PEOPLE VS. M.M.
We were retained by a client who had blown into the interlock device on his vehicle and registered a .10. The DA’s office wanted the client violated on his previous conviction which included a conditional discharge. We argued to the judge and the ADA that the client actually was not in violation of any condition of his previous plea. The condition was that he have the interlock installed, which he did. There was no condition that he not drink or that he pass each time he blew into the interlock device. The judge agreed with our argument and kept our client on the original conditions. This allowed our client to avoid probation or jail, which could have resulted from a violation of the conditional discharge. By knowing the law and being able to apply it to this specific case our client received no new consequences due to his error in judgment.