My client was originally charged in Count 1 with a violation of VC § 23152(a) and Count 2 VC § 23152(b). CHP officers observed my client weaving in and out of lanes on the I-5 freeway. When the officers observed my client straddling lanes and breaking sporadically, the officers initiated a traffic enforcement stop. After poor performance on the Field Sobriety Tests (“FSTs”), my client submitted to a Preliminary Alcohol Screening (“PAS”) and blew a 0.111/0.113%. During his arrest, my client submitted to a chemical test, as requested by the CHP, and his B.A.C. registered at 0.10/0.10%, above the legal 0.08% limit. In fact, my client was under 21 at the time of the offense and therefore, legally could not drive with any alcohol in his system.
Based on his B.A.C. and the fact that he was under 21 years of age at the time of his arrest, the district attorney’s office originally gave my client the following offer: 36 months of summary probation, 9-month alcohol education program, Mothers Against Drunk Driving Program (“MADD”), and $390 fine plus penalty assessments in exchange for a plea to Count 2.
Recently, at the Santa Clarita Courthouse in Los Angeles County, I was able to negotiate a DUI to a “wet reckless” (VC § 23103/23103.5) on behalf of my client.
My client had no former criminal contacts and was working and going to school full-time. Based on the numerous equitable factors on my client’s behalf, I provided an equities package to the district attorney in an attempt to negotiate for better terms.
After review of the equities package, the deputy
district attorney agreed to allow my client to negotiate to a “wet reckless” (VC § 23103/23103.5) offense with a shorter 3-month alcohol education program and other terms.
My client will no longer be required to install an
ignition interlock device and is now only required to complete the 3-month alcohol program! This is a great result!
The information in this blog post (“post”) is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect the current law in your jurisdiction. No information contained in this post should be construed as legal advice from Escovar & Avila, LLP or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader of this post should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in, or accessible through, this Post without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from a lawyer licensed in the recipient’s state, country or other appropriate licensing jurisdiction. The information on this website is a communication and is for informational purposes only. The facts of every case are unique and nothing on this page or on this website should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. The information on this website is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship and viewing of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship. The result portrayed in this advertisement was dependent on the facts of this case. Results will differ if based on different facts.