Modifying a 2007 DWI Sentence and Skipping the Interlock Phase

Attorney Answer

A letter to the judge will not reopen a 2007 judgment, and the interlock phase is not something a court can excuse — on your facts it is not something the Division can excuse either.

The sentence. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 15A-1415 and 15A-1420 govern a motion for appropriate relief. Section 15A-1415(b) lists the only grounds available on a motion made more than ten days after entry of judgment, and § 15A-1415(a1) imposes a seven-year outer limit in noncapital cases, running from the latest of the events in subsection (a)(1) through (5); § 15A-1420 sets the form, service and hearing procedure. A 2007 judgment sits far outside that window. A small number of the subsection (b) grounds — a lack of jurisdiction, for example — are not barred in quite the same practical way, so a lawyer should read the actual judgment before you accept a flat no. But you should plan on the door being closed, and an informal letter to a judge about a closed case is not a procedure that exists.

The interlock. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-17.8(a)(2) applies the ignition interlock requirement where the person has another impaired-driving conviction for an offense occurring within the seven years immediately preceding the offense for which the licence was revoked — a second DWI within seven years, which is what you describe. Subsection (b) requires the Division to impose the interlock restrictions on restoration for the period in subsection (c) (one year from restoration where the original revocation was one year). The narrow medical exception in subsection (l) is closed to you by its own final sentence: it "shall not apply to persons subject to an ignition interlock requirement under this section for the reasons set forth in subdivision (a)(2) or (a)(3)."

A case directly on your plan. In *State v. Benbow*, 169 N.C. App. 613, 610 S.E.2d 297 (2005), a district court did exactly what you are proposing to ask for — it exempted a driver from the § 20-17.8 interlock requirement and directed DMV to reinstate her licence without the device. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the requirement is mandatory, that DMV's decision is therefore not discretionary, that no right of review lies under § 20-25 where the licence action is mandatory, and that the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant the exemption. The judge is not the person who can help you here.

There is also no way to "start over." Waiting does not reset anything, and the subsection (c) interlock period runs from restoration — so time spent not driving does not count toward it.

What you can do

1. Do not send the letter. Pull your DMV driving record and a certified copy of the 2007 judgment instead. 2. Have a lawyer read that judgment against the § 15A-1415(b) list — primarily to rule out a jurisdictional defect, not because a general re-sentencing is available. 3. Ask the Division exactly what is outstanding for restoration: assessment, treatment, fees, and the interlock installation. 4. Install the device and start the subsection (c) period. Starting is the only thing that shortens it. 5. If the Division refuses restoration on some other basis, ask in writing what review is available and what the deadline is.

⏱ Time limits apply. Section 15A-1415(a1) sets a seven-year outer limit in noncapital cases, and more than ten days after entry of judgment you are limited to the grounds in subsection (b). Which event the seven years runs from depends on your record, so a lawyer should check the dates against the judgment rather than assuming.