 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Saldana v. State12/3/1986
Appellant Joe Saldana was convicted by a Park County jury of interference with a police officer, a crime proscribed by § 6-5-204(a), W.S. 1977 (June 1983 Replacement). He was sentenced to one year in the county jail.
The single issue on appeal is:
"Whether the district court abused its discretion by sentencing Appellant to a maximum term of one year in the county jail."
We will affirm.
Cody police officers observed a vehicle slowly weaving from one lane of the road to another. After following for a short distance the police officers stopped the vehicle to check the driver for drunkenness. They asked the driver, Mrs. Saldana, appellant's wife, to perform field sobriety tests. She agreed to do this despite remonstrations by her passenger husband, the appellant.
In addressing the officers appellant continually spewed a litany of vile expletives. One of the milder tirades addressed to the officers was, "I've got a gun and I'm going to blow your goddamn head off."
Appellant got out of the Saldana vehicle and counseled his wife not to do anything she was asked to do. Appellant's conduct interrupted the four sobriety tests at least a dozen times.
After the tests were concluded Officer Childs advised Mrs. Saldana that she was under arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol. At this juncture appellant, exhibiting violence, approached Officer Childs. He was physically restrained and forced against the Saldana vehicle. Appellant fought the police as he was being handcuffed. He was placed under arrest and deposited in the back seat of the patrol car. Enroute to the police station appellant tried to kick Officer Childs in the back of the head. When the officers removed appellant from the patrol car at the police station he kicked Officer Childs in the groin area. When placed in a cell he told Childs that he knew where he lived and that he would blow him up.
After conviction and receipt of a presentence investigation report, the court sentenced appellant to serve one year in the county jail, such sentence being the maximum provided by the statute.
We frequently have addressed abuse of discretion in sentencing. Martin v. State, Wyo., 720 P.2d 894 (1986); Ventling v. State, Wyo., 676 P.2d 573 (1984); Scheikofsky v. State, Wyo., 636 P.2d 1107 (1981). Abuse of discretion is defined in Black's Law Dictionary 10 (5th ed. 1979), as "* * * any unreasonable, unconscionable and arbitrary action taken without proper consideration of facts and law pertaining to matter submitted. [Citation.]"
We recently said it would be an abuse of discretion if a trial court acted in "a manner which exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances," and indicated that "the ultimate issue is whether or not the court could reasonably conclude as it did." Martinez v. State, Wyo., 611 P.2d 831, 838 (1980), quoted with approval in Ventling v. State, supra, at 575.
In Scheikofsky v. State, supra, at 1112-1113, we said:
"This court has stated its approach to sentence review many times. If a trial court's determination of the terms of imprisonment is within the statutory limits, it will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. Hanson v. State, Wyo., 590 P.2d 832, 835 (1979); Jones v. State, Wyo., 602 P.2d 378, 380 (1979); Smith v. State, Wyo., 564 P.2d 1194, 1201 (1977); Daellenbach v. State, [Wyo., 562 P.2d 679 (1977)], at 683. A sentence will not be disturbed because of sentencing procedures unless the defendant can show an abuse of discretion, procedural conduct prejudicial to him, and circumstances which manifest inherent unfairness and injustice, or con
Page 1 2 Wyoming DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|