Many people are simply more carefree and relaxed in the summer. There is a lot to do and activities such as vacations, holidays, and social gatherings involve the consumption of alcohol. As many of us know, the legal drinking age is 21 years old and the legal drinking limit is .08.

So, you might suspect that, if you’re hurt (or a loved one killed) by a drunk driver, your options are very limited, probably allowing you only to pursue the driver and her insurer? Not necessarily! Each case has its own unique and sometimes peculiar facts. Having the Louisiana personal injury attorney you need to do the proper in-depth discovery required can be essential to a full recovery. Sometimes those unique and/or peculiar facts may shed extra light on the events leading to the crash and may open the door to other avenues of recovery.

Learn more about DWI rights-related cases.

• Learn more about DWI related accidents.

• Learn more about DWI related cases in Louisiana.

• Learn more about Louisiana DWI related cases.

The case arose from Darrell Bourg, Sr.’s August 2010 arrest for DWI and driving carelessly. It was his first DWI offense. In Louisiana, first-offense DWI is a misdemeanor. That means several things for you if you’re facing such a charge. First, it means that the range of possible punishments is less severe than those for a felony crime. Second, it also means that you do not have a right to a demand a jury trial.

Bourg’s case went to trial in May 2014. At the end of the prosecution’s case, Bourg asked for a directed verdict of acquittal. The state, he argued, had no evidence that he was driving carelessly when the police stopped him, which meant that the police did not have probable cause to make the stop. The prosecution argued that defendants have no right to request a directed verdict in a trial by a judge and that the man should have raised his argument by another method. The trial judge rejected Bourg’s directed verdict request. The judge eventually found the driver guilty and sentenced him to 60 days without hard labor.

Almost a year and a half after the verdict, Bourg filed a motion for appeal. The appeals court refused even to hear the driver’s arguments, however. Bourg’s appeal had a procedural problem. In addition to not having a right to a jury trial, a person facing a first-offense DWI charge does not have a right of appeal. For a person who seeks to challenge what happened in his first-offense DWI trial, Louisiana law says that the correct legal procedure is an “application for a supervisory writ.” Louisiana’s rules for court procedure say that, if a person intends to challenge a misdemeanor criminal verdict, such as was the case in Bourg’s situation, the accused person must file a legal notice that announces his intent to apply for a supervisory writ within 30 days of the trial court’s ruling.

In Bourg’s case, he had not filed this notice. He had only filed a notice of appeal. Louisiana law allows courts to accept a notice of appeal and consider it as a notice of intent if the offense underlying the case does not carry a right of appeal. Therefore, his notice of appeal potentially could count as the required notice. However, the problem was that Bourg filed his notice almost 17 months after the verdict, well beyond the 30-day deadline required by the rules. In some cases, the court will allow a defendant to proceed despite having failed to file in a timely manner, but only if the defendant has a good reason for being late. In Bourg’s case, though, he offered no reasons at all for his lack of timeliness, so the appeals court refused to hear his arguments.

Every DWI case, whether the charge is misdemeanor first-offense DWI or a felony DWI matter with the possibility of a lengthy hard labor sentence, is a serious matter and should be viewed in that manner. Regardless of the charge you’re facing, if you’ve been accused of DWI, talk to the diligent Louisiana DWI attorneys at the Cardone Law Firm. Our attorneys have many years of experience helping accused people and ensuring that, whether it’s a felony trial before a jury or a misdemeanor matter before a judge, you get a vigorously asserted defense.

For your confidential consultation, contact us online or phone Cardone at 504-522-3333.

More Blog Posts:

Louisiana Supreme Court Upholds Drunk Driver’s Hard Labor Sentence Even Though Jury Had Only Six Members, Louisiana Injury Lawyers Blog, April 11, 2016

Louisiana Driver’s Plea was Valid Even Without Express Statement of Waived Rights Before Trial Judge, Louisiana Injury Lawyers Blog, Sept. 29, 2015

• Learn more about Louisiana DWI law.

Damion Billups’ most recent DWI case began when a state trooper observed him speeding along a rural road in Northeastern Louisiana. When the trooper stopped the driver, he thought the driver appeared intoxicated, put him through some field sobriety tests, and, based on those results, arrested the man for DWI. The state charged the matter as a third-offense DWI, since Billups had two previous DWI convictions, one each in 2008 and 2010. The driver challenged the charge brought against him, arguing that his 2010 plea was unconstitutional and that this offense should not count against him. After the trial judge concluded that both prior offenses were validly counted against the man, Billups entered a conditional guilty plea and was sentenced to one year of hard labor.

The condition in Billups’ case was that he retained the right to appeal the trial judge’s ruling regarding the 2010 plea. The driver again argued on appeal that the 2010 guilty plea was constitutionally defective. The driver argued that the trial judge in that case, despite engaging in a lengthy exchange with the driver on the record, did not satisfy the Constitution because the judge failed to define several terms and failed to describe certain rights to Billups.

This argument did not persuade the appeals court. The standard for whether a previous guilty plea can be used as a “predicate” for a more severe punishment in the current case was established in a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case, Boykin v. Alabama. In that ruling, the court listed three essential ingredients that must be part of the prior guilty plea for it to count against the accused in his immediate case. The law demanded that the trial judge sufficiently inform the accused “that, by pleading guilty, he waived his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, his right to trial and jury trial where it is applicable and his right to confront his accuser.”

In Billups’ situation, the appeals court decided that standard was met, since the judge in his 2010 case accomplished all three of these things. She asked the driver if he was being forced to plead guilty and told him that, if he did not plead guilty and his case went to trial, no one could force him to testify. She also told Billups that, if he did not plead guilty, he was entitled to a trial by judge. Finally, the judge told the man that, if he went to trial, his lawyer would have the chance to examine the witnesses the state would bring forward. The judge questioned Billups as to whether he understood what was being communicated to him. Based upon these statements and questions, and Billups’ responses stating that he understood, the trial judge properly and sufficiently informed the driver of his rights, and Billups made a conscious and voluntary decision to waive those rights.

Other elements about which the judge did not communicate, and about which the driver objected in his current appeal, such as details about what makes up a trial and the prosecution’s burden of proof, did not disqualify the case from counting as a predicate offense. These pieces of information were not necessary and were not required by the standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Boykin case, the appeals court concluded.

When you’re facing a DWI charge, especially if you have previous convictions on your record, it is important to consult with knowledgeable defense counsel. The law makes certain clear demands of the prosecution in order to use previous convictions against you, and an experienced DWI attorney can help you ensure that convictions that should not count will not be used against you. The skillful Louisiana DWI attorneys at the Cardone Law Firm have helped many clients ensure that their rights are protected.

For your confidential consultation, contact us online or phone Cardone at 504-522-3333.

More Blog Posts:

Louisiana Driver’s Plea was Valid Even Without Express Statement of Waived Rights Before Trial Judge, Louisiana Injury Lawyers Blog, Sept. 29, 2015

The Risks of Negotiating a DWI Plea Arrangement in Louisiana Without a Lawyer, Louisiana Injury Lawyers Blog, July 28, 2015

The events leading up to this decision started with a traffic stop in Bogalusa in 2011. A state trooper pulled over a pickup truck that had been weaving erratically down the road. The driver, Gerald Dahlem, smelled of alcohol, slurred his speech, and displayed glassy, bloodshot eyes. A blood alcohol level test revealed that Dahlem’s BAC was .180.

In January 2012, the state charged Dahlem with DWI, fourth offense, to which the driver pled not guilty. Three months later, the trial began with a jury consisting of six jurors. Neither side objected to the six-person jury nor requested a 12-person jury. The jury ultimately found Dahlem guilty, and the driver received a sentence of 25 years of hard labor.

On appeal, for the first time, the driver objected to the six-person jury that rendered his verdict. Since his case involved a felony that, if he was convicted, required hard labor as a sentence, the law required a 12-person jury, and using a six-person jury denied him his right to a fair trial. The appeals court, in upholding the trial court’s action, determined that using a six-person jury was improper, but Dahlem, by not bringing up the issue until his appeal, waited too long to contest the jury makeup in his case.

The Supreme Court also upheld the conviction and sentence in Dahlem’s case, but it did so for different reasons from the appeals court. The Supreme Court’s ruling clarified that the Washington Parish trial court’s use of the six-person jury was not a procedural error at all. When looking at a case like Dahlem’s, and a challenge like this, the “Bill of Information” is very important. That bill is a document that lays out in detail the precise charges that the accused person faces. The bill in Dahlem’s case accused him of DWI, fourth offense, in violation of La. R.S. 14:98. The sentencing parameters for that crime, contained in La. R.S. 14:98(E)(1)(a), stated that a driver convicted of DWI, fourth offense, could receive a prison sentence of 10-30 years with or without hard labor.

In Dahlem’s case, a sentencing enhancement led to his receiving 25 years of hard labor. However, nothing on the bill of information document gave the trial judge any indication that such an enhanced sentence was a possibility, and the court determined that trial judges should not be required to investigate beyond the specifics of the bill of information document itself. “[W]e specifically decline to create a duty requiring a trial judge to look beyond the face of the bill of information or the indictment.”

In DWI cases, especially those that involve allegations of repeat offenses, the potential punishments can be severe. It is extremely important to retain experienced counsel to help you defend your rights. The hardworking Louisiana DWI attorneys at the Cardone Law Firm have a long track record of helping people accused of DWI in mounting a vigorous defense to the fullest extent that the law allows.

For your confidential consultation, contact us online or phone Cardone at 504-522-3333.

More Blog Posts:

Private Citizens Making DWI Traffic Stops in Louisiana, Louisiana Injury Lawyers Blog, Feb. 3, 2016

Challenging Your DWI Sentence in Louisiana, Louisiana Injury Lawyers Blog, March 27, 2015