DUI Lawyers Directory. Search for a dui lawyer near you. Operating a vehicle while drinking could cause judicial actions.
 Zip Code Search for DUI Lawyers
Defending Alleged Drunk Driving Criminal Acts Read about successful dui defense cases from member dui lawyers Read about successful dui defense cases from member dui lawyers Membership at DUI Defenders Discuss issues related to dui/dwi/owi Contact Us about a DUI Lawyer
facebook.com/MyDUI

  to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.

State v. Hughes

11/12/2004

rimes were committed, but California had enacted legislation which allowed the revival of prosecution for certain crimes. In this case, K.S.A.2002 Supp. 8-1567(1)(3) does not attempt to establish criminal liability for prior conduct. " 'A showing of prior convictions goes only to the question of [a] defendant's status. The prior conviction or convictions gives the defendant a classification, and the statute prescribes sequentially increased punishment for repeated offenders. A repeating offender is not punished for the prior offense or offenses, but the Legislature has declared that repeated violations justify the enhanced penalty." ' State v. Campbell, 9 Kan.App.2d 474, 477, 681 P.2d 679 (1984) (quoting State v. Jones, 214 Kan. 568, 570, 521 P.2d 278 ). Prior to Hughes' arrest for his third DUI, the applicable law had been amended to abolish the decay effect. Hughes argues that due process is violated because he might not have pled guilty to the previous convictions if he had known they would not decay and would affect a subsequent conviction. Our Supreme Court has held that "[d]ue process does not require that a defendant be informed of all collateral consequences which may result from a guilty plea." State v. LaMunyon, 259 Kan. 54, 62, 911 P.2d 151 (1996). More specifically, "[o]ne of the collateral consequences of which a defendant need not be informed is the possibility that the conviction may be used to enhance the sentence for a later crime." 259 Kan. at 62; see also Sedillos, 33 Kan.App.2d at __. Here, the amendment to the DUI statute became effective in July 2001, approximately 15 months prior to the date of the offense in the present case. Thus, Hughes had sufficient notice of the change in the enhancement statutes. The use of both prior convictions to enhance Hughes' conviction is merely a collateral consequence of his prior DUI convictions and does not offend due process. **4 Hughes' constitutional challenges fail. Affirmed.

Page 1 2 3 

Kansas DUI Attorneys    DUI Lawyers


  to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.

DUI Driving Defined Highway Defined
Under Influence Defined DUI/3 Strikes DUI & Manslaughter
DUI & Murder DUI Punishment Sobriety Checkpoints
DMV's Role in DUI Revocation vs. Suspension Field Sobriety Testing
Speed Measurement Prior DUI Convictions Drawing Blood & Consent
Refusal to Test DUI Lawyers Testimonials by Member DUI Lawyers
DUI Articles Ignition Interlock Implied Consent
Summary DUI License Suspension In-home Arrest Vehicle Defined
FDP  |   RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Leads  |  Partner Websites  |  Draeger FAQ
SiteMap | DUI Blog | DUI Lawyers | DUI Attorneys | Trading Partners | Member Agreement | Terms of Service
Attorneys Click Here | DUI Case Laws | FAQ | DUI Forum | Directory of DUI Attorneys | Success Stories  | Press Releases
Copyright © 2004. “DUI Defenders”. All rights reserved.