ADRIAN — When their 16-year-old son was hit and killed by a drunken driver in 2001, Tom and Mary Walworth hoped the tragedy would be a wake-up call for the young motorist.

It was not.

On Feb. 25, a very intoxicated Christopher Villanueva — now 16 years older than when he killed Victor Walworth — crashed his pickup on Sand Creek Highway, injuring himself and his three passengers. According to a Madison Township police report, Villanueva, 36, of Adrian told officers he and his friends had been drinking at Fricker’s in Adrian then were driving around drinking on back roads. He admitted he was drunk and shouldn’t have been driving.

“I used to pray a lot that he would realize what he did and never do it again,” Mrs. Walworth said, fighting back tears. “This is hard. He did it again, and he could’ve killed more people. I would hate to see another family deal with that. 

“You never get over it. You get through it, but you never get over it.”

Villanueva pleaded guilty June 7 in Lenawee County Circuit Court to felony drunken driving and now faces up to five years in prison and a possible license suspension when he is sentenced Wednesday by Judge Margaret Noe.

Tom Walworth points his finger at the state and the system that allows chronic drunken drivers to drink and drive again.

“The state of Michigan gave him a deal,” Mr. Walworth said. “Maybe if they would have made him do 15 years then he might’ve looked at it a little different.”

In a 2001 plea deal in which Villanueva pleaded guilty to operating a vehicle with a suspended license causing death, he was sentenced to six to 15 years by then-Lenawee County Circuit Court Judge Harvey Koselka. Just 20 at the time — not even old enough to legally drink — Villanueva had struck and killed Victor as he was riding his bicycle home with a friend from Fourth of July fireworks at Posey Lake.

Villanueva was up for parole after six years, but the Walworths challenged it, and he was not released until he had served eight years in prison.

Through his attorney, James Daly, Villanueva declined an interview request. Mr. Daly said he doesn’t blame the Walworths for their feelings.

“They are absolutely 100 percent right, but in this case Chris has now been sober since February of this year,” Mr. Daly said. “I think that is a big step for him. I don’t mean to imply that all is well, but there has been at least a change made.”

He said Villanueva knows he is going to be incarcerated for the new offense but added, “One thing I absolutely know for a fact is he did eight years in prison and it did him no good. ... The problem with incarceration is incarceration is not helpful in rehabilitation.”

It’s an age-old dilemma for law enforcement and the judicial system: how to keep drunken drivers from drinking and driving again and again.

For the Walworths, making drunken drivers serve their full sentence is a start. Not offering them plea agreements that lessen their sentences is another.

When the Walworths’ son, Victor, was killed, prosecutors dismissed charges of driving under the influence of alcohol causing death and third-offense felony drunken driving against Villanueva.

“This could’ve been three more fatalities, and he should have been charged with injuring those three,” the Walworths’ friend, Tammy Bellfy, said of the most recent crash Villanueva caused while driving drunk. “They seem to be overlooking that.”

The Walworths, she said, “want to see something happen before someone else is killed because these two feel that if they didn’t try to stop that, they would take that just as hard. ... When Victor was killed, their hope was that in prison he would realize what he did and come out knowing what he did and take responsibility for it. He’s not taking responsibility for anything — still isn’t taking responsibility.”

Jacqueline Wyse, an assistant Lenawee County prosecutor handling the Villanueva case, said he faces one to five years in prison or up to a year in a local jail. She said she could not comment on what kind of sentence her office is seeking.

The Walworths said they would like to see convicted drunken drivers ordered to pay for interlock-ignition devices on their vehicles which prevent the car from starting if the driver has been drinking.

Michigan law lags

It’s long been a goal of Mothers Against Drunk Driving to see all 50 states require such devices for all convicted drunken drivers, including first-time offenders.

Angel Harris, manager of victim services for MADD Michigan, said 29 states already have passed such a law. 

Michigan, which MADD rates among the lowest for its drunk-driving laws, has not made that a requirement.

Ohio also does not require ignition interlocks for all drunken drivers, but a new law that took effect earlier this year reduces a first-time offender’s 12-month license suspension by half if they use such a device for at least six months.

According to MADD, interlock devices are required for repeat DUI offenders in Ohio, but their usage is up to the judge’s discretion for first-time offenders.

Ms. Harris said Michigan also was the last of the 50 states to reduce the legal blood-alcohol limit for alcohol from 0.1 percent to 0.08 percent — a reduction set to expire next year.

“If you look at those two things together — the 0.08 sunset and the fact that Michigan has not yet passed the all-offender ignition interlock law, that just leaves us open to the possibility that things like this can occur,” Ms. Harris said. “We have the ability to at least decrease the likelihood of repeat offenders getting into their vehicles and starting them and driving them while intoxicated.”

When a drunken driver takes a life and is rearrested for drunken driving, it’s like a punch in the gut to those who lost a loved one — particularly when victims’ families feel the courts did not deliver a just punishment in the first place.

“It definitely compounds a person’s grief and anger when this person reoffends,” Ms. Harris said. “They want to know, why is this person still driving? How does this happen because society knew, the criminal justice system knew, and unfortunately our hands are tied about how those cases are handled.”

Heidi’s Law

Ann Steiner of Bellaire, Mich., tells a story eerily similar to the Walworths’.

In the summer of 1991, her 16-year-old daughter, Heidi, was killed by a drunken driver, who would spend seven years in prison and three years on parole before he, like Villanueva, would again drive drunk.

That was 2001, when Michigan law said drunken drivers who had not been convicted of driving while intoxicated in the last 10 years would be treated like first-time offenders.

“We were furious. We called our friends and filled the court at his arraignment,” Mrs. Steiner recalled. “The judge was furious. The lawyers were furious, but they had to charge him as a first-time offender because 10 years had passed.”

The Steiners worked with their state legislators to pass what’s known as Heidi’s Law — a measure that took effect Jan. 3, 2007, and declares that anyone with two or more prior drunken-driving convictions will be charged with a felony OWI no matter how long ago the prior convictions were.

It was a positive step, but not the solution, she said, adding that there will always be a need for public awareness and education as well as vigilance on the part of bars and other businesses that sell liquor.

Mrs. Walworth said you don’t get over the loss of your child. Mrs. Steiner knows that.

“When you hear people say, ‘Let’s empty out the prisons’ — that drunk drivers don’t need to be there — they haven’t lost someone. It doesn’t affect them,” she said. “To us, it’s God-awful. To somebody else, it’s a business or they may say it’s an accident. It’s just hard to control it, hard to stop it, but if you prevent one really drunk person from getting on the road, that’s a major step. That’s saving somebody else’s life.”

Contact Jennifer Feehan at jfeehan@theblade.com or 419-213-2134.

First Published July 23, 2017, 3:34 a.m.