Drunk driver who killed woman seeks lighter term

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 19/06/2010 (5874 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

A Winnipeg man claims he has been unfairly punished for a drunk driving crash that killed an innocent motorist.

Hugo Sergio Ruizfuentes, 42, appeared before the Manitoba Court of Appeal Friday seeking to overturn the six-year penalty he received last fall. Defence lawyer Mike Cook said his client should have been given between three and four years behind bars.

“Parity with other sentences in other cases demands his sentence be reduced,” Cook told the Free Press.

Elaine Stoller, 63, was killed in December 2008 while driving through the intersection of Grant Avenue and Waverley Street. A witness told police Ruizfuentes ran three consecutive red lights and was speeding before hitting Stoller’s vehicle, which had the right of way. Police tested Ruizfuentes three hours after the crash and found his blood-alcohol content was .12, 50 per cent higher than the legal limit of .08.

Ruizfuentes, a married father of three, didn’t fight the case at trial and pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing death. He had no prior criminal record but several previous driving infractions which were cited by the judge.

Cook argued Friday the judge “overemphasized” his client’s Highway Traffic Act record while not giving him enough credit for quickly admitting responsibility, showing remorse and wanting to use the tragedy as a teaching tool for others. Ruizfuentes has already approached Mothers Against Drunk Drivers about doing a series of talks to young drivers about the deadly mistake he made.

“Who better to speak than a man who’s been through this?” said Cook. He called Ruizfuentes a “good man who did a horrible thing.”

Stoller was a beloved mother, grandmother and community figure who founded the Women’s Endowment Fund of The Jewish Foundation of Manitoba. She was on her way home from work and just days away from a Mexican vacation when she was killed.

The appeal court has reserved its decision.

www.mikeoncrime.com