 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lyon v. State2/14/2001
that undermine her credibility. He argues that her testimony identifying Lyon as the person who was driving the car is not credible. But the question of whether a witness is credible or not is a question for the jury to determine, not this court. According to Groppel's testimony, she was in a position to observe Lyon both before and during the time that he was stealing the car. Her testimony was corroborated by other witnesses, including Stamm, who picked Lyon and another person out of the photographic lineup. Furthermore, Groppel's testimony was corroborated by the circumstances immediately following the offense. The police were able to follow a trail that led directly to Lyon from Stamm's car.
Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Lyon was the person who took Stamm's car.
Lyon argues that his composite sentence of six years and two months to serve is excessive. In imposing the sentence, Judge Bolger emphasized Lyon's prior DWI convictions. Lyon had been convicted of this offense six times in the previous ten years. In addition, he had a conviction for refusing a breath test. Judge Bolger also emphasized the seriousness of Lyon's present offenses. He noted that Lyon had driven away with Stamm holding on to the opened driver's door. He concluded that it was fortunate that Stamm was not killed or seriously injured in the incident. He pointed out that Lyon was highly intoxicated at the time, that his breath alcohol content was .271, and that at the time of the offense, Lyon was driving while his license was revoked and while he was on probation for his prior felony conviction of driving while intoxicated. He noted that Lyon had consistently not abided by his conditions of probation and that he had several convictions for driving with his operator's license suspended. He concluded that Lyon had poor prospects for rehabilitation and would not abide by court restrictions on drinking or on driving.
Judge Bolger found that Lyon was a worst offender with respect to the crime of driving while intoxicated and that it was necessary for him to impose a cumulative sentence of over six years of imprisonment to protect the public. He stated that, "quite simply, the only effective way to prevent Lyon from driving while intoxicated is to keep him behind bars."
Judge Bolger's findings are supported by the record and support the sentence that he imposed. Lyon has an extensive record of driving while intoxicated. He has an extensive record of violating conditions of probation and driving while his license was suspended. According to the presentence report, Lyon stated that he was not interested in again undergoing treatment for his alcoholism because he had done several programs in the past and did not agree with them. From Lyon's prior criminal history, the seriousness and life-threatening nature of his current offenses, and his attitude towards rehabilitation, Judge Bolger could properly conclude that it was necessary to protect the public by incarcerating Lyon for the entire sentence of six years and two months of imprisonment. We conclude that this sentence was not clearly mistaken.
The convictions and sentence are AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|