Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Defaults topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court issues guilty-by-default findings, license revocations and fines in multiple cases
Summary
The court entered guilty-by-default judgments in absent defendants' cases, imposed a one-year license revocation and ignition-interlock order for one defendant, and ordered a $986 forfeiture plus a 12-month revocation and $62.82 restitution in another case following post-arrest blood-test results.
During the session the judge found multiple defendants guilty by default for failing to appear or for not requesting timely hearings, imposed forfeitures and directed license-suspension or ignition-interlock requirements where statutorily required.
The court found Ms. Ugaso guilty by default on OWI- and refusal-related charges after the defendant did not request a hearing; the judge revoked her driver’s license for one year effective June 15, ordered an ignition-interlock device on vehicles titled in her name and required an alcohol-and-other-drug assessment. The court noted the defendant had been provided written notice and the judgment was entered in her absence.
In City v. Worth the judge recorded that post-arrest blood testing showed a BAC of 0.17, ordered forfeiture and costs totaling $986, dismissed the OWI count in favor of a PAC (prohibited alcohol concentration) conviction, revoked the driver’s license for 12 months, ordered ignition-interlock installation and restitution for the blood test in the amount of $62.82.
The judge also said that other initial-appearance matters scheduled for 5:00 p.m. that were not called would be found guilty by default and assessed forfeiture and costs as indicated on their citations, with the standard 60-day payment window. Several routine matters were resolved with dismissals or negotiated pleas during the hearing.
These orders were entered from the bench during the initial-appearance portion of the docket; defendants who were present either received the judge’s sentence or were scheduled for phone pretrial conferences as noted in court.
