 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Lorms10/30/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
On November 29, 2001, Paul Lorms was charged in two complaints with various counts, including one count of driving under the influence of alcohol and one count of driving under the influence of alcohol causing bodily injury. Because Lorms had suffered three misdemeanor drunk driving convictions within seven years, the current offenses were charged as felonies. The charges arose from two separate incidents. On November 11, 2001, Lorms's motor home collided with a vehicle, injuring a passenger in that vehicle. The police arrested Lorms after he was unable to complete field sobriety tests. Lorms took two consecutive breath tests, which showed alcohol concentrations of 0.14 percent. Less than a week later, Lorms drove his vehicle into a bridge on November 17, 2001. The police again arrested him after he was unable to complete field sobriety tests. Lorms took two consecutive breath tests, which showed alcohol concentrations of 0.18 percent.
On January 30, 2002, Lorms pleaded no contest to two counts of felony drunk driving , with the understanding that his maximum term would be three years and eight months. However, when Lorms appeared for sentencing on February 28, 2002, he learned that his counsel had miscalculated the maximum potential length of his prison term and that he actually faced an additional year of prison based upon his pleas. The court permitted Lorms to withdraw his pleas. Lorms also requested the appointment of new counsel.
Before the court ruled on Lorms' request for new counsel, when the matter next appeared on calendar, at the request of Lorms' defense counsel, the court suspended the proceedings pending an evaluation of Lorms' competency to stand trial. Two examining doctors submitted reports to the court indicating that while Lorms was being treated for chronic alcoholism and bipolar affective disorder, he demonstrated an accurate understanding of the purpose of the criminal proceedings against him, and an ability to cooperate with counsel in a rational manner.
On April 25, 2002, after considering the medical reports, the court found Lorms competent and the matter was reinstated to the calendar. Lorms then withdrew his request for the appointment of new counsel. Through his counsel, Lorms asked the court to reinstate his previously entered pleas, noting that he understood that the court could sentence him to a maximum term of four years and eight months in state prison. The matter was continued for one week so the court could review its file.
On May 2, 2002, after Lorms waived his constitutional rights and again stated that he understood he could be sentenced to a maximum term of four years and eight months, the court accepted Lorms no contest pleas to two counts of drunk driving . The court granted the People's motion to strike the remaining charges.
After reviewing the probation department report and hearing argument from Lorms, his counsel, and the prosecutor, the trial court imposed the maximum sentence permitted under the plea bargain. Initially, the court found that Lorms was statutorily ineligible for probation as there were no unusual circumstances sufficient to warrant such a sentence. Using the conviction arising from the November 11 incident as the principal offense, the court set the base term at the upper level of four years, determining that the aggravating circumstances
Page 1 2 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|