Why Determinate Sentencing Is Necessary

[Diego in Seattle]

Sentence reduced in DUI death case
By: CHRIS BAGLEY - Staff Writer

FRENCH VALLEY ---- A judge reduced the jail term of a Lake Elsinore woman whose drunken driving accident killed a motorcyclist, saying that two years in state prison was excessive for a remorseful, first-time offender.

Judge James Warren on Wednesday resentenced Sherri Ann Smith, 43, to a year in Riverside County jail with credit for five months already served. She is to remain on probation for five years, a condition not in the original sentence.

Earlier this year, Smith pleaded guilty to felony vehicular manslaughter without gross negligence, agreeing with prosecutors to a two-year sentence. She could have faced as much as 6 years, 8 months in prison. Warren passed the sentence at a hearing March 10.


But Warren later decided the punishment was too harsh. Smith had no criminal record and completed a state program for first-time, drunken-driving offenders before her sentencing, he noted Wednesday.

"I've sent hundreds of people to state prison," Warren said. "This was a case that continued to stick with me. It was a case that continued to prey on my mind and my conscience. It was a case that I literally prayed about."

State law allows judges to reduce sentences in this way within 120 days after the initial sentencing, but many involved in the case acknowledged that such moves are rare. Warren's motion last month for the new hearing provoked anger and dismay from the victim's family.

Kerry Suglia, 52, died June 4, 2005, when Smith's Chevrolet Blazer crossed the center line on the two-lane Ortega Highway west of Lake Elsinore and struck his motorcycle head-on.

Smith was returning from the Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival. Two hours after the crash, her blood alcohol level was measured at 0.11 percent, 0.03 percentage points above the legal level of 0.08 percent.

Sheryl Suglia, who was sitting behind her husband on the bike, lost most of her left leg. She attended Wednesday's hearing in a wheelchair, along with more than a dozen family members, two motorcycle activists and several other supporters.

Outside Southwest Justice Center after the hearing, Suglia had harsh words for Warren. She pointed to her prosthetic leg and her scarred left arm, which she said she's still building back to full strength.

"He's letting this woman out," Suglia said. "He can't guarantee anybody that she's not going to go out there and do it again."

"Worse than that is the message he's sending out to all the other people out there who are thinking about doing the same thing," said her son Jeremy Popoff.

Suglia and her husband lived in Lake Elsinore. Unable to walk unassisted, she has since moved to Fullerton to be closer to her two sons.

Smith is expected to return briefly to state prison before being transferred to a Riverside County jail in Riverside or Banning, according to her attorney, John Pozza. She could be released by early January if she gets credit for good behavior, Pozza said. Her sentence includes 300 hours of community service and yet-to-be specified financial restitution for the victims.

Both the initial two-year sentence and the revised one-year term plus probation are typical for a first-time offender who pleas vehicular manslaughter, Pozza said.

In the hearing, Pozza said nothing other than the occasional "no" when Warren asked if he had objections or additional statements. The hearing played out almost as a debate between Warren and prosecutor Dan Detienne, who seemed to grow increasingly exasperated.

"What happened between March 10 and May 31 that makes (you) feel that state prison is no longer appropriate?" Detienne asked Warren. "Apparently, your decision is being driven by other cases that have come before you (since March) that I know nothing about and that aren't in the record."

Detienne argued that a resentencing would cause more grief for Kerry Suglia's family, who began in March to rebuild their lives. Warren rejected that argument, saying the "mistake" in March was his own and that Smith shouldn't be punished for it.

Warren also rebuffed Detienne in numerous attempts to introduce more testimony. The judge refused to admit letters from Mothers Against Drunk Driving into the court record, saying that such "lobbying organizations" lack direct ties to the case at hand.

The judge and prosecutor also fell into a protracted argument Wednesday when Warren indicated he wouldn't allow Sheryl Suglia to testify. Warren said Detienne didn't convince him that she would be able to offer anything beyond her testimony during the original sentencing proceedings.

That prompted Jeremy Popoff to lead the rest of Sheryl Suglia's family out of the second-floor courtroom. As the hearing continued, they gathered on the outdoor concrete plaza below.

[BSmack]

Warren also rebuffed Detienne in numerous attempts to introduce more testimony. The judge refused to admit letters from Mothers Against Drunk Driving into the court record, saying that such "lobbying organizations" lack direct ties to the case at hand.

Classic. It's about time somebody told MADD to piss off.

That being said, the new sentence does seem rather light. But mandatory minimums are hardly the answer.

[Cicero]

It's a 0.11. Barely over the limit and thats the price you pay for riding a motorcycle. I dont think she should have had her sentence reduced off the bat but I wouldnt mind of seeing her eligible for parole in 3-4 years for good behavior.

[Goober McTuber]

It's a 0.11. Barely over the limit and thats the price you pay for riding a motorcycle. I dont think she should have had her sentence reduced off the bat but I wouldnt mind of seeing her eleigible for parole in 3-4 years for good behavior.

She was originally sentenced to two years in prison, you fucking cretin.

[Cicero]

I skimmed the article you fuckstick. She should have gotten 5-6 years and then got off early if she was a model citizen. No way in hell she should have had her sentence reduced it was for only 2 years then.

[Goober McTuber]

If you “skimmed” the article, you had no business commenting on it. If you read the article, you would have found that “Both the initial two-year sentence and the revised one-year term plus probation are typical for a first-time offender who pleas vehicular manslaughter”, according to the defense attorney. That would make your 5-6 years seem a wee bit excessive.

When you pick up the Sunday paper, do you immediately go for the comics?

[Cicero]

No just the Sports.

[Goober McTuber]

Oh yeah, lots of pretty pictures.

[Cicero]

So you like pictures of men? Thought so.

[Mikey]

The 0.11 was measured two hours after the crash. No doubt it was signficantly higher a the time of the accident.

[Goober McTuber]

So you like pictures of men? Thought so.

Nice try, I was talking about you, not me. I actually read the newspaper. That’s how I knew that the original sentence in this case was two years. Dumbfuck.

[Sky]

Well first of all, I doubt any of us are experts on BAL and how much higher her level was during the crash.

However, 2 years seems a little low and she should not have had it reduced. A relatively small price to pay when compared to the victims.

The only decision I agreed with was when the judge excluded the MADD letter. These activists have cause numerous people with .08 or .09 BALs to get slapped with a DUI when studies have shown that the lower limit (.08) hasn't done much to curb drinking and driving. Additionally, driving ability has not been shown to decrease as much as they like to portray (.08 vs .10).

[the_ouskull]

I skimmed the article you fuckstick.

Now guys, you all need to be good to our Bottom Bitch...

Sin,
The CFB Forum

[Terry in Crapchester]

Off-topic, and Diego may have just made a mistake in wording, but since he brought up "determinate" sentences . . .

Interestingly, New York used to have indeterminate sentences for drug offenders, and they were among the harshest sentences in the country for drug offenders. As a result, the prison system here was overcrowded with drug offenders, many of them relatively low level. Recently, they overhauled the drug laws, and replaced the longer indeterminate sentences with determinate sentences, albeit of a much shorter duration.

As to the case at hand, one thing nobody has yet mentioned is that in the resentencing, the woman got five years of probation, which wasn't a condition of her original sentence. Probation is a revocable sentence, which means that if she screws up on probation, she could be heading back to prison, and ultimately, could wind up doing more time than she would have done on the original sentence.

[Dinsdale]

Now guys, you all need to be good to our Bottom Bitch...

Sin,
The CFB Forum

I don't quite think the CFB Forum lays exclusive claim to Crown being their bitch.

Sin,
Every Man, Woman, and Child on Earth




As far as sentencing -- while it may not work out in practice, on paper we try to take our wisest legal minds, and make them judges(that's how it's supposed to work, anyway).

Rather than tying their hands and automating the process, I'd just as soon leave it to the Wise Men to do their job and make those decisions, rather than legislators who will jump on any public-outcry-of-the-moment to whore votes.


Let the judges do their jobs.

[Cicero]

I skimmed the article you fuckstick.

Now guys, you all need to be good to our Bottom Bitch...

Sin,
The CFB Forum

Im nowhere near the bottom. If you showed up once in a while, you would see that.

[BSmack]

I skimmed the article you fuckstick.

Now guys, you all need to be good to our Bottom Bitch...

Sin,
The CFB Forum

Im nowhere near the bottom. If you showed up once in a while, you would see that.

Don't worry bro. Must of us figured you for the top of the bitch pile.

[Rich Fader]

Diego, was this up in the hills? If she was driving drunk up in the hills, she's an idiot, and the two-year sentence was a joke, let alone the new one. For those of you not familiar with SoCal, the Ortega Highway is a state highway that runs from Perris and Lake Elsinore in western Riverside County, through the Santa Ana Mountains, to San Juan Capistrano in south Orange County. Pretty country up there, but it's generally not a road you really want to be drunk or otherwise screwing off on, not if you're smart. Narrow, winding, hanging off the side of cliffs a lot of the way...it's hard enough driving it sober. So I have a really hard time finding much sympathy for this woman.

[Van]

It's a 0.11. Barely over the limit and thats the price you pay for riding a motorcycle.

Shut the fuck up. In fact, retire from this board. That was fucking embarrassing.

Christ...

[Mister Bushice]

The Civil case is where the family will get some justice. Not much doubt a jury will find for a woman who lost her husband and a leg to a drunk driver. Hopefully the drunk has something to lose, like a house.

That's where sherrie ann smith will learn to suffer. Well that and living the rest of her life knowing her irresponsible behavior killed someone. Ortega highway is a bitch to drive on sober and anyone living near there knows it.

[Cicero]

It's a 0.11. Barely over the limit and thats the price you pay for riding a motorcycle.

Shut the fuck up. In fact, retire from this board. That was fucking embarrassing.

Christ...

Fuck you, thats my opinion.

[Terry in Crapchester]

The Civil case is where the family will get some justice. Not much doubt a jury will find for a woman who lost her husband and a leg to a drunk driver. Hopefully the drunk has something to lose, like a house.

That's where sherrie ann smith will learn to suffer.

Actually, insurance will cover any civil judgment (to the extent of the policy limit, anyway). Virtually all states protect a house from application to judgment, at least to a limited extent, provided that you live there.

If a civil judgment exceeds the insurance policy limit, her worst case scenario, in all likelihood, is having to live with a wage garnishment.

[Cicero]

He's right, sissyblow. You do suck horribly. You are easily among the worst posters on the internet.

Hopefully you'll be castrated in some sort of industrial accident before it's too late.

Whats up Napoleon?

[Van]

It's a 0.11. Barely over the limit and thats the price you pay for riding a motorcycle.

Shut the fuck up. In fact, retire from this board. That was fucking embarrassing.

Christ...

Fuck you, thats my opinion.

"That's the price you pay for riding a motorcycle..." is not an opinion. That's a strictly stupid statement.

[Mister Bushice]

The Civil case is where the family will get some justice. Not much doubt a jury will find for a woman who lost her husband and a leg to a drunk driver. Hopefully the drunk has something to lose, like a house.

That's where sherrie ann smith will learn to suffer.

Actually, insurance will cover any civil judgment (to the extent of the policy limit, anyway).

If she's got the minimum that most people carry, she's still fucked.

Virtually all states protect a house from application to judgment, at least to a limited extent, provided that you live there.

If a civil judgment exceeds the insurance policy limit, her worst case scenario, in all likelihood, is having to live with a wage garnishment.

At the least, she should be reminded how horrifically she warped some other families life for the rest of hers by having to see money go out of her pocket to theirs.

[Diego in Seattle]

The Civil case is where the family will get some justice. Not much doubt a jury will find for a woman who lost her husband and a leg to a drunk driver. Hopefully the drunk has something to lose, like a house.

That's where sherrie ann smith will learn to suffer.

Actually, insurance will cover any civil judgment (to the extent of the policy limit, anyway).

If she's got the minimum that most people carry, she's still fucked.

It's probably going to turn into another case of trying to bleed a rock. Suglia will find no justice in civil court.

[Dinsdale]

At the least, she should be reminded how horrifically she warped some other families life for the rest of hers

Gee, you think that might already be a possibilty?

Her actions were negligent, not violent. There's no excuse for operating a car while intoxicated, but call it what it is...she made a mistake. Let he who is without sin cast some stones up in here.


And maybe, just maybe, her remorsefulness and realization of a lifetime of nightmarish suffering led the judge to be lenient.

That's why carved-in-stone sentencing guidelines are nuts. What next, online trials?

We pay judges to be wise. Let's take advantage of their wisdom, and give them leeway in both directions, so they can better do their job. Should a 17 year old honor student who gets in a fender-bender the first time she ever tries alcohol get the same sentence as a 50 year old admitted alcoholic with a history of DUI?

Of course not. Let the judge do his job.


Although, I was suprised to see such a light sentence to begin with. Here in Oregon, I believe if you commit vehicular homocide, it's a standard sentence of 7 years.

[Diego in Seattle]

At the least, she should be reminded how horrifically she warped some other families life for the rest of hers

er actions were negligent, not violent. There's no excuse for operating a car while intoxicated, but call it what it is...she made a mistake. Let he who is without sin cast some stones up in here.

A mistake???????

Driving after drinking is NOT a mistake. If one drives after drinking it's a concious act to place lives in immediate danger. Not by any stretch of imagination is that a mistake.

That's one of the worst takes you've ever had. And that's saying a lot.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Although, I was suprised to see such a light sentence to begin with.

The point some people are missing here is that the amount of incarceration that was shaved off was not a lot -- only a year. And an argument could be made that the new sentence is harsher than the old one, in that it subjects her to probation. Probation is no walk in the park, and I have a hunch that the terms of probation prohibit her from drinking at all -- not just from drinking and driving. There are plenty of pitfalls involved in probation, and if she screws up, she's probably headed back to the slammer for a longer period of time than she initially was facing.

OTOH, if she does well on probation, perhaps she was deserving of a more lenient sentence after all.

[Dinsdale]

If one drives after drinking it's a concious act to place lives in immediate danger. Not by any stretch of imagination is that a mistake.

Bullshit.

Find me one fucking person who got drunk, got behind the wheel, and actually made a concious effort to hurt someone.

Bullshit.

At no point in this thread(or any other thread) will you ever see me condone driving under the influence, but we don't need to lie to make points, now do we?

Also, at no point did I say the mistake was excusable -- it certainly isn't. But to actually imply that there was INTENT in this woman's actions isn't correct(which, oddly enough, is why it goes down as a "negligent homocide" rather than "premeditated murder" -- so apparently, the law agrees with me, too).

We can sit around and wish we lived in a perfect world, and gripe about any imperfection that we see, or we can live in reality and realize that while inexcusable, people will continue to make the mistake of not removing their access to their vehicle when they begin drinking. The loss of judgement that drinking causes is responsible for the mistake...not a criminal intent.

Once again, I'm not advocating drinking and driving, nor am I advocating light sentences either. As you might know, I made such a mistake as a young man. And I paid for it...dearly. But to insinuate that I intended to hurt somebody is just inaccurate.


Wrong -- yes. Very much so.

Malicious -- absolutely not. I'd do anything to relive that night and make better choices. But booze has a way of making bad ideas seem like good ones...just ask my weewee.


I guess my point was...let the judge do his job. He's better at it than legislators are. And he's better at it than you and I.


But, since my take was portrayed as a "devil's advocate" stance, let me clear it up with a PSA --

Don't drink and drive. You owe it to the other people around you not to. Bus/cab fare is cheap, human lives are expensive.

[Diego in Seattle]

Terry.....ever consider that sentences are supposed to contain some form of punishment? Considering that one victim died & another lost a limb, I doubt that a year in jail is much of a punishment.......probation or not.

[Terry in Crapchester]

It's definitely punishment. You might not consider it appropriate punishment, but it's punishment nonetheless.

[Diego in Seattle]

Dins;
I like your way of thinking!!

Sin,

It's definitely punishment. You might not consider it appropriate punishment, but it's punishment nonetheless.

I don't consider light slaps of the hand to be punishment.

[Terry in Crapchester]

It's definitely punishment. You might not consider it appropriate punishment, but it's punishment nonetheless.

I don't consider light slaps of the hand to be punishment.

Would you want to go to jail for a year? I wouldn't.

[Diego in Seattle]

It's definitely punishment. You might not consider it appropriate punishment, but it's punishment nonetheless.

I don't consider light slaps of the hand to be punishment.

Would you want to go to jail for a year? I wouldn't.

That hardly qualifies it as punishment, much less an appropriate one.

[Terry in Crapchester]

I don't consider light slaps of the hand to be punishment.

Would you want to go to jail for a year? I wouldn't.

That hardly qualifies it as punishment, much less an appropriate one.

I didn't say that makes it an appropriate level of punishment. But it definitely makes it punishment.

I would consider any deprivation of liberty to be punishment.

Along those lines:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/punishment

A few definitions here are appropriate:

A penalty imposed for wrongdoing:

and

a penalty (as a fine or imprisonment) inflicted on an offender through the judicial and esp. criminal process

So, by definition, this sentence is punishment. Your argument, in reality, is directed only to whether that punishment is appropriate.

[Mister Bushice]

Bullshit.

Find me one fucking person who got drunk, got behind the wheel, and actually made a concious effort to hurt someone.

Ignorance of the consequences is no excuse. Especially these days with TV ads, signs everywhere, and constant reminders of the perils of drunk driving.

If she had shot someone and killed them while mishandling a gun knowing it was loaded, is that any different? Would the punishment have been the same? Is that type of negligence different than getting behind the wheel of a loaded 2000 pound weapon when you know you're impaired?

[Tom In VA]

I guess my point was...let the judge do his job. He's better at it than legislators are. And he's better at it than you and I.

I'm sorry did hell just experience an Ice Age ?

Suddenly I'm a bit more worried about the goings on in the Middle East and esp... Iran.

I need to call Mom and Dad and see if they were taken up in the rapture ....


Holy Christ, I guess I wasn't ....

Oh well, been nice knowing you all.

One more time ....

I guess my point was...let the judge do his job. He's better at it than legislators are. And he's better at it than you and I.

[Terry in Crapchester]

I guess my point was...let the judge do his job. He's better at it than legislators are. And he's better at it than you and I.

I'm sorry did hell just experience an Ice Age ?

Suddenly I'm a bit more worried about the goings on in the Middle East and esp... Iran.

I need to call Mom and Dad and see if they were taken up in the rapture ....


Holy Christ, I guess I wasn't ....

Oh well, been nice knowing you all.

One more time ....

I guess my point was...let the judge do his job. He's better at it than legislators are. And he's better at it than you and I.

I suppose it would have been even more surprising had mvscal said it. Actually, Dins saying that is less surprising than mvscal posting what's in my sig.