 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Stolich4/19/1995
FAIN, Judge.
Defendant-appellant, Tammy E. Stolich, appeals from her conviction and sentence, following a no contest plea, for operating a motor vehicle under the influence. Stolich contends that the trial court erred by finding her guilty in view of her proffered defense that she was merely following the orders of a police officer when she drove her car while intoxicated. We conclude that the evidence in the record did not require the trial court to find that Stolich was operating under the orders of a police officer when she drove her car while intoxicated. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Stolich tendered a plea of no contest, and the case was submitted to the trial court upon certain stipulations of fact and Stolich's testimony, both on cross-examination and direct-examination. The stipulations of fact were recited into the record as follows:
"1. That the defendant, Tammy Stolich, and Roger Conley, were investigated by Beavercreek Police Department officer and we believe it is Officer Wilson on February 12, 1994, at 12:22 a.m. when he investigated their car parked at the conservancy area in the city of Beavercreek.
"2. The check of the I.D. of both occupants of vehicle showed that there was an active warrant for Roger.
"3. The Greene County Sheriff's office was called to handle the warrant issue.
"4. Mr. Conley was intoxicated.
"5. Greene County Sheriff's officers arrived and took custody of Mr. Conley.
"6. Approximately ten minutes after the first contact, which was about 12:22 in the morning, Tammy Stolich was allowed to leave the area, driving the vehicle which she and Mr. Conley had been in. "7. At 1:23 in the morning of February 12, 1994, the defendant, Tammy Stolich, was stopped for marked lanes and DUI violation by Deputy Pettfford, Greene County Sheriff's office, off U.S. 68 at Jacoby Road.
"8. There was probable cause for the stop.
"9. Tests were given and a valid intoxilyzer test was administered and the defendant tested .262.
"10. There was proper jurisdiction.
"11. There was no search of the defendant's vehicle by the Beavercreek Police Department."
Stolich then testified, both on direct examination and on cross-examination. Her testimony on direct examination included the following:
"Q. Okay. Did a police officer come up to your car?
"A. Yes.
"Q. All right. Did he have any discussion with you?
"A. He asked for identification.
"Q. And did you produce that identification?
"A. Yes.
"Q. Okay. Did he have any other discussion with you?
"A. Not really.
"Q. Okay. At any point did he--at some point did you leave that area?
"A. Yes.
"Q. Okay. Did anyone tell you to leave that area?
"A. Yes, he brought by I.D. back to the car and told me-
"Q. Okay. He who? "A. The officer.
"Q. Okay.
"A. Told me to go on home.
"Q. Okay. And did you go home after that point? "A. Well, I intended to, but I was out in the country in an area I'm not familiar with and I got lost."
On cross-examination, Stolich's testimony included the following:
"Q. Okay. Okay. So the Beavercreek officer told Roger to come with him?
"A. Mmm-hmm.
"Q. And he took him away?
"A. (Indicated in
Page 1 2 3 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|