 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Munholland10/12/2001
The defendant, Jerry Munholland, pled guilty to driving while intoxicated ("DWI"), third offense, a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:98. Thereafter, defendant was sentenced to serve three years imprisonment at hard labor. The defendant now appeals. We affirm.
FACTS
The defendant was charged by bill of information on June 19, 1999 with DWI, third offense, which occurred on April 17, 1999 in Richland Parish. The bill of information alleged two predicate convictions of DWI:
(1) March 21, 1996: State of Louisiana, Parish of Ouachita, Fourth District Court, and
(2) June 29, 1998: State of Louisiana, Parish of Ouachita, Fourth District Court.
On December 21, 1999, the defendant filed a motion to quash the bill of information, alleging, in pertinent part, that the June 1998 conviction "is constitutionally defective because there is an insufficient inquiry and colloquy between the defendant and the presiding judge."
Parts 4 and 5 of the defendant's motion to quash read as follows:
4.
The transcript of the guilty plea shows that the Trial Judge advised Mover of certain constitutional rights, however, the Trial Judge failed to ascertain:
a) Whether or not the Defendant understood each constitutional right; and
b) Whether or not the Defendant waived each constitutional right.
5.
Mover shows that after the Trial Judge informed Mover of said rights, there was no affirmative showing by Mover, nor was there a response by Mover, that he understood and wanted to waive his constitutional rights.
The evidence submitted, including the court minutes and transcript of the June 1998 guilty plea, shows that the defendant was not represented by counsel while entering his guilty plea. However, the defendant has not challenged the propriety of his waiver of counsel. Thus, the only issue presented for our review is whether the defendant made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his Boykin rights during the 1998 plea colloquy.
The pertinent part of the plea colloquy reads as follows:
Q: Do you understand today's an arraignment session and normally people plead not guilty today and then come back in a couple of two or three months and then they change their plea to guilty. You don't have to plead guilty today or any other day for that matter.
A: No. I want to go ahead and get it behind me.
Q: Alright.
A: That way I can work on it.
Q: Okay. You're charged with DWI, driving under revocation, and improper lane usage resulting from a stop back in November. You took the chemical test and your results were .189. And of course if they're higher than .10 then you're presumed to be under the influence. Don't matter if you had two beers or twenty. You're telling me you want to plead guilty to DWI- first offense. You know what that is?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Operating a motor vehicle on a public highway of this parish and state while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. By pleading guilty you're giving up your right to a trial before a judge, you're giving up your presumption of innocence, you're giving up the right to subpoena witnesses on your behalf to testify for you if there were any, you're giving up the right to cross-examine the arresting officer that stopped you. It looks like it was a parish deputy...a sheriff's deputy, Gene Caviness. He and anybody else that might have assisted in the arrest would be summoned to testify. And if you didn't have an attorney, then you could ask the officer questions about why he stopped you and how you did on the field sobrie
Page 1 2 3 4 Louisiana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|