DES MOINES – An Iowa Appeals Court on Thursday upheld the conviction of a Mason City woman on an operating while intoxicated charge.
Lisa Ann Bailey, 41, was convicted by a jury in Cerro Gordo County court on April 20th, 2012 of a charge of operating while intoxicated brought by Mason City police after an incident on February 19th, 2011. Bailey was sentenced to one year in jail, with all but thirty days suspended, as well as thirty days for two of the traffic violations – which included leaving the scene of an accident, striking an unattended vehicle and open container of alcohol – to be run concurrently.
The court affirmed the conviction Thursday, disagreeing with Bailey’s argument that “Sentencing decisions of the district court are cloaked with a strong presumption in their favor. Where, as here, a defendant does not assert that the imposed sentence is outside the statutory limits, the sentence will be set aside only for an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is found only when the sentencing court exercises its discretion on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.”
Bailey was represented by Colin C. Murphy of Clear Lake.
The Appeals Court agreed with district court judge James M. Drew, who at the time of sentencing told Bailey that “You have a prior conviction for this offense. You smashed into a parked vehicle, causing significant property damage. You then left the scene. You then lied about your involvement. You had what I would consider to be on the higher side of tests. Obviously, I’ve seen a lot higher but I’ve seen a lot lower. It’s nothing to sneeze at. And, quite frankly, of all the things I’ve heard this morning the most surprising is you telling me that you still maintain your innocence. I would classify the evidence against you in this case as absolutely overwhelming of your guilt, and I am mystified as to how you can stand here in front of me today and still maintain that you weren’t driving drunk. That just amazes me. And so even yet today we do have a lack of acceptance of responsibility for your actions, and that cannot be ignored.”
GUILTY OF OWI
Just another Bailey, see also; Travis & Ryan, thinking that the “money of the family” can
save them. Get a clue, cut the purse strings
and let them get what they deserve.
Basically, admitted the guilty addiction to Alcohol
an be responsible for all your actions, drunk or sober help an stay off the roadway,wrongful death
lawsuit, would get you serious time, also a very hefty lawsuit. Take the first step an walk the talk.
The new field sobriety test includes visual proof of chewing on your bottom lip as noted in the picture above.
She absolutely refuses to except that she drove drunk the same way she refuses to except that she’s turning grey.
Baaaahahahahaah! She is gray! Gotta wash that gray right outta her hair!
Way to go Judge Drew. I’ll drink to that!
LMAO. What a loser.
Our courts are clogged with cases like this and when the funding for the judicial was cut it has created real challenges. Not unusual at all for many court cases to take well over a year to even get on the docket.
Shame on her and her attorney for wasting the taxpayers time and clogging up the case loads.
You seem to understand what the appeal was about so can you tell me what were her grounds for appeal? It doesn’t make any sense to me.
Minimum for OWI 1st is 2 days and $1,250 fine; maximum for OWI 1st is 1 year. The range of penalties is set by the legislature. If the judge does more it is an illegal sentence. The judge has discretion to impose a sentence within the range of penalties. He must use legal reasons for the sentence imposed — he cannot consider unproven criminal allegations; the sex of the person, etc. He can consider such things as prior criminal convictions; substance abuse recommendations; whether or not there is an accident, etc.
Thank you
Hey you arm-chair attorneys, can any of you tell me what this means?
”
Sentencing decisions of the district court are cloaked with a strong presumption in their favor. Where, as here, a defendant does not assert that the imposed sentence is outside the statutory limits, the sentence will be set aside only for an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is found only when the sentencing court exercises its discretion on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.”
If you can, please do…in terms a common man can understand.
“Sentencing decisions of the district court are cloaked with a strong presumption in their favor.”
The higher court assumes that, unless otherwise proven, the lower court sentencing was appropriate and correct.
“Where, as here, a defendant does not assert that the imposed sentence is outside the statutory limits, the sentence will be set aside only for an abuse of discretion.”
The appeal was not arguing that the sentence imposed was outside the guidelines given to courts for the crime she was convicted off.
“An abuse of discretion is found only when the sentencing court exercises its discretion on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.”
Sentencing Judges are allowed, at their whim (discretion), to increase (or decrease) the punishment so long as the reasoning is logical and reasonable for the crime and or remorse of the criminal.
About the best I can do.
That helps. Thank you.
This case was a loser from the start. I love how her attorney “took it all the way” to the Supreme Court. I bet he made thou$and$ and she fell for it.
Exactly, I’ve found lawyers to be money grubbing liars for the most part. Of course they love to lead clients paying with money along, because the funny thing his they gets paid more whether they win or lose. It’s a racket like a lot of things. There’s no shortage of crap to waste your money on.
Nobody takes responsibility for there own actions anymore. I blame her and her attorney for wasting the courts time.
Really, cost the taxpayers some more money. What trash.