X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Juan Antonio Uriega was charged with DWI on May 21, 2002. Because he had been convicted of two prior DWI offenses, one in 1979 and one in 1994, the charge was elevated to felony DWI. Uriega entered a plea and was given a two-year suspended sentence and put on community supervision. On appeal, Uriega claims that the version of the felony DWI statute now in place, Penal Code �49.09 prohibits the inclusion of the 1979 conviction because it is too remote in time. HOLDING:Vacated and dismissed. The court confirms that a change was made to �49.09 in 2001, and that since Uriega was charged in 2002, the new version of the statute applies instead of the old one. The old version said that a conviction could not be used for enhancement if: 1. the conviction was a final conviction under another subsection and was for an offense committed more than 10 years before the offense for which the person is being tried was committed; and 2. the person has not been convicted of an offense under DWI offenses, or any offense relating to operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, committed within 10 years before the date on which the offense for which the person is being tried was committed. The new version, effective Sept. 1, 2001, says that a conviction cannot be used for enhancement if the final conviction was committed more than 10 years after the latest of: “(A) the date on which the judgment was entered for the previous conviction; (B) the date on which the person was discharged from any period of community supervision on which the person was placed for the previous conviction; (C) the date on which the person successfully completed any period of parole on which the person was released after serving a portion of the term to which the person was sentenced for the previous conviction; or (D) the date on which the person completed serving any term for which the person was confined or imprisoned for the previous conviction[.]” Also, the person must not have been convicted of any other DWI offenses within 10 years of the dates listed above. The court agrees that under the old version, the proper approach was to “look back” 10 years from the present offense to determine if there had been an intervening DWI conviction between the charged one and the remote one (in this case, that would be the 1994 conviction). Whereas, under the new version, the proper approach is to “look forward” 10 years from the date of the remote conviction (in this case, that window would be until 1989). The court cites with approval two other cases that have interpreted the new version of the statute in this way: Anderson v. State, 110 S.W.3d 98 (Tex.App. � Dallas 2003, no petition), and Getts v. State, No. 12-03-00047-CR (Tex.App. � Tyler 2003, no pet. h). The court acknowledges that Getts was not designated for publication and has no precedential value but still finds its interpretation of �49.09 was the correct one. OPINION:Speedlin, J.; Stone, Duncan and Speedlin, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.