Columbus OVI/DUI Attorney Blog
A former Pennsylvania state trooper was involved in a two-vehicle automobile crash, and the driver of the other vehicle died as a result. The former trooper, Joseph Yuran, was charged with Aggravated Vehicular Homicide as a second-degree felony and Operating a Vehicle under the Influence (OVI). Yuran pled guilty to those charges, and the judge imposed a prison term of 7 years to 10.5 years. Yuran appealed the sentence to the 11th District Court of Appeals, claiming the sentence was unlawful.
Sentencing for Aggravated Vehicular Homicide
When a person is convicted of Aggravated Vehicular Homicide as a second-degree felony, a judge must impose a prison term. The length of the mandatory prison term is a minimum of two years and a maximum of eight years.
In addition, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction may add prison time to an inmate’s sentence for certain misbehavior. The maximum prison time which may be added is up to 50% of the prison term imposed by the judge.
In Yuran’s case, the judge imposed a prison term of 7 years and notified Yuran the prison term could be extended by up to 3.5 years, for a total of up to 10.5 years.
After Yuran’s sentence was imposed, the Ohio legislature revised the sentencing framework for convictions of Aggravated Vehicular Homicide. Dominy Law Firm attorney Bryan Hawkins explains the new sentencing framework in this article.
The Claim of Unlawful Sentencing
On appeal, Yuran claimed the sentencing was unlawful for three reasons. First, he argued the prison term violated the purposes and principles of Ohio’s sentencing law. Second, he claimed the prison term violated Constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment. Third, he alleged the judge made factually inaccurate findings to support the sentence.
The Appellate Court Decision
In addressing Yuran’s argument the prison term violated the purposes and principles of Ohio’s sentencing law, the Court of Appeals observed that review of a felony sentence is limited to whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. As the prison term of 7 years was within the statutory range for the offense, the sentence was not contrary to law.
Regarding Yuran’s claim of cruel and unusual punishment, the Court of Appeals noted the penalty must be so greatly disproportionate to the offense so as to shock the sense of justice of the community. As the judge considered the appropriate sentencing factors and imposed a prison term permitted by Ohio law, the sentence did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
The Court of Appeals disagreed with Yuran’s allegation the judge made factually inaccurate findings to support the sentence. Yuran claimed the judge erroneously found that Yuran was already on probation for a DUI in Pennsylvania. However, the transcript of the sentencing hearing showed Yuran acknowledged he was on probation for a DUI in Pennsylvania and also had a pending charge in Pennsylvania.
Finding that Yuran’s assignments of error lacked merit, the Court of appeals affirmed the sentence.
Appealing a Sentence
As the Yuran case demonstrates, it is difficult to successfully appeal the sentence imposed by a judge. A defendant in an Aggravated Vehicular Homicide case or an OVI case should keep this in mind when deciding whether to accept a plea agreement offer.