Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, July 3, 1993 TAG: 9307030254
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: LAURENCE HAMMACK STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
\ Crettie Moore is facing her second mandatory prison sentence - all because she let the inspection sticker on her car expire.
That was eight years ago, but it started a progression of events that now has Moore facing one of Virginia's toughest sentencing laws.
Here's how:
Moore was convicted in 1985 of driving a car with an expired state inspection sticker. When she failed to pay the fine, her license was suspended.
She kept driving. After her third conviction of driving on a suspended license, Moore was declared a habitual offender - someone with a traffic record bad enough to be banned from the roads for 10 years.
Like many habitual offenders, she continued to drive - risking a guaranteed trip to jail each time under a mandatory sentencing law.
But now the law is changing, in part to keep people like Moore from clogging Virginia's overcrowded jails and prisons. Effective Thursday, the punishment for some habitual offenders was reduced significantly.
Under the old law, anyone convicted of driving after being declared a habitual offender faced up to five years in prison - with a mandatory one-year minimum.
Under the new law, first-time offenders will face no more than 90 days in jail if a judge or jury determines their driving did not create a risk to the "life, limb or property of another." Dangerous and repeat offenders would still face the mandatory one to five years.
Cheryl Burrell of Mothers Against Drunk Driving says the change "waters the law down and allows habitual offenders to remain on the highway as a threat to the rest of us."
But not all habitual offenders are a threat, others say. And even if they were, there are not enough prisons to put them in.
By establishing a two-tiered punishment for Virginia's worst drivers, the law seeks to weed the nondangerous offenders out of the state's overgrown prison population.
In September 1991, Virginia jails and prisons were holding about 1,200 habitual offenders. Some were there for manslaughter, reckless driving or multiple drunken-driving convictions.
But many more were people like Moore - locked up because they failed to pay traffic fines and court costs, had their driver's licenses suspended, but kept driving anyway.
"Many people are adjudicated to be habitual offenders because they are fiscally irresponsible as opposed to being a danger on the road," Roanoke Commonwealth's Attorney Donald Caldwell said.
Which raises a question addressed in a recent state study: By mandating penitentiary time for all habitual offenders caught driving, is Virginia's law in effect creating a debtor's prison?
"What we are trying to do is still go after the bad folks, but to make sure the good folks are not occupying a prison cell," said Del. Richard Cranwell, D-Vinton, who sponsored the legislation providing lighter sentences for nondangerous habitual offenders.
Moore, by most accounts, is one of the "good folks."
Court records show the 28-year-old single mother was on her way to work - supporting a young son - when cited for most of her driving violations. She could not afford to pay her fines, she said, nor could she afford to stop driving to work.
Stanley Brooks, by comparison, was one of the bad folks.
Brooks was declared a habitual offender in April. In May, he was flying down Roanoke's Roy Webber Highway, drunk, at 100 mph when his car went airborne and smashed into approaching traffic. Brooks and two other people were killed; a fourth victim was paralyzed.
Critics are not convinced the new law will adequately distinguish a Crettie Moore from a potential Stanley Brooks.
"I'm afraid this gives one more opportunity for a good criminal defense attorney to get the driver off," said Burrell, the state chairman of MADD.
Burrell said she was concerned about the vagueness of what determined a threat to life, limb and property. "That's not something you can quantify and say here's a list of 25 examples," she said.
Burrell, who testified against the bill when it was considered at the General Assembly's last session, believes any habitual offender is a threat by definition.
"Nonpayment of a fine is far different from driving under the influence or reckless driving, but why did they get the fine in the first place?" she said.
"They have already demonstrated a complete disregard for the law."
Eddie Carpenter, president of the state Association of Commonwealth's Attorneys, said the group had some concerns about the law.
"I don't know how difficult it will prove to be" to show that a driver is a threat to life, liberty or limb of another, he said.
For example, a habitual offender driving drunk clearly is a threat. Less clear-cut are the cases of someone who is pulled over for making an improper turn, or someone stopped for driving a few miles over the speed limit on a deserted road.
Those distinctions are not addressed in the wording of the new law and must be determined by judges on a case-by-case basis.
As for Moore - who could not be reached for comment Friday - she had her license restored last month after spending the past five years as a habitual offender. In court papers, attorney Jonathan Apgar noted that almost all of her driving offenses dealt with failure to pay fines.
Moore has already been convicted once of driving after being declared a habitual offender. A second charge is pending, and it was unclear Friday how that case will be affected by a judge's decision to restore Moore's license.
But, at least for now, she's legal.
by CNB