Amendments.
The 2015 amendment inserted “or BWI” in the section heading and text; and substituted “chapter” for “act”.
Case Notes
Purpose.
The legislative intent of the Omnibus DWI Act of 1983, as stated in former subsection (c), was to enhance penalties by using convictions under the prior driving while under the influence act; thus, previous convictions for driving while under the influence of intoxicants under prior law may be used as prior offenses for enhancement purposes. Lovell v. State, 283 Ark. 425, 678 S.W.2d 318 (1984).
Legislative Intent.
The legislature has always considered DWI to be a traffic offense and only removed it from the list of traffic offenses under § 27-50-302 when DWI became the focus of an entire act within itself. Hill v. State, 315 Ark. 297, 868 S.W.2d 44 (1993).
Cited:
Lovell v. State, 283 Ark. 434, 681 S.W.2d 395 (1984); Spicer v. City of Fayetteville, 284 Ark. 315, 681 S.W.2d 369 (1984); Doty v. State, 285 Ark. 270, 686 S.W.2d 413 (1985); Sides v. State, 285 Ark. 323, 686 S.W.2d 434 (1985); Hegler v. State, 286 Ark. 215, 691 S.W.2d 129 (1985); Wilson v. State, 286 Ark. 430, 692 S.W.2d 620 (1985); Johnston v. City of Fort Smith, 15 Ark. App. 102, 690 S.W.2d 358 (1985); Gullett v. State, 18 Ark. App. 97, 711 S.W.2d 836 (1986).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Collins v. Morgan, 211 S.W.3d 14 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005).
Collins v. Morgan, 211 S.W.3d 14 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4ד2003); and that Sandra was legally intoxicated at the time of the accident in violation of Ark.Code Ann. §§ 5-65-101 (Repl.1997) and 5-65-206 (Supp.”
Moore v. State, 864 S.W.2d 863 (Ark. 1993). · cites it 2דHe contends the evidence was not sufficient to show he violated Ark. Code Ann. § 5-65-101 (1987) because he was not proven to have been in control of a vehicle while inebriated.”
Estacuy v. State, 228 S.W.3d 567 (Ark. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2דSee Ark. Code Ann. § 5-65-101 (Repl. 2005).”
Fitch v. State, 853 S.W.2d 874 (Ark. 1993). · cites it 2דThis is a case of first impression in which this court is required to define the term “motor vehicle” under the Omnibus DWI Act which is codified as Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5-65-101 through 117(1987 and Supp.”
State v. Jones, 3 S.W.3d 675 (Ark. 1999). · cites it 2דOn appeal, the State argues that the trial court erred because the State Health Department had promulgated regulations for alcohol testing that apply equally to driving-while-intoxicated (DWI) prosecutions filed under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-65-101 et. seq. (Repl.”
Hill v. State, 868 S.W.2d 44 (Ark. 1993). · cites it 2דArk. Code Ann. §§ 5-65-101 through 5-65-207 (1987).”
Bramlett v. State, 148 S.W.3d 278 (Ark. 2004). · cites it 2דBramlett asserts that the result of his breathalyzer test does not support a conviction under the Arkansas DWI statute, Ark. Code Ann. § 5-65-101 et seq. (Supp. 2001), because of changes made to the statute by the Arkansas General Assembly.”
Cook v. State, 968 S.W.2d 589 (Ark. 1998). “See § 5-65-101 through 311 (Repl. 1993). However, the General Assembly passed Act 802 of 1995, which completely replaced the procedures for suspension by establishing an administrative process.”
Deweese v. State, 761 S.W.2d 945 (Ark. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2דThe Omnibus DWI Act, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5-65-101 through 5-65-115 (1987), makes the first three DWI offenses misdemeanors and the fourth and subsequent offenses, occurring within three years of the first offense, felonies.”
Jamar Conic v. State of Arkansas, 2023 Ark. App. 145 (Ark. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 5-4-322 (b)(1) 6 (noting that section involving probation fees “does not apply when the defendant is charged with violating the Omnibus DWI Act, § 5-65-101 et seq.”). The requirement that any DWI offender be “imprisoned” for some time, Ark.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.