DUI Lawyer in NYC DUI Hit and Run Sentence Reduced

The client was operating a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol and was involved in a collision that caused physical injury to a pedestrian traveling in the opposite direction. 

Believing the contact to be minor and not immediately recognizing the extent of injury, the client left the scene and returned home. 

Police later located the client through a 911 report and requested a chemical breath test, which the client refused due to fear of enhanced penalties, particularly given prior alcohol related driving convictions. 

At trial, the court entered a conviction for DUI related offenses, hit and run resulting in injury, and refusal to submit to chemical testing, imposing a multi-year custodial sentence.

In this case, the presence of multiple aggravating factors significantly elevated the sentencing range. 

These included prior DUI related convictions, refusal to submit to chemical testing, and failure to remain at the scene following injury to another person. 

New York courts consider such conduct indicative of heightened public safety risk and diminished deterrence, often resulting in extended incarceration absent compelling mitigation.

For this reason, post conviction appellate advocacy focused not on contesting factual guilt but on demonstrating rehabilitative progress sufficient to warrant sentence modification.

Counsel guided the client through a documented reflection and accountability process, including structured self assessment journals addressing the causes of alcohol misuse, decision making failures, and harm caused to others. 

The client also voluntarily enrolled in alcohol counseling and risk reduction programs designed to prevent recurrence. 

These materials were submitted to the appellate court to demonstrate genuine behavioral change rather than superficial remorse, allowing the court to evaluate the client’s present risk profile rather than relying solely on past conduct.

Recognizing that victim impact carries substantial weight in sentencing review, counsel initiated settlement discussions with the injured party, resulting in financial restitution and a formal statement indicating that the victim did not oppose sentence reduction. 

In addition, affidavits from immediate family members were prepared with professional guidance, focusing not on emotional pleas but on concrete supervision plans and support mechanisms to reduce recidivism. 

These submissions collectively reinforced the argument that continued extended incarceration was no longer proportionate.

The appellate court cited the defendant’s documented rehabilitation, victim restitution, and structured family oversight as materially relevant to sentencing proportionality. 

Although acknowledging the seriousness of DUI hit and run injury offenses, the court concluded that a reduced sentence adequately addressed punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

This outcome demonstrates how a DUI lawyer in NYC can effectively advocate for sentence modification even in cases involving multiple aggravating factors when mitigation is properly developed and presented.

Even after a conviction, sentencing outcomes are not always fixed. Appellate advocacy grounded in rehabilitation, accountability, and victim centered resolution can meaningfully alter the course of a defendant’s future. 

Individuals facing DUI related charges or post conviction sentencing concerns should seek counsel experienced in navigating New York’s complex DUI enforcement framework.