The Court of Appeals made short work of the argument that the 2006 amendment to I.C. 18-8805(5), which made a third DUI within ten years a felony, could not consider DUI convictions obtained before the amendment. Prior to 2006, the magistrate court would warn a defendant at sentencing that it took three DUIs within five years to take it to the district court.
Pointedly stating that "[a] trial court's advisement of the risk of future penalties under a recidivist statute is a warning designed to deter the defendant from committing future crimes, not a promise that puts restraints on future prosecutions," the Court of Appeals held there were neither ex post facto nor due process problems with using the defendant's 2001 and 2003 convictions to elevate his 2007 DUI charge to a felony.
State v. Lamb can be read at: http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/lamb34969.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment