Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

474 So. 2d 24

State v. Inabnet

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided June 20, 1985

Louisiana Court of Appeal · decided 1985-06-20

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 1996

8 state decisions

Relies on State v. Duncan · City of Baton Rouge v. Mahnken · State v. Benoit

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1985-06-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1WRIT DENIED.

¶2In 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.

¶3Defendant 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).

¶4Here, 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.

/474/so2d/24 · .json · Public domain