How DUI Penalties Are Set

In Arizona, the license consequences of a conviction are carried out by "the department" rather than set as part of the court's sentence. Arizona's statute on prior convictions and treatment provides that when the department receives the abstract of a DUI conviction, it shall suspend the person's license unless the license has been or is already suspended under other provisions that the section names. A separate subsection directs the department to suspend and then restrict driving privileges when it is notified that the person meets criteria set out in a cross-referenced provision.

Arizona's DUI statute also requires the department, once a conviction is reported, to require a certified ignition interlock device if the violation involved intoxicating liquor. For a repeat conviction within the statute's lookback period, the statute provides for revocation of the driving privilege, and a person sentenced under that repeat-offense subsection becomes eligible, after completing a stated part of the revocation, for a special ignition interlock restricted license under a separate provision.

North Carolina offers a related example. When the Division receives notice that a person was convicted of a motor vehicle moving offense committed while the license was suspended or revoked, its statute directs the Division to revoke the driving privilege for an additional period. The length of that period increases with each such revocation.

• Arizona: the department suspends on receipt of a conviction abstract, subject to the exceptions the statute names.
• Arizona: ignition interlock requirements and revocation for repeat offenses are tied to the reported conviction.
• North Carolina: an added revocation follows a moving-offense conviction committed while the license was suspended or revoked.

On the criminal side, the statute defines the offense, gives it a classification and lists the components of a sentence. Arizona's DUI statute classifies a violation as a misdemeanor. For a conviction, it requires a jail term served consecutively and a minimum fine, along with additional assessments that the state treasurer deposits into named state funds. It also allows the court to order community restitution and requires completion of an approved traffic survival school course. At the person's option, the court may order participation in a voluntary, court-approved religious program.

Arizona's statute on prior convictions and treatment adds that the judge shall order alcohol or other drug screening from an approved facility after a DUI conviction. If the judge decides further education or treatment is needed, the court may order it under its supervision. The person pays those costs unless the court, after considering ability to pay, waives some or the whole amount.

Texas illustrates a separate point. Its Penal Code provides that proof of a culpable mental state is not required for conviction of an offense in its intoxication chapter, with an exception for a section the statute specifies.

The number of qualifying prior convictions is often the largest single factor in which penalty range applies. Texas's enhancement statute provides that when it is shown at trial that the person has a prior conviction for an offense relating to operating a motor vehicle, aircraft or watercraft while intoxicated, or operating or assembling an amusement ride while intoxicated, the listed offenses become a Class A misdemeanor with a minimum confinement term. The same statute makes the offense a felony when the trial shows a greater number of such prior convictions, or a prior conviction for a particular, more serious offense in the chapter.

Texas's statute also states what counts as a conviction. A conviction for a listed offense that occurs on or after a stated date is final whether the sentence was imposed or probated. For certain offenses, being placed on deferred adjudication community supervision counts as a conviction. A conviction may support enhancement under this statute or under a separate enhancement subchapter, but not under both.

Arizona treats a juvenile court order adjudicating a person delinquent as equivalent to a conviction for the purposes of its DUI article. The court shall allow an allegation of a prior conviction that is filed far enough before trial, as the statute specifies. It may allow a later filing if the state gives the defendant the information it has obtained about the prior.

A lookback period is the window of time within which an earlier offense counts as a prior for sentencing. Arizona's DUI statute sets a lookback period stated in months for its repeat-offense subsection. The statute provides that the dates on which the offenses were committed determine whether the period applies, regardless of the order in which the offenses were committed. It also provides that a repeat violation does not include a conviction arising out of the same series of acts. Arizona's statute on prior convictions adds that any conviction may be used to enhance another, regardless of the dates on which the offenses occurred, within that provision.

Arizona's DUI statute contains a separate rule about charging. In any prosecution, the state shall allege prior convictions for the listed offenses occurring within a period stated in that subsection, for classification and sentencing, unless there is an insufficient legal or factual basis to do so.

Texas shows that a lookback can attach to a single consequence. Its enhancement statute requires a court-ordered ignition interlock device for a person convicted of a repeat motor-vehicle intoxication offense committed within a stated number of years of the date the most recent preceding offense was committed. The Texas excerpt's classification subsections do not themselves state a time limit. How other Texas provisions bear on that question is something a lawyer licensed in Texas can address.

Test results can serve different purposes, and the Arizona example keeps those purposes separate. Arizona's DUI statute defines the offense in several ways: driving or being in actual physical control while impaired to the slightest degree; having an alcohol concentration at or above a stated threshold within a stated time after driving; having a listed drug or its metabolite in the body; and lower stated thresholds for a commercial motor vehicle requiring a commercial driver license, a vehicle for hire, or transportation network services.

The same statute sets evidentiary presumptions based on alcohol concentration. A result in the lowest band may support a presumption of not being under the influence. A result in the middle band creates no presumption but may be considered with other evidence. A result at or above the threshold may support a presumption of being under the influence. These presumptions do not apply in cases involving commercial vehicles, vehicles for hire or transportation network drivers, and they do not limit other competent evidence.

In the Arizona excerpt, the sentencing subsections are framed around conviction and prior offenses rather than around concentration levels. Whether other Arizona provisions set separate concentration-based sentencing ranges is not shown in the excerpt.

Aggravating facts are circumstances of the offense, apart from prior convictions, that the statute treats as moving the case to a more serious grade. Texas's enhancement statute names several. An intoxication offense involving serious bodily injury becomes a specified felony grade if the trial shows the injury was to a firefighter or emergency medical services personnel acting in an official duty, and a higher grade if the injury was to a peace officer or judge acting in an official duty. A serious bodily injury in the form of a traumatic brain injury that results in a persistent vegetative state also carries a specified felony grade.

For an offense involving a death, Texas's statute sets a felony grade for the death of a protected official described above or of multiple people in the same criminal transaction. A separate amendment, also reproduced in the Texas excerpt, sets the same grade where the person had a prior intoxication-related conviction and was in violation of a chapter the statute identifies at the time of the offense.

In Arizona, a collision causing serious physical injury or death, as identified in a written accident report, affects timing. The DUI statute sets a limitation period for prosecution that runs from actual discovery of the offense by the state, or from when discovery should have occurred with reasonable diligence, whichever is earlier.

Mandatory minimums set a floor, but Arizona's statutes also give the judge defined room. At sentencing, the judge may suspend most of the required jail term, leaving the portion the statute fixes, if the person completes a court-ordered alcohol or other drug screening, education, evidence-based psychotherapy or treatment program. A similar provision applies in repeat cases. If the program is not completed and the person has not been placed on probation, the court shall issue an order to show cause why the remaining jail time should not be served.

Arizona's statute on prior convictions and treatment also addresses employment and school. After a person has served a stated consecutive part of a jail sentence under the subsections it names, and the court confirms that the person is employed or a student, the sentence shall allow release for work or school within stated limits. The court may deny release only if it finds good cause and places those findings on the record.

That statute also provides that probation for a DUI violation shall be supervised, unless the court finds supervision unnecessary or lacks supervisory probation services. In repeat cases, the court may order alternatives to community restitution if it finds that education, treatment or other sanctions are more appropriate.

Deadlines, limits and penalty ranges are set by each state’s statutes, so this page does not state them. Each state page shows them with the official source and the date they were verified — or says plainly that a figure has not been confirmed yet.