State v. Wainwright, State v. Wilder, 195 Vt. 370

Consolidated Vermont criminal appeals consider whether a single prior DUI conviction can both criminalize a refusal under § 1201(b) and enhance the penalty under § 1210.
Wainwright was charged with DUI, second offense, for refusing an evidentiary test; Wilder with DUI, fourth offense, for refusing an evidentiary test.
Trial courts held that a prior § 1201(a) conviction cannot also serve as an enhancement under § 1210(c).
State argues the statute permits dual use of the same prior conviction to both elementize the offense and enhance the penalty.
Court agrees with State that the plain language allows the same prior conviction to be used for both purposes.
Appeals are granted and the lower orders are reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the same prior §1201(a) conviction may be used to convict for §1201(b) and also to enhance under §1210.	Wainwright/Wilder: same prior may be used for element and enhancement.	Wainwright/Wilder: legislative intent forbids dual use of same conviction.	Yes; same prior conviction may be used for both.

State v. Therrien, 2011 VT 120 (Vt. Supreme Court 2011) (statutory interpretation de novo for penal provisions)
State v. Rafuse, 168 Vt. 631 (1998) (statutory interpretation; legislative intent guiding penalties)
In re Jones, 2009 VT 113 (Vt. Supreme Court 2009) (strict but not absurd results in penal statutes)
State v. Goodhue, 2003 VT 85 (Vt. Supreme Court 2003) (lenity in penal statutes; resolve ambiguities in defendant's favor)
O’Neill, 165 Vt. 270 (1996) (avoid reading extra restrictions into statutes)
Daniels v. Vt. Ctr. for Crime Victims Servs., 173 Vt. 521 (2001) (legislative awareness of explicit provisions controls implication)
State v. Angelucci, 137 Vt. 272 (1979) (habitual offender doctrines; multiple convictions arising from same transaction)
State v. Ritter, 167 Vt. 632 (1998) (absurd results doctrine; not applicable here)