 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Vares11/26/1990
[71 Haw Page 618] Carl Vares was convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DUI) in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291-4 for an incident which occurred on November 20, 1988. Upon sentencing for that offense, the trial court determined that Vares was a third time offender and sentenced Vares accordingly. The court imposed a $1,000 fine, revoked Vares' driver's
license for a period of three years, assessed eight traffic points, and imposed a jail term of 180 days, but suspended all but 15 days of that term subject to certain conditions.
On appeal Vares contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him as a third time offender. He argues that a 1985 DUI
conviction cannot be used to support the enhanced sentence which was imposed. We agree.
A.
On July 25, 1985, Vares was arraigned in the district court of the second circuit for DUI and other traffic violations. Prior to proceeding with the calendar of arraignments and pleas, the district court explained to all of the defendants present the procedure to be followed. As part of this preliminary briefing, the court advised all the defendants that although not mandatory, they had the right to consult with an attorney prior to entering a plea. The court also advised those charged with DUI that they were entitled to a court-appointed attorney if unable to afford one. The court concluded by stating:
The last thing I want to tell you is that if you have any questions about anything that goes on this morning, you don't understand the procedure or don't understand the charge or your rights, I will expect you to indicate to me there is something you don't understand. You have to ask a question. If you don't then I'm going to assume that you understand the procedures and your rights pertaining to these charges.
When Vares was arraigned, the court asked if Vares had been present during the court's opening statement. Vares responded that he was and that he understood the charges and penalties. He entered a plea of no contest to the DUI charge. Vares did not ask any questions nor did he indicate that he did not understand his rights. Nonetheless, he now argues that this record of the 1985 proceeding is insufficient to show that he voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to counsel.
B.
An uncounseled conviction cannot be used collaterally to support an enhanced sentence where such enhanced sentence includes a term of imprisonment. Baldasar v. Illinois , 446 U.S. 222 (1980); State v. Kamae , 56 Haw. 628, 548 P.2d 632 (1976). Compare State v. Hoglund , 71 Haw. 147, 785 P.2d 1311 (1990) (uncounseled conviction valid to support enhanced sentence where imprisonment not imposed).
Vares' enhanced sentence as a third-time DUI offender included a term of imprisonment. It is undisputed that when Vares was convicted in 1985 he was not represented by counsel. Thus, the 1985 conviction cannot be used to support the enhanced sentence he received unless Vares voluntarily and intelligently chose to proceed without counsel. State v. Dicks , 57 Haw. 46, 549 P.2d 727 (1976).
"Courts are most solicitous to assure an accused adequate legal representation and guardingly indulge in a strong presumption against waiver of this fundamental right." Wong v. Among , 52 Haw. 420, 424, <
Page 1 2 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|