DUI case places greater responsibilities on the Judge than formal probation, requiring the court to perform two distict functions normally carried out by the probation officer. First, the court must furnish the defendant a written statement of the terms and conditions of the probation.  Secondly, it must order the defendant to report to the court, so that the probationer's conduct may be supervised.

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).

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.

Will a Wet Reckless Conviction Require an IID?

In a few counties in the state of California a conviction for a DUI will require the installation of an ignition interlock device or "IID" in the car.  There are currently few exceptions to the rule and Los Angeles County participates in the pilot program  However, one question that folks have is whether an IID will be required for wet reckless pleas, the answer is no.  Fortunately, the law does not compel the devices for wet reckless offenders at this time.  The DMV will not send the people any letter requiring the machines. 

Are Field Sobriety Tests Accurate?

This is an age old question that many pundits frequently raise within the context of arguments for and against DUI enforcement.  The answer to this question can perhaps best be found within the scientific literature that encompasses the area of drunk driving research.  In one study the researchers found that field sobriety tests are only accurate in predicting impairment relative to driving under the influence, about 70 percent of the time.  This statistic takes into account the fact that the participants in the study performed the tests under ideal conditions and they were conducted in accordance with well established federal standards pertaining to sobriety testing protocols.  Other research sheds light on many of the frailties common to the most frequently performed FST's.  At the end of the day most all that are involved in the legal community will agree that this component of drunk driving enforcement is prone to many weaknesses but it is but one factor to be utilized in the arrest and investigation of driving while intoxicated cases.

Looking For a DUI Attorney in Los Angeles? Watch Out For The Traps

For those consumers that are searching for a DUI Attorney in Los Angeles the choices that are displayed on the search engines can seem overwhelming.  What you need to understand is the difference between the organic search results and the sponsored listings that are generated by lawyers that pay to have their names posted above what google thinks are the most relevant results for the query.  For example, if your type in a search for DUI lawyer the results will display at least 3 listings that are at the very top of the screen.  These are the posts that the attorneys pay for, you must scroll down and see the listings below these sponsored results.  It is these results that are the most probative for the search.  Do not get trapped into the belief that the tops spots mean the best attorneys, the bottom line is that the top three posts are bought and paid for and are not typically the most local or the best experienced DUI attorneys that are in the area.