Category: Prior Offenses

juvenile dui

Ohio Supreme Court Address Juvenile Prior OVI Offenses

00DUI Case Law, DUI Felony, DUI Under 21/Juvenile, Prior OffensesTags: , , , , , , ,

In State v. Bode, 144 Ohio St.3d 155, 2015-Ohio-1519, the Ohio Supreme Court decided an issue affecting juveniles and the ability of the state to enhance a DUI charge based on prior juvenile adjudications.

As a juvenile, the defendant was arrested for violating an equivalent offense 4511.19(A)(1)(a), colloquially referred to as a DUI charge. He was not represented by counsel. By 2011 Bode had been convicted of three more DUI charges. In 2011, Bode was indicted for and convicted of felony DUI charges. The cases were felonies because of Ohio enhancement statute R.C. 4511.19(G)(1)(d), which relied on his prior juvenile offense to enhance his charged to a felony. In Ohio, if you accumulate “five or more” DUI offenses within a twenty (20) year period, you may be charged with a felony of the fourth degree.  Here, the government was attempting to use his juvenile offenses as one of the “five or more.”

The defense argued that because he did not waive his right to counsel at his 1992 juvenile adjudication, the state should not be allowed to use that disposition against him. In a narrow 4 to 3 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court agreed. Relying heavily upon well-recognized Due Process cases, the court did not accept the state’s argument that since he was not incarcerated in the 1992 adjudication, he should not have been afforded counsel. The opinion, in dicta, also shows continued life for the collateral attack of a prior sentence under the State v. Brooke, 113 Ohio St.3d 199, 2007-Ohio-1533 analysis.

This case highlights the necessity of hiring an experienced and credentialed attorney who practices in the field of DUI defense. At DaytonDUI, Charles M. Rowland II has over 20 years experience helping people accused of driving under the influence. Call today!

Proving Prior Convictions (Evidence Rule 902)

00DUI Case Law, Prior OffensesTags: , , , , , ,

Just how hard is it for the prosecution to prove prior convictions in OVI cases?prior convictions

The government has the burden of providing a foundation that the documents proving prior convictions should be relied upon. The Ohio Rules of Evidence, Evid. Rule 902, provides that extrinsic evidence of authenticity, as a condition precedent to admissibility, is not required under three (3) specific circumstances:

  1. Domestic Public Documents Under Seal: These can include documents from other states, districts or political subdivision.
  2. Domestic Public Documents Not Under Seal: These include documents without a seal, but bearing some attestation that the signatory had the authority to sign the document.
  3. Certified Copies of Public Records: Documents that are authorized by law to be recorded or filed and are actually recorded or filed in the appropriate public office.

The reported cases set forth in Ohio Driving Under the Influence Law, Weiler & Weiler, 2013-2014 ed., sec 11:9, p. 458, demonstrate that courts have proven lenient in allowing the government to use these documents. (See State v. Lewis, 2011-Ohio-911, allowing two “TRAFFIC CASE INFORMATION HARDCOPY” documents complied with Evid. R. 902; State v. Thompson, 2009-Ohio-314, interpreting a prior case that held the state had to prove with a certified conviction was “non-binding dicta” and allowing in the proof, and State v. Pisarkiewicz, 2000-Ohio-6609, wherein the court allowed faxed copies.

If you have prior convictions and face enhanced penalties, it is vital that you have an experienced DUI attorney on your side. Dayton DUI, “All I do is DUI defense.” 

A Physical Control Conviction Is Not A Prior Offense

00Physical Control, Prior OffensesTags: , , , , , , , , , ,

physical controlA physical control conviction does not count as a “prior offense” for purposes of enhancement.  This principle is spelled out in case law and in statute.  R.C. 4511.181 sets forth the offenses that count as prior convictions.  It does not list a violation of physical control (R.C. 4511.194) as a predicate offense.  It does not matter if the prior conviction  was charged under R.C. 4511.194 or as a violation of a municipal ordinance. This is set forth at R.C. 4511.182(A) and in State v. Schultz, 2008-Ohio-4325 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 2008).

Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in the Miami Valley and throughout Ohio. He has the credentials and the experience to win your physical control or DUI case and has made himself Dayton’s choice for drunk driving defense. Contact Charles Rowland by phone at (937) 318-1384 or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263). If you need assistance after hours, call the 24/7 DUI Hotline at (937) 776-2671. You can have DaytonDUI at your fingertips by downloading the DaytonDUI Android App or have DaytonDUI sent directly to your mobile device by texting DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500. Follow DaytonDUI on Facebook, @DaytonDUI on Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr, Pheed and Pintrest or get RSS of the Ohio DUI blog. You can email CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or visit his office at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.

“All I do is DUI defense.”

For more info on the physical control law, check these city-specific sites at the following links:

Fairborn, Dayton, Springfield,Kettering,Vandalia,XeniaMiamisburg,Huber HeightsSpringboroOakwood,Beavercreek, Centerville

 

Is It A Crime To Refuse To Take A Breath Test?

00Breath Testing, DUI Penalties, DUI Trucking & CDL, Prior OffensesTags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Is it a crime to refuse to take a breath test?

refuse to take a breath testOhio has adopted O.R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) which makes it a crime to refuse to take an evidentiary chemical test if you have a prior OVI (drunk driving)  or OVUAC (juvenile/underage drunk driving) conviction any time within the last twenty (20) years.  If you refuse and you have a prior within twenty (20) years then the penalties for your OVI offense will be double the mandatory minimum. (See generally the “Penalties” section of the DaytonDUI blog).

Professional drivers who refuse to take a breath test face a separate crime if they do not take a test while in their commercial vehicles. See O.R.C. 4506.15(A)(7).  Refusing under these circumstances will result in a one year CDL disqualification.  If you livelihood depends on your CDL make sure your attorney understands these rules.  If you refuse to take a breath test for a second time, you will face a lifetime CDL disqualification.

Attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in the Miami Valley and throughout Ohio.  He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself Dayton’s choice for drunk driving defense. Contact Charles Rowland by phone at (937) 318-1384 or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263). If you need assistance after hours, call the 24/7 DUI Hotline at (937) 776-2671.  You can have DaytonDUI at your fingertips by downloading the DaytonDUI Android App or have DaytonDUI sent directly to your mobile device by texting DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Facebook, @DaytonDUI on Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr, Pheed and Pintrest or get RSS of the Ohio DUI blog.  “All I do is DUI defense.”

For more information if you refuse to take a breath test check these city-specific sites at the following links:

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburg,Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville

Ohio DUI Law R.C 4511.19(A)(2) “a codified dilema”

00DUI Case Law, DUI Penalties, Prior OffensesTags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

ohio dui law

Ohio DUI law R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) enhances the penalty for a motorist who, having been convicted once in the last six (6) years, after having been arrested, refuses to take a blood, breath or urine test.  In State v. Hoover,173 Ohio App.3d 487, 2007-Ohio-5773, the issue of whether or not a person can have a DUI sentence enhanced pursuant to R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) for refusing to take a chemical test was before the Ohio Supreme Court.  The government sought to have the sentence of Corey Hoover enhanced from the ten (10) day mandatory penalty for a second time DUI offender in Ohio to twenty (20) days because he refused to take a breath test.  “The issue here is whether the state can criminalize a person’s failure to consent to a warrantless search, or in other words, to force a consent to search through the coercive power of threatened jail time. Although consent is implied by R.C. 4511.191, consent can be withdrawn. …  Imposing criminal sanctions for failure to consent goes far beyond the state’s power … to regulate the licensure of drivers. Id.

The defendant argued that “ he has a constitutional right to revoke his implied consent and that being forced by threat of punishment to submit to a chemical test violates his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution, which provide that persons, houses, and effects are protected against unreasonable search and seizure.”  Justice Lanzinger emphasized that R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) does not make refusal to take a chemical test a criminal offense. “The activity prohibited under R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) is operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. A person’s refusal to take a chemical test is simply an additional element that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt along with the person’s previous DUI conviction to distinguish the offense from a violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a). Id.  The majority opinion was joined by Justices Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Maureen O’Connor and Robert R. Cupp.

Justice Paul E. Pfeifer entered a dissenting opinion that was joined by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer and Justice Terrence O’Donnell. Justice Pfeifer wrote that today’s majority holding diverges from previous court decisions which have upheld only the imposition of administrative penalties against DUI defendants for refusing to submit to chemical testing.

“R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) veers from the traditional administrative punishment for refusal to consent to a chemical test upon an arrest for DUI and goes down a separate path, beyond the regulation of licensing; for certain DUI arrestees, R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) criminalizes the refusal to take a chemical test. This court’s previous jurisprudence regarding sanctions for a DUI defendant’s failure to consent to chemical tests have all involved license suspensions. … This court has previously answered the question whether a person can face criminal sanctions for failure to consent to a search.  In Wilson v. Cincinnati (1976) … this court held that that the Fourth Amendment prohibits the imposition of criminal penalties upon a person who refuses to submit to a warrantless search.”

“The issue here is whether the state can criminalize a person’s failure to consent to a warrantless search, or in other words, to force a consent to search through the coercive power of threatened jail time. Although consent is implied by R.C. 4511.191, consent can be withdrawn. …  Imposing criminal sanctions for failure to consent goes far beyond the state’s power … to regulate the licensure of drivers. As in Wilson, the statute at issue herein imposes a codified dilemma – consent to a warrantless search or face the possibility of a criminal penalty – and thus amounts to coercion. R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) therefore violates defendants’ rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 14, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.”

This important DUI decision has withstood challenge, so far.  This author posits what impact the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Missouri v. McNeely133 S.Ct. 1552 (2013) regarding the State to obtain a warrant prior to a forced blood draw will have on this decision and other Ohio DUI law issues.  The “codified dilema” as Justice Pfeifer called this matter will have to be relitigated in cases where the State decides not to seek a warrant and also attempts to “enhance” the sentence.

Attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in the Miami Valley and throughout Ohio.  He knows Ohio DUI law and has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself Dayton’s choice for drunk driving defense. Contact Charles Rowland by phone at (937) 318-1384 or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263). If you need assistance after hours, call the 24/7 DUI Hotline at (937) 776-2671.  You can have DaytonDUI at your fingertips by downloading the DaytonDUI Android App or have DaytonDUI sent directly to your mobile device by texting DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Facebook, @DaytonDUI on Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr, Pheed and Pintrest or get RSS of the Ohio DUI blog.  Email CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or visit his office at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.  “All I do is DUI defense.”

For more information on Ohio DUI law  check these city-specific sites at the following links:

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburg,Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville