Inland Empire DUI Articles
El Cajon, California Man to Face Trial for Drunk Driving Accident
June 8, 2011 | 
Author An El Cajon, California man will stand trial in a drunk driving accident case that occurred in July of this year. 35-year-old Shannon Shimp is charged with two counts each of murder, as well as gross vehicular manslaughter in the deaths of Ian Kinney and Joseph Warren Edwards.
The accident took place on Highway 78 on July 22nd. 19-year-old Tessa Medearis was in a Lexus with her boyfriend, 19-year-old Ian Kinney. A pickup driven by Shimp attempting to pass three vehicles skidded out of control, and into the westbound lanes. It crashed into the Lexus, which was also westbound, ending up on top of the car. Ian was killed instantly. Also killed was Shimp’s passenger, 58-year-old Joseph Warren Edwards. Both men died at the scene. Ian left behind his parents, while Edwards is survived by his wife.
Tessa suffered moderate injuries, and had to be extricated from the wreckage. After the accident, Shimp, who had suffered injuries in the car accident, was taken to the hospital for treatment of his injuries, and then arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence. He was found to have been driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.19 when tests were conducted two hours after the car accident.
On Wednesday, Tessa appeared in court to testify about the car accident that killed her boyfriend. The Superior Court Judge ruled that there were grounds for a trial. There will be a hearing on December 3rd to decide on a date for the trial.
For the two families that lost the most in this tragedy, it seems like justice gets nearer every day. They have had to face the pain of losing their loved ones though no fault of their own.
California has a multi-pronged approach to dealing with the DUI menace. Not only does it have some of the most severe drunk driving laws in the country, but it has also had a significant amount of success in bringing down accident rates in the state, through better awareness programs for motorists, stronger checks and monitoring of drivers, as well as graduated licensing programs for teens that encourage them to be fully educated before they are allowed to drive on their own. The stringency of these laws has led to criticism from groups who believe that license suspensions and the focus on passing breath tests, are unfair. When we continue to have drivers like Shimp who think nothing of tanking up with alcohol that’s more than twice over the legal limit, it’s clear that these criticisms are baseless.
Originally published here.
Robert Reeves
Posted in 
DUI first offense and penalties for drunk driving
Once you have been arrested for DUI, the DMV in California will suspend your license. The DMV calls this DUI first offense an administrative per se hearing (APS). You then have ten days to request an administrative hearing with the DMV. If you are not granted a hearing or you cannot make the hearing date, the DMV will keep your license and move ahead with suspension of your driving privileges. This is an automatic stipulation.
You can be charged with 2 different crimes. The standard offense is “driving under the influence of alcohol” (DUI), or in some states, “operating while intoxicated” (OWI), or “driving while intoxicated” (DWI). In recent years, 49 states have also enacted a second, so-called “per se” offense: driving with an excessive blood-alcohol concentration, also known as BAC, (either .08% — as in California — or .10%). In those states, both offenses are charged. The defendant can even be convicted of both, but can be punished for only one.
If the case involves a refusal to submit to chemical testing, of course,
only the traditional offense will be charged.
In the California courts, in addition to a possible administrative hearing that goes over the circumstances involved in your CA DUI / DWI arrest, you must go to court where a judge will decide your fate. Often, it is strictly based on your blood alcohol level or refusal to give to a breath test.
If you’re found guilty, most courts will:
• Impose Fines and Some Add On an extra Driver Responsibility Tax
• Suspend or Revoke Your License
• Want Participation in a Drunk Driver Education Program
• Add Points to Your License (Your Insurance Will Most Likely Increase)
• Need Community Service Work
• Put You On Parole
• Install an Ignition Interlock Device On Your Vehicle
There are many different defenses in a criminal DUI case. An
experienced DUI lawyer in Los Angeles will give you the best chance of fighting
and winning the case.
Originally published here.
MAryAnn Bozek
California San Francisco County Felony Misdemeanor Drunk Driving Injury Conviction Counts Lawyers Attorney
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES P. SUBRAMANI, Defendant and Appellant
Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Four
October 31, 1985
The defendant drove his vehicle striking broadside a vehicle injuring the driver and the passenger. Driver suffered minor injuries but passenger sustained substantial injuries. Defendant was charged as follows on V counts, felony driving under the influence and causing injury to the driver (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)); felony driving under the influence and causing injury to the passenger (§ 23153, subd. (a)); felony driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.10 percent or more and causing injury to the driver (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b)); felony driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.10 percent or more and causing injury to the passenger (§ 23153, subd. (b)) and misdemeanor driving with a suspended license. Prior to trial, defendant pleaded guilty to count V. Defendant was convicted of both felony and misdemeanor driving under the influence and driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.10 percent or more based upon one collision in which two persons were injured. The defendant challenged the judgment.
Issues:
Whether the misdemeanor drunk driving counts must be vacated?
Whether the defendant is being properly charged with more than one count from a single act of drunk driving which caused injury to more than one person?
Discussion:
This court held that the defendant could be charged only with one count of felony drunk driving (i.e., with violations of subds. (a) and (b) of § 23153); the injuries of either or both of the victims could be used as proof of the charge. Here, however, the prosecutor charged separate felony counts for each victim; that was improper. Because the felony convictions involving injury to victim Blackwell (counts II and IV) were properly charged and are supported by substantial evidence, they can stand. The misdemeanor counts (counts I and III) involving Brown are mere surplusage and therefore must be stricken.
This court held that while such dual conviction is proper, dual punishment is prohibited by Penal Code section 654. (People v. Duarte, supra, 161 Cal.App.3d at pp. 446-447.) The trial court correctly applied that principle by ordering that the execution of the sentence on one of the felonies (count IV) was to be stayed in accordance with Penal Code section 654.
Conclusion:
This court hence reversed the judgment against defendant only as to the misdemeanor convictions and affirmed the judgment in all other respects. Defendant was properly charged and convicted of felonies for both driving under the influence and driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.10 percent or more.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
Originally published here.
Atchuthan Sriskandarajah