COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED DECEMBER 27, 1996 |
NOTICE |
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and
Rule 809.62(1), Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 96-2129-CR
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT III
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
MICHELLE L. DEAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment
of the circuit court for Rusk County:
JAMES C. EATON, Judge. Affirmed.
CANE, P.J. Michelle Dean appeals a portion of a
judgment requiring her to serve sixty days in jail as a condition of probation
for the offense of causing bodily harm to another by negligent use of a
vehicle, contrary to § 346.62(3), Stats. Dean contends the sentencing court failed to
reasonably exercise its discretion when imposing confinement in jail as a
condition of probation. Because this
court is satisfied the court reasonably exercised its sentencing discretion,
the judgment is affirmed.
The offense relates to
Dean leaving a party where she had been drinking and then striking another
vehicle head on with her car after she fell asleep while driving. Dean's blood alcohol content tested .095%. The occupants of the other car were
seriously injured. Dean pled guilty to
the charge of causing bodily harm to another by negligent use of a vehicle and
at sentencing presented evidence that she had no prior criminal record, was a
very good student in high school and had earned an associate degree after high
school. She was employed with the
intention of later continuing her college career. She expressed remorse, and was cooperative with the
authorities.
Dean contends that the
trial court imposed jail time as a condition of probation solely concerning the
rights of the public and ignored the remaining factors outlined in Williams
v. State, 79 Wis.2d 235, 255 N.W.2d 504 (1977), thereby failing to
properly exercise its discretion at sentencing. This court is not persuaded.
Sentencing is a function
of trial court discretion. State
v. Harris, 119 Wis.2d 612, 622, 350 N.W.2d 633, 638 (1984). Appellate courts are reluctant to interfere
with a trial court's sentence because it has a great advantage in considering the
relevant factors and the demeanor of the defendant. Id. There
is a presumption that a trial court acted reasonably when sentencing. Id. Thus, to demonstrate an erroneous exercise of sentencing
discretion, the defendant must show some unreasonable or unjustifiable basis in
the record for the sentence imposed. State
v. Echols, 175 Wis.2d 653, 681-82, 499 N.W.2d 631, 640 (1993).
Here, the trial court
was concerned with the serious nature of the offense where not only serious
injury occurred, but occupants of both cars could have been killed because of
Dean’s continuing to drive after knowing that she was tired and impaired from
consuming alcohol. The trial court
repeatedly stressed that it was only luck that no one was killed in the
accident caused by Dean. The trial
court also considered the impact of Dean’s misconduct on the victims as set out
in their letter to the court for sentencing purposes. The trial court understood Dean’s prior reluctance to make any
statements to the victims because of the pending civil lawsuit. This court is satisfied after reviewing the
transcript of the sentencing proceedings that the trial court relied on a
justifiable basis for its decision and therefore reasonably exercised its
sentencing discretion. The judgment is
affirmed.
By the Court.—Judgment
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4, Stats.