On October 25, 2007, in an unpublished opinion in the case People v. Joslin, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the DUI defendant’s guilty conviction for operating while intoxicated (OWI)  with an occupant under the age of 16, a violation of M.C.L. 257.625(7)(a)(ii). After the jury found the DUI defendant guilty, the trial court trial court sentenced him to 365 days in the county jail and one year of probation, with the requirement that he perform 300 hours of community service. The DUI defendant’s jail term was reduced to 226 days on request by the sheriff. On appeal, the DUI defendant argued that his Michigan DUI attorney was ineffective, which affected the results of his trial. The facts of the case are as follows:

According to the Michigan Court of Appeals, one late-night, “a witness observed a truck being driven erratically.  A public safety officer responding to the reported incident saw the truck do a U-turn, then park. The officer parked his patrol car, walked up to the truck, and saw defendant in the driver’s seat of the truck. The officer also saw defendant’s sixyear- old son sitting in the passenger seat. Because defendant smelled of alcohol, the officer performed field sobriety tests on him. Concluding that defendant was drunk, the officer placed him under arrest. A blood test later showed that defendant’s blood alcohol level was .12. The prosecutor charged defendant with resisting arrest and with OUIL with a juvenile passenger. At the first trial on these charges, the jury acquitted defendant of resisting arrest but deadlocked on the OUIL. The trial court held a second jury trial on this charge, resulting in the present conviction.”

The DUI defendant argued that his Michigan DUI lawyer was ineffective “for failing to object to testimony provided by two public safety officers describing defendant’s belligerent conduct after his arrest, including a callous remark defendant made about his son being placed in foster care.”  The Michigan Court of Appeals, however, disagreed, noting that to convict the DUI defendant, “the prosecutor had to prove that defendant was operating a vehicle while intoxicated with a person under age 16 in the vehicle. MCL 257.625(1)(a), (7)(a).” According to the court, the evidence at issue was “relevant to the issue of the identity of the person actually driving the truck when it was observed swerving on the roadway, and to whether defendant was intoxicated.”

The court of appeals concluded that even if it were to assume that the DUI defendant’s lawyer had objected to the disputed evidence and that it would have been sustained by the court, the DUI defendant failed “to show that the trial result was unreliable, and that the result would have been different but for counsel’s failure to object.”

Click here to read the entire opinion.

---

The GL Law Group, PLC provides free information on Michigan DUI law and guide to choosing a good Michigan DUI attorney. If you have recently been arrested for a DUI, it’s important to contact a good DUI lawyer soon. A guilty DUI conviction can ruin your life. Contact us to set up a free DUI case review.

This entry was posted on Thursday, November 1st, 2007 at 9:54 am and is filed under Michigan Court of Appeals. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.