A state appeals court has ruled that a woman involved in a Woodford County crash should be resentenced after a judge failed to properly consider her level of impairment when sentencing her to prison.
Kaitlyn Scott, now 36, could be resentenced after the three-judge panel from the Fourth District Court of Appeals made the ruling earlier this month.
Scott was sentenced last year after she pleaded guilty to aggravated driving while under the influence following an El Paso-area crash that left 67-year-old Ralph Brown of Chenoa dead.
According to court records, Scott drove a large truck into an opposite lane and crashed into Brown’s vehicle. Brown was pronounced dead at the scene.
His family, including his widow of 41 years, testified that the Navy veteran and grandfather's death had caused them "pain and suffering."
While Scott said the crash was a result of her taking her eyes off the road to eat, a urine test came back positive for methamphetamine, prompting the aggravated DUI charge. The charge could result in anywhere between 3 to 14 years in prison.
Judge Michael Stroh sentenced her to 11 years to be served at 85%.
But in an appeal to the state, Scott argued that the court failed to consider a number of factors during her sentencing that should have led to fewer years in prison, including her character and documented struggles with addiction and mental health following her military service.
An Air Force veteran who served multiple tours of duty in Afghanistan before being honorably discharged, Scott had been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder [PTSD] and severe depression and anxiety, according to court records. And, while she completed a program through Veterans Treatment Court, she was on court supervision at the time of the crash for another related to possession of methamphetamine.
The state appeals court ruling indicated that the Woodford County court did take into account Scott’s character, including her remorse for the crash that had claimed Brown’s life. The court did rule, however, that the low level of methamphetamine present in her system could have been considered at Scott’s sentencing and that it was not “properly” taken into account.
While the level of the drug present in her system would have resulted in an aggravated DUI regardless, the level to which it was present could be considered during sentencing — something the appeals court said was “absent from both the evidentiary record and the argument of counsel” because there had been no argument that Scott’s drug use had caused the crash since she had admitted to using the substance two days prior.
Justice Raylene Grischow wrote the opinion and justices Peter Cavanagh and Eugene Doherty were in agreement with the ruling.
The state appeals court ruling vacating Scott’s sentence and calling for a resentencing was issued on Dec. 5. It is unclear when a resentencing will happen.
