 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Derendal v. Griffith1/14/2005
erating a vehicle in a manner that endangers individuals or property. Derendal v. Griffith, 207 Ariz. 51, 55 16, 83 P.3d 51, 55 (App. 2004). The statute prohibiting drag racing does not include the element of reckless disregard, and we find no other common law antecedent. Thus, Article 2, Section 23 does not require that a charge of drag racing be tried to a jury.
We next inquire whether, under Article 2, Section 24, drag racing qualifies as a serious offense. Because drag racing is a class one misdemeanor punishable by no more than six months incarceration, we presume that it is not a jury-eligible offense. To overcome that presumption, Derendal must demonstrate additional severe, direct, uniformly applied, statutory consequences of conviction for the offense. At the trial court, Derendal argued that the potential loss of his driver's license upon conviction qualifies as a grave consequence and shows that the legislature views drag racing as a serious crime. We previously have rejected that argument, holding that the potential loss of the driving privilege does not qualify as a serious consequence necessitating a jury trial. Benitez, 198 Ariz. at 96-97 26, 7 P.3d at 105-06. We therefore hold that Derendal has failed to show severe, direct, uniformly applied, statutory consequences and that drag racing is not a jury-eligible offense.
V.
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the decision of the court of appeals and affirm the order of the municipal court and judgment of the superior court denying Derendal a jury trial.
Ruth V. McGregor Vice Chief Justice
CONCURRING:
Charles E. Jones, Chief Justice
Rebecca White Berch, Justice
Michael D. Ryan, Justice
Andrew D. Hurwitz, Justice
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Arizona DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|