Appellant was convicted of two counts of DUI with serious bodily injury. He claims that because only one "driving episode" (appellant's characterization) caused the two persons to be injured, he can only be convicted of one crime. Appellant concedes his argument is inconsistent with the holding in Melbourne v. State,
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.