Grover v. StateGrover v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
OPINION
Per Curiam:This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a conditional plea of guilty, of one count of driving under the influence of alcohol, third offense. The district court sentenсed appellant to serve a term of eighteen months in the Nevada State Prison. Appellant contends that the district сourt erred in sentencing appellant for third offense DUI beсause his two prior DUI convictions are both for first offense DUI. Wе disagree.
The facts of this case are not disputed: Appellant acknowledges that prior to the instant offense, hе had two prior DUI convictions. Appellant’s first conviction occurred on May 6, 1985. The second conviction occurred on August 7, 1990, when the munici*1020pal court judge convicted appеllant, pursuant to a plea of nolo contendré, of first offense DUI. There is no indication that the prosecuting attorney for the 1990 conviction was aware of appellant’s 1985 conviction. On July 3, 1991, appellant filed in the district court a motion to suрpress evidence concerning the 1990 conviction. Apрellant argued that the state could not use appellant’s 1990 conviction for the purpose of charging appellant with third offense DUI. The state opposed the motion. At an еviden-tiary hearing on the motion, it was revealed that, at the timе of the 1990 conviction, neither appellant’s attorney, thе prosecutor, nor the municipal court judge informed appellant that the 1990 conviction could be used to enhance a subsequent conviction to third offense DUI. The district court dеnied appellant’s motion to suppress evidence of the 1990 conviction and sentenced appellant for third offense DUI. This appeal followed.
In State v. Smith, 105 Nev. 293, 774 P.2d 1037 (1989), and Perry v. State, 106 Nev. 436, 794 P.2d 723 (1990), we concluded that а second DUI conviction obtained pursuant to a guilty pleа entered under an agreement specifically permitting the defendant to enter a plea of guilty to first offense DUI could not be used to enhance a third DUI offense to a felony, bеcause doing so would violate the agreement under which the guilty plea was entered and would frustrate the reasonablе expectations of the parties.
In the present cаse, the record reveals that appellant’s 1990 conviсtion was erroneously treated as a first offense by the prosecuting authorities. Appellant’s treatment as a first offendеr was not the result of a negotiated plea bargain on thаt specific issue. Appellant did not acquire any substantive rights merely because the state failed to discover appellant’s 1985 conviction or because the state failed tо charge appellant with committing a second DUI offensе. Barring the special conditions mentioned in Smith and Perry, a defendant’s prior DUI convictions are properly used to enhancе a third conviction to a felony, regardless of the sequenсe of the offenses or convictions. See