DUI Potomac Maryland Lawyer Driving Influence

Card Mic v. State

Facts:

Defendant was charged with driving while intoxicated and driving under the influence of alcohol. Defendant waived his right to a jury trial, pleaded not guilty, and waived formal proof. Defendant was found guilty of driving under the influence and sentenced to 60 days. Defendant sought review of the sentence entered in the Circuit Court, Maryland on his conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol.

DUI Potomac Maryland Lawyer

Issue:

• Whether the trial court properly convicted the defendant for driving under the influence of alcohol?

Discussion:

The court vacated the enhanced sentence imposed by the circuit court. Md. R. Crim. Causes 4-245(b) provided that when the law permitted but did not mandate additional penalties because of a specified previous conviction, the court could not sentence defendant as a subsequent offender unless the state’s attorney served notice of the alleged prior conviction on defendant or counsel before the acceptance of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or at least 15 days before trial in circuit court or 5 days before trial in district court, whichever was earlier. Defendant did not receive notice that he would be subject to enhanced punishment until after the district court trial took place. The court vacated the sentence of the circuit court entered on defendant’s conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol and remanded the case for resentencing

The SRIS Law Group Maryland lawyers will do their best to help you with your case. Contact a Maryland lawyer from our firm to discuss your case.

A Maryland lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your case in Maryland and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.

We have client meeting locations in Rockville (Montgomery County) & Baltimore.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.