No. 17443-KW Precedential Processed

State v. Inabnet

Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit · Filed June 20, 1985 · 474 So. 2d 24

Cited by

State v. Ward 670 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
State v. Johnson 587 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
State Ex Rel. Porter v. Butler 573 So. 2d 1106 La. 1991
State v. Leagea 554 So. 2d 833 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Norwood 538 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Mims 535 So. 2d 1103 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
State v. Inabnet 475 So. 2d 362 La. 1985
State v. Algere 475 So. 2d 365 La. 1985

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State v. Benoit 311 So. 2d 857
State v. Duncan 55 So. 2d 234
City of Baton Rouge v. Mahnken 257 So. 2d 690

Opinion text

WRIT DENIED. In 1982, defendant entered guilty pleas to two separate charges of DWI, first offense, in the Fourth Judicial District Court. By Acts of 1983, No. 634, Section 1, effective January 1, 1984, LSA-R.S. 14:98 was amended. Subsequently, defendant was charged with two separate charges of DWI, third offense. Defendant filed motions to quash both bills of information, arguing that the amendment to the statute changed the definition of the offense and therefore, the prior convictions could not serve as a basis for a more severe penalty for these offenses. The trial court overruled the motions to quash and defendant now seeks review. Defendant cites several cases in which the Louisiana Supreme Court held that DWI offenses under city and municipal statutes could not be used to enhance penalties under LSA-R.S. 14:98. The court ruled that only the convictions under LSA-R.S. 14:98 could be used to enhance the penalty for a later violation. State v. Be-noit, 311 So.2d 857 (La.1975); State v. Duncan, 55 So.2d 234 (La.1951); City of Baton Rouge v. Mahnken, 257 So.2d 690 (La.1972). Here, defendant was charged in all instances with violation of the same statute, LSA-R.S. 14:98. Although the statute has been amended, the amendments did not so substantially change the statute to make it a different one for the purpose of the enhancement of penalty. Therefore, defendant’s argument is without merit and his application to this court is denied.