 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Brown6/15/1999
al validity of a defendant's prior conviction, the defendant's signature on the advisement of rights form and the existence of an acknowledgment of waiver of rights form signed by the defendant are but factors to be considered in the totality of circumstances.
. Applying this rule to the facts of the instant case, we determine that the District Court did not err in concluding that Appellant's prior DUI convictions detailed in Exhibits 2, 4, and 5 were constitutionally valid and could be used to support the enhanced felony charges
"against Appellant. The advisement of rights forms contained in Exhibits 2, 4, and 5 delineate the specific rights of Appellant and a hand-written check mark appears next to Appellant's right to counsel. Judge Burns signed these forms. Judge Burns testified to his routine practice of arraigning defendants using these advisement of rights forms. He testified that he asks about each right and confirms the defendant's understanding of each right before placing a check mark next to the right. Judge Burns remembered the particular circumstances surrounding the arrests in Appellant's DUI convictions detailed in Exhibits 2, 4 and 5. Judge Burns distinctly remembered going through the checklist form with Appellant on the occasion of his DUI conviction detailed in Exhibit 2. Judge Burns testified that he was absolutely certain that Appellant was advised of his rights and that Appellant knowingly and voluntarily waived those rights before pleading guilty in his prior DUI convictions."
. The weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses is exclusively within the province of the district court and when the evidence conflicts, the district court is in the best position to make the necessary inferences and determine which shall prevail. Couture,
17 (citing Olson, 283 Mont. at 32-33, 938 P.2d 1325). In this case, the District Court was presented with Appellant's affidavit and testimony on the one hand, and with the State's evidence on the other. The District Court was in the best position to weigh each party's evidence and determine which shall prevail. This Court will not disturb that decision.
. Affirmed.
WILLIAM E. HUNT, SR.
We Concur:
J. A. TURNAGE
KARLA M. GRAY
JIM REGNIER
TERRY N. TRIEWEILER
|