(1) An "intoxication-related traffic offense" is driving while intoxicated, driving with excessive blood alcohol content, involuntary manslaughter pursuant to subdivision (2) of subsection 1 of section 565.024, RSMo, assault in the second degree pursuant to subdivision (4) of subsection 1 of section 565.060, RSMo, assault of a law enforcement officer in the second degree pursuant to subdivision (3) of subsection 1 of section 565.082, RSMo, or driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs in violation of state law or a county or municipal ordinance, where the judge in such case was an attorney and the defendant was represented by or waived the right to an attorney in writing;

(2) A "persistent offender" is one of the following:

(a) A person who has pleaded guilty to or has been found guilty of two or more intoxication-related traffic offenses, where such two or more offenses occurred within ten years of the occurrence of the intoxication-related traffic offense for which the person is charged;

(b) A person who has pleaded guilty to or has been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter pursuant to subsection 1 of section 565.024, RSMo, assault in the second degree pursuant to subdivision (4) of subsection 1 of section 565.060, RSMo, assault of a law enforcement officer in the second degree pursuant to subdivision (3) of subsection 1 of section 565.082, RSMo; and

(3) A "prior offender" is a person who has pleaded guilty to or has been found guilty of one intoxication-related traffic offense, where such prior offense occurred within five years of the occurrence of the intoxication-related traffic offense for which the person is charged.

2. Any person who pleads guilty to or is found guilty of a violation of section 577.010 or 577.012 who is alleged and proved to be a prior offender shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

3. Any person who pleads guilty to or is found guilty of a violation of section 577.010 or 577.012 who is alleged and proved to be a persistent offender shall be guilty of a class D felony.

4. No court shall suspend the imposition of sentence as to a prior or persistent offender under this section nor sentence such person to pay a fine in lieu of a term of imprisonment, section 557.011, RSMo, to the contrary notwithstanding. No prior offender shall be eligible for parole or probation until he has served a minimum of five days imprisonment, unless as a condition of such parole or probation such person performs at least thirty days of community service under the supervision of the court in those jurisdictions which have a recognized program for community service. No persistent offender shall be eligible for parole or probation until he or she has served a minimum of ten days imprisonment, unless as a condition of such parole or probation such person performs at least sixty days of community service under the supervision of the court.

5. The court shall find the defendant to be a prior offender or persistent offender, if:

(1) The indictment or information, original or amended, or the information in lieu of an indictment pleads all essential facts warranting a finding that the defendant is a prior offender or persistent offender; and

(2) Evidence is introduced that establishes sufficient facts pleaded to warrant a finding beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant is a prior offender or persistent offender; and

(3) The court makes findings of fact that warrant a finding beyond a reasonable doubt by the court that the defendant is a prior offender or persistent offender.

6. In a jury trial, the facts shall be pleaded, established and found prior to submission to the jury outside of its hearing.

7. In a trial without a jury or upon a plea of guilty, the court may defer the proof in findings of such facts to a later time, but prior to sentencing.

8. The defendant shall be accorded full rights of confrontation and cross-examination, with the opportunity to present evidence, at such hearings.

9. The defendant may waive proof of the facts alleged.

10. Nothing in this section shall prevent the use of presentence investigations or commitments.

11. At the sentencing hearing both the state and the defendant shall be permitted to present additional information bearing on the issue of sentence.

12. The pleas or findings of guilty shall be prior to the date of commission of the present offense.

13. The court shall not instruct the jury as to the range of punishment or allow the jury, upon a finding of guilty, to assess and declare the punishment as part of its verdict in cases of prior offenders or persistent offenders.

14. Evidence of prior convictions shall be heard and determined by the trial court out of the hearing of the jury prior to the submission of the case to the jury, and shall include but not be limited to evidence of convictions received by a search of the records of the Missouri uniform law enforcement system maintained by the Missouri state highway patrol. After hearing the evidence, the court shall enter its findings thereon. A conviction of a violation of a municipal or county ordinance in a county or municipal court for driving while intoxicated or a conviction or a plea of guilty or a finding of guilty followed by a suspended imposition of sentence, suspended execution of sentence, probation or parole or any combination thereof in a state court shall be treated as a prior conviction.

(L. 1982 S.B. 513, A.L. 1983 S.B. 318 & 135, A.L. 1991 S.B. 125 & 341, A.L. 1993 S.B. 167 merged with S.B. 180, A.L. 1998 S.B. 634, A.L. 2001 H.B. 302 & 38)

Effective 9-29-01

(1984) Sentence enhancement provisions do not violate constitutional proscription against ex post facto laws. (Mo.banc) State v. Acton, 665 S.W.2d 618.

(1991) Where defendant was convicted of intoxication-related traffic offenses in violation of laws of other states, such convictions may be used for enhancement purposes as persistent offender. Phrase "in violation of state law" bars use of municipal ordinance convictions for enhancement. State v. Ryan, 813 S.W.2d 898 (Mo. App.S.D.).

(1997) Intoxication-related traffic offense includes a guilty plea to a DWI in violation of a municipal ordinance with a suspended imposition of sentence. State v. Meggs, 950 S.W.2d 608 (Mo.App.S.D.).

(1997) A blood alcohol content conviction pursuant to municipal ordinance can be used as evidence to enhance punishment. State v. Haskins, 950 S.W.2d 613 (Mo.App.S.D.).

Above information from Missouri Statutes

Please note: Contacting us via our web site does not constitute a client-attorney relationship ... more info

Member DUI Defenders