DUI Potomac Maryland Lawyer Driving Influence
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.
DUI Potomac Maryland Lawyer Psychiatrist Test Stress Disorder
DUI Potomac Maryland Lawyer Psychiatrist Test Stress Disorder
John Austin v. State
Facts:
Defendant was charged with DUI and driving while intoxicated after a police officer saw her driving on a public road and noticed that her speech was slurred, her eyes were watery and bloodshot, and there was a strong odor of alcohol on her breath. The officer testified that he conducted three field sobriety tests, the nystagmus test, the walk and turn, and the one-leg stand, and that defendant failed all three tests. However, the officer did not take a sample of defendant’s breath or blood for analysis. He also testified that defendant was very loud and obnoxious while he was booking her at the police station and that she injured herself after she was placed in a cell. In her defense, defendant claimed that she suffered post-traumatic stress disorder and offered the testimony of a psychiatrist to explain her behavior. However, the trial court ruled that the psychiatrist’s testimony was not admissible. Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) after a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Howard County (Maryland), and she appealed.
DUI Potomac Maryland Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the psychiatrist’s testimony was admissible in DUI proceedings?
Discussion:
The appellate court held that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State to offer evidence detailing defendant’s post-arrest behavior to raise an inference that she was intoxicated and then excluding expert testimony defendant offered to explain that behavior. The appellate court vacated the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for a new trial
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.
DUI Anne Arundel Maryland Lawyer Impaired Alcohol Suspended Probation
DUI Anne Arundel Maryland Lawyer Impaired Alcohol Suspended Probation
Mithchell v. State
Facts:
Defendant contended that the motions court erred in denying his motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds, because the sanction imposed in another case, a weekend in jail, was a punishment for his act of drinking and driving in this case. The State responded that the sanction imposed by the DUI court was solely for defendant’s failure to abide by the terms of the DUI Treatment plan. Following the denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss, defendant was found guilty of driving while impaired by alcohol. The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County (Maryland) sentenced defendant to one year and 60 days, which was suspended in favor of probation, with conditions. Defendant appealed.
DUI Anne Arundel Maryland Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the defendant DUI conviction amounts to double Jeopardy?
Discussion:
This Court concluded that defendant was not placed in initial jeopardy for the charges in this case when he first appeared before the DUI court, because neither the prosecutor nor defense counsel were present, no evidence in the traditional sense was received by the court, and defendant was never sworn or subject to cross-examination. Defendant signed an agreement pursuant to which he agreed that one consequence for failure to comply with the DUI treatment requirements could be incarceration. When the DUI court imposed such a sanction, the court was acting under the agreement and Defendant was not punished by the DUI court. Since defendant’s double jeopardy claim was rejected, the appellate court declined to consider whether he waived his right to be free from double jeopardy
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.
DUI St. Mary Maryland Lawyer Blood Alcohol Test
DUI St. Mary Maryland Lawyer Blood Alcohol Test
Balsys v. State
Facts:
Appellant sought review of a decision of the Circuit Court for St. Mary’s County (Maryland), which convicted him of driving under the influence and making an unsafe lane change and sentenced him as a second offender to one year in jail. At issue was the admissibility of the officer’s testimony that he believed, based horizontal gaze nystagmus test results, that appellant was intoxicated and his blood alcohol content was probably .10 or higher.
DUI St. Mary Maryland Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the horizontal gaze nystagmus test results are admissible for purposes of establishing specific blood alcohol content?
Discussion:
Appellant was driving a truck with a passenger in the vehicle. He was stopped after he was seen making erratic lane changes and traveling below the posted speed limit. After asking for appellant’s driver’s license and registration, the officer noticed appellant was clumsy and slow with his movements. The officer smelled a very strong odor of alcohol coming from appellant. He administered some field sobriety tests. After appellant failed the tests, he was charged with various traffic offenses. He was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) and making an unsafe lane change. He was sentenced as a second offender to one year incarceration, with work release. The court reversed and remanded the DUI conviction after finding that the trial court erred in allowing the officer to testify that, based on the results of a horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test, he believed that appellant was intoxicated and that his blood alcohol content was probably .10 or higher. The court held that evidence of HGN testing, when properly given by a qualified officer, was admissible to indicate the presence of alcohol in a defendant, but not admissible to establish a specific blood alcohol content. Appellant’s conviction for driving under the influence (DUI) was reversed and remanded on the basis that the horizontal gaze nystagmus test results were inadmissible for purposes of establishing specific blood alcohol content. Because there was a reasonable possibility that had evidence of the test results not been erroneously admitted a different outcome would have been reached concerning the DUI charge, the error was not harmless
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.
DWI Garrett Maryland Lawyer Probation Suspended Traffic Control Device
DWI Garrett Maryland Lawyer Probation Suspended Traffic Control Device
Millen Mic. V. State
Facts:
Appellant challenged a judgment, based upon a jury verdict, of the Circuit Court for Garrett County (Maryland) convicting him of driving while intoxicated, driving under the influence of alcohol, and failure to obey a traffic control device, and sentencing him to a term of 90 days, of which all was suspended in favor of two years supervised probation with special conditions.
DWI Garrett Maryland Lawyer
Issues:
- Whether an offender be convicted of driving while intoxicated per se when he is charged with driving while intoxicated?
Discussion:
Section 21-902 of the Transportation Article is titled “Driving while intoxicated, while intoxicated per se, under the influence of alcohol, or under the influence of a drug, a combination of alcohol and a drug, or a controlled dangerous substance.” It includes driving while intoxicated per se. If at the time of testing a person has an alcohol concentration of 0.10 or more, as determined by an analysis of the person’s blood or breath, it shall be prima facie evidence that the defendant was driving while intoxicated. The General Assembly chose to add the language, “A person may not drive or attempt to drive while the person is intoxicated per se” to § 21-902(a) to define a person who was driving a vehicle while intoxicated. If a person is charged with a violation of § 21-901.1 of this article or § 21-902 of this article the court may find him guilty of any lesser included offense under any subsection of the respective section. When scientific evidence has been presented that the alcohol concentration in the blood of an accused is 0.10 or more, the State has established that the accused was driving while intoxicated per se. In sum, when an offender has simply been charged with violating § 21-902, the offender may be convicted of violating § 21-902 (a), (b), (c) or (d).
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.
DWI Baltimore Maryland Lawyer Expert Testimony
DWI Baltimore Maryland Lawyer Expert Testimony
James v. State
Facts:
Mr. James was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated and other charges. At trial James moved for dismissal alleging that the citation had not been properly served in that it had been served on him by a District Court Commissioner, and that such service was improper. Defendant appealed his conviction in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County for driving while intoxicated.
DWI Baltimore Maryland Lawyer
Issues:
- Whether error in the process of service is harmless?
Discussion:
The Court states that The denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss the charging document based on improper service under Md. Code Ann., Transp. § 26-201, Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc., § 2-605(b) and Md. R. Crim. Causes 4-212(h) was not error. Although the process was legally issued by the arresting officer, the error occurred in its actual service because the District Court Commissioner did not have authority to effectuate service. Because defendant appeared to defend against the charge, the trial court had jurisdiction over the charge and the person. The court found the error in service to be harmless because it in no way influenced the verdict. The trial court did not err by admitting the results of the breathalyzer test because the police did not affirmatively mislead defendant about his right to a preliminary test, but merely properly advised him of his subsequent test rights. The court did not err by limiting defendant’s cross-examination of a key state’s witness because he was attempting to elicit expert testimony from an unqualified witness.
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.
Maryland Probable Cause Heroin Arrest Lawyers Attorney
The court of appeals of Maryland held that the police did have sufficient particularized probable cause to arrest the defendant and, therefore, the police were justified in searching his person pursuant to that arrest. Accordingly the judgment of the trial court convicting the defendant for possession of heroin was affirmed and the defendant was denied the motion to suppress his possession of heroin.
It is very important to have the best criminal defense possible when facing a criminal charge.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia criminal defense attorneys can defend you against any type of criminal charge.
Our Virginia criminal defense lawyers have the experience to defend you against any type of criminal charge.
Contact a SRIS Law Group Virginia criminal defense lawyer in Virginia.
Maryland Guilty Assault Intent Kill Indictment Sentence Null Void Lawyers Attorneys
When a trial judge found a defendant guilty of “assault with intent to kill” in an indictment, defendant was found guilty of a crime that was not known to the law of Maryland. Thus, a verdict and sentence entered thereon were null and void
Assault & battery is a very serious crime.
The SRIS Law Group Maryland assault & battery attorneys can defend you against any type of assault charge.
Our Maryland assault & battery lawyers have the experience to defend you against any type of assault & battery charge.
Contact a SRIS Law Group Maryland assault & battery lawyer in Maryland.
Maryland Domestic Violence Expiration Protective Order Expungement Lawyers Attorneys
Because of stigma attached to a person determined to have committed abuse subject to protection under the Domestic Violence Act, the expiration of a protective order did not automatically render the matter moot where defendant requested expungement.
Domestic violence is a very serious crime.
The SRIS Law Group Maryland Domestic violence attorneys can defend you against any type of Domestic violence charge.
Our Maryland Domestic violence lawyers have the experience to defend you against any type of Domestic violence charge.
Contact a SRIS Law Group Maryland Domestic violence lawyer in Maryland.
Massachusetts Conviction Assault Battery Proper Evidence Stealing Alcohol Charged Lawyers Attorneys
Defendant’s convictions for assault with intent to prevent lawful apprehension and common law battery were proper because the evidence supported that a storekeeper was enforcing his common law right to detain defendant for stealing alcohol.
Assault & battery is a very serious crime.
The SRIS Law Group Massachusetts assault & battery attorneys can defend you against any type of assault charge.
Our Massachusetts assault & battery lawyers have the experience to defend you against any type of assault & battery charge.
Contact a SRIS Law Group Massachusetts assault & battery lawyer in Massachusetts.
Maryland Lawyer
