5 Years in Jail for Killing Cyclist
 

Still not enough for taking a human life, but at least he got jail time:

http://cjonline.com/news/2011-06-02/...cycle-fatality

Quote:
"A lawyer was sentenced Thursday to more than five years in prison tied to the hit-and-run drunken driving death in September of a bicyclist in rural Shawnee County.

Based on a plea agreement, prosecutors and defense attorneys for Marc Schultz, 40, urged Shawnee County District Court Judge Dave Debenham to sentence him to a total of 43 months after he pleaded no contest to reckless involuntary manslaughter, driving under the influence of alcohol in a fourth or subsequent case and leaving the scene of an accident in which a death occurs, all in the death of Timothy Roberts, 55, the bicyclist.

As part of the plea, attorneys recommended the sentences for the DUI and leaving the scene of the accident should be concurrent to the manslaughter conviction of 43 months.

Instead, Debenham sentenced Schultz to consecutive terms of 43 months for the manslaughter conviction, 12 months for the drunken driving conviction and seven months for leaving the scene. That totals 62 months, or five years and two months..."

If it would have been a freak accident such as him just have seizure at the wrong time then I would say to just take his license away until he shows signs of not being likely of having one again........ but this was caused due to blatantly disobeying the law and DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE. Don't get me wrong, I love sitting down and relaxing with a beer or two just as much as the next guy, but I have never drank and drove.

Well, hopefully we can add four years of college, three years of law school, and at least six months waiting for bar exam results - plus whatever time he worked to pay off any student loans - to the portion of this guy's life he wasted in one evil act. It's no guarantee, but something this public should keep any law firm from wanting to be associated with him even if the Kansas Bar Association overlooks it.

There is one thing that I have to say that I liked about this article or more correctly about the comments. That is that there were more comments supporting tougher sentencing than there were excusing the hit and run driver's actions.

I did have to laugh though when the hit and run driver used this as an "excuse" for his actions:

If he was so concerned for his son's well being why was he driving drunk in the first place?

Wow, I didn't read the full article, so I didn't know that it was a hit-n-run. That makes it just that much worse. I wish the best and am praying for Timothy Roberts family.

Go back and read it.....He did stop to pick up his broken car pieces....Then he left.

My wife was hit and run by a bar patron on her bicycle the night we returned to Queens from our honeymoon. She survived the ordeal without sustaining permanent injury, but I still relish any news of justice in hit and runs like this.

"In imposing the sentences, Debenham noted Schultz hadn’t stopped to render first aid to Roberts after hitting him with a station wagon but did stop to pick up parts from his damaged vehicle before leaving."

Wow!! So basically he knew what he did was going to get him in some serious $H1T and didn't want to leave any evidence behind.

That's all that he did, he didn't render any sort of aid to his victim. So isn't that still a hit and run?

Truthfully I think the judge was very lenient. "I commend you on your honesty in this case," Debenham said. "I'm not sentencing you because you're a bad person. I'm sentencing you because you've done a bad act."

Lets see, he had 3 previous DUI's. Chose to drive drunk with his young son making it his 4th. Stated he didn't have the money to pay the $2500 fine and would need to sell 1 of his 3 vehicles. Did stop...but only to pick up the pieces of his car. Left a man dying in the street so his young son wouldn't be traumatized.

So Judge Debenham, how many "bad acts" has this man done? Well, at least he was "honest" :rolleyes:.

I have to wonder if he was charged with:

Destroying evidence as well as tampering with a crime scene? As isn't that what he did by stopping to pick up the pieces of his car and than driving off?

If this would have happened in SoCal, this guy might just be looking at a life sentence. Several DA's in SoCal are making people convicted of DUI sign a document wherein they claim to understand that the decision to drive drunk is potentially deadly and therefore if they drive drunk and someone is killed they will be charged with murder.

Just last week a repeat drunk struck a car full of high-school girls driven by one of their parents. One girl died and the drunk driver is being charged with murder. It won't bring her back, but it will prevent the drunk from killing again.

I would sure like to see this practice spread throughout the nation. (The murder charge for repeat drunks, not the drunk-driving killing. We have enough of that already.)

This is another thing I'm wondering about; at least two more charges that weren't pursued. Most states make DUI with an underage passenger something along the lines of reckless endangerment now, and he clearly tampered with evidence.

That's a good question. Why didn't the DA throw "every charge in the book" that they could make stick at this guy?

Wouldn't the destroying evidence, tampering with a crime scene, as well as the DUI with a minor passenger been enough for even more years in jail/prison?

could just be part of the plea-bargain. this is encouraging - "The 43-month sentence was an upward departure on the manslaughter charge, which ordinarily carries a prison term of 31 to 34 months. To depart upward, Debenham found Roberts was "particularly vulnerable" when he was struck."

does anyone know if it'll be possible for this guy to be lawyer after serving jail time? i think when he gets out, he'll have a career washing dishes at waffle-house... or stocking shelves at wal-mart. oh... does wal-mart hire ex-cons?

this driver seems like a failure... but the state failed several times to keep him off the road. who knows how many times he didn't get caught driving drunk, how many times he endangered his young son while driving drunk, and how many times he left the scene while drunk. at least he'll have a few years to dry up and think about it. his family must be proud.

also note that this guy said he didn't have money to pay the fine... so it probably doesn't make big a difference to the victim's family that he'll be in jail, and unable to pay any civil judgments. if he owns a house or any other assets, i hope the victim's family can have them sold at a sheriff's auction while he's locked up.

I think smasha is right that things were part of the plea agreement and he would not be charged if he plead guilty. I just took exception to the judge labeling what this man did as "a" (as in singular) bad act.

I really feel this guy is only partly "sorry" that he killed someone, but more "sorry" because he didn't get away with it. And when he gets out after probably completing 2/3 of his sentence he'll do it again. Hopefully this time his "young son" won't be with him to witness his next act (don't want any witnesses this time to rat out daddy :innocent:)

That's probably right, than I guess the question to ask is why didn't the DA's office require that he plead guilty to everything that he did that day? Agreed, there were several bad acts leading up to this "singular" bad act. And what a joke the commend the "man" for his "honesty" in the situation.

I think that you're right about that.

Or to be "traumatized" by seeing his "loving" daddy striking and killing an innocent bystander.

that's not how plea bargains work. it seems like sentencing was not part of the deal, so my guess is that leaving out some charges was the deal. if the prosecutor wanted to throw everything at him, and can't negotiate the sentence, then they guy has nothing to lose by getting a court appointed lawyer and dragging out the case for a few weeks. in order to not tie up the courts, they leave out a few charges, the guy pleads guilty to a bunch of other charges, and the judge gives him some time to think things over.

it's an imperfect system, and his victim is still dead, but under the circumstances (including lenient laws that let him go this far with multiple DUIs) it's probably a reasonable outcome.

Sadly, you're probably right. The real irony is that if I'm not mistaken that the "good" doctor out in LA got a stronger sentence for his acts and he didn't kill anyone. Yes, I know that we're talking about two different jurisdictions, but it is ironic nonetheless.

Here's a good question, at this point in time when everyone and their brother knows full well what will happen if one goes out drinking, and get's behind the wheel and drives. How is doing so NOT the equivalent to premeditation?

As correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't going out drinking, enough to be over the legal limit. The ultimate FU to everyone, as well as showing a lack of concern for anyone on the road?

I suppose that will depend on his state's bar. In the '80s I had a friend who spent his law school years in the bottom of a bottle of booze. He somehow managed to graduate and then sailed through the bar exam. Since he had picked up three DUI's during law school, the bar refused to admit him until he could prove he had sobered up and had completed treatment for his substance abuse problem.

I would bet that a larger problem for this lawyer is the fact that he tampered with evidence. It's kind of hard to allow someone to be an officer of the court when they are so lacking in ethics.

They should put him out on a bike for the rest of his life. The ultimate irony.

"Marc Schultz, a Topeka lawyer, who struck and killed Tim Roberts with his car in Topeka last September, has pleaded no contest to involuntary manslaughter, driving under the influence, and of leaving the scene of an accident involving a death. All are felonies." - http://www.kansascyclist.com/news/20...ted-in-topeka/

not on the list - tampering with evidence, tampering with a crime scene, etc.

it's kind hard to let someone be an officer of the court after they serve prison time on three felony convictions... but yeah, i'm sure it does vary from state to state.

"Schultz had three prior DUI arrests, one in 1989 and two in 2000. Schultz also pleaded no contest to driving an unsafe speed for road conditions in 2003, and to speeding in 2007. After killing Tim Roberts last September, blood tests showed Schultz had marijuana, tramadol, and citalopram in his system, and his blood-alcohol level was 0.12 percent." - this guy, and his liver, have got some things to work out over the next few years. when he gets out, i hope he can't afford a car. ever.

Well, I understand your sentiment but, although you can't bring back the dead, you can can compensate the dead man's family. I've got no problem allowing him to keep practicing law as long as he is forced to give the bulk of his earnings to the family. As long as he is never, ever, allowed behind the wheel of an MV again I would rather have him working to make restitution than rotting in jail. And for those of you who want to see him suffer - trust me, watching most all of the money he earns go to someone else will hurt. The family should have no trouble winning a civil judgement against him and secure a lien on his future income. I hope they do.

on this 'document'..... this was mentioned in another thread..... what a crock. by obtaining a driver's license, you are presumed to be aware that driving under the influence is a crime and of the associated penalties. what possible value does signing a document offer. nothing. not at all. this effort is a joke because it offers no value, but it makes someone look good, though.