 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Preston6/8/2005
emean the seriousness of your conduct and that you committed multiple offenses as part of one or more courses of conduct so that a single prison term would not appropriately address as I say the seriousness of your misconduct on that day and the history of this case and your prior criminal history suggests an obvious need for consecutive sentences to protect the public from future criminal activity on your part."
{ } The trial court clearly made the necessary R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) findings. It found that there was a "need to punish" Preston by imposing consecutive sentences, that "consecutive sentences would not be disproportionate to the seriousness of your conduct and that the, and to the danger that you pose to the public," and that it needed to impose consecutive sentences "to protect the public from future criminal activity" by Preston.
{ } Furthermore, the trial court adequately explained the reasons for those findings. Contrary to Preston's claims, the trial court did not sentence him to consecutive sentences merely because he killed someone while driving drunk, the definition of aggravated vehicular homicide. Preston has an extensive criminal history indicating that he would continue to drive both drunk and under suspension. Furthermore, the seriousness of his offense is aggravated by both the time of day and the level of alcohol in his blood when he was tested. These factors in combination support the trial court's findings.
{ } For the foregoing reasons, Preston's sole assignment of error is meritless and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Vukovich, J., concurs.
Waite, J., concurs.
|