Mar 4, 2013 | Criminal Defense, DUI & DWI, Felony DUI, Uncategorized
A North Carolina resident apparently had trouble learning his lesson. The man was arrested for the ninth time on driving while impaired charges, according to authorities.
The man was pulled over by officers on Monday night for running a red light. The man was pulled over while driving his moped and refused a breathalyzer test, according to authroities. This is the man’s ninth DWI in the last 25 years and the man has seven convictions for driving while impaired in other counties.
On the eighth driving while impaired charge for the man, he was pulled over for driving a boat while intoxicated. The man remains in the Gaston County jail under a $250,000 bond.
According to NC law, each DWI a person recieves brings with it a higher level of punishment. Specifically, upon one’s fourth or more offense, there is a mandatory permanent driver’s license revocation. Furthermore, the offense will be considered a felony if there has been three prior DWI convictions within the past seven years. The offense can carry with it one to three years of imprisonment, or a hefty fine.
If you or anyone you know has been charged with a DWI, contact the law offices of Reeves, Aiken, and Hightower to consult with one of our criminal DWI attorneys. Our criminal DWI attorneys handle many types of criminal cases in North and South Carolina. We are licensed in both North and South Carolina, where you can contact us at 704-499-9000 or 877-374-5999 toll-free.
Mar 4, 2013 | Criminal Defense, DUI & DWI, Uncategorized
A weekend turned sour for four Fort Mill, SC residents. Four people have been arrested for DUI this weekend after York Police Department DUI enforcement effort.
According to the York County Police Chief, officers worked diligently on patrol from 10 p.m. Saturday night, to 5 a.m. Sunday morning in hopes of catching intoxicated drivers. Specifically, one DUI arrest occurred due to an accident caused by the ineibrated driver.
Other citations were issued along with the arrests for other various infractions. The York County Police Chief has commented that due to recent events, and rising numbers in car accidents due to intoxicated drivers, the entire force is trying to “beef up” the DUI enforcement by the end of next month.
According to the police chief, this is due to the overwhelming amount of deaths and crashes occurring because of drunk drivers.
If you or someone you know is facing DUI charges, contact the law offices of Reeves, Aiken, and Hightower to consult with one of our criminal DUI attorneys. Our criminal DUI attorneys handle many types of criminal cases in North and South Carolina. We are licensed in both North and South Carolina, where you can contact us at 704-499-9000 or 877-374-5999 toll-free.
Mar 1, 2013 | Criminal Defense, Uncategorized
The South Carolina Supreme Court decided in State v. Harrison that 20 years in prison for leaving the scene of an accident resulting in a death was not cruel and unusual punishment for the purposes of the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The incident occurred in Greenwood County west of Columbia. Two motorcyclists were traveling down the left southbound lane of Highway 25, a four-lane road. They were riding tandem, with a bike’s length separation between them. Harrison, whose license was suspended, turned right onto the highway, moving into the left southbound lane, in front of the two motorcyclists. The first motorcyclist briefly lost control, while trying to avoid Harrison’s truck, and shifted into the right lane. Harrison also moved back into the right lane. The truck and the first bike collided. That biker ended up flipping over and was left in the road. Harrison did not stop and continued driving down the highway. The second biker followed him. Eventually Harrison stopped. The second biker told him that the first was lying in the road, maybe dead. Harrison inspected the truck and said he would return to the scene. He did not return, and never did. The first motorcycle rider did in fact die. South Carolina imposes a duty on drivers involved in an accident to give reasonable assistance to those injured in the accident (e.g., calling 911 or driving them to a hospital).
The state did not charge Harrison with reckless vehicular homicide, which requires reckless conduct and carries a maximum of 10 years (SC Code § 56-5-2910), but leaving the scene of an accident, § 15-5-1210, and driving under suspension, § 56-1-0460. The jury convicted him, and the judge sentenced him to 20 years. The maximum sentence for leaving the scene of an accident when a death results is actually 25 years.
The South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the sentence. The Court recited its restrictive scope of review in cases like this one:
This Court has a very limited scope of review in cases involving a constitutional challenge to a statute. Joytime Distrib. & Amusement Co. v. State, 338 S.C. 634, 640, 528 S.E. 2d 647, 651 (1999). All statutes are presumed constitutional and will, if possible, be c onstrued so as to render them valid. Davis v. Cnty. of Greenville, 332 S.C. 73, 77, 470 S.E.2d 94, 96 (1996). A legislative act will not be declared unconstitutional unless its repugnance to the constitution is clear beyond a reasonable doubt. Westvaco Corp. v. S.C. Dep’t of Revenue, 321 S.C. 59, 62, 467 S.E.2d 739, 741 (1995).
Without getting too deep into the brambles, the Court recognizes the rule in the Kennedy concurrence in Harmelin, i.e., “intrajurisdictional and interjurisdictional analyses are appropriate only in the rare case in which a threshold comparison of the crime committed and the sentence imposed leads to an inference of gross disproportionality,” Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1005 (1991), as the controlling law.
The Court decided the sentence was proportionate enough and cited the trial judge’s comments at sentencing as “the very embodiment of proportionality”: “I understand that there was no intent to cause this accident, I understand that you did not set out on this particular day to injure [the Victim] or anyone else, for that matter. The inescapable fact, though . . . is that in reality you caused this accident by being present where you had no business to be and that you were driving a car, sir . . . . I also have to consider your criminal history. I count [twenty-seven] offenses. A lot of these, I agree with your attorney, they happened when you were young and I understand . . . how young people can make mistakes . . . I just can’t disregard it . . . because you have demonstrated over and over again a pattern of being unable to not only obey the law but to stay out from behind the wheel of a car . . . . It is my job to take all of this into consideration and work out some sort of calculation, and I’m not all unsympathetic to the arguments of counsel that you are being punished far in excess.”
The Court noted that Harmelin stops the analysis at a finding of proportionality, but the Court continued to give guidance on the new analysis.
In intrajurisdictional analysis, the Court looked to reckless vehicular homicide, SC Code Ann. § 56-5-2910, and DUI involving great bodily injury or death, SC Code Ann. § 56-5-2945. Reckless vehicular homicide carries a maximum of 10 years prison, and no mandatory minimum term. DUI involving death carries one to 25 years. The Court points to the trial courts discretion in sentencing and concludes that a intrajurisdictional comparison does not support an inference of gross disproportionality.
The same is true of the interjurisdictional comparisons.
Georgia’s § 40-6-270 provides that leaving the scene of an accident, where the accident causes death, carries one to five years, but cross-references the Georgia vehicular homicide statute which provides three to 15 years, which the Court calls “not substantially different” from South Carolina’s statute. The Court provides less in depth analysis of other comparisons (only one other state, Wisconsin, was cited as having a 25 year maximum) and concludes that inter jurisdiction comparisons provide no inference of gross disproportionality.
Justice Pleicones concurred in judgment only. All others joined Chief Justice Toal.
Feb 20, 2013 | Criminal Defense, Drug Crimes and Controlled Substances Defense, Felony Drug Possession, Felony Possession of a Firearm, Possession with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance, Uncategorized
Four Rock Hill teenagers were arrested on Sunday morning after officers stumbled upon an underage drinking party with guns and empty bottle of liquor.
All four were charged with minor in possession of alcohol and one was charged with discharging a firearm in city limits. According to a police report, officers were called to Baylor Drive off Mount Gallant Road after someone called in to complain about a loud party on the top of a hill. When officers approached the house, they heard a gunshot from behind the residence along with chatter coming from the garage at the residence.
When police walked around the back of the house, they found one teenager who dropped a shotgun and had alcohol on his breath. Officers also found another teenager walking around the back of the house and a 15-year old girl hiding in the shed. After officers had knocked on the front door for a while, they arrested another teenager who came outside claiming he was asleep during the whole fiasco.
Contact the law offices of Reeves, Aiken, and Hightower to consult with one of our criminal attorneys about any type of drug charges. Our criminal attorneys also handle many different types of criminal cases in addition to drug charges in North and South Carolina. We are licensed in both North Carolina and South Carolina, where you can contact us at 704-499-9000 or 877-374-5999 toll-free.
Feb 20, 2013 | Criminal Defense, Drug Crimes and Controlled Substances Defense, Premises Liability, Uncategorized
A Rock Hill man became bored and went to a college class. Rock Hill Police stated that the man showed up to a class at York Technical College on Monday drunk.
According to a police report, the man was not a student at the school. The report stated the man entered a class and was told to leave by a teacher, which he refused to do. An officer arrived and spoke with the man and the officer noticed he smelled like alcohol, had slurred speech, and difficulty answering simple questions.
The man said he drove to the school after drinking that morning, but stated he couldn’t remember why he drove to the school. The man was arrested for public intoxication and was released Monday on a $250 bond.
If you or someone you know has been charged with a serious crime, contact the law offices of Reeves, Aiken, and Hightower to consult with one of our criminal attorneys about any criminal charges. Our criminal attorneys handle many types of criminal cases in North and South Carolina and want to help you with your criminal charges. We are licensed in both North and South Carolina, where you can contact us at 704-499-9000 or 877-374-5999 toll-free.
Feb 20, 2013 | Assault and Battery, Criminal Defense, Personal Injury, Uncategorized
A Rock Hill woman had her relationship turn sour the other night. The woman claims her boyfriend dumped bleach on her and then left the home, according to a Rock Hill Police report.
The woman claimed her boyfriend was upset after another man was looking at her at the club. Officers stated that the woman said he dumped bleach all over her clothes and hair at around 2:45 a.m. Saturday. Officers stated that the woman had noticeable bleach spots on her clothing and an empty bottle of bleach was recovered from the room where the alleged incident occurred.
The man was not arrested as he fled the scene and took the victims cell phone with him. Contact the law offices of Reeves, Aiken, and Hightower to consult with one of our criminal attorneys. Our criminal attorneys handle many types of criminal cases in North and South Carolina. We are licensed in both North and South Carolina, where you can contact us at 704-499-9000 or 877-374-5999 toll-free.