DUI Blogger

A Portland judge sentenced Zoe Hoeltzel to over three months in jail, probation, and 160 hours of community service. Hoeltzel’s privilege to drive was also taken away for a full five years. This was after she crashed into a sidewalk full of pedestrians, seriously injuring two people, one of whom lost her leg as a result of the accident. Hoeltzel had a blood alcohol concentration of .10%.

Based on these facts, it appears that Hoeltzel could have been convicted of a DUI causing injury. California Vehicle Code 23153 punishes DUI drivers who cause another person to suffer an injury. However, she was not charged with her local DUI with injury statute (which essentially reads the same as California’s), most likely because the accident wasn’t entirely her fault.

Just prior to hitting the pedestrians, Hoeltzel’s car was hit by another driver (who was also allegedly DUI). That driver immediately jumped out of his car to help the injured victims, expressed remorse, and pleaded guilty to his charges. Hoeltzel remained in her car, maintained her innocence throughout, and didn’t apologize to the victims until just prior to sentencing. It was these facts that angered the public and led to the controversy surrounding this case.

A DUI driver who causes another person to suffer an injury typically faces felony DUI charges. If convicted, such an individual faces incarceration in a state prison and substantial fines.

Jack Alvord, 61, was sentenced to 22 months in prison by a Portland judge when he plead guilty to DUI, reckless driving, and to third degree assault. Alvord, who was driving with a BAC of 0.30%, hit a blind man who was walking on the sidewalk (pining him between the car and a utility pole) before driving off. Alvord was then chased by fourteen people who caught him less than a mile away.

What’s noteworthy about this case is the fact that Alvord and the man whom he left with a broken pelvis and two broken legs are now friends.

Alvord was extremely remorseful for his actions. He voluntarily checked himself into a 30-day residential alcohol treatment center, urged his insurance company to pay a $1.25 million settlement, and has pledged that once he completes his prison sentence, he will speak to others in an effort to educate them about the dangers of drinking and driving.

Continue reading "Defendant’s Remorse Gets Him a Lighter Sentence" »

California Vehicle Code 23109 defines the misdemeanor crime of “speed contests” or “exhibition of speed.” Quite literally, this means a motorist on a highway racing against another vehicle or a timing device. We usually call this activity “drag racing” or “street racing.”

Prosecutors do indeed charge Vehicle Code 23109 for people arrested for actual exhibition of speed. But the statute is also commonly used as a lesser offense agreed to through California DUI plea bargaining. That is, prosecutors often agree to reduce DUI charges to a “speed ex” in an effort to settle the case.

Generally speaking, a defendant prefers a speed ex conviction to a DUI. The speed ex does not trigger a license suspension, and carries no mandatory penalties such as DUI school or jail time. Moreover, a speed ex does not count as a “DUI prior” on one’s record. If the charge gets reduced to a speed ex, and the defendant subsequently picks up another DUI, the new DUI will get treated as a first offense.

Continue reading "Reducing a DUI Charge to “Exhibition of Speed”" »

Much of the negotiations between prosecutors and DUI defense attorneys involve reducing a DUI charge to a wet reckless or a dry reckless. Both of these reduced charges fall under California Vehicle Code 23103, the statute defining reckless driving.

The difference between the two is that a “wet reckless” is a special form of reckless driving in which the record of conviction specifies that alcohol was involved. The “wet” version of reckless driving counts as the functional equivalent of a DUI conviction.

Suppose, for example, that a person pleads guilty to a reduced charge of wet reckless. Now suppose he gets arrested and convicted of a DUI charge within 10 years. The new DUI will count as a second offense, and second-time penalties are exponentially greater. Even though the first DUI got reduced to a wet reckless, the law still treats it as a prior DUI conviction.

Continue reading "Wet Reckless vs Dry Reckless Charge Reductions" »