Wendt was sentenced in Genesee County Court today on his 11 convictions stemming from the fatal accident in Darien Center on Aug. 14, 2009.

Katie Stanley, 18, died in the crash that also injured three other people, and two of them say they continue to have medical problems.

The top count of Wendt's charges was aggravated vehicular manslaughter, which carries a maximum sentence of 25 years.

Judge Robert C. Noonan sentenced Wendt to two and a half to seven and a half years on that count, and Wendt has already been in Genesee County Jail for 13 months, leaving a minimum of 15 months to serve.

On the other 10 counts, Wendt received concurrent sentences ranging from one year to two-to-six years. (For a list of the counts the sentencing options available to Noonan, click here.)

Noonan called the case a tragedy and noted, as did Friedman, that the underlying DWI charge was no more serious than what hundreds of people in Genesee County face every year. If there had been no accident, Noonan said, and Wendt was still arrested, he probably would have faced a misdemeanor DWI case, have it reduced to a violation and have served no jail time.

"You wouldn’t be standing here and you wouldn’t be facing a prison sentence, but unfortunately your conduct did lead to some serious consequences and I intend to impose a serious prison sentence," Noonan said.

Noonan noted that when he was a young prosecutor, a BAC needed to be a .12 and now it's .08, but a deputy Noonan used to know warned all the time about the dangers of people driving with a .07 or .08 BAC.

"As that expert deputy said, a .08 of BAC has a limitation on their motor skills or shortcomings of their perceptions in operating a motor vehicle, and therefore they engage in conduct that endangers the public," Noonan said. "That's what you did here."

Anybody who drinks and drives could wind up in Wendt's situation, said Friedman.

"They all think it could never happen to them, but it does," Friedman said. "That's why we have these laws. The consequences of this case are far worse than anything we’ve seen from a DWI case in this county in a long ling time. I hope it says that way."

Wendt's defense attorney Thomas Burns said Ron is remorseful.

"This has never been anything other than terrible tragedy," Burns said. "From the onset, from his first statement to Deputy Wescott, Ron has been willing to accept responsibility for his actions."

Wendt made only a short statement when asked by Noonan if he had anything to say.

"I would just like to say there isn't a minute that I don't wish I could take that whole day back," Wendt said. "I don’t know how to express how terrible I feel about this whole incident."

Burns, Friedman and Noonan all praised families on both sides of the case who have shown a good deal of class, composure and grace throughout the case.

Paul Mahus, father of Gabby Mahus, who was a back-seat passenger in the vehicle that hit Wendt's truck as it turned left into the parking lot of My Saloon, read a statement from his daughter. 

She's suffered from debilitating headaches since the accident and a good deal of emotional trauma.

"I’m always thinking that Katie could have been doing fun things with us if she was still alive," Paul read from Gabby's statement.

But Mahus, like statements from Rachel Enderle, who was driving the car that hit Wendt's truck, and her cousin Timothy Enderle, also a passenger in the car, did not ask for any specific sentence for Wendt, no call for the maximum term.

"I don’t’ have feeling of hatred toward Ronald at all," said Rachel, through Timothy, who read her statement.

The statement detailed the pain Rachel has suffered because of her foot injury, which still makes it painful for her to walk and has been upsetting to her young daughter.

She did suggest that Wendt be required to speak to groups about drinking and driving and that "I don't want him to forget about it."

After court was adjourned, Timothy Enderle said he was comfortable with the decision.

"I think justice has been served," said Enderle. "Now both of our families can move on."

Friedman met with the families after the sentence and said nobody raised any concerns about the length of the prison term for Wendt.

"As you saw, I didn't ask for any particular sentence," Friedman said. "I didn't feel it was necessary. The court certainly heard from the victims in the case. You said, 'on the lighter side.' It could have been less, it could have been more. The judge has to consider many factors. I certainly respect what he did  and the sentence he imposed."

Burns said his client accepted the sentence graciously.

"Given the range of sentences available to the court, I'm pleased the court decided to go to the lower end, toward the minimum," Burns said. "I think it speaks to Ron's lack of prior criminal history, his lack of prior driving while intoxicated offenses."

Under statute, each felony and misdemeanor carries its own sentencing guidelines, but all of the sentences will likely be served concurrently.

Here are the charges and sentencing options:

1. Driving While Intoxicated as a misdemeanor: 1 year maximum;
2. Driving While Intoxicated, per se, as a misdemeanor (i.e., driving with a BAC of .08 or greater): 1 year maximum;
3. Vehicular Manslaughter, 2nd, a Class D felony: 1 to 3 years, minimum; 2 1/3 to 7 maximum;
4. Aggravated Vehicular Homicide, a Class B felony (referred to as the "top count"): 1 to 3 minimum, 8 1/3 to 25 years maximum;
5. Manslaughter, 2nd, a Class C felony: 1 to 3 minimum, 5 to 15 maximum;
6. Vehicular assault, 2nd, a Class E felony: 1 to 3 minimum, 1 1/3 to 4 years maximum;
7. Aggravated Vehicular Assault, a Class C felony: 1 to 3 minimum, 5 to 15 maximum;
8. Assault, 2nd, a Class D felony: Minimum 2 years, maximum 7 years;
9. Vehicular Assault, 2nd, a Class E felony: 1 to 3 minimum, 1 1/3 to 4 years maximum;
10. Assault, 2nd, a Class D felony: Minimum 2 years, maximum 7 years;
11. Assault, 3rd, a misdemeanor: 1 year maximum.

On a count like aggravated vehicular manslaughter, Noonan could pick the one to three range, and it would mean Wendt would be eligible for parole after one year. If Noonan gave Wendt the maximum under that charge, Wendt would be eligible for parole after eight-and-one-third years. He couldn't serve more than 25 years.

Noonan could also set a range within the minimum and maximum.

Given that Count #8 and Count #10 carry minimum two year sentences, Wendt would have to serve at least two years in prison, even if Noonan picked a lower range on the higher class felonies.

Some key cases that have come before Noonan for sentencing in the past year:

• Scott F. Doll, convicted of beating to death Joseph Benaquist: Doll received 15 years to life. Noonan could have sent Doll to jail for 25 years to life, but said it didn't seem right to lock Doll up for the rest of his life when younger men convicted of the same crime would be getting out of jail in their 50s.
• Thomas Wallace, who admitted to watching porn while driving his truck just as he plowed into a disabled car on the Thruway, killing an Amherst mother, received a three to nine year prison term.
• Dennis M. Abrams, the mastermind of robbing an M&T Bank branch in Elba, where he and his accomplices terrorized the tellers, received a 13 1/2 year sentence.

Wendt's conduct the night of Aug. 14, 2009 was a crucial link in a chain of events that led to a tragic accident. The jury need only find that without Wendt's conduct, the accident would never have occurred.

"If this defendant had not been drinking throughout the day, throughout the evening and throughout the night, Katie Stanley would still be alive," Friedman said. "If he hadn’t felt the need for one more beer and turned in front of that car, Katie Stanley would still be alive."

Defense attorney Thomas Burns argued forcefully in his closing remarks that the evidence does not support the charge that Wendt was driving drunk, nor that he should have reasonably concluded that by making that fateful left turn, an accident would have occurred.

The Sheriff's Office never investigated other factors in the crash, Burns argued, but immediately concluded that Wendt was at fault.

"So the singular focus is what I submit to you is what this trial is ultimately about," Burns said. "How else do we explain, for example, when we know that Mr. Fox said he was speeding, that he was not issued a traffic citation?

"When evidence suggests that Mr. Fox was directly behind Ms. Enderle and that she would have been speeding, there is no suggestion that she was issued a traffic citation in this case. How else do we explain resistance from police witnesses to common law evidence and how the Datamaster can be interpreted as to non-intoxication rather than simply intoxication?"

Wendt's BAC at the time of the accident may every well have been below .08, Burns argued, pointing out the rate of absorption possible would mean his last beer would have been hitting his system just about the time the test was administered.

Friedman, in his more than hour-long remarks, pointed out that absorption into Wendt's blood would have started when he took his first sip of that last beer, not when he finished it. Also, some of the alcohol in his system from his day of drinking would have been leaving his system at the same time.

Wendt's BAC at the time of the accident, Friedman said, could actually have been above .08.

Burns, also taking more than an hour to make his case, argued that the Datamaster is not reliable and like any machine, prone to error, but Friedman said breath tests go back to the 1950s and are standard tools for measuring BAC in criminal cases.

There's no evidence, Friedman said, that the Datamaster is any less reliable than a direct blood test. The results of the Datamaster are a person's actual BAC, not an estimate, as Burns had said, according to Friedman.

Burns also called into question the results of the field sobriety test given to Wendt by Deputy Tim Wescott at the scene. Burns was critical of the lack of consideration for any possible injuries Wendt might have suffered in the violent collision, that his fatigue was a factor and his heavy boots were a factor.

Also, Burns said, since the field test wasn't video recorded, the only record of Wendt's performance on the test was Wescott's memory.

Friedman countered that Wescott was an experienced law officer, that since his report also contained information on the parts of the test Wendt passed, and that by Wendt's own conduct and remarks prior to the test, Wescott's testimony was credible.

Friedman argued that the facts of the case clearly demonstrate that Wendt was intoxicated at the time of the crash and that even though he could clearly see a car right in front of him, he turned in front of it without stopping first and without using his turn signal. 

"I would suggest to you that the defense has tried very hard to complicate a very straightforward case," Friedman said.

The jury is beginning deliberations this afternoon.

If convicted of all charges, the 25-year-old Wendt could face up to 25 years in prison.

The Camry, driven by Rachel Enderle, 27, of Dansville, was likely going at 46 mph at the point of impact.

This is the testimony of accident scene investigator Deputy Ron Meides.

Meides said he had no ability to calculate the speed of the Camry in the second prior to impact.

Defense Attorney Thomas Burns asked a number of questions about the relative speed of the Camry and how much distance it would have traveled at those speeds.

Previously, Enderle and another witness have put the possible speeds in a range from 50 to 60 mph.

Witness Amanda McClellan estimated in earlier testimony that Wendt's truck was traveling at 30 to 40 mph as he attempted to make the turn.

Meides said his calculations were based on the distance the vehicles moved from the point of impact to where they came to rest. Because Wendt's truck hit a parked truck, therefore stopping motion, Meides had to begin his calculations on the distance that the stationary truck moved.

The starting point of the calculations was a gouge in the roadway. He estimated that the Camry traveled 10 feet from the point of impact and the Wendt's Dodge Ram moved 15 feet.

The weights of the vehicles with their respective passengers are also a factor in the calculation, as is the condition of the roadway. 

The type of roadway -- in this case "polished asphalt" (because of heavy use and age) -- adds "drag" to the motion of the vehicles (as does the condition of the tires, but not as much as the road surface).

Because the Sheriff's Office doesn't have the necessary device, Meides did not test for roadway drag to get a precise measurement. He testified that the number he used (called a co-efficient) was .5, which he said is standard under those conditions.

Other testimony today:

Sgt. Steve Mullen of the Sheriff's Office was called back to the stand to narrate a nighttime video he and other investigators made of driving past My Saloon. The video included two vehicles -- a truck stopped with its turn signal on in front of My Saloon and a sedan driving through Darien Center at 45 mph.

The only defense witness called today was Benjamin Bonarigo, an intern at his father's law firm, Bonarigo & McCutcheon. Bonarigo took additional pictures of the accident scene area on behalf of the defense.

Both attorneys rested their cases today and the jury was dismissed for the evening. Closing arguments begin around 9 a.m., Tuesday.

Once the jury was out of the courtroom, Burns resumed his motions for dismissal of all 11 counts against Wendt, saying that the People have failed to make its case that Wendt was driving under the influence and that he drove in a reckless manner.

District Attorney Lawrence Friedman was critical of Burns' motion, saying that Burns offered no proof that the People had failed to make its case. In fact, Friedman argued, there was sufficient evidence of DWI and that Wendt's actions were reckless.

"Obviously it’s our position, and I think that viewing the evidence in the most favorable light to the people, we have established reckless driving," Friedman said. "The defendant turned (left) right in front of a car that is so close. It’s not just his intoxication. It’s not just his traffic violation. It’s that he made the turn with the other vehicle in such close proximity."

The issue of recklessness -- and how to instruct the jury on the charges involving recklessness -- were also a big point of contention between Burns and Friedman when discussing how Noonan will instruct the jury on the charges.

Burns wants a charge that would require the jury to find that Wendt's behavior was clearly reckless, that he acted in a way that showed careless disregard for other people on a public highway. Friedman said under the law, the People don't even need to prove criminal negligence to get a reckless driving conviction -- just that the defendant took an action and it led to the death of another person.

Noonan will issue his rulings on how to instruct the jury on the charges in the morning, but he set no specific time on when he might rule on Burns' dismissal motions.

However, maps generated by the program that depict the accident scene without interpretation can be used, Judge Robert C. Noonan ruled in Genesee County Court today.

The combination of measuring devices and computer programs are known as Nikon Total Station, Vista FX (6th Edition) and Crashnet.

Noonan concluded that there are no precedents for using these programs for the purpose of accident-scene reconstruction and one of the tests of admissibility would be establishing general acceptance for that purpose by the scientific community. That has not been established, Noonan ruled.

In another matter, District Attorney Lawrence Friedman objected to photos brought into court today by defense attorney Thomas Burns, saying he hadn't been properly notified and questioning their evidentiary value.

Noonan ruled that Friedman could challenge the value of the photos as evidence at the time Burns attempts to enter them as evidence.

The photos were taken recently of the accident scene area. Burns said some of the photos show views that have not been offered into evidence by the prosecution.

As I've read our coverage of the Ron Wendt manslaughter trial, I've thought a couple of times it would be useful to see the scene of the accident, what the roadway is like, where buildings are located. 

To help with some perspective are four pictures from the scene. Note, to avoid any visual warping of perspective, I did not use telephoto settings on my lens. I did use a wide-angle setting from the porch of My Saloon.

Top picture is looking east on Route 20/Broadway from the low point of the road, less than 100 yards from the driveway of My Saloon (just past the Route 354 turn sign on the right).

For a bigger version of this picture, click here.

The trial resumes this afternoon.

More pictures after the jump:

Still looking east, but further up the road, where the speed limit changes to 40 mph.  Bigger picture.

The view looking west, the direction Ron Wendt was traveling. Bigger version.

The view from the front porch of My Saloon -- the vantage point of Amanda McClellan, who said she observed Wendt's truck going from 30 mph to 40 mph, and didn't apparently slow before trying to make the turn into the driveway.  The driveway is about four feet to the left of this picture. While McClellan couldn't have seen far up the road, to stand on the porch and watch cars go by gives a different perspective on just how much she could have seen.

Gengo is a clinical pharmacologist at the DENT Neurological Institute and currently serves as an associate professor of Pharmacy and Neurology and a clinical assistant professor of Neurosurgery at the SUNYAB School of Medicine. He now practices neuropharmacology research and pharmacotherapy.

During his initial testimony, Burns asked Gengo to relay to his expertise concerning alcohol in the body, as well as his knowledge of the breathylizer he was experienced in using.

Gengo testified to analyzing breathylizer results and making use of the data for many years. He also informed the court that he took what he believed to be was the same training that police officers take to become certified in giving a breathlyizer test.

Since Gengo is not a government or law enforcement official, he could not take the exact training that police officers do. However, he did say that the training was administered by a former police officer and the curriculum and manuals were the same.

A debate between the prosecution and the defense arose when Burns questioned Gengo about his knowledge of a variance in the results of the DataMaster test, which gauges blood-alcohol level or BAC.

Gengo said he had no designated training specifically in the DataMaster, but based on his reasearch and scientific knowledge, he maintained that scientists generally accept a variance in the DataMaster, and that the mechanism is not 100-percent accurate.

Finnell argued that this testimony should not be used because Gengo has not had any training in that specific device. But Judge Robert Noonan allowed the testimony, saying  the witness was more than capable of having that knowledge based on his scientific background and general understanding of science.

NOTE: Juror #1 was excused due to illness and it was determined that he/she would not be available within the next few days. Substitute Juror #1 replaced Juror #1.

Thirty-five-year-old William D. Marchisin, who says he's known Wendt for a number of years, was called by District Attorney Lawrence Friedman to testify about what he and Wendt did in the hours leading up to the Aug. 14, 2009 accident.

The day started at 11 a.m. at Marchisin's house and included a pizza lunch at about 1 p.m. The two men then went to a neighbor's barn to remove a grain bin and then spent the next several hours baling hay.

According to Marchisin, Wendt brought along a cooler that contained six Arizona Ice Teas and six beers. The two men drank three beers apiece before leaving the field, then at two more at the VFW Hall in Alexander, and then one more in Attica while waiting for their wings to be cooked at a pizza shop  there.

Under cross examination by Wendt's defense attorney, Thomas Burns, it came out that Marchisin has given different versions of the events that day.

In one interview with investigators, he even lied under oath -- he admitted this in court today -- about even being at the accident scene. 

In his first interview with investigator William Ferrando, Marchisin said that Wendt dropped him off at home before Wendt drove to My Saloon (the accident occurred in front of the bar on Broadway Road in Darien). A few minutes later, Marchisin gave a new sworn statement saying that he was in the truck when it was struck by a car driven by Rachel Enderle.

Marchisin said he was scared during the Aug. 18 meeting with Ferrando, which is why he lied.

As for when he and Wendt had their first beer, Marchisin has given different time lines. In Grand Jury testimony, he said 7 p.m. Today, he said under direct examination that it was 8 p.m., but later testified that it might have been 15 or 20 minutes after 7 p.m.

Marchisin also admitted that he left the scene of the accident as soon as ambulances arrived.

He described the post-accident scene as chaos, with people yelling and screaming, and bar patrons mobbing the scene, bringing out drinks, including beer bottles, and setting them on the car and truck.

"I stood there on the curb," Marchisin said. "I stood there and I don’t want to say 'awed,' but dazzled, and I considered the scene secured, I guess, and I told Ron, 'I can’t handle it anymore,' and I walked home."

Marchisin lives about a mile from where the accident occurred.

Wendt's friend did not testify about the accident itself and may be called back to the stand on another day to testify about what he saw and heard.

First on the stand today was Ferrando, who photographed the accident scene and authenticated the pictures as evidence.

Among the pictures, are two that show a LaBatt's Blue beer box in Wendt's pickup bed and what appeared to be a Blue beer can on the ground next to the truck.

Also on the stand for a brief time was Gabby Mahus, who was a passenger, sitting behind the driver, in the car that hit Wendt's truck.

She broke down when describing the accident scene and Katie Stanley being taken from the car, apparently not breathing. Judge Robert Noonan authorized a short recess so she compose herself, but Friedman had only two more questions for her when she came back.

We'll have coverage of the afternoon testimony later.

Wendt, on trial for manslaughter and reckless driving, is accused of turning left on Route 20 at the location of My Saloon in Darien Center, right in front of 27-year-old Enderle's car.

Enderle's Camry plowed into the side of the Dodge Ram truck, and Enderle apparently neither hit her brakes nor swerved to avoid the accident.

Katie Stanley, 18, died as a result of the accident. She was a passenger in Enderle's car.

Alexander resident Wendt, 25, could serve up to 25 years in prison if convicted by the 12-person jury of aggravated reckless driving.

Enderle testified today that she wasn't distracted in any way prior to the accident, though she was probably going 55 mph in the 40 mph zone. The Dansville resident testified that she didn't see the lower speed limit signs when driving into the hamlet.

The only thing she remembers is seeing the maroon passenger side door of Wendt's truck just before hitting it.

"I didn't know where it came from," Enderle said.

She said she had no time to react.

"In my head and my heart, I do feel like I got my foot on the brake," Enderle said."I don’t know if pushed down on it."

While another witness testified that Wendt had his headlights on, Enderle said she didn't see the headlights of his truck approaching from the east. 

Two of the three witnesses who testified today could not recall with certainty whether Wendt used his turn signal.

Another witness, Amanda McClellan, who was standing on the recessed porch of My Saloon, and couldn't possibly have had a clear view of Wendt's truck as it approached the spot of the accident, said Wendt didn't have his turn signal on.

While Enderle said she had no time to react, another driver, Brian C. Fox, of Portageville, said he was two or three seconds behind Enderle's Toyota, managed to slam on the brakes of his pickup truck and stop five feet short of the collision.

Fox said he saw Wendt's truck -- with headlights on -- down the road before Wendt started his turn, but said Wendt turned quickly right in front of Enderle's car.

Asked by District Attorney Lawrence Friedman his opinion on whether the driver of the Toyota could possibly have had time to react, Fox said,  "There was nothing they could do."

Speed, of course, is an important factor in reaction time. 

Both Fox and Enderle testified that they couldn't say for sure how fast they were going, but there were driving with the flow of traffic.

Evidence indicates that Fox told investigators after the accident that he was going 55 mph. Today, Fox testified that he said he was going 55 because he thought that was the speed limit on that stretch of Broadway Road.

Today, he initially testified that he must have been going between 45 mph and 55 mph.

At a DMV hearing some months ago, Fox testified that he may have been going as fast as 60 mph.

McClellan testified that she thought Enderle was traveling at about the speed limit, or 40 mph. She estimated Wendt's speed to be between 30 and 40 mph as he went into the turn into the parking lot, though she admitted she didn't hear his tires squeal or see his truck fishtail.

Both Enderle and McClellan testified that beer cans and bottles flew from the bed of Wendt's truck at the time of impact. McClellan said there were as many as 20 beer containers on the ground near the accident scene. 

"A man had said let’s get these cans and bottles out of here before the cops get here," Enderle said.

Testimony in the Wendt trial resumes in the morning.

Now there are 11.

A juror was excused this morning for medical reasons.

About a dozen people from the original jury pool entered the court room today expecting to go through the interview process for the alternate jury seats, but now one of them will fill the 12th seat.

Then another juror sent a long note to Judge Robert C. Noonan this morning raising a number of concerns that he said came up over night related to his job. The juror also apparently discussed his situation with another juror.

After interviewing the juror who wrote the note, Noonan declined to dismiss him from service, saying that under New York statutes, once a juror is sworn the bar for removing a person from the jury becomes much higher.

Opening arguments in the case once all 12 jurors and alternates are seated.