Mr. Jason O’Grady was convicted of felony driving under the influence (DUI). He argued that the information charging him with felony DUI was constitutionally deficient because it did not allege the essential element that he had four prior DUI convictions “within ten years.” He also claimed insufficient evidence supported the felony DUI conviction. Division I of the Court of Appeals found that the charging document was constitutionally deficient because O’Grady was not put on notice of the ten year period for prior DUI convictions. But, because sufficient evidence supported the felony conviction, the reversal was ruled without prejudice to the State’s right to recharge and file new felony DUI charge.
This Division I of the Court of Appeals decision follows several other recent decisions ironing out the meaning of the new Felony DUI statute. In State v. Castle, 156 Wn. App. 539, 234 P.3d 260 (2010); State v. Chambers, 157 Wn. App. 465, 237 P.3d 352 (2010); and State v. Cochrane, 160 Wn. App. 18, ___ P.3d ___ (2011), the proof of the required four priors within ten years was held to be an essential element of the crime of felony DUI.
O’Grady Rule: 1) Information was constitutionally deficient because State must charge allege the ten year period in the information and 2) sufficiency of evidence established for priors with date of birth, state identification card, DOL database search all matching the certified judgements and sentences.
State v. Jason Henry O’Grady, UNPUBLISHED OPINION, No. 65125-1-I. Court of Appeals of Washington Division I. (August 8, 2011)