Legal Opinion
State v. Marshall
Court of Appeals of Utah
Decided November 14, 2003No. 20020829-CAPublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ORME, Judge:
T1 Defendant was charged with felony DUI based on enhancement due to two prior DUI convictions. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the felony DUI charge, arguing that the enhancement provision in the DUI statute was unconstitutional as applied to him because it violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws. The trial court denied his motion. Defendant appeals, and we affirm.
BACKGROUND
2 The parties stipulated to the facts governing this appeal. On April 26, 2002, Defendant purchased a twelve-pack of beer at BK's convenience store in Huntington, Utah. The transaction…
2Cases cited40 opinions
- Brady v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Weaver v. GrahamSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Calder v. BullSupreme Court of the United States · 1798
- Bouie v. City of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. ChamberlainSupreme Court of Kansas · 2005
- State v. WinterCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2024
- State v. SalazarUtah Supreme Court · 2005
- State v. GonzalesCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2005
- State v. LambIdaho Court of Appeals · 2009
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.