Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama; September 29, 1995; Alabama; State Appellate Court
Willie B. Floyd pleaded guilty to a Class C felony for driving under the influence (DUI), marking his fourth conviction in five years, and received a three-year prison sentence. He also pleaded guilty to driving with a revoked license, resulting in a concurrent six-month jail sentence. Floyd's sole argument on appeal is that the trial court incorrectly denied his motion to dismiss the indictment, claiming that the DUI statute (32-5A-191(f)) was repealed by the Boating Safety Reform Act of 1994, thus rendering the charge invalid. However, previous cases have established that the Boating Safety Reform Act did not repeal the DUI laws. The Act amends, rather than repeals, the statute, which is supported by legislative intent outlined in the Act's synopsis. The distinction between repeal and amendment is clarified, with repeal signifying complete abrogation and amendment signifying alterations while preserving parts of the original law. The Act maintains references to vehicles and traffic laws, suggesting no intent to repeal the DUI statute. The codification of the Act further confirms that the original DUI statute remains intact, while new provisions address operating vessels under the influence, indicating that both statutes coexist without conflict.
No conflict exists between Acts 94-590 and 94-652, nor any legislative intent to reverse changes from the former in the latter's enactment. To harmonize both Acts, the amendments to Section 32-5A-191 by Act 94-652 are codified as a new Section 32-5A-191.3, specifically addressing penalties for operating a vessel under the influence. These penalties mirror those for operating a vehicle under the influence before Act 94-652, excluding changes from Act 94-590, effective August 20, 1994. Amendments from Act 94-590 apply solely to vehicles. Furthermore, a citation correction in subsection (b) aligns with the appropriate code section addressing penalties for refusing breathalyzer tests. The overall legislative intent was to amend Section 32-5A-191 to extend its applicability to vessels, ensuring fines and penalties are consistent with those for vehicles under influence regulations. Section 32-5A-191 remains effective for vehicles while now also governing vessels. The trial court's denial of the appellant's motion to dismiss the indictment was correct, and the conviction is affirmed, with all judges concurring. The appellant does not contest the conviction for driving with a revoked license.
