A San Diego driving under the influence (DUI) charge throws people into a process that is very scary and foreign process to them. Some people have friends or family who have had DUIs and they say it is an easy process. Other people have heard horror stories. The truth is that the prosecution of San Diego DUI cases have gotten continually tougher and that representation is needed in most situations.
Someone then asks the million dollar question, “what is going to happen?”. Until the evidence is examined by an attorney who practices in the field it will be an unknown. People of course do not want a DUI on their record. Other people hope for the best, which usually comes in the forms of lower punishments and reduction of charges. The one I wanted to focus on today is a reduction of a San Diego DUI charge called, a “wet reckless”. Call the Law Offices of Mark Deniz, APLC now for a consultation at 858-751-4384.
What is Wet Reckless?
A wet reckless is the first of several reductions of a DUI charge that a person suspected of driving under the influence may take advantage of. Usually, a wet reckless is offered as a plea bargain when a person’s blood alcohol content is close to 0.08% or when there are holes in the prosecution’s case such that they would rather obtain a conviction of a lesser charge than lose at trial. If someone pleads guilty to a wet reckless charge, they are pleading guilty to Vehicle Code 23103 which, technically, is a charge of driving recklessly. However, what makes a charge of Vehicle Code 23103 “wet” is the fact that the prosecutor states for the record that alcohol or drugs were involved with the charge.
What are the chances of getting a “Wet Reckless”?
The answer to that questions is a very familiar phrase in the legal field….
“it depends”. Usually, there must be a problem with the prosecutor’s evidence in order to get a 0.13% reduced to a wet reckless. As a rule of thumb, DUIs are typically reduced to a wet reckless when the driver’s BAC was close to the .08% legal limit, not well-above.
If your BAC was high, you don’t want to hire just any attorney. You need someone who knows the court, the local judges, and the science behind DUI. Usually, there must be a problem with the prosecutor’s evidence in order to get a 0.13% reduced to a wet reckless. As a rule of thumb, DUIs are typically reduced to a wet reckless when the driver’s BAC was close to the .08% legal limit, not well-above. Call the Law Offices of Mark Deniz, APLC now for a consultation at 858-751-4384.
Aggrevated & Serious San Diego DUIs get “Wet Reckless” reductions as well
What about cases where the facts are more aggravating such as a really high BAC (.15% and above, accidents, etc). People tend to think one of two ways. In one camp, someone has a .22% BAC and they want a “wet reckless” charge. The other set of folks believe that with their facts there is no hope of a reduction. The truth is that is it MUCH harder with aggravated facts to get a “wet reckless” charge instead of a San Diego DUI. However, it happens everyday. There is usually something in the facts or the investigation, which leads to the case getting a favorable offer. It is probably healthier not to expect the result when the facts are more serious. The key is to hope for the best result possible, lift the sleeves, and get the best result possible in the given situation.Call the Law Offices of Mark Deniz, APLC to get the ball rolling at 858-751-4384.
I encourage you to read our reviews on Yelp, Avvo, Google, etc.
23103.5. (a) If the prosecution agrees to a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a charge of a violation of Section 23103 in satisfaction of, or as a substitute for, an original charge of a violation of Section 23152, the prosecution shall state for the record a factual basis for the satisfaction or substitution, including whether or not there had been consumption of an alcoholic beverage or ingestion or administration of a drug, or both, by the defendant in connection with the offense. The statement shall set forth the facts that show whether or not there was a consumption of an alcoholic beverage or the ingestion or administration of a drug by the defendant in connection with the offense.
(b) The court shall advise the defendant, prior to the acceptance of the plea offered pursuant to a factual statement pursuant to subdivision (a), of the consequences of a conviction of a violation of Section 23103 as set forth in subdivision (c).
(c) If the court accepts the defendant s plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a charge of a violation of Section 23103 and the prosecutor s statement under subdivision (a) states that there was consumption of an alcoholic beverage or the ingestion or administration of a drug by the defendant in connection with the offense, the resulting conviction shall be a prior offense for the purposes of Section 23540, 23546, 23550, 23560, 23566, or 23622, as specified in those sections.
(d) The court shall notify the Department of Motor Vehicles of each conviction of Section 23103 that is required under this section to be a prior offense for purposes of Section 23540, 23546, 23550, 23560, 23566, or 23622.
(e) Except as provided in paragraph (1) of subdivision (f), if the court places the defendant on probation for a conviction of Section 23103 that is required under this section to be a prior offense for purposes of Section 23540, 23546, 23550, 23560, 23566, or 23622, the court shall order the defendant to enroll in an alcohol and drug education program licensed under Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 11836) of Part 2 of Division 10.5 of the Health and Safety Code and complete, at a minimum, the educational component of that program, as a condition of probation. If compelling circumstances exist that mitigate against including the education component in the order, the court may make an affirmative finding to that effect. The court shall state the compelling circumstances and the affirmative finding on the record, and may, in these cases, exclude the educational component from the order
(f) (1) If the court places on probation a defendant convicted of a violation of Section 23103 that is required under this section to be a prior offense for purposes of Secti
on 23540, 23546, 23550, 23560, 23566, or 23622, and that offense occurred within 10 years of a separate conviction of a violation of Section 23103, as specified in this section, or within 10 years of a conviction of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153, the court shall order the defendant to participate for nine months or longer, as ordered by the court, in a program licensed under Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 11836) of Part 2 of Division 10.5 of the Health and Safety Code that consists of at least 60 hours of program activities, including education, group counseling, and individual interview sessions
(2) The court shall revoke the person s probation, except for good cause shown, for the failure to enroll in, participate in, or complete a program specified in paragraph (1)
(g) Commencing January 1, 2019, the court may require a person convicted on or after January 1, 2019, of a violation of Section 23103, as described in this section, to install a functioning, certified ignition interlock device on any vehicle that the person operates and prohibit that person from operating a motor vehicle unless that vehicle is equipped with a functioning, certified ignition interlock device. If the court orders the ignition interlock device restriction, the term shall be determined by the court for a period of at least three months, but no longer than the term specified in Section 23575.3 that would have applied to the defendant had he or she instead been convicted of a violation of Section 23152, from the date of conviction. The court shall notify the Department of Motor Vehicles, as specified in subdivision (a) of Section 1803, of the terms of the restrictions in accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 1804. The Department of Motor Vehicles shall place the restriction in the person s records in the Department of Motor Vehicles. A person who is required to install a functioning, certified ignition interlock device pursuant to this subdivision shall submit the Verification of Installation form described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 13386 and maintain the ignition interlock device as required under subdivision (f) of Section 23575.3. The department shall monitor the installation and maintenance of the ignition interlock device installed pursuant to this subdivision.
(h) The Department of Motor Vehicles shall include in its annual report to the Legislature under Section 1821 an evaluation of the effectiveness of the programs described in subdivisions (e) and (g) as to treating persons convicted of violating Section 23103.
(i) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2026, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2026, deletes or extends that date.
(Amended by Stats. 2016, Ch. 783, Sec. 24. Effective January 1, 2017. Repealed as of January 1, 2026, by its own provisions. See later operative version added by Sec. 25 of Stats. 2016, Ch. 783.)
Hire a Proactive, affordable, and quality defense when you are facing San Diego DUI charges. Whether you have been charged of a San Diego DUI, Poway DUI, La Mesa DUI, Santee DUI, Mission Valley DUI, Clairemont DUI, Point Loma DUI, La Jolla DUI, Carmel Valley DUI, Mira Mesa DUI, Pacific Beach DUI, Del Mar DUI, Carmel Valley DUI, Encinitas DUI, Oceanside DUI, Escondido DUI, Vista DUI, San Marcos DUI, Carlsbad DUI, El Cajon DUI it is vital you need to hire an attorney who knows how to defend your rights and can determine if the government can prove their case. Contact the Law Office of Mark Deniz now for a free case evaluation at 858-751-4384.