|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
News
Appellate court upholds Vasquez sentence : News : Oswego Ledger-Sentinel : Hometown Newspaper for Oswego and Montgomery, IllinoisAppellate court upholds Vasquez sentence
| Will serve 15 year jail term in crash that killed five teens
| by Tony Scott
| 6/14/2012
|
The Illinois Second District Appellate Court has upheld the prison sentence given to Sandra Vasquez, the Aurora woman convicted in the 2007 drunk driving crash in Oswego that killed five teens.
A Kendall County jury in 2010 convicted Vasquez of aggravated DUI and reckless homicide, and Judge Clint Hull sentenced her to 15 years in state prison. She now resides in Lincoln Correctional Center in downstate Lincoln, Ill.
Vasquez was the driver in a February 2007 accident in which five of her eight teen passengers died when the sedan she was driving slammed into a utility pole along Route 31 near River Run Boulevard in Oswego.
The car was coming from a party at a house owned by one of Vasquez's relatives in the unincorporated Boulder Hill subdivision.
Oswego High School students Matthew Frank, 17, Tiffany Urso, 16, Jessica Nutoni, 15, and Katherine "Katie" Merkel, 14, were all killed instantly in the crash. Fellow student James McGee, 14, died later of his injuries from the crash.
Three other teenage passengers suffered injuries but survived and later testified at Vasquez's trial.
Appellate ruling: sentence
'not an abuse of discretion'
Assistant Appellate Defender Sherry Silvern argued in a May 14 hearing before the Appellate Court that the statute allowing for probation in "extraordinary circumstances" did not define that term enough. Further, she argued that the legislature did not give enough guidance to defense attorneys on what that term should mean.
Silvern also argued that the sentence given to Vasquez was excessive.
However, Appellate Judge Ann B. Jorgensen delivered an opinion, with Judges Robert McLaren and Mary Schostok concurring, on June 4 that the sentence was not excessive.
"As to the sentence imposed, it is clearly within the statutory range and is not an abuse of discretion," Jorgensen wrote in her opinion. "We recounted above the trial court's rationale in weighing the statutory mitigating and aggravating factors and fashioning the sentence that it did. The court concluded that the many mitigating factors made inappropriate a maximum sentence or even a sentence near the maximum end of the sentencing range. However, the court considered that, despite defendant's nonmalevolent intentions that night, she made conscious decisions to drink and drive, to greatly exceed the speed limit, and to drive her vehicle with far more people inside than appropriate."
The opinion also stated, "It bears noting that, although the legal process involves many actors playing different roles, each is human. It is clear to this court that the trial judge wrestled with the sentencing decision. This was apparent at both the time of sentencing and postsentencing, where the judge acknowledged that he thought 'very much' about how the sentence would affect defendant's children and that she will miss most of their childhoods. This court, similarly, is not unaffected by the many tragic elements before us."
It continued, "However, while this case has to some degree impacted each person it has touched, the fact remains that the five deceased victims and their families have paid the greatest price. As the trial court noted at sentencing, there are many alternative decisions that could have been made on the night of the accident but, sadly, were not. The trial court's decision is simply not an abuse of discretion and must be affirmed."
The ruling also stated that "extraordinary circumstances," as those to be considered when deciding on a prison sentence, are well defined.
"At a minimum, there already exists a framework to which defendants and courts may refer when considering which circumstances might be so extraordinary that they mitigate against a sentence of incarceration," Jorgensen's opinion stated.
Defense attorney from trial
'disappointed' in decision
Kendall County State's Attorney Eric Weis said he was pleased with the Appellate Court's decision.
"Obviously, we're happy with the ruling in this case, but also the ruling that explains that the 'extraordinary circumstances' is constitutional as it applies to other cases that we have pending," he said.
Kathleen Colton, a Geneva-based defense attorney who represented Vasquez during her 2010 trial, said she was "not surprised, but I am disappointed" in the court's ruling.
Colton said Vasquez's sister left work and drove to the Lincoln prison to tell her of the court's ruling in person shortly after it was filed. She said she had not had a chance to talk to Vasquez following the ruling.
"Everybody's different," Colton said of reactions to appellate decisions. "I've had clients tell me they hope for the best and expect the worst, and that's probably the best way to protect yourself. Realistically, I don't think too many people thought a miracle would happen and the Appellate Court would all of a sudden overturn the sentence or declare the law unconstitutional. I always hold out that hope, but it's sort of a glimmer."
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
