Skip to main content

2nd dui w/ in 10 yrs cannot be charged as felony simply because 1st was felony w/ injury which had been reduced and dismissed.

Visalia, CA |

I was awaiting sentencing on a 2nd dui being charged as a felony simply because it was w/ in ten yrs of the 1st which was a felony due to injury. I had researched this question months earlier and found conflicting answers w/ only about 20 to 25% of them answering favorably on my behalf. I trusted what my lawyer @ the time was telling me. He and 80% of the lawyers that answered my questions basically told me that it can be charged as felony even though 1st had been reduced and dismissed per 17b and 1203.4 3yrs prior to getting 2nd dui. I thought it was important for the current and future clients of all lawyers who may read this post to know that a reduction and dismissal of a felony under 17b and 1203.4 is then a misdemeanor for ALL purposes. I was sentenced on misd. charges just recently.

+ Read More

Attorney answers 8

Posted

Is there a legal question or are you attempting to inform everyone?

I am licensed attorney who focuses on Serious DUI Cases such a 2nd DUIs, 3rd DUIs, 4th DUIs, and Felony DUIs and DMV hearings. I also have much experience handling car accident cases. Although the information I provide is helpful, it is not legal advice. If your case is in California or Washington, you can call me for specific legal advice on your case free of charge. Although Avvo makes it clear to consumers that attorney answers to questions are for general purposes only and do not establish an attorney-client relationship, some attorneys prefer to add their own disclaimers to answers. You can set your custom disclaimer here and it will be automatically added to your answers. Do NOT include any direct solicitations or contact information.

Asker

Posted

Just informational. You actually were one who answered my question with thought.

Julia E. Simmons

Julia E. Simmons

Posted

Thank you. I do try. Above, the best I remember, I think I said, DA's may try to charge you, but it doesn't mean it's legal. I've had cases with priors that weren't legal but still alleged. Even the DA's aren't perfect and that's why, especially with serious cases, you need protection.

Posted

The reduction under 17b5 reduces a felony to a misdemeanor when granted, it is a court decision. However expungment only seals the record for civilian purposes in California please read penal code 1203.4 this does not wipe out the conviction or hide it from the government for purposes of licensing, some political offices and from law enforcement,

Please only call me if your case is in California as I am only licensed here and laws of other states may vary. I approach trials and issues from a legal and common sense approach, This is how the majority of judges I have appeared before in 40 years also make decisions. I do not intend by my advice to enter an attorney client relationship and in most cases advise to obtain legal representation. Sometimes if you can not afford it a consultation or limited scope representation is available. As an experienced attorney I can tell you, judges can be impatient, hate emotional arguments and over exagerations or lies. A brief outline of the problems and desired solutions is always best and I often in limited scope representations advise clients on how to proceed at time of hearing or trial and my fees are considerably less when I do not appear in court as it takes much less of my time.

Posted

There is no question here. If you have a legal question, you may want to speak with a qualified attorney who can assist you.

Posted

Thank you for stating your understanding of this complex issue.

San Diego Criminal Defense Attorney--19 years experience. Law Offices of Jay S. Finnecy

Asker

Posted

Thank you! I am no legal guru, but why is this specific issue seemingly so hard to understand?

Posted

It depends on a variety of factors. More then you make it seem to be.

It appears you believe you were given bad information, but please remember, this site is not intended to provide ear cut answers. Nothing in law is that clear. Many of those situations, depend on a variety of details. And many attorneys state general responses because it's impossible to get all of the necessary information from a Q&A site like this.

I'm glad things worked out for you. But please don't assume you now have the answer to all felony DUI offenses across the board.

Any information provided through Avvo.com in response to a question is not, and cannot be considered a formation of any Attorney-Client relationship. Questioner understands that the nature of this system allows only for a cursory review of case information, and more detailed information should not be divulged in this public forum. As such, Questioner is recommended to contact an Attorney in order to discuss the full details of their case and a more specific advisement of potential rights and liabilities.

Posted

Thank you due sharing. I do these kinds if 1203.3 reductions quite a bit (I specialize, so u suppose us be part if the 20%) and you are correct. The reduction also restores the right to own a gun, and to sit on a jury.

Asker

Posted

Thank you for your response and input. I understand on a site like this, its not always that simple but doesn't seem like it should be that difficult either.

Posted

You are correct in what you post - I'm not sure why the original answers and information (assuming your question accurately reflected what occurred) were wrong.

Yes, a reduction makes the conviction a misdemeanor FOR ALL PURPOSES. That means it is no longer a felony. That means your second DUI within 10 years is a misdemeanor (unless it qualifies as a felony for its own reasons).

Glad it worked out for you. Good luck in the future.

The above answer is for general information only and is based on the information you posted. Every case is fact dependent, so to get a thorough analysis of your situation, you will need to consult face to face with an attorney licensed to practice in the jurisdiction where the incident took place. Do not conclusively rely on any information posted online when deciding what to do about your case.

Asker

Posted

Thank you

Posted

Nice to hear things worked out for you.

The only point proved, however, is that free legal advice is worth exactly what you pay for it.

Reliance on any information in this website is at the sole risk of the user and the user understands that he or she should consult with an attorney before taking a course of action based upon information contained in this website. The information on this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship.

Asker

Posted

Very true. Thanks.

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.

Ask a Question

- or -

Search for lawyers by reviews and ratings.

Find a Lawyer