Most intoxicated drivers do not get jail sentences

Intoxicated drivers seldom get jail time, at least not in first-offense driving while under the influence cases.

Mark White is Editor of The News Journal.

This is a fact that I suspect will surprise, and probably infuriate, a lot of people, but it’s true at least here locally.

First-offense driving while under the influence is a misdemeanor offense. The maximum sentence that you can get for it is 30 days in jail, but most people usually don’t get anywhere near that.

I write this in response to a comment made on one of our social media pages Friday in regards to an article about the conviction of Williamsburg attorney James Wren II on charges of driving while under the influence and reckless driving.

Wren was arrested on May 24, 2023, on his way to circuit court for the second day of a trial.

Wren, who represented himself in the case, didn’t dispute the toxicology report that showed alcohol in his system. He contended that it was the result of a medication he was taking, and not from drinking alcohol. I’ll let everyone decide for themselves whether they find Wren’s explanation credible.

The jury convicted him on both counts and sentenced Wren to serve a total of 10 days in jail, set a $500 fine for the DUI charge and a $100 fine for the reckless driving charge. The special judge in the case, Benjamin Hardy, is allowing Wren to serve his jail sentence on weekends.

In response to the article, someone posted a comment on Facebook stating that Wren “basically got away Scot free. If it was anyone else we’d get more time.”

Truth be told, probably not.

In actuality, Wren got a stiffer sentence than most people would facing the same charges although there is one big difference in his case compared to that of most people.

How do I know this? I am the person, who has typed in most of the district court records on the News Journal’s public records’ page for last 30 years, including records for most DUI cases. (Lucky me…LOL.)

First off, the vast majority of all court cases, including DUI cases, are resolved via a plea agreement. Most of the time those pleading guilty to first-offense DUI typically get a 30-day jail sentence that is probated for two years. This means that if the defendant stays out of trouble for two years, then they don’t have to serve any jail time or at least any more jail time.

Defendants also have their driver’s license suspended for a while, are ordered to take drug and alcohol education courses, and end up paying about $700 and change after fines, court costs and various fees are factored into the equation.

In fairness, most people usually learn their lesson after their first DUI and don’t get a second one.

Those convicted of second-offense DUI usually only have to serve seven days in jail with the rest of their 30-day jail sentence probated. They also get their licensed suspended for a little longer than the first time, get more drug and alcohol education classes usually, and a slightly stiffer fine, but surprisingly not a lot more.

Trials in DUI cases are extremely rare. Even rarer is when someone, including an attorney, represents themselves.

In Wren’s case, he didn’t take a plea deal, and the jury convicted him and gave him a total sentence of 10 days in jail for DUI and reckless driving. The jury could have given him a combined sentence of up to 90 days in jail.

In regards to the judge allowing Wren to serve his sentence on weekends, this isn’t uncommon for people, who get convicted or plead guilty to crimes and actually have jobs.

The idea is that we want people with jobs to keep working and keep being at least somewhat productive members of society.

Should people convicted or pleading guilty to first-offense DUI be required to serve at least a small jail sentence, say 48 hours in jail? That is another column for another day.

Before I conclude this column, let me shift proverbial gears here, and write about one more subject, which is HB 509.

HB 509 is a bill currently before the Kentucky General Assembly, which would turn the state open records law upside down by redefining what is a “public record.”

Currently, there are reports that the bill’s primary sponsor, Rep. John Hodgson, is planning to revise or overhaul the bill. We can only hope so.

Voters and taxpayers have NEVER benefitted from the Kentucky General Assembly making it harder for the press and citizens to find out hinky stuff that our governmental officials and agencies are doing. Voters and taxpayers NEVER will benefit from it either. Corrupt and lazy officials and office holders are another story. If this bill doesn’t get revised, we will be writing more about it in the weeks to come.

This bill isn’t entirely bad. One provision in the bill would require government agencies and officials to use a government-issued e-mail address to conduct government business, which would actually be a good thing. It would also require that those e-mail accounts be administered by a third-party provider.

In theory this would make it harder to make government officials’ e-mails “disappear” when people go asking about suspicious stuff.

At this point though, it would be better to scrap HB 509 altogether and start over from scratch next legislative session on a better governmental e-mail bill.