New York Law Review

Tag: Felony DWI

  • People v. Ballman, 15 N.Y.3d 68 (2010): Use of Out-of-State Convictions for Felony DWI Charges

    15 N.Y.3d 68 (2010)

    New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(8), as amended in 2006, only allows out-of-state convictions for driving under the influence (DUI) occurring on or after November 1, 2006, to be used to elevate a subsequent New York DWI offense from a misdemeanor to a felony.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a prior out-of-state DUI conviction could be used to elevate a current DWI charge to a felony. The defendant was charged with felony DWI based on a 1999 Georgia conviction. The court held that the 2006 amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(8) only applies to out-of-state convictions occurring after November 1, 2006. The Court reasoned that the legislative intent was to address the discrepancy in treatment between in-state and out-of-state convictions prospectively, and the enabling language supported this interpretation. Thus, the defendant’s prior Georgia conviction could not be used to elevate the current DWI charge to a felony.

    Facts

    Defendant was arrested on February 22, 2007, and indicted for felony DWI and obstructing governmental administration. The felony DWI charge was predicated on a 1999 Georgia conviction for driving with an unlawful alcohol concentration, which would have been a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(2) if it had occurred in New York. The defendant moved to dismiss the felony DWI charge, arguing that the Georgia conviction predated the effective date of the relevant statute.

    Procedural History

    The County Court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment. The Appellate Division reversed the County Court’s decision on the felony DWI charge, vacated the plea, and dismissed that count of the indictment. The People and the defendant were granted leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(8), as amended in 2006, permits the use of an out-of-state DUI conviction occurring before November 1, 2006, to elevate a subsequent DWI offense in New York from a misdemeanor to a felony.

    Holding

    No, because the enabling language of the 2006 amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(8) specifies that it applies only to convictions occurring on or after November 1, 2006, and this applies to both in-state and out-of-state convictions used for enhancement purposes.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals focused on interpreting the legislative intent behind the 2006 amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(8). The court acknowledged the ambiguity in the enabling language and examined the statute’s legislative history. The court noted that the purpose of the amendment was to eliminate the loophole that allowed repeat DWI offenders to face lesser penalties simply because prior convictions occurred out of state. The court reasoned that the Legislature intended to remedy the differential treatment between in-state and out-of-state convictions prospectively, by applying the amended statute only to out-of-state convictions occurring after November 1, 2006. The court stated, “The most sensible interpretation of the enabling language is that the Legislature chose to remedy this differential treatment going forward, by continuing to apply the previous statutory scheme to out-of-state convictions occurring prior to November 1, 2006, and applying the statute as amended to out-of-state convictions occurring after that date.” The court rejected the People’s argument that “convictions” in the enabling language referred only to current New York convictions, finding that this interpretation would render the effective date of the statute redundant. The court also noted that their interpretation avoided potential ex post facto issues. The Court further emphasized that the statute itself refers to prior out-of-state convictions. Therefore, out-of-state convictions prior to November 1, 2006, cannot be used to elevate a DWI offense to a felony.

  • People v. Van Buren, 77 N.Y.2d 879 (1991): Sufficiency of Evidence for Prior Conviction in Felony DWI Indictment

    People v. Van Buren, 77 N.Y.2d 879 (1991)

    A certificate of conviction, standing alone, is insufficient to establish a prior conviction element of a felony driving while intoxicated (DWI) charge before a grand jury without additional evidence linking the defendant to the prior conviction.

    Summary

    Van Buren was indicted for felony DWI. The prosecution presented a certificate of conviction showing a “Robert L. Van Buren” had a prior DWI conviction within ten years. The defense moved to dismiss the felony count, arguing insufficient proof of the prior conviction. The County Court reduced the charge to misdemeanor DWI, finding no competent evidence identifying the defendant as the person named in the certificate. The Appellate Division reversed, but the Court of Appeals reversed again, holding that the certificate of conviction alone was insufficient to establish the prior conviction element of felony DWI without additional evidence linking the defendant to that prior conviction.

    Facts

    Defendant Van Buren was indicted for felony DWI. The prosecution presented evidence to the Grand Jury, including a certificate of conviction indicating that a “Robert L. Van Buren” had been convicted of DWI within the past 10 years in Genesee County. No other evidence was presented to establish that the defendant was the same Robert L. Van Buren named in the certificate.

    Procedural History

    The Genesee County Court granted the defendant’s motion to reduce the felony DWI charge to a misdemeanor, finding insufficient evidence of the predicate conviction. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, reinstating the felony DWI count. The New York Court of Appeals then reversed the Appellate Division’s order, reinstating the County Court’s decision to reduce the charge.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a certificate of conviction, without additional evidence linking the defendant to the prior conviction, is sufficient to establish the prior conviction element of a felony DWI charge before a grand jury.

    Holding

    No, because a certificate of conviction alone, without further connecting evidence, is insufficient to establish every element of the felony DWI offense, specifically the defendant’s identity as the person with the prior conviction.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals stated that CPL 190.65 requires that the evidence before the Grand Jury be legally sufficient to establish a prima facie case. CPL 70.10(1) defines legally sufficient evidence as “competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged and the defendant’s commission thereof.” The court reasoned that the certificate of conviction only established that a person named Robert L. Van Buren had a prior DWI conviction. It did not, without more, prove that the *defendant* Robert L. Van Buren was the *same* person. The court emphasized that the certificate of conviction, standing alone, lacked the necessary connecting evidence to link the defendant to the prior conviction. As such, the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case for felony DWI, and the indictment was properly reduced. The court distinguished this case from People v. Vollick, 148 A.D.2d 950 (4th Dept. 1989), aff’d 75 N.Y.2d 877 (1990), without elaborating on the distinguishing facts.