Man Faces Judge With 9 DUIs, and He Still Thinks Probation Is on the Table

A Michigan judge rejected a defense request for leniency and sentenced Charles Sarazin to prison after reviewing what he described as a decades-long pattern of drunken driving, probation violations and repeated disregard for court orders, according to courtroom footage shared by The Court Docket Network.

Judge Jason Elmore said Sarazin was before the court for his ninth lifetime operating-while-intoxicated conviction, with a habitual felony offender enhancement also attached to the case.

What began as a sentencing hearing where both sides discussed jail and probation quickly changed once Elmore started working through Sarazin’s record in detail.

Prosecutor Says Eight Prior Cases Did Not Work

The prosecutor told Elmore that Sarazin had claimed during a substance-use assessment that he did not currently have an alcohol problem, something the state found difficult to square with yet another impaired-driving case.

“He didn’t learn his lesson the first eight times,” the prosecutor argued.

The state supported a sentence involving more jail time and a longer period of probation, saying Sarazin needed additional services and needed to stop drinking and using drugs.

The prosecutor said he would have accepted three years of probation and even suggested five could be reasonable.

At that point, probation still appeared to be very much on the table.

Defense Points To Long Gap Between OWIs

Sarazin’s defense attorney asked the judge to consider that more than a decade had passed since his previous drunken-driving arrest.

He also pointed to family members sitting in the courtroom and argued that Sarazin had meaningful support around him.

The defense said Sarazin had come close to qualifying for a scoring rule that would have reduced the impact of his older offenses.

His attorney also tried to explain Sarazin’s statement that he did not have a “current” drinking problem.

The lawyer argued that Sarazin was not saying he had done nothing wrong, but rather that he did not drink every day or suffer serious withdrawal symptoms.

The defense ultimately asked Elmore to consider releasing him with an extended period of probation.

Sarazin himself declined to make a statement.

Judge Starts Questioning His Story

Elmore then turned to the presentence report.

He asked Sarazin whose vehicle he had been driving at the time of the latest offense.

Sarazin said it belonged to his wife.

The judge then noticed another detail in the report stating that Sarazin had told police he was on his way to his girlfriend’s home.

Sarazin responded that he had actually been going to a Super Bowl party and explained that he and his wife were separated.

That inconsistency immediately caught Elmore’s attention.

The judge also focused on the fact that the vehicle allegedly had no registration or insurance and that Sarazin was not legally supposed to be driving.

Elmore said the quality of family support mattered little if relatives were helping Sarazin gain access to vehicles despite his record.

He was careful not to accuse any specific family member without evidence, but said that if someone knowingly gave Sarazin a car, that would amount to enabling him.

Elmore Says Sarazin Lost Credibility

The judge’s concern went beyond the vehicle.

Elmore said Sarazin had also denied drinking when officers questioned him, even though other motorists had reportedly called police about his driving and he was later found in a ditch.

“If you end up in the ditch with a car and then the police officers ask, ‘Are you drinking?’ and you say, ‘No,’” Elmore said, “it’s just kind of funny and sad.”

He also noted that Sarazin had been driving without a valid license, without insurance and in an unregistered vehicle.

Elmore said the differences between what Sarazin told evaluators, what he told police and what appeared in the presentence report damaged his credibility.

The judge repeatedly emphasized that he had reviewed the defense mitigation materials closely.

He said he appreciated the work of the public defender’s social worker and Catholic Human Services, but when the accounts did not line up, that mattered.

“You should never ever drive a car,” Elmore told him. “You should never ever consume alcohol.”

Criminal History Dates Back To 1972

Elmore then worked through Sarazin’s criminal history almost year by year.

He started with a larceny case from 1972.

From there, the judge described probation violations, property crimes, marijuana cases and repeated drunken-driving convictions.

Sarazin’s first DUI came in 1978.

The second followed several years later.

Then came a third in 1989, a fourth in 1990, another alcohol-related driving case, a fifth OWI, a sixth and then a seventh.

Elmore repeatedly pointed out that Sarazin had violated probation, offended while on bond and returned to driving after earlier punishments.

At one point, the judge summarized the pattern bluntly: jail had not worked, fines had not worked, probation had not worked and prison had not worked.

The long history mattered more to Elmore than the recent gap.

He said Sarazin had almost reached a 10-year break that would have reduced how much the older record counted under the sentencing guidelines, but earlier misconduct on bond prevented that.

Then came an eighth OWI in 2014.

Now, he was back for number nine.

Judge Rejects The Probation Recommendation

Elmore said the fact that Sarazin had gone years without being caught did not convince him the underlying problem had disappeared.

“The fact that you didn’t get caught for a period of time,” he said, “that means you’re just really good at not getting caught.”

The judge said Sarazin had demonstrated over decades that he would drive when he wanted to, regardless of suspensions, prior convictions or court orders.

He also rejected the defense argument that Sarazin’s drinking was manageable because he did not drink every day.

Elmore said the real issue was what happened when Sarazin did drink.

In the latest case, the judge said Sarazin had reached a blood-alcohol level of about .14 and still got behind the wheel.

That, in Elmore’s view, created a serious danger to other people.

$20,000 Restitution Also Comes Up

The judge also brought up an unpaid restitution balance from an older case.

Elmore said Sarazin still owed roughly $20,000 from a 2006 matter and had been paying only about $25 per month.

The judge said he would not add some other fees because of that existing debt.

Still, he made clear that he was unimpressed with Sarazin’s financial responsibility.

“If you can afford to go out there boozing and drinking,” Elmore said, “you sure as heck can pay more than $25 a month.”

That comment reinforced the judge’s broader view that Sarazin had repeatedly chosen his own priorities over court-imposed responsibilities.

No Probation, Just Prison

Elmore ultimately rejected the recommendation for probation.

“There is no supervision fee because there is no probation,” he said.

The judge sentenced Sarazin to 24 to 90 months in prison and credited him with 57 days already served.

Elmore said the sentence was within the guidelines and was both reasonable and proportionate given Sarazin’s record.

He also noted that the habitual-offender enhancement mattered.

The judge questioned the logic of pleading to such an enhancement and then asking the court not to impose the consequences that came with it.

In the end, the roughly 10-year gap that the defense hoped would persuade the court to go easier did not carry much weight.

For Elmore, the more important pattern stretched across more than five decades.

Nine impaired-driving convictions, repeated probation violations and continued illegal driving convinced him that another round of probation was not enough.

Sarazin entered the courtroom hoping his recent history might soften the sentence.

Elmore looked at the full record and reached the opposite conclusion.