Posted on 04/16/2008 8:55:21 AM PDT by mowowie
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled today that convictions for drunken driving do not count as violent felonies for enhancing prison sentences.
The justices, by a 6-3 vote, said that even though great harm can result from drunken driving, it is different from other crimes that involve purposeful action. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion.
Larry Begay had three felony convictions for drunken driving in New Mexico. He pleaded guilty to possessing a gun, which is illegal after having been convicted of a felony.
The Armed Career Criminal Act makes defendants eligible for longer prison terms if they have three prior criminal convictions for crimes that are either violent felonies or serious drug offenses.
Justices Samuel Alito, David Souter and Clarence Thomas dissented.
The case is Begay v. U.S., 06-11543.
Duh.
The fact that this was even a question is an example of how out-of-control MADD is.
I didn’t even know OUI was a felony. Maybe after multiple convictions?
A well-deserved defeat for the alcohol nazis!
DUI in Kaleefornia can become a felony after a few convictions.
Mike
Well, how about that, we see that Souter the liberal was on the same side as Alito and Thomas, 2 strong conservatives.
Yet Chief Justice Roberts and Scalia were on the same side as Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Breyer on this one.
I have mixed feelings about this ruling. Of course I agree MADD is out of control and ridiculous. But I have to ask, is it the job of the Supreme Court to decide what is “right” or whether or not what a legislative body does is unconstitutional. When I saw Alito and Thomas dissenting I had to think very hard about this... even though I am initially pleased with the ruling.
Bump that.
Yes, it’s an interesting lineup, but this was a statutory interpretation case. That kind of case sometimes avoid the usual 5-4 split that appears in consttitutional cases. At any rate, I have my doubts about Souter’s motivations.
Some states have lowered the DUI level so low that one glass of wine at dinner could make a person guilty.
In a lot of states, repeated DUIs get you a felony rap. I don’t know if there’s anywhere that a single DUI is considered a felony, but MADD probably won’t rest until they ram that through all 50 states.
God knows drunk driving is one of the stupidest things you can do, and dangerous as hell. But sometimes MADD sounds more like the Women’s Christian Temperance Union...too much focus on the “drunk” and not enough on the “driving.”
}:-)4
I don’t understand how any kind of motor vehicle offense could be considered a “felony” unless the defendant has the right to a jury trial.
I was trying to be sarcastic but they seem related...
The court did not say DUI could not be a “felony.”
The court said DUI could not be a “violent felony.”
Just like embezzlement is a felony, but not a violent felony.
Well the issue is not whether it should be considered a felony but whether or not anything in the Constitution prevents it from being a felony. What in the Constitution is violated by making this a felony?
I don’t think DUI should itself be illegal. Breaking a traffic law or getting in an accident is all that should be charged. If the drunk kills someone, then charge them with manslaughter. Cops can’t pull you over for because you don’t have a seatbelt on. The seatbelt infraction is tacked on if your stopped for a real moving violation. The same should apply to DUI. It should be tacked on in ADDITION to whatever other violation you committed.
No, that was not the issue.
The issue was, under the federal law at issue (regarding bumping up punishments), was DUI a “violent felony” or just a felony.
Traditionally, a felony is defined as an offense punishable by longer than one year imprisonment. The Constitution guarantees a right to a jury trial for all offenses punishable by more than six months in prison.
No I’m even more confused. I’d better read the dissent by Thomas & Alito. Do you know what their reasoning was?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.