Opinion
Nos. 76-389, 76-432, 76-554, 76-625, 76-752, 76-769, 76-857 and 76-1055
Decided October 6, 1976.
Criminal law — Driving while intoxicated — Minimum sentence — R.C. 4511.99(A), constitutional — Prohibition — Writ not available, when.
IN PROHIBITION.
The facts herein are not in dispute. Relators are all charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol, a violation of R.C. 4511.19, and are to be tried before respondent, Judge of the Medina Municipal Court.
Relators' contention is that the mandatory minimum sentence of a three-day imprisonment, as provided by R.C. 4511.99(A) for violation of R.C. 4511.19, is an unconstitutional usurpation of judicial power as it conflicts with R.C. 2929.22 which sets out criteria to be used by courts in determining sentences for misdemeanors.
Relators seek to prevent the trials of their causes.
Mr. Robert G. Schultz, Jr., for relators.
Mr. J.M. Kinney, prosecuting attorney, for respondent.
Although R.C. 2929.22 does enumerate criteria for use by courts in determining misdemeanor sentences of imprisonment or fines, or both, there is no conflict therein with the mandatory minimum three-day imprisonment provision of R.C. 4511.99(A). The criteria afforded by R.C. 2929.22 are still available for use by courts in determining severity of sentence beyond the statutory minimum. Such minimum sentence is properly within the scope of the General Assembly's adoption of the Criminal Code.
For reason of the foregoing, the writs of prohibition are denied.
Writs denied.
O'NEILL, C.J., HERBERT, CORRIGAN, STERN, CELEBREZZE, W. BROWN and P. BROWN, JJ., concur.