Driving Under The Influence

Davis is a dedicated trial attorney who has defended countless cases involving driving under the influence. He’s handled DUIs involving impairment caused by alcohol, marijuana, zolpidem (Ambien), alprazolam (Xanax), methamphetamine, heroin, prescription pain killers, khat and cocaine - just to name a few. He has represented clients against accusations of DUI with injury, DUI manslaughter, multiple DUIs and DUIs involving minors under 21. He makes every effort to resolve these matters quickly and fairly and is not afraid to try cases to juries if necessary.

Davis understands that DUI arrests and convictions can have severe collateral consequences including driver license suspensions and revocations, professional licensee discipline and insurance rate increases. In the case of non-citizens, some DUI convictions can terminate pathways to citizenship and result in deportation.

Davis considers driving under the influence defense his wheelhouse. He’s handled dozens of DUI jury trials throughout the state and has achieved outstanding results for his clients. Davis has proudly had clients found not guilty at trial of charges ranging from first offense DUI to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. He works closely with experts in forensic toxicology and the administration of field sobriety tests. Davis also represents clients at DMV administrative license suspension hearings.

DUI Offenses

Driving under the influence - Vehicle Code section 23152 subd. (a)-(g)

Driving under the influence causing injury - Vehicle Code section 23153 subd. (a)-(g)

Alcohol-related reckless driving - Vehicle Code section 23103 pursuant to 23103.5

Vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated - Penal Code section 191.5

DUI Punishment

Following entry of judgment of conviction in driving under the influence cases, punishment varies depending on a number of factors. There is at least some predictability in certain cases. Courts will generally consider a defendant’s prior DUI convictions in a ten year window, whether or not a person was injured, whether or not a person suffered great bodily injury and if the injury was the result of the defendant committing an illegal act or failing to perform a legal duty. The possible punishments for driving under the influence are contained in statutes that can seem like a frustrating web of cross-references in the Vehicle and Penal Codes that are frequently changed or moved around to keep up with acts of the legislature. Davis has seen it all and is always prepared to give accurate and honest advice regarding a potential punishment in the event you are convicted of driving under the influence.

Davis Has Experience Handling the Following Offenses:

- First-Time DUI Offenses - Vehicle Code 23152(a)-(g)

- Under-21 DUI Offenses

- DUIs with prior convictions

- Felony DUI without injury

- DUI with injury - Vehicle Code 23153(a)-(g)

- Vehicular Manslaughter while Intoxicated

DMV Consequences

After a person is arrested for DUI in California, they have TEN DAYS to request a DMV hearing. If this request is not made, the DMV will impose an administrative suspension. Contacting an experienced attorney like Davis Hewitt within this ten day window is critical to preparing your defense and maintaining your privilege to operate a vehicle. Davis handles DMV administrative per se (APS) hearings.

If a person is under 21 at the time of their arrest, DMV collateral consequences can be severe.

If you are the holder of a commercial driver license that may be imperiled by your DUI arrest, call experienced Chico DUI attorney Davis W. Hewitt for a FREE IN-PERSON CONSULTATION

Notable Jury Trial Outcomes

Many DUI cases Davis has handled have been dismissed for insufficiency of the evidence or following successful 4th Amendment challenges. Some of Davis’s notable jury trial outcomes include:

People v. L.O. Client found in the driver seat of a running vehicle wearing a seatbelt while parked on the shoulder of Highway 17 in the early afternoon on a sunny Santa Cruz day. Client’s blood alcohol content estimated at greater than 0.30. Client charged with felony driving under the influence in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152(a) and (b) due to prior DUI convictions. Jury found defendant NOT GUILTY of driving under the influence.

People v. T.M. Tragic case involving client charged with gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, in violation of Penal Code section 191.5, following fatal collision with a pedestrian near Boulder Creek in Santa Cruz mountains. Forensic toxicologist and traffic engineer retained as defense witnesses. Defendant found NOT GUILTY of gross vehicular manslaughter. Found guilty of lesser offense.

People v. J.R. Client who was a registered nurse accused of driving under the influence in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152(a) and (b). BA estimated at 0.11. Client’s nursing license imperiled if convicted of DUI. Jury deadlocked at 11-1 in favor of NOT GUILTY. Case subsequently DISMISSED.

People v. M.B. Client facing misdemeanor charges of driving under the influence in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152(a) and (b) after being pulled over for “weaving in a serpentine manner”. Following denied motion to suppress by the judge, jury returned verdict of NOT GUILTY.

People v. M.L.B. Client’s ex-wife called police to report that he drove to her house and was intoxicated. Eye witnesses report seeing client pull up to the house. Jury deadlocked 10-2 in favor of NOT GUILTY. Case subsequently dismissed.

People v. D.H. Client pulled over for moving violation. Jury deadlocked 10-2 in favor of NOT GUILTY. Cause subsequently DISMISSED.

People v. M.L. Client stopped by law enforcement following report of fight at bar. Defendant’s blood alcohol estimated at .16/.17. Jury found client NOT GUILTY of driving with a blood alcohol content of .08 or greater.

People v. C.O. Client stopped at 3am near gas station. Failed to perform field sobriety tests to satisfaction of investigating officer. Charged with driving under the influence in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152(a). Jury returned verdict of NOT GUILTY.

People v. J.C. Client stopped on Highway 1 for suspicious driving pattern. Jury deadlocked 11-1 in favor of NOT GUILTY for the charge of driving under the influence. Case subsequently dismissed for admission to parole violation.

People v. N.L. Police officer testified under oath that he personally witnessed client enter car and reverse five feet. Client’s blood alcohol content estimated at 0.22 when driving. Davis argued at trial that his client did not drive. Jury deadlocked 7-5 in favor of NOT GUILTY.

CALL 24 HOURS FOR FREE CONSULTATION:

(916)761-8049 or (530)342-1005

Davis@dwhlo.com

Available to meet after hours and on weekends.

DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE RESOURCES

DUI Solutions for Positive Choices, 645 Normal Ave. #100, Chico CA 95928