SPOKANE - An appellate court upheld Ronald D. Zigan's conviction for killing a Soap Lake business owner while he was driving drunk.

The Washington State Court of Appeals, Division III, upheld Zigan's conviction for vehicular homicide. Zigan killed Mid Kreider in July 2009, when she and her husband were riding motorcycles north of Soap Lake.

Zigan admitted to drinking six or seven beers prior to driving his SUV south on the highway, according to court records. The vehicle crossed into the other lane, missing Kreider's husband, but striking the woman.

"Mr. Kreider saw the accident in his rear view mirror. He ran to his wife and found her dead.  Mr. Zigan asked Mr. Kreider, 'What are you doing in my lane?'" according to the opinion. "Mr. Kreider responded, 'You've killed my wife, you've just destroyed my world." While arguing, Mr. Zigan asked Mr. Kreider, 'Are you ready to bleed?'"

Officers noted Zigan was smiling, laughing and joked with officers and other inmates, according to the opinion.

At the time of the collision, Zigan was under community supervision following violating sentencing conditions for a prior crime.

Prosecutors charged Zigan with vehicular homicide with aggravating circumstances and sought an exceptional sentence, according to the opinion. Zigan pleaded guilty to the charge, but challenged the aggravating circumstance.

At the trial, a psychologist testified Zigan suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, alcohol dependence and antisocial personality traits related to his substance abuse.

"The psychologist opined Mr. Zigan was suffering from an acute stress reaction at the time of the accident, doing and saying things in the moment that were not thought out and did not reflect his accurate feelings," according to the opinion. "He concluded Mr. Zigan felt remorse for the victim and for the victim's family, and had genuine feelings of responsibility for what happened."

Grant County Superior Court Judge John Antosz found Zigan had a lack of remorse and rapid recidivism, according to court records. He sentenced Zigan to 15 years in prison.

The appellate court found Zigan's behavior following the crime was sufficiently egregious to support the exceptional sentence.

Zigan challenged the second aggravating factor, stating the term "shortly after" was unconstitutionally vague, according to the opinion. After citing several cases with a range of values for what constitutes "shortly after," the appellate court stated the number is subjective.

"But that a law requires subjective evaluation to determine whether the enactment has been violated does not mean the law is unconstitutional," according to the opinion. "Mr. Zigan committed the offense just over two months after his incarceration. No reasonable person could believe that the circumstances presented here constitute anything other than 'the defendant committed the current offense shortly after being released from incarceration.'"

Zigan also questioned the effectiveness of his attorney, according to the opinion. He claimed the attorney didn't request the trial be moved, didn't call a witness or adequately investigate officer statements.

"Nothing in this record shows Mr. Zigan requested his counsel to call certain witnesses, or that his counsel failed to investigate officer statements," according to the opinion. "Any claim supported by facts outside this record is best raised in a personal restraint petition."