Cases like this, alas, increase public acceptance of "mandatory sentencing" laws.
Guy drives drunk. Gets 3, 4, 5 DUI's.
Judge lets him off with a slap on the wrist. Suspends his license.
Guy drives more drunk. Gets more DUI's.
Judge lets him off with a slap on the wrist. (Note that the story says that despite all his DUI's, he'd only served 62 days in jail.)
Guy finally plows into someone while driving drunk. Court throws the book at him. (Which they really should have done half a dozen DUI's ago.)
Public gets annoyed. "Why did he only have 62 days in jail?" Legislature passes mandatory "after three DUI's, minimum of 90 days in jail" law. Public applauds. Legislature thinks, "Hey, the people loved it. Let's go after more slap-on-the-wrist crimes." Legislature passes poorly thought out 3-strike or other mandatory sentencing laws that lead to some poor slob getting life in prison for shoplifting a $20 camera.
Sigh.
What is *really* shocking to me, moreso even than this guy's 13 DUI's, is the number of "We defend DUI" lawyer advertisements you'll find in a Google search. (I was looking for the wreck I remembered involving a bus that killed 27 people - but I went through something like 4 pages, mostly lawyer sites, before I found an article about it.) Yes, there are times when medical disability (diabetes or something) can produce effects that look like alcohol. There *are* borderline DUI's, times when police don't follow proper procedure, etc. But those are fairly rare.
A lawyer *advertising* that he defends DUI's makes sharks look downright respectable.