subject: Maryland Montgomery County Driving Influence Alcohol Consumption Subsequent Offender Lawyers Attorneys [print this page] James Edward TERESHUK v. STATE of Maryland
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
January 17, 1986
On July 4, 1984, appellant was arrested for "Driving while intoxicated." He submitted to a breathalyzer test, which measures an individual's blood alcohol content, and registered a .15 two percentage points above the blood alcohol content level considered prima facie evidence of intoxication
During a hearing on January 2, 1985, the court provisionally accepted appellant's guilty plea on the agreed-upon conditions, appellant argued that he could not be sentenced as a "subsequent offender" under 27-101(f) because he had not been previously convicted of "Driving while under the influence of alcohol." On May 9, 1985, the court held that his prior convictions for driving "while his driving ability was impaired by the consumption of alcohol brought him within the purview of the "subsequent offender" provision ( 27-101(f)). It sentenced him to one year but suspended execution of all except 60 days of the sentence, in favor of two years' supervised probation. Defendant challenged a decision from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.
Issues:
Whether a person convicted of driving while under the influence of alcohol could be sentenced as a second or subsequent offender under Md. Code Ann., Transp. I 27-101(f) when the repeat offender treatment was based on prior convictions for driving while ability impaired by alcohol
Whether driving while under the influence of alcohol and driving while ability impaired by alcohol could not be treated as interchangeable?
The Legislature specifically provided the answer in the very statute that changed the terminology. Section 2 of that Act (1981 Laws of Maryland, ch. 242) provides: "AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That wherever 'driving while ability impaired by consumption of alcohol' shall appear in the Annotated Code of Maryland, it is the legislative intent that 'driving while under the influence of alcohol' shall be substituted and have the same meaning and effect as 'driving or attempting to drive while ability impaired or not impaired by the consumption of alcohol, as the case may be or the context requires." The Court held that the appellant has cited no authority in support of this proposition and we have not uncovered any in our research. In our view, 2, ch. 242, 1981 Laws of Maryland, providing that the terms shall have "the same meaning and effect," disposes of this contention.
Conclusion:
The court held that defendant was properly sentenced as a subsequent offender under Md. Code Ann., Transp. I 27-101(f). The court held that 1981 Md. Laws 242, 2 explicitly stated that "driving under the influence of alcohol" should have the same meaning and effect as its precursor, "driving while ability impaired by alcohol."
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
