 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Saldana v. State12/3/1986
duct which offends the public sense of fair play. Hicklin v. State, Wyo., 535 P.2d 743, 751, 79 A.L.R.3d 1050 (1975). That is a nebulous standard, but it is as precise as we care to make it. We have an abiding reluctance to review a trial judge's determination of sentence. The determination is a burdensome decision which no trial judge could lightly make and which we will not lightly overturn."
In Byerly v. Madsen, 41 Wn. App. 495, 704 P.2d 1236, 1238-1239 (1985), quoting from State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12, 482 P.2d 775 (1971), the Washington court said:
"`Judicial discretion is a composite of many things, among which are conclusions drawn from objective criteria; it means a sound judgment exercised with regard to what is right under the circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily or capriciously. Where the decision or order of the trial court is a matter of discretion, it will not be disturbed on review except on a clear showing of abuse of discretion, that is, discretion manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.'"
In Martin v. State, supra, we quoted with approval Byerly v. Madsen.
The presentence investigation report revealed that appellant had been arrested fourteen times. Many of the offenses involved violent behavior, and one was interference with a police officer.
In interfering with the police officers appellant assaulted and attempted to assault the arresting officers; he threatened the lives and homes of these officers; and he had a history of violent reaction to authority. Probation was considered by the court and rejected. A lesser sentence had been imposed earlier for interference with a police officer. Considering the aggravating circumstances of this case, the trial court reasonably decided upon a sentence of a year in jail.
In the judicial sentencing information form the trial court considered five purposes in imposing sentence. The two purposes given the greatest weight by the court were:
"There is undue risk that if a lesser sentence were imposed, the offender would continue to commit criminal offenses.
"The offender continues to commit crimes, even though other less restrictive sanctions have been frequently or recently applied."
Clearly the sentence imposed by the court did not exceed the bounds of reason, nor is there the slightest indication that the court acted in an unreasonable, unconscionable or arbitrary manner. The circumstances surrounding the incident resulting in appellant's arrest abundantly justify the sentence imposed.
Affirmed.
THOMAS, Chief Justice, concurring.
I concur in the affirmance of the judgment and sentence in this case. I maintain my position that this court should not review on appeal a sentence entered by a district judge so long as the sentence is a lawful one, i.e., within the statutory limits established by the legislature. Wright v. State, Wyo., 670 P.2d 1090 (1983), reh. denied 707 P.2d 153 (1985), Thomas, J., specially concurring.
Page 1 2 Wyoming DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|