A person has complied with sentencing. ( A guilty plea on a DWI with part of the sentence being that if he should not repeat the offense within ten years he shall be not charged with a second offense but a first,)
He is charged with a second offense twenty years later.
Does this mean the court told him the wrong information at the first offense and in fact void the agreement that he made at the time of the first offense.
Does Melanies Law violate prior sentencing agreements ? ( MA )
He would be eligible for a Cahill disposition where although its a second offense, the probation is that of a first offense. Speak with an OUI lawyer to review the case and the previous conviction.
Best of luck
Krefetz & Seed
244 Brighton Ave suite 105
Allston, MA 02134
This would have to have been noted on the plea agreement, and if you can get a copy, then you may be able to enforce it. Depending upon which area of the state you live in (depending upon the DA's office and their policy), your attorney may be able to have this modified down to a first because of the length of time it has been since the first, and depending upon the circumstances (was there an accident? was anyone injured? who was in the vehicle with you?) even without referral to that first. Talk with an attorney as soon as possible.
From the way your question reads what it looks like is that when he plead guilty on the DUI 20 years ago. Most likely his attorney or the court told him that if he repeats the same offense after 10 years that it would be a 1st offense DUI. This statement would have been correct at the time he was told. However, in 2002 the state law changed allowing for lifetime look back on charging of subsequent offenses on DUI. See the below link for more information. However, he still maybe able to receive a Cahill disposition, which would essentially be a 1st offense sentence. See the below link for Cahill disposition information.
David Newton, Esq.
i do not understand. The terms of the docket control any potential actions.
henry lebensbaum esq 300 Brickstone Sq Ste 201 andover, ma -- email@example.com (978) 749-3606.
Criminal Law (all courts), Drunk Driving, Drugs, Violence, Sex Offenses, theft, SORB, Divorce Child Custody Alimony Child Support & Modification, Contempts & Paternity Juveniles Domestic Violence & Restraining Orders, Business Law, Personal Injury, Guardianship, Conservatorship & Estate Administration & Legal Malpractice. For these & other areas, contact me. Email sent may be copied intercepted or held by computers.
You ask several questions; let us take them one at a time and I have some questions. You state: "with part of the sentence being that if he should not repeat the offense within ten years he shall not be charged with a second offense but a first". Where is that written? Are you saying someone told him that? Who told him? Are you saying the Judge said that? I am willing to wager that if you look at the Court papers from that case from 20 years ago you will NOT see anywhere what you are saying the Court told him. If I am wrong and the Judge wrote what you say I will buy you a steak dinner. Melanies Law does not violate any prior sentencing agreements. In 2002 when the law changed EVERYONE was put on notice that as of 2002 if you had a prior DUI - no matter how old it was and no matter what anyone may have said about prior offenses - that prior DUI would count. The law changed in 2002 and everyone is bound by that change in the law. So even though the person may be eligible for a first offense disposition under section 24D of the DUI law the person will be bound by the other requirements of Melanies Law - including the 2 year requirement of the ignition interlock device, which I suspect is what the person is really complaining about. On the date of the new alleged offense - which I assume was recent and clearly after 2002 - the person was on notice that a new DUI arrest would be treated as a second offense no matter what anybody said to him 20 years ago. Lifetime means lifetime. I don't mean to sound brutish; but the law is very clear in this regard. So in order to avoid the ignition interlock requirement the person will have to win the case.
Robert D. Lewin, Attorney