Page 001 |
Previous | 1 of 9 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
Loading content ...
Volume 8, Issue 5 January/February 2012 A Monthly Insight into the Prosecution of Impaired Driving Inside this Issue State v. Rodriguez Driver Sent or Received 11 Texts in 11 Minutes Before Crash Texas Blood Test Aims at Drunk Drivers Missouri 'Sovereign Citizen' Loses DWI Trial in Northland NJ Cop Arrested for DWI after DWI Class Police Issue Gift Cards Instead of Tickets New App Helps Determine BAC And More!... Smith v. State, C-2010-1059 Decided Sept. 23, 2011 (Unpublished) In Smith v. State, the defendant entered a plea of no contest to two (2) charges of Enabling Sexual Abuse to a Minor Child and was sentenced to five (5) years imprisonment with two (2) years suspended. Using the same defense counsel, she filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea, which was denied. On appeal, she raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, alleging her counsel not only failed to explain the outcome of her plea (it was an 85% crime), but also had a conflict in representing her at her Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea Hearing. The Court concurred, holding that although defense counsel admitted to not advising his client she was entering a plea to an 85% crime, he did not call her to testify, or advocate her position at the plea hearing. The Court concluded counsel simply could not have been effective at the withdrawal hearing without pointing out his ineffective assistance prior to and during the plea hearing. The case was remanded to the district court for a hearing on the Motion to Withdraw with conflict-free counsel. Chance v. State, F-2010-1123 Decided September 23, 2011 (Unpublished) The defendant was tried and convicted by a jury for First Degree Burglary AFC and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. He received thirty (30) years to serve on the Burglary charge and one (1) year to serve on the Paraphernalia charge. The Court held there was error where the pen packet and Judgment and Sentences introduced contained improper references regarding the pardon and parole system. Combined with the prosecutor's argument that the information could be used to determine sentencing, resulted in prejudice to the defendant. Sentence was modified from thirty (30) years to twenty (20) years. The Court additionally noted that the jury was improperly instructed regarding the range of punishment for the Paraphernalia charge and it should not have been tried in a bifurcated proceeding. As a result, the Court modified the Paraphernalia charge to thirty (30) days in the county jail. Finally, restitution was ordered in error, without having held a hearing to determine the proper amount. Therefore, the district court's restitution order was vacated and remanded to the district court for a hearing to determine a reasonable restitution amount. This material was prepared for the Highway Safety Office in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, and/or Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Object Description
Okla State Agency |
District Attorneys Council, Oklahoma |
Okla Agency Code |
'220' |
Title | Highway headlights, 01-02/2012, v.8 no.5 |
Authors |
District Attorneys Council (Okla.) |
Publication Date | 2012-01 |
Publication type |
Newsletter |
Purpose | A Monthly Insight into the Prosecution of Impaired Driving; Smith v. State C-2010-1059; Chance v. State, F-2010-1123; State v. Rodriguez; Driver Sent or Got 11 Texts in 11 Min. Before Crash by Joan Lowy; Texas Blood Test Aims at Drunk Drivers by nathan Koppel; [Missouri] 'Sovereign Citizen' Loses DWI Trial in Northland by Brian Burnes; NJ Cop Arrested for DWI after DWI Class; Police Issue Gift Cards Instead of Tickets by Sara Story; NAPC Press Release: 2010 National Traffic Safety Prosecutor Award; New App Helps Determine BAC; |
For all issues click |
D1300.6 H638h |
Digital Format | PDF, Adobe Reader required |
ODL electronic copy | Deposited by the agency in print; digitized by Oklahoma Department of Libraries |
Rights and Permissions | This Oklahoma state government publication is provided for educational purposes under U.S. coyright law. Other usage requires permission of copyright holders. |
Language | English |
Date created | 2013-01-22 |
Date modified | 2013-01-22 |
OCLC number | 890221671 |
Description
Title | Page 001 |
ODL electronic copy | Scanned by Oklahoma Department of Libraries |
Rights and Permissions | This Oklahoma state government publication is provided for educational purposes under U.S. copyright law. Other usage requires permission of copyright holders. |
Full text | Volume 8, Issue 5 January/February 2012 A Monthly Insight into the Prosecution of Impaired Driving Inside this Issue State v. Rodriguez Driver Sent or Received 11 Texts in 11 Minutes Before Crash Texas Blood Test Aims at Drunk Drivers Missouri 'Sovereign Citizen' Loses DWI Trial in Northland NJ Cop Arrested for DWI after DWI Class Police Issue Gift Cards Instead of Tickets New App Helps Determine BAC And More!... Smith v. State, C-2010-1059 Decided Sept. 23, 2011 (Unpublished) In Smith v. State, the defendant entered a plea of no contest to two (2) charges of Enabling Sexual Abuse to a Minor Child and was sentenced to five (5) years imprisonment with two (2) years suspended. Using the same defense counsel, she filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea, which was denied. On appeal, she raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, alleging her counsel not only failed to explain the outcome of her plea (it was an 85% crime), but also had a conflict in representing her at her Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea Hearing. The Court concurred, holding that although defense counsel admitted to not advising his client she was entering a plea to an 85% crime, he did not call her to testify, or advocate her position at the plea hearing. The Court concluded counsel simply could not have been effective at the withdrawal hearing without pointing out his ineffective assistance prior to and during the plea hearing. The case was remanded to the district court for a hearing on the Motion to Withdraw with conflict-free counsel. Chance v. State, F-2010-1123 Decided September 23, 2011 (Unpublished) The defendant was tried and convicted by a jury for First Degree Burglary AFC and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. He received thirty (30) years to serve on the Burglary charge and one (1) year to serve on the Paraphernalia charge. The Court held there was error where the pen packet and Judgment and Sentences introduced contained improper references regarding the pardon and parole system. Combined with the prosecutor's argument that the information could be used to determine sentencing, resulted in prejudice to the defendant. Sentence was modified from thirty (30) years to twenty (20) years. The Court additionally noted that the jury was improperly instructed regarding the range of punishment for the Paraphernalia charge and it should not have been tried in a bifurcated proceeding. As a result, the Court modified the Paraphernalia charge to thirty (30) days in the county jail. Finally, restitution was ordered in error, without having held a hearing to determine the proper amount. Therefore, the district court's restitution order was vacated and remanded to the district court for a hearing to determine a reasonable restitution amount. This material was prepared for the Highway Safety Office in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, and/or Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. |
Date created | 2013-01-22 |
Date modified | 2013-01-22 |