 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bertram v. State12/21/2001
achieve something closer to uniform treatment with our sister states, but also to make DUI statutes more enforceable and to do a better job of helping identify the problem of the drinking driver and to keep him off the highway."
Clearly, the Legislature has concluded that people who drive while they are intoxicated pose a threat to society. Accordingly, it has stated that its purpose in passing §32-5A-191, Ala. Code 1975, was threefold: 1) to help make the treatment of people who drive while they are intoxicated in Alabama more consistent with the treatment of such people in sister states; 2) to help identify people who drive while they are intoxicated; and 3) to keep people who drive while they are intoxicated off of the highways.
The narrow reading of §32-5A-191, Ala. Code 1975, that the appellant encourages would be contrary to the Legislature's express intent to expand, rather than to constrict, the enforcement of DUI laws. Such a reading might also encourage people who drive while they are intoxicated to move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction to avoid more severe punishment for subsequent convictions. We reject such a narrow interpretation of §32-5A-191, Ala. Code 1975. Rather, just as we have concluded that felony convictions from other jurisdictions may be used to enhance sentences pursuant to the Habitual Felony Offender Act, §13A-5-9, Ala. Code 1975, see, e.g., Watson v. State, 392 So. 2d 1274 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980), cert. denied, 392 So. 2d 1280 (Ala. 1981), we conclude that DUI convictions from other jurisdictions may be used to enhance a sentence for a conviction pursuant to §32-5A-191, Ala. Code 1975. Therefore, the circuit court properly used the appellant's prior DUI conviction from the State of Florida to enhance her sentence. Furthermore, because the appellant had three prior DUI convictions that could properly be used to enhance her sentence, the municipal court properly transferred her case for prosecution in the circuit court. See State v. Thrasher, 783 So. 2d 103, 107 (Ala. 2000); Ex parte Form-by, 750 So. 2d 587 (Ala. 1999). Accordingly, the appellant's arguments are without merit, and we affirm the circuit court's judgment.
AFFIRMED.
McMillan, P.J., and Cobb, Shaw, and Wise, JJ., concur.
Page 1 2 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|