 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Kravochuck6/23/2005
{ } Appellant, Leah Kravochuck, appeals the sentence handed down by the common pleas court. Upon a review of the record and arguments of the parties, we affirm the sentence of the trial court for the reasons set forth below.
{ } On February 14, 2004, appellant struck and killed James Ivinskas with her car in the driveway of a home on Cleveland's west side. Appellant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident, and she further complicated the matter when she initially lied to emergency workers and police about how Ivinskas had been injured. She was indicted on March 3, 2004 on an eight-count indictment: two counts of murder, two counts of felonious assault, two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide, one count of driving under the influence , and one count of bribery.
{ } On July 26, 2004, appellant pleaded guilty to count five, aggravated vehicular homicide; count seven, driving under the influence ; and count eight, bribery. She received the maximum sentence of eight years for count five, three years for count eight and six months for count seven; the sentences for counts five and eight were to run consecutively while count seven could be served concurrently.
{ } Appellant now appeals her sentence with three assignments of error.
{ } "I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING APPELLANT TO MORE THAN THE MINIMUM PRISON SENTENCE.
{ } "II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF R.C. 2929.14(C).
{ } "III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT IMPOSED A MAXIMUM SENTENCE WITHOUT MAKING APPROPRIATE FINDINGS."
Blakely Claim
{ } The appellant first claims that the trial court erred by imposing more than the minimum sentence based on factual determinations that were neither made by the jury nor admitted by the appellant, in contravention of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington (2004), U.S. , 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403.
{ } Blakely involved the constitutionality of a prison sentence that was imposed under the state of Washington's sentencing scheme. The United States Supreme Court reversed the trial court's imposition of sentence above the standard statutory range, holding that "other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." Blakely, supra at 2536, quoting Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000), 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed. 2d 435. The Court further held that the "statutory maximum" for purposes of Blakely and Apprendi is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant. In other words, the relevant "statutory maximum" is not the maximum sentence a judge may impose after finding additional facts, but the maximum he may impose without any additional findings. Blakely, supra at 2537.
{ } The United States Supreme Court subsequently reaffirmed the holding in Apprendi, invalidating and severing section 3553(b)(1) from the United States Code, which makes it mandatory for federal district courts to follow the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Booker (2005), 543 U.S. . The Court held that this section was incompatible with the United States Supreme Court's constitutional holding that the Sixth Amendment requires juries, not judges, to make findings of fact relevant to sentencing. If a state makes an increase in a defendant's authorized punishment contingent on the finding of a fact, that fact -- no matter how the state labels it -- must be found by a jury bey
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|