 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Pixton8/19/2004
ction on his record--his 1998 DUI conviction. Admittedly, charges were pending concerning his January 2001 South Jordan arrest; however, at the time of his Murray arrest, no disposition had been entered in the South Jordan case. Absent an existing finding of guilt entered prior to Pixton's May 2001 DUI arrest in Murray, the pending South Jordan charges could not satisfy the requirements of section 41-6-44 to support a felony conviction. Because no conviction had been entered in the South Jordan case before he was arrested in Murray, the South Jordan conviction could not be used to enhance the charges against Pixton. Consequently, under the plain language of section 41-6- 44(6), as it was structured in 2001, the trial court erred in denying Pixton's motion for a reduction in the charge.
CONCLUSION
**10 Utah Code section 41-6-44 (Supp.2001) permitted the State to charge a defendant with felony DUI only if the defendant had been twice convicted of alcohol related traffic offenses within the immediate ten years preceding his current arrest for DUI. Because Pixton had been convicted of only one alcohol related offense prior to his May 2001 Murray arrest, the trial court erred in denying his motion to reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor. Consequently, we reverse his conviction, and remand this matter for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Page 1 2 3 Utah DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|