 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Beatus v. Commonwealth3/20/1998
TO BE PUBLISHED
REVERSING AND REMANDING
This Court granted discretionary review of a McCracken Circuit Court order which affirmed the McCracken District Court conviction of Thomas Beatus (Beatus) for operating a commercial vehicle under the influence of alcohol (KRS 281A.210) and imposed penalties contained in KRS Chapter 189A. Pursuant to this Court's order of February 7, 1997, granting discretionary review, the sole issue on appeal is whether penalties can be invoked from KRS 189A.010 and imputed to individuals convicted under KRS 281A.210. We disagree that those penalties can be applied interchangeably and reverse the court order accordingly.
On May 5, 1996, Officer Rob Estes (Estes) stopped Beatus after observing him driving a semi-tractor truck in an erratic manner, swerving over the center line and hitting the overpass curb. Estes administered two field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test (PBT); Beatus failed all three tests. Estes arrested Beatus and charged him with operating a motor vehicle under the influence in violation of KRS 189A.010. Beatus registered 0.153 grams/210 liters on the Intoxilyzer 5000 breathalyzer test.
Prior to trial, the Commonwealth amended the charge to a violation of KRS 281A.210, which deals solely with the operation of commercial vehicles "while under the influence of alcohol or other controlled substance." At trial, the Commonwealth sought to impose penalties listed in KRS 189A.010 for a conviction pursuant to KRS 281A.210. Beatus objected. The trial Judge overruled the objection, and Beatus entered a conditional guilty plea and was accordingly convicted under KRS 281A.210. Invoking KRS 189A.010, the district court imposed a fine of four hundred seventy-seven dollars ($477.00) and a fourteen-day jail term (conditionally discharged). The circuit court affirmed the trial court's sentence, and this appeal followed.
Beatus argues that the district court was incorrect in imposing penalties derived from KRS 189A.010 in a KRS 281A.210 conviction since the latter statute specifically refers to penalties contained in KRS Chapter 281A. He further contends that a court cannot read any additional language into the plain meaning of a statute. He maintains that even if courts were permitted to interpret legislative intent underlying the codification of statutes, the trial court still erred in interpreting KRS 281A.210.
The Commonwealth contends that the statutes are meant to be read and construed together. Although KRS Chapter 281A provides administrative penalties for violations, the Commonwealth nonetheless argues that the language in KRS 281A.219(4) is not a limitation -- but rather an expansion -- of the penalties that can be imposed. See Hardin County Fiscal Court v. Hardin County Board of Health, Ky. App., 899 S.W.2d 859 (1995)(a statute should be construed, if possible, to give effect and meaning to each part of it). The Commonwealth maintains that since KRS 281A.210(4) specifically defines a driver of a commercial vehicle with an alcohol concentration exceeding 0.04 as driving under the influence , Chapter 189A is applicable.
KRS 281A.210 provides, (3) A person who drives a commercial motor vehicle within this state with an alcohol concentration of four hundredths (0.04) or more shall be deemed to be operating a vehicle under the influence. (4) A person who drives a commercial motor vehicle within this state with an alcohol concentration of four hundredths (0.04) or more, ..., in addition to any other sanctions that may be imposed under this chapter shall be disqualified from driving a commercial motor vehicle under KRS 281A.190.
(Emphasis added.)
Interpret
Page 1 2 Kentucky DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|