## Facts

- James Bryan McNiece hosted a sales meeting at a Visalia inn that included a cocktail party and dinner.
- Witnesses gave conflicting accounts about how much alcohol McNiece consumed and whether he appeared intoxicated.
- Near midnight, McNiece drove a Ford Bronco toward an intersection controlled by a stop sign for his direction of travel; cross-traffic had the right of way.
- Evidence supported findings that McNiece drove about 50–55 mph in a 30 mph zone, did not slow or stop at the stop sign, and entered the intersection.
- McNiece’s vehicle collided with a Volkswagen, killing passenger Karen Wonacott and seriously injuring passenger Russell Bitney.
- A responding officer noted the odor of alcohol and instability; a blood sample taken about an hour after the crash showed a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.155%.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying probation and imposing a six-year middle term for vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence plus a consecutive eight-month term for DUI causing injury.
2. Whether the sentence constituted cruel or unusual punishment under the state and federal Constitutions given McNiece’s lack of prior record and his proportionality arguments.
3. Whether the trial court properly relied on probation and sentencing criteria, including offense seriousness, victim vulnerability, and degree of injury.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions and sentence.
- The court held the trial court acted within its discretion in denying probation and selecting the middle term, with a consecutive term on the related DUI count.
- The court rejected the constitutional challenge, concluding the punishment was not cruel or unusual.

## Legal Principles

- Probation decisions are reviewed deferentially; denial will be upheld absent an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.
- In evaluating probation and sentencing, a court may consider offense seriousness, the vulnerability of victims, and the extent of physical injury as legitimate factors.
- When aggravating and mitigating factors are found to be in balance, selection of the middle term is appropriate.
- A term for vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence, combined with a consecutive term for DUI causing injury, is not constitutionally disproportionate where the offense results in death and serious injury and involves substantial intoxication and serious traffic violations.

## Conclusion

The court upheld imprisonment and the middle-term sentence for a DUI-related fatal collision, ruling that the trial court properly applied probation and sentencing criteria and that the resulting term was not constitutionally disproportionate.


People v. McNiece, 181 Cal. App. 3d 1048 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)