BILL WOULD FORCE JUDGES TO IMPOSE FULL SENTENCE IN EXTREME DUI
By LAUREN PROPER
Cronkite News Service
PHOENIX (Thursday, Jan. 17) _ Judges would have no option to suspend part of the sentence for those guilty of a first or second extreme DUI under a bill that received a Senate committee’s endorsement Thursday.
SB 1004, sponsored by Sen. Jim Waring, R-Phoenix, would eliminate conflicting language in statues governing DUI sentencing.
A change approved last year forbids judges from suspending part of the sentence for someone guilty of extreme DUI. But language elsewhere continued to say judges could suspend some of the sentence if an offender had a blood-alcohol level of less than 0.20 and enrolled in some type of treatment.
That left judges citing one or the other, Waring said.
“It makes it so the judges are clear on sentencing and takes away any discrepancies,” said Waring, who sponsored the legislation that made last year’s changes.
The Senate Committee on Public Safety and Human Services endorsed the bill unanimously and referred it to the Rules Committee. The measure includes an emergency clause, meaning it would become law immediately if two-thirds of both houses approve it and the governor signs it or allows it to become law without her signature.
A person is driving under the influence if he or she has a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 or more. Extreme DUI applies when a driver has a blood-alcohol level of 0.15 or more.
For a first extreme DUI offense, a judge previously had the right to reduce the sentence from 30 days to 10 for those who completed court-ordered screening, education or treatment. For a second offense, a judge could cut the sentence from 120 days to 60 under those conditions.
Waring’s bill also would change the law to allow judges to prohibit a person convicted of extreme DUI from consuming alcohol for a specific period of time. The offender would be continuously monitored or would have to submit to testing no less than twice a day.
Jerry Landau, director of government affairs for the Arizona Supreme Court, told the committee that the court supports judicial discretion but in this case simply wants consistency in the law.
“It is necessary to remove one of the laws; it doesn’t matter which one,” Landau said.