 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Horr9/4/2003
ttempt, solicitation or other form of preparation to commit, or facilitation of, the other[.]" 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1256(3)(B).
"In order to determine whether one crime facilitated another, we properly should focus on 'the purpose for which the defendant engaged in criminal conduct.'" State v. Winchenbach, 501 A.2d 1282, 1287 (Me. 1985) (quoting Bunker, 436 A.2d at 419). In Winchenbach, the defendant was given concurrent sentences for burglary, unauthorized use of property, and operating a vehicle after revocation of his license, and those sentences were to be served consecutively with sentences imposed for passing a road block, and eluding an officer. Id. at 1286. Noting that consecutive sentences are reviewed for abuse of discretion, we rejected Winchenbach's argument that his consecutive sentences were prohibited by section 1256(3)(B), and affirmed the sentences. Although Winchenbach's criminal acts were closely related in time, we concluded that the sentencing court was free to find that they involved "different motivations." Id. at 1287.
In this case, the sentencing court was not compelled to find that the only purpose of Horr's theft of the vehicle was to facilitate his violation of the habitual offender law, and the statutes prohibiting OUI and driving to endanger. Id., see Pineo, 2002 ME 93, 13, 798 A.2d at 1098-99 (noting unintentional crimes have no criminal purpose).
The entry is: Judgment affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 Maine DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|