 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Robinson1/29/2002
ough Robinson acknowledges that the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits for his offense, fourth-offense DUI, he nonetheless asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by not imposing probation. Robinson argues that " here is no question that in the present case, no one was harmed or injured, no erratic or dangerous driving by [Robinson] was evident, and there is no person who stands victimized." Brief for appellant at 16. Robinson also asserts that " t is clear that was, if over the limit at all, only by a small amount and that he contemplated no harm by his actions." Id.
Sentences within statutory limits will be disturbed only if the sentence complained of is an abuse of discretion. State v. Spurgin, 261 Neb. 427, 623 N.W.2d 644 (2001). There is no assertion that the sentence imposed is not within the statutory limits. The trial court noted that this is Robinson's fourth DUI conviction, that he had been fined between the date of the present offense and the sentencing hearing for having an open container of liquor, that he denied having any drinking problem or needing any treatment, and that the probation officer recommended against probation. The court further noted that because of Robinson's history, the court was worried that somebody would "get killed" if he continued to drink and drive. On the record before us, we find no abuse of discretion. This assigned error is without merit.
V. CONCLUSION
The trial court did not err in receiving the Intoxilyzer results. There was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, and the sentence imposed was not excessive. The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
|