 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Villella3/24/2004
On August 11, 2002, Mark Vincent Villella was indicted for driving under the influence of alcohol to the extent that he was a less safe driver (OCGA § 40-6-391(a)(1)) and driving with an unlawful alcohol concentration (OCGA § 40-6-391(a)(5)). Villella entered a negotiated plea of guilty to the DUI less safe charge and the State nolle prossed the second count. He was sentenced to, among other things, 12 months probation and 240 hours of community service, fined $1,000, and required to turn in his license plate. The State appeals, contending that the trial court erred in omitting an ignition lock order from Villella's sentence as required by OCGA § 42-8-111(a).
The evidence shows that the DUI conviction was Villella's second in five years. After he entered his negotiated plea, the State offered its sentencing recommendation for Villella to
[s]erve a period of twelve months, pay a fine in the amount of a thousand dollars. Serve sixty days either in confinement or through the work release program, thirty days work alternative program, alcohol and drug evaluation, victim impact panel, ignition interlock order, tag forfeiture order and publication order.
Villella responded that he was in the process of relocating to Florida and liquidating all of his assets, including his home and vehicle. He said that he had an unrelated buyer for his car and that his new job in Florida would not require him to drive. He also asked that "whatever time he does to be straight time," "start anytime after July first," and "instead of work alternative, community service." Villella then asked the trial court not to implement the interlock device. His counsel argued that
since he is relocating, interlock won't do him any good in Florida, I prefer that he just do the straight suspension and he will have to wait eighteen months for application. I'm sort of in a situation where I think he is better off to not have the order and have the eighteen months of hard suspension and then he can apply for reinstatement.
The State responded that "I could be wrong, but I believe an interlock order is required in a second in five DUI." Villella said that it was optional, "because it wouldn't make any sense to have that *500 required on out-of-state drivers." The court agreed that the statutory requirement of an interlock device was discretionary, stating that the statute "says may order," and imposed the above-mentioned sentence, which did not include an ignition interlock order.
Pursuant to OCGA § 42-8-111(a),
In addition to any other provision of probation, upon a second or subsequent conviction of a resident of this state for violating Code Section 40-6-391 within five years, as measured from the dates of previous arrests for which convictions were obtained to the date of the current arrest for which a conviction is obtained, for which such person is granted probation, the court shall order as conditions of probation that:
(1) Such person shall have installed and shall maintain in each motor vehicle registered in such person's name throughout the applicable six-month period prescribed by subsection (b) of Code Section 42-8-112 a functioning, certified ignition interlock device, unless the court exempts the person from the requirements of this paragraph based upon the court's determination that such requirements would subject the person to undue financial hardship; and
(2) Such person shall have installed and shall maintain in any other motor vehicle to be driven by such person during the applicable six-month period prescribed by subsection (b) of Code Section 42-8-112 a functioning, certified ignition interlock device, and such person shall not during such six-month period drive any motor vehicle whatsoever that is not so equipped. [FN1]
FN1. Pursuant
Page 1 2 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|