CA DUI. Need advise to go to trial or take wet reckless???

[gstspdyer]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

Short story:
--Pulled over for swerving because there was a tire on the ramp. (no accidents)
--BAC (blood taken @ hospital - .06 (CA limit is .08)
--I have a attorney that got me a wet reckless, I cannot afford to pay him to take me to trial, but should I get a public defender and go to trial?

Full story:
I went to dinner with a friend because she got accepted into a university of her choice. I had dinner, steak, mashed potatoes, vegetables and a glass a wine. We hung out in the lounge of the restaurant for a bit then left.

On the drive home, on a large curve/ramp connecting two freeways, there was a tire that I swerved from. The cop was on the freeway I entered and saw me swerve into it.

He pulled me over and said he smelled the wine and if I had drank. I told him I had a glass of wine with my dinner and he proceeded to do my PAS tests. I did those, then he had me blow into his in car breathalizer several times (6-7 times) until he got a reading borderline.

I asked to have blood instead of breathe. We went to the hospital, they took blood, then I spent the night in a holding cell. I got the DUI written up as the blood sample took several weeks to come back. It came back with a .06.

I hired an attorney for pretrial issues. DMV let me go, but the court would not negotiate anything less than a wet reckless. I do not want a wet reckless, but I cannot pay my attorney an additional 11,500 to go to trial. Should I take a public defender and try to win case or should I take the wet reckless?

 

[CdwJava]

Short story:
--Pulled over for swerving because of tire on the ramp (no accidents)
--BAC (blood taken @ hospital - .06 (CA limit is .08)
--I have a attorney that got me a wet reckless, I cannot afford to pay him to take me to trial, but should I get a public defender and go to trial?

Okay, they have you with a .06 ... that is still quite sufficient for you to be impaired. If they have FSTs that show you were impaired, that plea deal to the wet reckless may be a good deal.

If you got a deal through an attorney that specialized in DUI apparently he found no great flaw in the reasonable suspicion for the contact or probable cause for the arrest (the two places where a DUI is most likely beaten).

Yes, you can use a public defender for trial if you qualify (financially), but if the state has some good evidence of your impairment it might be a BIIIIIG risk.

Oh, and the "limit" is NOT .08 ... that is the per se level. That is, a BAC of .8 is the point at the you are impaired by law. You can still be impaired underneath that. Think of it this way: If you take a handful of Vicodin and have to crawl to a car, your BAC is .00 yet you are waaaaay too impaired to drive. Hence the reason we have a general impaired statute (CVC 23152(a)).

I hired an attorney for pretrial issues. DMV let me go, but the court would not negotiate anything less than a wet reckless. I do not want a wet reckless, but I cannot pay my attorney an additional 11,500 to go to trial. Should I take a public defender and try to win case or should I take the wet reckless?

The DMV let it go because they cannot automatically suspend for a BAC beneath .08. The DMV will wait to see if there is a conviction.

Also, it is NOT the court that negotiates anything. It is the DA that will offer, accept or reject any plea officers.

YOU have to decide what to do. No one here is going to say which decision you should take. You have to consult your legal counsel and ask what the odds are ... what are your chances at prevailing at trial? Then consider the odds.

 

[GoIllini]

Out of curiosity CdwJava, does the statute apply to really really bad drivers or people who haven't slept in 48 hours? Or is it only for cases where folks have chemicals in their system?

 

[Zigner]

Out of curiosity CdwJava, does the statute apply to really really bad drivers or people who haven't slept in 48 hours? Or is it only for cases where folks have chemicals in their system?

The code section Carl cited applies to impairment from chemicals, not sleep deprivation:

23152. (a) It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence
of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence
of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle.

 

[CdwJava]

Bad driving would involve other sections, not DUI. As Zigner pointed out, the section only covers driving while impaired on drugs or alcohol.