A substance-abuse counselor, Sherri Lynn Wilkins, 53, has been sentenced to 55 years to life in prison for second-degree murder after hitting and killing 31-year-old Phillip Moreno in November 2012 — and then driving away with him dying on her windshield.
Wilkins was found with a blood-alcohol level was nearly twice the legal limit at the time of the accident in Torrence, California. Her defense was curious in that she insisted that she was not drunk but merely “self-medicating” while waiting for knee-replacement surgery. She had consumed three single-serving bottles of vodka and a can of Budweiser beer and Clamato before starting to drive. That would put anyone into a drunken state.
The sentence is quite long for this type of accident which is usually charged as vehicular manslaughter. However, Superior Court Judge Henry Hall said, “Ms. Wilkins demonstrated an extraordinary callousness in fleeing the scene and trying to shake Mr. Moreno’s body off her car. This is a callous murder, not an unfortunate act.” The sentencing is particularly interesting because it was set under the state’s three strikes law. Wilkins has a long history of drug abuse and arrests. Hall used that record to triple the 15 years to life sentence.
The fact that the prior crimes were not crimes of violence makes the case somewhat novel but not unique. Hall acknowledged that and that “She’s not a classic violent criminal. But you have to evaluate her history. She had an insatiable desire to become intoxicated.”
Many courts would have viewed the 15 to life sentence as more than enough for such a crime. The use of the three strikes law could make for an interesting appeal but often sentencing is viewed as a discretionary function for the trial court. It is one of the longest sentences that I have seen in such a case.
Source: Freep
It is surprising that 6 computers crashed at the IRS and not one of them seemed to have the tax code on it. 🙁
randyjet
“RTC Rather than attacking me for my lack of legal education”
The “law” has been hijacked like the tax code. Certain elite “lawyers” have turned the Ten Commandments into an extremely lucrative “golden egg.”
The tax law need not be any more complex than each citizen mailing in a check in the same amount once a year. But look how much money the tax accounting industry would lose.
America does not need a law for everything right down to picking one’s nose but look how much money-for-nothing the “attorneys” would lose. All you have to do is generate a thousand reams of legalese, submit it to the court then be on your wealthy way.
The lawyers write the laws and the laws say, “send your money to us.”
Schulte, are you a troll? I’m trying to obtain the difference between a commenter and a troll. Is that assignation arbitrary?
John – I am pretty sure I am not a fairy tale troll. I have no troll relatives and we have done the family tree on both sides.
Using the urban slang definition, for some people I could be a troll because my posts upset them. Some people are so upset that they spend much of their time on here baiting me so that I will make some comment that will get me banned. So far, they have had no success. In fact, most of them have been temporarily banned themselves for their attacks on me.
However, using that same definition, there are other trolls on here. There is one today who is trying to upset me into making a mistake. It won’t happen but it keeps them occupied.
“You need to refresh you fairy tale knowledge.”
That’s what I have you for, Schulte
RTC – I did teach both classical and world mythology and included fairy tales within those courses. I am glad to keep you on the right track.
Thanks for trying to bring a little clarity to the table by supplying the statutes, Chuck. I wonder how much lawyers puzzle and argue over what an abandoned and malignant heart is.
Schulte: in the first place, sentences within a paragraph relate to each other and build upon one another; Your reading skills are on full display when I point out the preceding sentence to the one you quote, and you misinterpret it as the preceding paragraph; you had two bites at the apple and missed both times.
Second, paragraph relate and build upon each other all the time! Funny, one would have thought with al-l-l-l-l-l-l-l that reading you’ve done, you would have known that.
That water under the bridge? it’s where the trolls belong.
RTC – that is barely referential and does not lead one to believe that you are still talking about reading something, only staying on the same subject. Your next sentence refers to YOU doing something.
FYI, trolls live under bridges, not in the water under the bridge. You need to refresh you fairy tale knowledge.
Randy: I’m not attacking you. I’m merely trying to point out how lay people view the law differently than lawyers.
There is a significant difference between first and second degree murder, and the interpretation of the statutes are as crucial as the facts. For instance, what does an abandoned heart mean to you – I’m asking, what does it mean to you when someone has an abandoned heart. Can someone exhibit an abandoned heart without killing someone?
If you look at the first comment in this thread, you will see mine cheering the sentence that was handed down, because I think drink driving is one of the most loathsome forms of behavior. But I’m confessing that my conclusion was a knee jerk reaction based on emotion and prejudice rather less than a consideration of the facts in this case.
So I thank mespo for reminding us that the law seeks justice and that it requires an impartial view of the facts; under the law, certain factors may be mitigating. And I agree with him that we need more information than what the article gives us before we can make a firm conclusion about the rightness of the sentence.
Paul C. Schulte
Dredd – 17 1/2 years with good behavior is what I give her. She will be out before her 75th birthday.
======================
Ridiculous.
That is only a third of the 55 to life.
She will die in there.
Dredd – do you have any idea how little time people do of their sentence? Ask Lindsay Lohan.
The statute leaves the common law distinctions between first and second degree murder intact. Hence, our discussion of the elements of second degree murder.
OK, guys, lets get down to the definition of “murder.” In the general sense, anyone with a dictionary knows murder is the unlawful and malicious taking of the life of another human being. That said, every state has its own specific definition of what constitutes murder. California Penal Code § 187-199 contains the applicable definitions. The whole Section is far too long to quote here, so I excerpted some of the relevant parts for this discussion:
RTC:
As you point out, I’m not sure when the victim died but JT’s article says “dying” on the windshield not “dead.” I assumed he was dead on impact but you make a good point that such a case is the exception rather than the rule. If she perceived he was in distress at her hand and did nothing except try to shake him off, I would concede that would form the basis for depraved indifference in my mind thus making her liable for the second degree murder conviction. I would like to see some evidence on that point. It’s a question of the ability to perceive and act as a reasonable person would act.
Schulte: Thank you for demonstrating to one and all where the quality of your debate, like water, has leveled out. That water, BTW, is under the bridge.
RTC – I am not the one who did not teach you to write a proper essay.
Schulte: You’re not making any sense. If you want to double down on the silliness, fine. But the preceding sentence in that paragraph identifies the source of knwledge as news reports.
Perhaps you should heed Linclon’s words of wisdom.
RTC – Each para rest on its own and there is no referent from the quoted para to the previous para. If you meant that you remembered reading more than several instances, then that is what you should have said.
Frankly, having James Hanson quit was not a loss to NASA.
Schulte: “RTC – are you saying you are/were a government employee? Because you are claiming specialized knowledge that only an insider or Edward Snowden would have.”
I can’t get over how remarkably insipid this comment is. Everything I said pertaining to Cheney’s overbearing influence on the Bush adminstration and the administration’s direction of the bureaucracy came from news reports and books. Many of the scientists who had their reports edited publicly resigned rather than go along with having their findings falsified. James Hanson is one. And the bean-counter ended up testifying before congress about how he was ordered to omit any mention of the true costs of the medicare drug pplan from his reports and testimony before committees.
(Your heroes surrendered the right of we, the people, to negotiate for lower drug prices. For guys who want run government like a business, that’s a pretty stupid thing to do.)
Cheney’s trips to Langley were revealed in books like Ron Suskind’s One-Percent Doctrine. The one percent threshold, itself, was set by Cheney. Incidentally, there’s a one percent chance you’re wearing a suit of armor at this very moment.
Moreover, I mention a couple of books which outline Cheney’s overbearing power during the Bush era in response to gene braun. BTW, Savage’s book should appeal to the legally savvy.
The point i want to make here is that you blow past all that to make some kind of dig, and not a good one at that. i’ve shown in the past that I can appreciate digs when they’re made with wit, humor, or style. But yours betrayed a short-coming which shows a lack of critical thinking. You seem unable to turn off the soundtrack in your head long enough to understand your opponents argument. You are by no means alone; the American political system thrives on this weakness.
RTC – you wrote
Hence my question about being a government employee with specialized knowledge.
Randy: All due respect, but as I recall, you are not a lawyer, correct – you’re a pilot?
I get the point you’re trying to make about this woman’s intent but I find Mespo’s explanation more logical, legally speaking.
I recognize that the operation of the law is not, and cannot, be as straight forward as we would often like it to be. I admit that it can be frustrating and often not easy to understand. Rather than shoehorning the law to fit our views, we should take time to understand the law and its meaning.
Otherwise, we end up like China
RTC Rather than attacking me for my lack of legal education, you might try stating the actual FACTS and points of law that you disagree with and why. I cited the points of fact that support the sentence and verdict, and of course the FACT that the judge DOES have lots of legal credentials AND POWER to act. I was simply deferring to his judgment, unlike most of those who disagree with it who were NOT at trial and who have second hand information.
She should have been a young illegal alien.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/209524-white-house-to-honor-young-adults-who-came-to-us-illegally
“Maybe the judges hands were tied by three strikes but it doesn’t accomplish anything in my mind except societal vengeance. That’s nothing to feel smug about. It happens all the time in tyrannical societies where human weakness is punished just as severely as evil intent.” -mespo
Spot-on.
The real question I have is what was the judge’s intent in his sentencing — rehabilitation, deterrence or punishment. Most folks know that rehabilitation for substance abuse in prison is almost a non-starter. There are more drugs per capita in prison than out of prison so meaningful rehab is likely to fail. Study after study shows that deterrence is not accomplished by stiff sentences but with the certainty of sentences. Assuming the judge knows what most of us do that leaves punishment. When you punish as severely as here there is an air of retribution. Maybe the judges hands were tied by three strikes but it doesn’t accomplish anything in my mind except societal vengeance. That’s nothing to feel smug about. It happens all the time in tyrannical societies where human weakness is punished just as severely as evil intent.
mespo – at her age and given the length of her sentence, rehab is not an issue. Rehab has to do with the person, not the drugs around them. I believe that sentencing should be retributive at her age.
Mespo: Thanks for reminding us lay-people that the law is constructed of many distinctions and not everything is as cut and dried as we think it appears.
We’d like to think it’s a simple matter of giving pedophiles a fair trial, then hanging him, and thaat there’s no sense in affording them an attorney, or a zealous defense.
I, for one, never questioned whether this was murder. She got drunk, she got behind the wheel, she hit the guy, slam dunk.
It’s one reason why I read these blogs
RTC I think you are missing the point of what the many lawyers here have made. While I do agree that the sentence was a just one, there are many elements of murder that have to be satisfied before one can make that a good verdict. The major problem is that the prosecution has to prove intent to kill. They point out that 1 she was drunk and thus was so impaired that she could not form the requisite intent and 2 that the victim was killed instantly. My difference with their assessment is that the facts do not show that the victim was dead instantly on impact. Thus he was still alive for quite awhile and I guess he died somewhere in the process of driving around with him and/or at the hospital. Since most traffic accident victims do not die instantly, she prevented him from getting aid in a timely manner and thus caused his death. That shows me intent to kill. Then she was not so impaired that she had a further accident, so it is clear that she had enough mental and physical skill remaining to form intent. Thus in my opinion she had formed the requisite intent.
Gene Braun: “RTC – The last time I looked, Cheney was not President, but VP. Since when in our form of government are such orders passed out to our bureaucracy for execution ? How was all this power obtained ? I hate it when people, such as yourself, exposé such overreach. Is it seeking to influence the under-aware or is it only available as a paralogism of a group’s jeremiad ?”
You sound like you splashed down on earth sometime during Obama’s second term, ’cause most of us who suffered through the Cheney administration remember how he took point on the energy policy; then there were the times he visited Langley to personally dictate the conclusions the CIA were to make regarding Iraq; then there was the order to enhance the interrogations. And don’t forget how a staffer in his office revealed the identity of Valerie Plame in retribution for her husband’s revelations of the the administrations lies about yellow cake uranium; he never took any responsibility for that, and let the buck stopped short.
As for passing orders down to bureaucrats, I remember more than several instances where scientific reports were edited, with entire sections deleted and conclusions rewritten to reflect the administration positions, causing several, including NASA’s James Hanson, to resign.
And let’s not forget the mid-level bean counter who’s job and pension were threatened when he was ordered not to reveal the true cost of the adminstrations Medicare drug plan to (Hint: It going to cost a lot more than they were letting on to).
I could go on, but that’s just a few of the examples I can recall before the coffee has kicked in.
I suggest you read Angler by Barton Gellman and Takeover bby Charlie Savage, an excellent report that attorneys should appreciate.
Paralogism? Jeremiad? Terms you learned last semester, and will probably never use again
RTC – are you saying you are/were a government employee? Because you are claiming specialized knowledge that only an insider or Edward Snowden would have.