Caught Driving On A Suspended License From Previous DUI In California

[TryThis]

Hi all, I'm in desperate need of advice and some basic information regarding my case.

I was arrested on DUI charges in California a few months ago. My license was suspended and I was booked into jail (23152 (a,b)). My BAC was around 0.12. On the police report, I was also observed doing unsafe lane changes and speeding. Fast forward to today: it's been a few months and I have not yet had my court date. I was recently caught driving while my license is still suspended. My car was towed and stored, I was charged with driving with a suspended license (CVC 14601.2 (a)). This was in a different jurisdiction than the DUI.

Now I'm trying to get a feeling for what is in store for me and what my options are (and likelihood is) for making a favorable outcome. A few questions:

1) Being that my court date has not occurred yet for the DUI charges, will the fact that I got caught driving on a suspended license be known to the prosecuter? Will it somehow make me have less of a case against the DUI charges if they do find out? (remember, they are two different jurisdictions, both in CA, but I have a court date coming up very shortly for the DUI case)

2) I had a BAC around 0.12 (two readings)--what are the chances I can have this reduced to a lesser charge ("wet wreckless")? I was completely obedient of the officer during the arrest process... I have an otherwise clean driving record with no priors (a speeding ticket several years ago, cleared). If the officer does not show up to the hearing/arraignment will that somehow work to my benefit?

3) I have not obtained legal counsel for this matter; how does one go about entering a plea in order to reduce the charges? My understanding is that one pleas "no contest with negotiated consequences" when asked by the judge to enter a plea... can someone elaborate on how to handle this? (for example, when the judge responds to my plea, how do I go about the suggestions for reduced charges, etc.?)

4) Is there any possibility that I can have the 14601.2 (a) charge dropped or otherwise lessened? I am more than willing to pay fines and serve jail time or what-have-you in order to avoid having my record tarnished with the convictions. Also, will this affect my ability to obtain a restricted license?

So what happens now? Please help, I have a great job and otherwise calm and predictable life... I'm afraid that when my background is checked about 8 years from now I will lose my position because of all of this. I just want to end this and move on. Many, many thanks in advance.

[cdwjava]

1) Being that my court date has not occurred yet for the DUI charges, will the fact that I got caught driving on a suspended license be known to the prosecuter?

If he chooses to run an updated driving history, yes.

Will it somehow make me have less of a case against the DUI charges if they do find out?

Specifically, no. Although it would certainly demonstrate that you have an inability to exercise common sense and follow the law.

2) I had a BAC around 0.12 (two readings)--what are the chances I can have this reduced to a lesser charge ("wet wreckless")?

Flip a coin.

Only your attorney can say what is common practice for this in your area. However, at .12 there is little incentive for the DA to plead it down to a 23103.5 (wet reckless), but he might.

If the officer does not show up to the hearing/arraignment will that somehow work to my benefit?

He is not required to appear at the arraignment so it won't have any effect at all.

3) I have not obtained legal counsel for this matter; how does one go about entering a plea in order to reduce the charges?

You can enter a plea of "not guilty" and then hire an attorney. Don't try this yourself, you'll get hammered.

4) Is there any possibility that I can have the 14601.2 (a) charge dropped or otherwise lessened?

Why should they?

Also, will this affect my ability to obtain a restricted license?

Yep. What assurances does the court have that you will heed the restrictions on the license? Heck, you did not heed the complete "restriction" of suspension!

Hire an attorney ASAP. If you cannot afford one, then you should be assigned on eat arraignment.

- Carl

[TryThis]

Thank you for your response. I know, I've done wrong. I'm trying to minimize the blow, although I understand that I must be punished.

Has anyone else had similar experiences? Please chime in.

[usedbranflakes]

Carl is 110% right; I had a DUI years ago. Wet reckless, also called "wet wreckless" does not usually happen at 150% of the legal limit. At .08 you are at 100% of the legal limit; usually a WR is given between .08 to .10 when the DA knows the person has a chance to fight the breath test.

The only area that I would have any addition is the notation about the prosectuor not knowing. In a trial they will almost always ask you if you have been arrested for or convicted of other any crimes. The only way to prevent that is to not go to tril. In addition, the other jurisdiction may request a copy of your trial paperwork and that will trigger a "why do they want this?" question for the people clerking.

You need an attorney on both. The first charge is not going to sting as much as the driving on suspension. That's a nasty little bite and could cost you a lot of $$ in vehicle fees before it is returned. Fortunately this isn't a 2nd or 3rd DUI, which can put you in jeopardy of having it seized.

[TryThis]

Carl is 110% right; I had a DUI years ago. Wet reckless, also called "wet wreckless" does not usually happen at 150% of the legal limit. At .08 you are at 100% of the legal limit; usually a WR is given between .08 to .10 when the DA knows the person has a chance to fight the breath test.

The only area that I would have any addition is the notation about the prosectuor not knowing. In a trial they will almost always ask you if you have been arrested for or convicted of other any crimes. The only way to prevent that is to not go to tril. In addition, the other jurisdiction may request a copy of your trial paperwork and that will trigger a "why do they want this?" question for the people clerking.

You need an attorney on both. The first charge is not going to sting as much as the driving on suspension. That's a nasty little bite and could cost you a lot of $$ in vehicle fees before it is returned. Fortunately this isn't a 2nd or 3rd DUI, which can put you in jeopardy of having it seized.

Great, thanks for the reply and sharing your experience! This brings a few more questions to mind:

1) Do I really need an attorney for the DUI? It seems to me that the odds are stacked against me (as in the evidence against me). Why can't I just plead guilty on my own and try to negotiate with the prosecutor (perhaps ask for longer probation in lieu of jail time, etc.)? If the prosecutor is not willing to accept a deal with me then I can plead not guilty and get an attorney, or is my thinking somewhat off? I've already lost my DMV hearing so that erodes some of the value of getting a lawyer anyway (I have to file an SR-22 for the next 3 years)... I've been quoted $4000 or so from start to finsish...

2) I already managed to get my car back from the driving on a suspended license so that's not an issue... unless my car can be taken back for some reason.

3) For the driving on suspended license: I don't really see the value of having an attorney either, how am I supposed to fight the fact that I was driving, fully aware that I was not supposed to? In my mind, that's an open-and-shut case; I feel that the only recourse would be to again work a plea bargain to lessen the punishment... but then again, would a lawyer really be of that much benefit? I've been quoted $3500 to defend from start to finish on that one.

Any more words of wisdom would be greatly appreciated

[cdwjava]

1) Do I really need an attorney for the DUI? It seems to me that the odds are stacked against me (as in the evidence against me). Why can't I just plead guilty on my own and try to negotiate with the prosecutor (perhaps ask for longer probation in lieu of jail time, etc.)?

Well, if you're the kind of guy that thinks you can diagnose and treat your own illness, and teach yourself to fly a real plane by playing a game on Playstation, then you might be able to defend yourself.

Think of it as Russioan Roulette ... if you negotiate on your own, do you have ANY idea what is a "good" deal in your circumstance? Do you know what options might be available to you that could keep this from being too damaging? I doubt it. You do need an attorney. Without one, you are relying on good luck and a compassionate DA. It's likely he will offer a free deal, but it's like going in to buy a car and accepting the first offer the salesman throws out because you have no idea of the value of the car.

If the prosecutor is not willing to accept a deal with me then I can plead not guilty and get an attorney, or is my thinking somewhat off?

Unless you advise the court that you will be representing yourself, it is doubtful the DA will even talk to you. Representing yourself in a criminal matter is generally a very bad idea.

I've already lost my DMV hearing so that erodes some of the value of getting a lawyer anyway (I have to file an SR-22 for the next 3 years)...

The DMV hearing is not relevant to the criminal trial, and it involves only the issues of observed driving, the probable cause for the stop, and reason to believe that BAC is .08 or higher. The trial is about what can be proven, the DMV hearing is about what can be articulated.

I've been quoted $4000 or so from start to finsish...

Sounds about right.


- Carl

[TryThis]

Well, if you're the kind of guy that thinks you can diagnose and treat your own illness, and teach yourself to fly a real plane by playing a game on Playstation, then you might be able to defend yourself.

Think of it as Russioan Roulette ... if you negotiate on your own, do you have ANY idea what is a "good" deal in your circumstance? Do you know what options might be available to you that could keep this from being too damaging? I doubt it. You do need an attorney. Without one, you are relying on good luck and a compassionate DA. It's likely he will offer a free deal, but it's like going in to buy a car and accepting the first offer the salesman throws out because you have no idea of the value of the car.


Unless you advise the court that you will be representing yourself, it is doubtful the DA will even talk to you. Representing yourself in a criminal matter is generally a very bad idea.


The DMV hearing is not relevant to the criminal trial, and it involves only the issues of observed driving, the probable cause for the stop, and reason to believe that BAC is .08 or higher. The trial is about what can be proven, the DMV hearing is about what can be articulated.


Sounds about right.


- Carl

Hi Carl, thank you so much for providing your opinion on the matter. I'm not one of those guys who thinks I can fly a "real" airplane based on my Playstation expertise, but I am one of those guys who can figure things out. I've become a better car mechanic than every other "professional" mechanic thought possible. Also, I've successfully counseled many others in matters in which I was not trained. I've successfully counseled others (including myself) to profit greatly with what money my clients (and I) had with zero formal training. I'm nothing special, I'm just motivated.

I'm not trying to say that I know everything, because I know that I know a fraction of a fraction of what there is to know about the world around me (whether it be law, medicine, aviation, finance, etc.). I'm just thinking in cost-to-benefit ratio terms. If I fork out $4k for an attorney than can do something I can do for free (my own time), then why should I bother? I can work with the prosecutor (if he/she chooses to) to bargain the penalties down. I'm very aware of what penalties I am in for, within the bounds of various circumstances. I've done my homework on that one, both in personal interviews (formal & informal) with friends and professional attorneys. If the prosecutor does not work with me, then I will hire an attorney.

The reason I came to this forum is to get another opinion... from those "in the field" so-to-speak. I've received that and I'm grateful... please add any other comments as you see fit.

Thank you Carl et al.

[usedbranflakes]

Nothing pisses off a prosecutor (an attorney) and a judge (a very senior attorney) more than someone who is not an attorney representing themselves pro se (without an attorney). In addition they are paid by the state or county, the officer is paid by the state or county or municipality, and the jury is paid for by the county or the state if you were to go to trial. ...and these guys have a hell of a poker face.

It is kind of like going to the WSOP table without knowing the rules of poker. You are going to lose.

A good DUI attorney with DUI experience will likely cost $1500 or so and will be able to negotiate you through the waters. They will likely be able to get you a favorable sentence, no interlock, a negotiated fine, and

If you go without an attorney, please post what sentence you recieved. Some people in the forums have done well and some people have gotten screwed. It is like Russian Roulette, like Carl mentioned.

Oh, yeah, Carl is a police officer and sees this type of stuff every day. It is likely very funny for him to see some of this stuff. Even us "dump people" waiting for our turn in front of the judge would watch the pro se people dig their own grave. On two occasions I saw a NC judge stop the proceedings and teel the person that they needed an attorney. In fact, one of the times the judge asked an attorney if they could represent the defendant pro bono as that person was indigent. They worked out a quick deal with the prosecutor (they agreed to ask to suspend the 30 days that they were not willing to ask the judge to suspend when the person didn't have an attorney).

It's a catch-22.

You can always spend a week in court and see what the other people are getting sentenced to.

In addition, your attorney may know certain things about the officer that could be beneficial. Most officers no longer no-show, but it happens from time to time and the attorney might know to schedule the trial for the officer's vacation. Sometimes the DA and officer don't catch this and viola. ...that's why many officers are quiet about their vacation.