OUI Quincy Massachusetts Lawyer Motor Vehicle Liability Driver License
OUI Quincy Massachusetts Lawyer Motor Vehicle Liability Driver License
Charles Pal v. Commonwealth
Facts:
The board of appeal on motor vehicle liability policies and bonds upheld defendant Massachusetts Registrar of Motor Vehicles’s revocation of plaintiff driver’s license until January 5, 2016 because he had been convicted in Connecticut of his third driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI) offense. The Superior Court Department (Massachusetts) upheld the board’s decision. The driver appealed.
OUI Quincy Massachusetts Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the Massachusetts Registrar of Motor Vehicles properly revokes the plaintiff driver’s license until January 5, 2016?
Discussion:
The appellate court held that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(c)(3) applied as the OUI was a third offense. Section 24(1)(c)(3) prohibited the Registrar from restoring the driving rights of a third-time offender until eight years after the date of conviction. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 22(c) did not speak the question of how long a suspension based on OUI convictions had to last, regardless of whether the convictions occurred in-state or out-of-state. The Registrar’s claim that relying on the date of conviction for out-of-state violations was against public policy as the Registrar had no control over the timeliness of the information entered by other states into the National Driver Register was rejected. The driver was prohibited from regaining his driving privileges until October 2012, which was more than eight years after his license was suspended. The Registrar could not restore the driver’s license until October 4, 2012, the eighth anniversary of the driver’s third OUI conviction. There was substantial doubt whether the driver’s request for a hardship license was properly before the board as the application was not filed with the Registrar as required by § 24(1)(c). The judgment was vacated, and a new judgment was entered directing the board to revise its decision consistent with the appellate court’s opinion to order the Registrar to correct the termination date for the mandatory revocation of the driver’s license to October 4, 2012
The Gilmore & Sris Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your OUI case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your OUI case.
A Massachusetts lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your OUI case in Massachusetts and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have a client meeting location in Cambridge.
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.
OUI Middlesex Virginia Lawyer Driver License Suspended
OUI Middlesex Virginia Lawyer Driver License Suspended
Commonwealth v. Williams
Fact:
The defendant appeals from his conviction of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, fifth or subsequent offense. He argues that the prosecutor should not have been permitted to cross-examine him about whether he had been asked to perform field sobriety tests on an earlier occasion. The defendant also argues that he was prevented from presenting his defense by the trial judge’s ruling that if the defendant testified that he gave a false name because his driver’s license was suspended, the Commonwealth would be permitted to present evidence of the reason that the license was suspended.
OUI Middlesex Virginia Lawyer
Issues:
Whether the trial judge erred in ruling that if the defendant testified that he gave a false name because his driver’s license was suspended, the Commonwealth would be permitted to present evidence of the reason that the license was suspended?
Discussion:
Here the judge did not abuse his broad discretion. The defendant offered, as an excuse for his poor performance on the field sobriety tests, his statement that he was angry because he did not know why he was having all those tests done to him; in doing so, he opened the door to the prosecutor’s fair questions about whether he had been asked to perform those same tests on earlier occasions. In addition, only the three questions described above were asked, and the defendant’s convictions were neither admitted in evidence nor mentioned. The judge gave an immediate instruction limiting the jury’s consideration of those questions and responses only as to the issue of the defendant’s performance on the field sobriety tests. We see no error. Regarding the defendant’s testimony admitting giving a false name and the court’s consequent ruling, the court held the judge, in fact, made no such ruling, and at two separate side bar conferences, he reserved judgment on the issue and reminded counsel to approach the bench before the subject was touched upon so that the matter could be argued at that time. Defense counsel did not ask for a conference before the defendant testified; the defendant did not testify that he gave a false name because his license was suspended; and those cross-examination questions were never posed. There was no error.
OUI Breathalyzer Massachusetts License Suspended Lawyers Bristol County
OUI Breathalyzer Massachusetts License Suspended Lawyers Bristol County
Allwyn v. Registrar of motor vehicles & another
Facts:
Plaintiff was arrested for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI), a violation of G. L. c. 90, § 24 (1) (a) (1). He admitted to sufficient facts for a finding of guilty; he did not plead guilty. His case was continued without a finding and later dismissed after he had successfully completed the terms of his probation, including assignment to an alcohol education program. The plaintiff was arrested again for OUI on January 14, 2010. He refused to submit to a breathalyzer test. Thereafter, the registrar of motor vehicles (registrar) suspended the plaintiff’s driver’s license for three years on account of his refusal to take the test. The registrar is required to suspend an arrested driver’s license for three years for refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test if the driver has been previously “convicted” of an OUI offense. If the driver has not been previously convicted, the license suspension period is 180 days. The plaintiff appealed from the registrar’s decision to the board of appeal on motor vehicle liability policies and bonds (board), arguing that his license should only have been suspended for 180 days because he had never previously pleaded guilty to or been found guilty of OUI. Therefore, he claimed, he had not previously been “convicted of” OUI. The board affirmed the registrar’s decision. The plaintiff then sought review of the board’s decision in the Superior Court under G. L. c. 30A, § 14. After hearing, a judge in that court affirmed the board’s decision.
OUI Breathalyzer Massachusetts License Suspended Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether a person deemed to “convict of” OUI for purposes of nolo contendere?
Discussion:
The high court held that. Under a § 24(1) (d), a person was deemed to have been “convicted of” OUI for purposes of § 24(1)(f)(1) if he pled guilty or nolo contendere or was found or adjudged guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction. Thus, the word “convicted” referenced only dispositions of criminal charges that included a determination of guilt. Plaintiff’s admission to sufficient facts for a finding of guilty, followed by a CWOF and a program assignment, did not qualify him as someone who was previously “convicted of” OUI. The judgment was reversed.
The Gilmore & Sris Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your OUI case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your OUI case. A Massachusetts lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your OUI case in Massachusetts and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have a client meeting location in Cambridge.
Article written by A Sris
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.
OUI License Massachusetts Revocation Arrest Lawyers Suffolk County
OUI License Massachusetts Revocation Arrest Lawyers Suffolk County
Michael v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Petitioner driver sought judicial review of the decision from the Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds (board), which affirmed the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (registrar) to revoke his driver’s license for two years following his second conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor. He also challenged the board’s failure to address his request for a limited work license.
OUI License Massachusetts Revocation Arrest Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the decision to revoke the drivers’ license can be upheld?
Discussions:
In September 1993, the driver was arrested for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor (OUI). In November 1993, he was again arrested on OUI charges. In January 1994, a district court found sufficient facts to convict him on both OUI charges and the registrar, pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24 (1994), revoked his license for the statutorily mandated two-year period from the date of his last conviction, January 10, 1994. The driver appealed and sought a limited work license that would allow him to drive between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. The board affirmed the registrar’s decision and noted that the driver could request a hearing on the limited license request in January 1995. On appeal, the court affirmed, finding that the two year suspension was mandated by statute and that a person in the driver’s position could only apply for a limited work license, or a so-called “hardship” license, after the expiration of one year from the date of conviction. Because the driver was not even eligible to seek a limited license until January 10, 1995, the court found that his request was premature and that the board properly declined to address the issue.
The Gilmore & Sris Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your OUI case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your OUI case. A Massachusetts lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your OUI case in Massachusetts and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have a client meeting location in Cambridge.
Article written by A Sris
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
OUI License Massachusetts Lifetime Revocation Hardship Lawyers Suffolk County
OUI License Massachusetts Lifetime Revocation Hardship Lawyers Suffolk County
Theodore v. Board of Appeal
Facts:
Plaintiff driver filed a complaint for judicial review of the lifetime revocation of his driver’s license. The Suffolk Superior Court Department (Massachusetts) denied his motion for judgment on the pleadings, affirmed the registrar’s decision to revoke his license, and remanded the issue of the issuance of a hardship license to the Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds.
OUI License Massachusetts Lifetime Revocation Hardship Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the driver could be granted a hearing before the registrar for the purpose of requesting the issuance of a new license on hardship grounds?
Discussions:
The Board appealed the judgment insofar as it remanded the case. The appellate court held that the look-back period of 10 years had been eliminated. Thus, all four of the driver’s previous operating under the influence (OUI) convictions were considered, even though there had been 30 years between the fourth and fifth convictions. A fifth OUI offense required a permanent revocation. The registrar could not grant the driver a hearing to request a new license on hardship grounds. While the driver stated a need to drive to work and to job sites, the Board did not purport to rule on the issue. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(c)(3 3/4) was silent on a new license for employment or education purposes, and no decision of the registrar on a hardship license was before the Board. The decision on appeal superseded the registrar’s decision and was the Board’s final action. The remand order was in error. Finally, § 24(1)(c)(3 3/4) provided that the driver could not be granted a hearing before the registrar for the purpose of requesting the issuance of a new license on hardship grounds. While it was not determined whether an appeal lay of a lifetime revocation, there was no waiting period.
The Gilmore & Sris Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your OUI case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your OUI case. A Massachusetts lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your OUI case in Massachusetts and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have a client meeting location in Cambridge.
Article written by A Sris
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.
OUI Massachusetts Probation License Suspension Attorneys Essex County
OUI Massachusetts Probation License Suspension Attorneys Essex County
ALLWYN v. REGISTRAR OF MOTOR VEHICLES & another
Facts:
Plaintiff was arrested for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI), a violation of G. L. c. 90, § 24 (1) (a) (1). He admitted to sufficient facts for a finding of guilty; he did not plead guilty. His case was continued without a finding and later dismissed after he had successfully completed the terms of his probation, including assignment to an alcohol education program. The plaintiff was arrested again for OUI on January 14, 2010. He refused to submit to a breathalyzer test. Thereafter, the registrar of motor vehicles (registrar) suspended the plaintiff’s driver’s license for three years on account of his refusal to take the test. The registrar is required to suspend an arrested driver’s license for three years for refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test if the driver has been previously “convicted” of an OUI offense. If the driver has not been previously convicted, the license suspension period is 180 days. The plaintiff appealed from the registrar’s decision to the board of appeal on motor vehicle liability policies and bonds (board), arguing that his license should only have been suspended for 180 days because he had never previously pleaded guilty to or been found guilty of OUI. Therefore, he claimed, he had not previously been “convicted of” OUI. The board affirmed the registrar’s decision. The plaintiff then sought review of the board’s decision in the Superior Court under G. L. c. 30A, § 14. After hearing, a judge in that court affirmed the board’s decision.
OUI Massachusetts Probation License Suspension Attorneys
Issue:
- Whether a person deemed to “convict of” OUI for purposes of nolo contendere?
Discussion:
The high court held that. Under a § 24(1) (d), a person was deemed to have been “convicted of” OUI for purposes of § 24(1)(f)(1) if he pled guilty or nolo contendere or was found or adjudged guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction. Thus, the word “convicted” referenced only dispositions of criminal charges that included a determination of guilt. Plaintiff’s admission to sufficient facts for a finding of guilty, followed by a CWOF and a program assignment, did not qualify him as someone who was previously “convicted of” OUI. The judgment was reversed.
The Gilmore & Sris Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your OUI case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your OUI case. A Massachusetts lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your OUI case in Massachusetts and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have a client meeting location in Cambridge.
Article written by A Sris
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.
Massachusetts OUI Operating Influence Properly Suspended License Lawyers Attorneys
The driver had an Arizona conviction for operating under the influence in 1998, pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(f)(1), (1)(c)(3), the driver’s license was properly suspended
An OUI offense is a very serious crime in Massachusetts.
The Gilmore & SRIS, LLC. Massachusetts OUI attorneys can defend you against any type of OUI charge.
Our Massachusetts OUI lawyers have the experience to defend you against any type of OUI charge.
Contact a Gilmore & SRIS, LLC. Massachusetts OUI lawyer in Massachusetts.
Massachusetts OUI Operating Influence Five Times Revoking Convicted Lawyers Attorneys
Judgment revoking driver’s operating license was affirmed as driver had been convicted of operating under the influence five times for purposes of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(c)(3 3/4), even though there had been 30 years between fourth and fifth convictions, and look-back period of 10 years had been eliminated
An OUI offense is a very serious crime in Massachusetts.
The Gilmore & SRIS, LLC. Massachusetts OUI attorneys can defend you against any type of OUI charge.
Our Massachusetts OUI lawyers have the experience to defend you against any type of OUI charge.
Contact a Gilmore & SRIS, LLC. Massachusetts OUI lawyer in Massachusetts.
Massachusetts driver Submit Chemical Evidence Driver License OUI Lawyers Attorneys
Because, inter alia, a driver refused to submit to a chemical test in 2006, and because there was substantial evidence that the driver had an Arizona conviction for operating under the influence in 1998, pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(f)(1), (1)(c)(3), the driver’s license was properly suspended.
An OUI offense is a very serious crime in Massachusetts.
The Gilmore & SRIS, LLC. Massachusetts OUI attorneys can defend you against any type of OUI charge.
Our Massachusetts OUI lawyers have the experience to defend you against any type of OUI charge.
Contact a Gilmore & SRIS, LLC. Massachusetts OUI lawyer in Massachusetts.
Massachusetts driver Submit Chemical Evidence Driver License OUI Law Lawyers Attorneys
Because, inter alia, a driver refused to submit to a chemical test in 2006, and because there was substantial evidence that the driver had an Arizona conviction for operating under the influence in 1998, pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(f)(1), (1)(c)(3), the driver’s license was properly suspended.
An OUI offense is a very serious crime in Massachusetts.
The Gilmore & SRIS, LLC. Massachusetts OUI attorneys can defend you against any type of OUI charge.
Our Massachusetts OUI lawyers have the experience to defend you against any type of OUI charge.
Contact a Gilmore & SRIS, LLC. Massachusetts OUI lawyer in Massachusetts.
8:00 AM – 12:00 AM Midnight
