 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Maracz6/30/2005
{ } Defendant-appellant Adam Maracz appeals from the total sentence imposed after he entered guilty pleas to a charge of aggravated vehicular assault and a charge of leaving the scene of an accident.
{ } Appellant asserts his sentence is contrary to law for two reasons, viz., it contravenes the United states Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2531, and it lacks proper support in the record. This court disagrees. Consequently, appellant's sentence of a total term of three years is affirmed.
{ } The record reflects this case results from a motor vehicle collision that took place on November 11, 2003. While appellant was proceeding northbound on Interstate 71, his vehicle struck another vehicle that contained two persons. Although the other vehicle sustained significant damage and its occupants were hurt, appellant continued on his way; approximately four hours later, however, he surrendered himself to the police.
{ } Appellant subsequently was indicted on three counts as follows: two counts of aggravated vehicular assault, R.C. 2903.08, each with a driving under suspension specification, and one count of leaving the scene of an accident, R.C. 4549.02, with a furthermore clause for causing serious physical harm to a person.
{ } Appellant eventually entered into a plea agreement with the state. In exchange for appellant's guilty pleas to an amended count one, to include the names of both victims, and to count three, the state would dismiss count two. During the proceedings, appellant acknowledged he understood count one was a felony of the third degree. As such, it carried a potential penalty of one to five years of incarceration. The trial court accepted appellant's pleas.
{ } Prior to sentencing appellant, the trial court obtained a presentence report. The court invited appellant's attorney, appellant, and the victims to speak, then addressed appellant concerning the circumstances of the incident.
{ } The trial court indicated it questioned appellant's version of his actions. In particular, the court wanted to know if appellant waited four hours before going to the police "to let some substance be metabolized throughout body so we (sic) wouldn't know if [he was] drunk or high on something?" Although appellant responded, "No, your Honor," the court asked appellant if the suspension of his driver's license was for his "last driving under the influence " citation. Once again, appellant answered, "No."
{ } The court reminded appellant that it counted four previous occasions on which he was arrested for actions he took while intoxicated. At that point, the court speculated four hours "may have been enough to metabolize whatever substance, if any, was in your system, correct?" Appellant responded, "Correct."
{ } The court then acknowledged appellant could not be sentenced on "guesses," but reminded appellant that, according to the presentence report, he admitted he "began drinking at the age of 19," and he further admitted that he stopped only "after this accident." The court concluded by stating that since appellant previously had attended court-ordered substance abuse classes that had not led him to "rehabilitate" himself, appellant was sentenced on the charge of aggravated vehicular assault to a term of three years, because " a minimum term on this case would not reflect the seriousness of actions, nor would it protect the public." The court sentenced appellant to a six-month concurrent term on the charge of leaving the scene of an accident.
{ } Continuing, the court found appellant had committed one of the "worst forms" of the offense because h
Page 1 2 3 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|