Marshall Democrat-News: Local News: Driving while revoked nets suspended prison sentence

Stanley R. Haskins, 39, of Marshall, pleaded guilty to one count of class D felony driving on a revoked or suspended license and two counts of class A misdemeanor fraudulent use of a credit/debit device in Circuit Court Monday, Nov. 9.

Haskins was sentenced by Judge Dennis A. Rolf, who sentenced Haskins to four years in Missouri Department Corrections and three 30-day sentences in Saline County Justice Facility. The prison sentence was suspended in favor of a five-year term of probation; all three 30-day sentences are to be served concurrently, with credit for time served.

Rolf reminded Haskins his prior convictions for driving on a revoked license led to a more severe sentence.

According to unofficial online court records, Haskins has six previous convictions for driving while revoked or suspended, including two in 2007 and one in 2008.

Haskins has previous arrests for property damage, forgery, tampering with a motor vehicle and domestic battery, among others.

http://www.marshallnews.com/story/156064...

Nice..........and yet ANOTHER ONE walks!

-- Posted by Curiousintown on Tue, Nov 10, 2009, at 11:15 AM

Kathy,

If Don says so, then I concede. I must have been misinformed by other attorney's?? I have been told it was law for years, sorry I miss spoke. I still think an elected official has the duty to state why they abstain, it seems only appropriate to do so! I have no idea how voting on a salary issue could possibly warrant an abstaining vote?? I'd still like to know the reason if you hear why please let me know..Thanks

-- Posted by Gumby on Mon, Nov 9, 2009, at 9:08 PM

Gumby: I believe he was ordered to pay, yes. Oh, that reminds me. I spoke to the prosecuting attorney today and he told me elected officials may abstain, and are not required to give a reason for doing so. Thought you'd like to know.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Mon, Nov 9, 2009, at 6:49 PM

Advocate: If you think the story is biased, please say why.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Mon, Nov 9, 2009, at 6:06 PM

Seems like the facts have been reported. What's not objective about that? I think Kathy Fairchild did a great job reporting on this story.

-- Posted by born-n-raised on Mon, Nov 9, 2009, at 5:50 PM

Enjoying objective journalism...hmmmmm....

-- Posted by ADVOCATE on Mon, Nov 9, 2009, at 5:44 PM

Response by Eric Crump/Editor:

The story looks objective to me. It includes information available from the court session and in court records. It's the same kind of information we routinely publish in court stories. Is there a problem?

Yip, such a nice guy that never had a chance to change. I say keep giving him probation on all of his crimes will help him alot..

Does he have to reimburse the county for the 30 days of tax payer funded vacation in the county jail?

-- Posted by Gumby on Mon, Nov 9, 2009, at 5:43 PM