 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. State11/12/2003
At defendant's trial on felony driving while license suspended (DWLS) the state adduced evidence of two prior convictions of DWLS. One of the two convictions, however, in 1995 did not satisfy our decision in Badger v. State, 798 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), because the statute then did not require the element of knowledge. The state argued that the trial judge could accept the DMV driving record as sufficient proof that defendant had another conviction in 1998. The trial court later found defendant guilty of felony DWLS, saying that the evidence established two post 1997 convictions. We reverse.
In Ward v. State, 807 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), involving a conviction under the felony DUI statute - which is functionally identical to the felony DWLS statute - we sustained a conviction even though all the required past offenses were not proven with certified copies of the judgments of conviction. We did so because the state supported the evidence of the defendant's DMV driving record with other reliable evidence of the conviction.
In the present case there is no such corroborative evidence of any prior DWLS conviction except for the 2000 conviction. We approved the additional evidence as sufficient in Ward and would do the same if similar evidence had been adduced in this case. Nevertheless we wish to make clear that the safest course is for the state to adduce certified copies of the prior qualifying convictions. Relying on the sufficiency of other evidence to prove qualifying convictions for felony driving offenses needlessly runs the risk of a reversal. It is much the best for the state to adduce its own official records, the certified copies of the convictions themselves.
We therefore reverse for a new trial.
KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Page 1 Florida DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|