Assemblyman Martin Garrick on Friday, July 29th pleaded "No Contest" plea Friday on a drunken driving charge verse guilty on driving over the speed limit, running red lights, not pulling over when ordered by a police officer and having a blood alcohol level of 0.15 percent, almost twice the level limit.
Martin will perform 48 hours of community service, paying fines and assessments of $2,416 and lose his driver's license for four months. However, he will not have an ignition interlock device, as he supported in the 2009-2010 legislative session with AB 9 or attend a 9-month Drinker Driver Treatment Program, which he supported in the 2007-2008 legislative session with AB 1487.
Interestingly, he pleaded no contest verse guilty on the charges. On the website DUIAttorney.com it explains why people plea no contest, then taking full responsibility for their crime. They still need to answer yes when asked if they have been convicted of a crime, but they really aren't taking full responsibility for their crime in court.
Many times there is the quoting in supporting term limits is legislators need to go back to the public to live under the laws they pass. I would be interested in what conservatives think of Garrick's plea of no contest verse guilty, the sentencing and if he should seek higher office in the future?