|
|
|
|
 Members of the Wapakoneta Middle School Student Council pose for photo outside the classroom earlier this year. To date, the group has raised nearly $2,300 in which they have donated to various local and area organizations throughout the 2009-2010 school year. Photo provided By KRISTA HAYES
Staff Writer
With the end of the school year nearing, Wapakoneta Middle School Student Council members are hoping to end their term on a positive note.
During the school year, the school government raised nearly $2,300 for various local and area organizations.
“Each year, we try and raise as much money as we can for various clubs and organizations that we vote on and decide to help support at the beginning of the school year,” Wapakoneta Middle School Student Council President Neal Maxson said.
Elected a Student Council representative of his homeroom, Maxson, a seventh-grade student, said this is his second year serving on the council. This year as president, his main responsibility is to set forth an agenda and preside over the group’s monthly meetings which are held the first and third Thursday of each month.
“I joined the Student Council because I was looking for a new activity to do and thought it’d be challenging experience,” Maxson said. “Politics have always been one of the things to stick out in my head and when I grow up, I want to be a lawyer.
“Overall, as president I think I have done a pretty good job,” he said. “Being president is a lot harder than what I thought it would be since I have to make the agendas, run the meetings, and keep the advisers in the loop. I have the whole weight of the council on my shoulders, and at times it can get frustrating, but I would recommend it to all the kids coming to the middle school next year because it’s a fun activity to be involved in.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court affirms Mercer case |
|
Tuesday, 19 May 2009 |
By MIKE BURKHOLDER
Staff Writer
Judges on the 3rd District Court of Appeals Monday affirmed the sentence of a Chickasaw man sentenced to more than two decades in prison for his role in the deaths of four Mercer County teens.
Judges upheld the 24-year prison term given to Nicholas Schwieterman, who was sentenced on four counts of involuntary manslaughter and one count each of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol and possession of drugs. Wapakoneta attorney John Poppe and Eric J. Allen argued the prison terms are cruel and unusually punishment — a violation of Schwieterman’s constitutional rights.
In their appeal, Schwieterman’s attorneys claimed the trial court violated his constitutional rights and erred in imposing consecutive, non-minimum sentences on the charges.
On March 15, 2008, Schwieterman apparently ran a stop sign and his vehicle collided with one carrying Jordan Diller, 19, of Maria Stein, Jordan Moeller, 18, of Celina, Jordan Goettemoeller, 19, of Maria Stein, and Bradley Roeckner, 19, of Celina. The four teens were pronounced dead at the scene.
The appellate judges rejected both arguments and affirmed the sentence imposed by Mercer County Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey Ingraham.
In their decision, they determined that the cruel and unusual punishment proportionality test is inapplicable to aggregate prison terms.
The judges also reviewed several cases Schwieterman’s attorneys cited in their appeal regarding unfair prison terms. The panel said the sentences in the case — six years for each of the fatalities — fall within the statutory range and cannot amount to cruel and unusual punishment.
“For a first-degree felony, a trial court may sentence an offender to three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine or 10 years in prison,” the judges wrote. “The individual sentences of six years for each first-degree felony offense were within the valid statutory range.”
The judges also wrote that they found prison terms ranging from five to 10 years in first-degree involuntary manslaughter cases.
In overruling the second assignment of error, the judges wrote that the trial court did not fail to discuss recidivism or mitigation during the sentencing hearing. The judges cited entries made at the hearing detail statements made by Schwieterman as well as witnesses on his behalf.
“The record is clear that the trial court did consider those factors,” the judges wrote. “The court also acknowledged the receipt of a box of hundreds of cards and letters of support and encouragement sent to and received by the defendant during the pendency of this case.”
Mercer County Prosecuting Attorney Andy Hinders and Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Matthew Fox issued a written statement on the opinion.
“The unanimous decision of the 3rd District Court of Appeals affirms the 24-year prison sentence imposed by the trial court for Mr. Schwieterman, validates that the trial court properly exercised its discretion when it sentenced Mr. Schwieterman,” the statement said. “And helps to protect Ohioans from Mr. Schwieterman and those like Mr. Schwieterman who continue to drink alcohol and abuse illegal drugs and then choose to operate motor vehicles on Ohio’s streets and highways.”
Poppe said he is not surprised by the ruling in the case given the stipulations in the initial case.
Despite the ruling, Poppe said he is willing to go to federal court in Schwieterman’s defense.
“We anticipated that when the prosecutor made it a condition of the plea bargain that no factual issues could be appealed, only the issue of sentencing,” Poppe said. “That being the case, that doesn’t change the basic concept that we believe Nick Schwieterman is an innocent man. We are absolutely prepared to go that far, I don’t see any reason not to.”
A motion is currently pending in Mercer County Common Pleas Court requesting a hearing to review evidence in the case. Poppe said no matter the outcome of the request, he expects the issue to end up in the 3rd District Court of Appeals.
“Nick Schwieterman is a person who is wrongfully incarcerated,” Poppe said. “If he Ingraham grants a hearing, fine. On the other hand, if the judge denies it, we will be back in the Court of Appeals and Ohio Supreme Court in order to get to a federal court.”
|
|
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 20 May 2009 )
|
|
|
|
