City of Willoughby v. Mueller11/26/2004
Appellant, Jane L. Mueller, appeals the October 8, 2003 decision and entry of the Willoughby Municipal Court, Lake County, granting her driving privileges subject to compliance with the recommendations of her probation officer.
{ } In April, 2002, appellant was charged with driving under the influence ("DUI"). Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence from this arrest which was denied on July 11, 2002. On August 1, 2002, appellant withdrew her plea of not guilty and entered a plea of no contest. On September 25, 2002, appellant was sentenced to 180 days in jail, with 165 suspended, and a $500 fine. Appellant was also placed on probation for one year conditioned upon drug and alcohol counseling.
{ } Appellant subsequently filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's July 11, 2002 judgment entry; however, on June 24, 2003, appellant dismissed her appeal upon which the stay of execution of her sentence was vacated. On July 3, 2003, the trial court imposed the sentence set forth in its September 25, 2002 judgment entry; pursuant to this order, appellant's driver's license was suspended for one year. However, she was granted driving privileges for certain specified situations.
{ } Sometime subsequent to July 3, 2003, appellant's driving privileges were revoked by Ronald Campbell, appellant's probation officer, for failure to satisfy the condition of her probation, viz., attend the recommended drug and alcohol counseling. On October 2, 2003, defense counsel filed a motion to reinstate driving privileges.
{ } At the hearing, defense counsel stated that appellant had sought psychological assessments from two recommended counseling facilities, North Coast and Laurelwood. Appellant also obtained an assessment from Dr. Melvin Painter, appellant's private therapist. After reviewing the assessments, appellant decided she would rather seek treatment through Dr. Painter for the purpose of "shielding her identity."*fn1
{ } At the hearing, defense counsel submitted Dr. Painter's curriculum vitae for the court's review.*fn2 Defense counsel argued that Dr. Painter was capable of performing the drug and alcohol assessment. However, according to Mr. Campbell, Dr. Painter did not have the qualifications to deal with substance abuse counseling.
{ } Mr. Campbell elaborated:
{ } "[A]ppellant was referred out for two evaluations, Your Honor, and I have both evaluations here. One from North Coast with their recommendations. She did not agree with those recommendations and she chose to go to Laurelwood for another evaluation.
{ } "Both evaluations indicate the need for extensive outpatient substance abuse counseling, Your Honor.
{ } "***
{ } "Now, Mr. Painter, I had no problem with her seeing him for psychotherapy, Your Honor, but for substance counseling I did have issues with that.
{ } "If she wants to continue with Dr. Painter for individual counseling, so be it. However, she's in need of extensive substance treatment, Your Honor. And both of those sources there indicate the same, Your Honor, one from Laurelwood and one from North Coast."
{ } In response, defense counsel underscored his belief that appellant has a right to seek the counselor of her choice and Mr. Campbell's decision violates this right.
{ } Notwithstanding defense counsel's argument, the court determined that appellant was required to comply with Mr. Campbell in order to satisfy the conditions of her probation. The court concluded that appellant's driving privileges would be reinstated subject to compliance with Mr. Campbell's determinations. Although the lower court conditionally reinstated appellant's driver's license, appella
Page 1 2 3 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|