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:About 1:25 a.m., a police officer observed Gyles Robert Alford drive a Geo Storm into oncoming-traffic lanes twice and then off into a ditch. The officer stopped Alford and noticed that his speech was slurred and that he smelled of alcohol. When Alford admitted he had been drinking beer and failed three field sobriety tests, he was arrested. He refused a breath test after being warned of the consequences as required by Texas Transportation Code �724.015. Because he had had an “alcohol-related enforcement contact” as defined in �524.001(3) two years earlier, Alford’s commercial driver’s license was suspended for two years, as mandated by �724.035(b). An administrative law judge sustained the suspension. Alford appealed, asserting three grounds: 1. He should also have been warned that his refusal to give a breath sample would result in the suspension of his commercial driver’s license with no provision for operating a commercial vehicle for occupational purposes; 2. Section 724.035(b) is ex post facto in nature and therefore void, because it requires a longer suspension based on occurrences before the statute was enacted; and 3. The evidence was insufficient to support the suspension. The trial court reversed without giving a reason. The court of appeals affirmed, agreeing that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the suspension. HOLDING:Reversed and rendered. Section 522.103, the Texas Supreme Court stated, requires an officer to warn a commercial driver of the consequences of refusing to give a breath, blood or urine specimen, but �522.102(c) limits the requirement to a driver stopped while driving a commercial vehicle. Otherwise, the only other warning required is prescribed by �724.015, which Alford was given. Therefore, the court found that Alford’s first basis for challenging the suspension was without merit. As for Alford’s ex post facto claim, the court stated: “It is well settled that a conviction which occurred prior to the enactment of a statute providing for increased punishment upon a subsequent conviction may be used for enhancement purpose under that statute, and that such usage is not unconstitutional as being ex post facto application of the statute” under either the U.S. Constitution or the Texas Constitution. Finally, the court found that the record fully supported the judge’s decision that suspended Alford’s commercial license. OPINION:Per curiam.

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.