Judge grants probation to drunken murder - no justice for Kelly Williams.

Pending before the Court is the State’s Motion to exclude the Defendant, Dylan Alexander Meyer, from receiving Earned Compliance Credits during his five year term of supervised probation. A hearing on this matter was held on March 4, 2016. At that hearing, the Defendant, Dylan Alexander Meyer, was present with counsel, Callie Moench. The State was represented by Philip Fuhrman. At that hearing, the Defendant, having been advised of his rights to a hearing on this matter, knowingly and voluntarily consented to the State’s request that he be excluded from receiving Earned Compliance Credits during his five year period of supervised probation. At sentencing, the Court considered a number of factors including the seriousness of the offense, the loss of Kelly Williams’ life, the damage suffered by her family and friends, the effect that the offense had on the community, deterrence, punishment, and rehabilitation. In considering its sentencing options, the Court also considered that a sentence of ten to fifteen years would, in effect, cause the Defendant to be imprisoned until he was in his 30s or nearly his nearly his entire adulthood up to that point. The Court believed that under that sentencing scenario, the Defendant would have very little chance of becoming a productive member of society upon his release from such a sentence. Instead, he would likely turn to further substance abuse and a life of crime with new victims. It is for that reason that the Court imposed the sentence that it chose. However, the decision to impose the sentence ordered was not a decision reached quickly or easily by this Court. The crash was violent and the injuries to Kelly Williams were horrific. The Court is also mindful of the tragic loss suffered by the parents, family, and friends of Kelly Williams. The pain and sorrow that they endure daily from this senseless crime can never be erased from their hearts. As a result, the Court understands how many in the community believe that a prison sentence of even fifteen years in a penitentiary would be too lenient of a sentence. In the end though, the Court is bound to impose a sentence that is just and which takes into account many factors including the needs of the entire community, both now and in the future. In imposing the sentence that it did, the Court concluded that due to the Defendant’s age and lack of substantial criminal history, there were tools still available within the judicial system short of incarceration in a penitentiary to craft an appropriate sentence. This Court has repeatedly witnessed the success that the Greene County Drug Court has had on individuals with similar backgrounds as the Defendant. That is not to say that successfully completing the Greene County Drug Court will be an easy road for the Defendant to travel. The Greene County Drug Court is very strict with little tolerance for noncompliance. In the event that the Defendant is unwilling to successfully complete the sentence that is ordered and violates his probation, he immediately faces ten years in the penitentiary. At this point, the choice is up to him to change his life or face a lengthy period of imprisonment. Generally, a Defendant who is successful on probation is eligible to receive Earned Compliance Credits. However due to the nature and circumstances of this offense, the history and character of the Defendant, the need for an intensive period of supervision and guidance to ensure that the Defendant continues to abide by the law, and the need to protect the public, the Court finds that it is necessary for the full five year term of probation to be completed successfully by the Defendant. As part of that probation, the Defendant is required to participate in and successfully complete Greene County Drug Court, perform 300 hours of community service, not consume or possess alcohol or illegal controlled substances or associate with those who do use illegal controlled substances, not operate a motor vehicle unless authorized to do so by the State and then only operate a vehicle equipped with an interlock device, and be in school full time or employed full time. As such, the State’s motion for excluding the Defendant from earning compliance credits while serving the five year term of supervised probation previously ordered is hereby granted.