A 55 year-old Orange County man recently received his thirteenth conviction for driving under the influence, sparking a debate about how California treats multiple convictions spread out over time. Police arrested Dennis Malavasi after they found him in the driver's seat of a pickup truck with the engine running, sitting with a half-empty malt liquor bottle, as reported by the Orange County Register. According to police records, his blood alcohol content that night was 0.24, which is three times the legal driving limit. Police and prosecutors were shocked to find that he had twelve prior convictions for DUI. Malavasi claimed pain from a back injury led to his drinking.
A jury found Malavasi guilty of felony driving under the influence, and the judge sentenced him to six years imprisonment. The judge suspended Malavasi's sentence to give him an opportunity to check into a treatment program. Malavasi did check in, but then checked out early, citing back pain. His whereabouts, according to the Register, are currently unknown, and the judge has issued a warrant for his arrest.
Prior to his thirteenth conviction, Malavasi's last DUI conviction occurred in 2001, almost ten years earlier. Under a California law that only allows ten years' of criminal history to be considered in sentencing, the court almost had to charge him with a misdemeanor. He missed the ten-year cutoff by barely one year, so he was charged with a felony because of the number of prior convictions. Had he met the ten-year cutoff, the state could only have charged him with a misdemeanor, with a maximum jail sentence of one year. This law creating the ten-year cutoff date has come under scrutiny by lawmakers, who hope to prevent additional habitual DUI defendants from getting lesser sentences, or who at least see an opportunity to appear tough on crime.
The purpose of the ten-year law was to allow DUI offenders an opportunity to "change their ways." A person who got a DUI in their youth and again in middle age presumably poses less of a risk to public safety than someone who habitually drinks and drives. California law imposes progressively harsher sentences on repeat DUI offenders, but such mandatory sentencing is only based on 10 years' worth of conviction history. In effect, a person gets a clean slate after ten years, at least where sentencing is concerned.
Republican state senator Bill Emmerson introduced legislation earlier this year that would eliminate the 10-year limit for all DUI cases. His office describes the bill as an "important public safety measure," arguing that the ten-year limit is not sufficiently strict for repeat offenders. According to the Register, prosecutors described Malavasi as a "one-in-a-million repeat offender." Significantly changing legislation based on one, or even just a handful, of cases is almost always shortsighted and ill-advised. Many valid reasons exist to limit mandatory sentencing based on old convictions, and to allow people an opportunity to reform. Enhancing criminal penalties based on decades-old convictions fails to allow for even the possibility of rehabilitation and reform. It is, however, an effective way for a legislator to appear tough on crime.
A person accused of a criminal offense has rights guaranteed by law. To speak to an Orange County criminal defense attorney experienced in defending the rights of criminal defendants, contact Barney Gibbs online or at (714) 838-9019 to schedule a free and confidential consultation.
More Blog Posts:
Convictions for Manslaughter, DUI Reinstated for Fatal Car Accident, Orange County Criminal Attorney Blog, November 28, 2011
Identifying Anti-Alcohol Beliefs in Jurors, Orange County Criminal Attorney Blog, October 26, 2011
What Does The Prosecution Think About Your DUI Case? Orange County Criminal Attorney Blog, October 4, 2011
Photo credit: dharder from morguefile.com
