 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bennett4/7/2004
the time of the offenses, the 1993 convictions were limited to a five-year cleansing period, and the use of them to enhance the present 2000 DWI charge constitutes the ex post facto application of the law in violation of the state and federal constitutions. Nonetheless, the defendant fails to note that this court has previously held that the use of the 1993 increase of the "cleansing period" of DWI convictions from five years to ten years in earlier convictions, does not constitute an ex post facto application of the law. State v. Hall, 648 So. 2d 1 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1994), writ denied, 664 So.2d 406, 1995-0166 (La. 11/29/95). Therefore, this claim is without merit.
The defendant also makes vague, general claims as to ineffective assistance of counsel, without providing any specific facts forming the basis of those claims. Assignments of error which are neither briefed nor argued are considered abandoned. URCA Rule 2-12.4; State v. Schwartz, 354 So.2d 1332 (La. 1978); State v. Kotwitz, 549 So.2d 351 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1989), writ denied, 558 So.2d 1123 (La. 1990).
CONCLUSION
The bill of information and arraignment were properly done. The defendant was convicted by a proper jury verdict. The defendant was properly sentenced pursuant to the applicable statute. The defendant's appellate counsel's motion to withdraw is granted. Consequently, the defendant's conviction and sentence are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 Louisiana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|