Main/A Common Mistake Among Minor Felony Attorneys

One longstanding argument is that the way the laws are written, a person's ODL should '''not''' be suspended because of a conviction for either unlawful use of a vehicle or possession of a stolen vehicle.  The reasoning is simple.  The law allows a suspension if an element of the crime includes a "motor vehicle."  Neither UUV or PSV have an element that specifies "motor" vehilce, and the fact that the crime may have ''involved'' a motor vehicle doesn't make "motor vehicle" an element of the crime. 

As far as I know, this issue hasn't made it to the Court of Appeals.  Part of the reason for that is that certain prosecutors have conceded the issue.  Part is that some defense attorneys aren't aware of the issue.  Another reason, I suspect, is that even defense attorneys who are aware of the issue decide it's not worth fighting over when the defendant is going to get a two or three-year prison sentence and the license suspension is only for a year.  No driving in prison, anyway.

Except that if the trial judge does impose a license suspension of one year, even if the suspension order indicates that the suspension will begin at the time of sentencing, DMV won't actually suspend the license until the defendant is freed from prison, adding to the hardship that comes with leaving prison.  The more hardship, the increasing likelihood the defendant will recidivate.  

If you want to help your clients stay crime-free when they get out of prison, argue against the license suspension and if you lose, send the issue up to appeal.  It won't just be your client who benefits.
{{wl-publish: 2023-12-10 13:43:41 -0800 | Ryan@ryanscottlaw.com:Ryan  Scott  }}