Jump to Navigation

For the Third Consecutive Year, Tommy Hindman Selected Member of The National Advocacy for DUI Defense (NAFDD)

For the third consecutive year, Tommy Hindman was recognized by The National Advocacy for DUI Defense (NAFDD), LLC, an organization that awards the nation's best private Driving Under the Influence (DUI) lawyers.

120 Days in Jail For First Offense DUI Upheld on Appeal

Driving Under the Influence (DUI) is a misdemeanor in Tennessee when it is the person's first conviction of that crime. However, that doesn't mean it isn't serious. It can still result in significant jail time. In the recent case of State v. Christopher, E2012-01090-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. 3-14-2013), the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the imposition of one-hundred and twenty days of jail (followed by the balance of the eleven month and twenty-nine day sentence on probation) for a defendant's misdemeanor first offense conviction.

120 Days in Jail For First Offense DUI Upheld on Appeal

Driving Under the Influence (DUI) is a misdemeanor in Tennessee when it is the person's first conviction of that crime. However, that doesn't mean it isn't serious. It can still result in significant jail time. In the recent case of State v. Christopher, E2012-01090-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. 3-14-2013), the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the imposition of one-hundred and twenty days of jail (followed by the balance of the eleven month and twenty-nine day sentence on probation) for a defendant's misdemeanor first offense conviction.

Vehicle Stopped for Speeding/ DUI Conviction Affirmed

In a recent Henderson County DUI case,  (State v. White, W2011-02301-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. 8-31-2012) the Defendant attempted to challenge a stop for speeding by using a land surveyor to analyze video, conduct measurements, and opine that the Defendant was not speeding. The surveyor noted power poles along the highway where the Defendant's vehicle had been traveling, measured distances between them, noted the time it took for the Defendant's vehicle to pass from one point to another, and calculated that the Defendant's vehicle was traveling within the speed limit. Unfortunately for the Defendant, the trial court was more convinced by the testimony of the police officer who testified the Defendant was indeed speeding. The trial court found the stop to be valid and the Defendant was subsequently convicted of DUI (though acquitted of speeding). The trial court's ruling was affirmed on appeal.

Vehicle Stopped for Speeding/ DUI Conviction Affirmed

In a recent Henderson County DUI case,  (State v. White, W2011-02301-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. 8-31-2012) the Defendant attempted to challenge a stop for speeding by using a land surveyor to analyze video, conduct measurements, and opine that the Defendant was not speeding. The surveyor noted power poles along the highway where the Defendant's vehicle had been traveling, measured distances between them, noted the time it took for the Defendant's vehicle to pass from one point to another, and calculated that the Defendant's vehicle was traveling within the speed limit. Unfortunately for the Defendant, the trial court was more convinced by the testimony of the police officer who testified the Defendant was indeed speeding. The trial court found the stop to be valid and the Defendant was subsequently convicted of DUI (though acquitted of speeding). The trial court's ruling was affirmed on appeal.

Guilty of DUI by Circumstantial Evidence

The state has the burden of proof in any criminal case, including when the allegations are driving under the influence (DUI). But a jury may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence in finding an accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They did so in the recent case of State v. Barham, W2011-02348-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. 9-17-2012). In that case, the accused's own words and actions, along with observations by witnesses, led to the conclusion that he had been driving under the influence, even though he was not observed driving.

Guilty of DUI by Circumstantial Evidence

The state has the burden of proof in any criminal case, including when the allegations are driving under the influence (DUI). But a jury may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence in finding an accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They did so in the recent case of State v. Barham, W2011-02348-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. 9-17-2012). In that case, the accused's own words and actions, along with observations by witnesses, led to the conclusion that he had been driving under the influence, even though he was not observed driving.

How to Refuse an Implied Consent Blood Test

Under Tennessee DUI law, anyone who drives a motor vehicle in this state is deemed to consent to testing to determine the alcohol or drug content of the person's blood. Tennessee Code Annotated 55-10-406. This is often referred to as the "implied consent law." Before directing such a test, a law enforcement officer must 1) have reasonable grounds to believe the person was driving under the influence; and 2) inform the person of the consequences of refusal. The law allows you to refuse the testing, subject to a penalty for doing so. The penalty is license suspension. If your license is already suspended due to a vehicular homicide offense or DUI, the penalty includes a fine and mandatory incarceration.

How to Refuse an Implied Consent Blood Test

Under Tennessee DUI law, anyone who drives a motor vehicle in this state is deemed to consent to testing to determine the alcohol or drug content of the person's blood. Tennessee Code Annotated 55-10-406. This is often referred to as the "implied consent law." Before directing such a test, a law enforcement officer must 1) have reasonable grounds to believe the person was driving under the influence; and 2) inform the person of the consequences of refusal. The law allows you to refuse the testing, subject to a penalty for doing so. The penalty is license suspension. If your license is already suspended due to a vehicular homicide offense or DUI, the penalty includes a fine and mandatory incarceration.

Tell Us About Your Case

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

Visit Our DUI/DWI law Website Subscribe To
This Blog's Feed

Our Office

Hindman & Lanzon
550 West Main Street Suite 550
Knoxville, TN 37902

Phone: 865-223-6450
Toll Free: 866-383-1545

Fax: 865-521-6371

Knoxville Law Office Map