Court rules with conviction: Tosses tougher OUI penalty against guy who'd had earlier case dismissed after admitting he would have been found guilty

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled today a man improperly had his license suspended too long under the state's drunk-driving law because after the first time he was arrested, he didn't actually plead guilty to drunk driving.

Following a 1997 arrest, Paul Souza admitted to sufficient facts for a finding of guilty of OUI. Souza's 1997 case was continued without a finding and the charge against him dismissed after he completed an alcohol education program.

In 2010, he was arrested again on an OUI charge, and refused to take a breath test. The Registry of Motor Vehicles suspended his license for three years, under a provision in the state drunk-driving law that allows for such a stiff penalty for somebody with a prior OUI conviction.

But the state's highest court ruled that admitting to sufficient facts is not the same as actually pleading or being found guilty and that the punishment was wrong because Souza did not actually have a prior conviction.

The decision was somewhat moot because Souza was acquitted in the 2010 case, which meant he would get his license back, but the court said the issue was important enough to warrant its attention.

• Complete ruling, Paul J. Souza vs. Registrar of Motor Vehicles and another