Kursch v. State

Gilbert, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Michael Jerome Kursch pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County (Lerner, J.) to a charge of driving while under the influence of alcohol. Md. Transp. Code Ann. § 21-902 (b).

The State entered a nolle prosequi to other charges. The trial court, after making a determination that Kursch was a second offender, sentenced him to one year imprisonment with all but sixty days suspended. Additionally, Kursch was placed on two years’ supervised probation, and his driving privileges were suspended for two years. On appeal Kursch claims two errors: 1) that a copy of his driving record as maintained by the Motor Vehicle Administration was insufficient to. prove a prior conviction for driving while under the influence of alcohol; and 2) that the trial court lacked the authority to suspend Kursch’s driver’s license for a period of two years.

The Facts Appellant was arrested on February 9, 1982, and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, Md. Transp. Code Ann. § 21-902 (b), as well as negligent driving. The trial court accepted Kursch’s plea of guilty to driving while under the influence of alcohol. After the court found Kursch guilty of a violation of § 21-902 (b), the State proceeded against him as a second offender.

Md. Transp. Code Ann. § 27-101 (f). That section ¹⁰⁵ provides that second or subsequent violators may be subjected to increased punishment. The State then introduced into evidence a copy of the notice sent to Kursch of the State’s intent to proceed against him on the basis of a second or subsequent violation.

Md. Rule 734. A certified copy of appellant’s driving record, as obtained from the Motor Vehicle Administration (M.V.A.), was then introduced and admitted into evidence. At that point, Kursch argued that the driving record, without specific docket entries noting prior convictions, was insufficient to demonstrate that he had previously been convicted of driving while under the influence. Judge Lerner, after some discussion, ruled that the record was sufficient evidence.

He then sentenced the appellant as a subsequent offender. I. Appellant claims that it was error for the trial court to accept a M.V.A. certified copy of appellant’s driving record and use it as proof of prior convictions for driving while under the influence of alcohol so as to enhance the penalty pursuant to Transp. Art. § 27-101 (f). A certified copy of a person’s driving record obtained from the M.V.A. is admissible to show prior motor vehicle convictions.

See Md. Transp. Code Ann. § 12-113 (b) (1) (a certified copy of any record of the Administration ... is admissible in any judicial proceeding in the same manner as the original of the record). There was no question here that the driving record produced by the State was a certified copy, nor was there any doubt that it was a copy of Kursch’s M.V.A. record. Essentially, appellant’s claim is that there was not a sufficient predicate for the entries on the record.

The