By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi
Franklin Community News
May 23, 2026
MILWAUKEE — A Milwaukee County judge sentenced Leonel Molina Rios to 18 years in prison Friday for the fatal Franklin drunk-driving crash that killed 74-year-old James Riegling and the family dog, Posey, on November 2, 2024.
Judge David Borowski imposed 12 years of initial confinement followed by six years of extended supervision, calling the sentence necessary for punishment, deterrence, and community protection. Rios received 566 days of sentence credit. A restitution hearing was scheduled for July 17.
The sentencing hearing was marked by devastating victim-impact statements from Riegling’s widow, children, and son-in-law, followed by pointed remarks from Borowski, who described drunk driving as inherently selfish and questioned whether Wisconsin should do more to hold bars, restaurants, owners, and bartenders accountable when visibly intoxicated patrons are overserved.
“All you had to do was spend $10 on an Uber,” Borowski told Rios. “But you didn’t do that.”
“You Didn’t Kill an Elderly Franklin Man”
Deborah Riegling, James Riegling’s widow, told the court she never imagined herself speaking in a courtroom.
“I lived my life to never see the inside of a courtroom, and so did Jim,” she said. “But thanks to you, Mr. Rios, here I am.”
She described a 54-year marriage, a family built over decades, and the ordinary acts of devotion that defined her husband’s life: morning Starbucks waiting for her, gas always filled in her car, repairs completed without being asked, and a quiet presence that held their family together.
“You didn’t kill an elderly Franklin man, as the news report stated,” Deborah Riegling said. “You killed a vibrant, hardworking provider, who was active and happy, and just entering a phase of his life where he could enjoy the fruits of his many, many labors.”
She also reminded the court that Posey, the family dog, died in the crash.
“You took two lives that night,” she said. “You killed Posey, how I needed her now, but I guess God wanted them together.”
“Your Choices Were Not an Accident”
Steven Swiertz, Riegling’s son-in-law, focused on the preventability of the crash.
“Your choices and actions that evening were 100% preventable,” Swiertz said. “Your choices and actions were not an accident. They were intentional.”
Swiertz told Rios that no one forced him to go to Irish Cottage, no one forced him to drink, and no one forced him to get behind the wheel.
“You alone,” he said. “Selfish.”
In one of the hearing’s most emotional moments, Swiertz described having to tell Riegling’s widow that her husband was dead and later identifying the body at the Milwaukee County Medical Examiner’s Office.
“I want to see Jim,” Swiertz said. “I want to see my father. I have to drive to a different state and look at a headstone.”
Despite his anger, Swiertz said he chose forgiveness so that hatred would not consume his memories of Riegling.
“I do not hate you,” he told Rios. “I hate what you did.”
“This Is My Dad”
Megan Riegling Swiertz told the court the case had become a “regular revictimization” for the family after repeated hearings, delays, interpreters, late filings, and continuances.
“This is my dad,” she said. “He is the only reason that we’re here today.”
She described the impact on her children, who lost a grandfather who built projects for them, attended events, and helped shape their childhood.
“They both stood in the freezing November rain, my parents’ 54th wedding anniversary, at the cemetery watching him lowered into the ground,” she said.
She asked the court to impose the strongest sentence available, pointing to Rios’ history of driving without a license and what she described as a longstanding relationship with alcohol.
“He must not be allowed to destroy another life,” she said.
The State: Intentional Drinking, Intentional Driving
The prosecution emphasized that while Rios may not have intended to kill James Riegling, he intentionally made every decision that led to the crash.
The state noted that Rios intentionally went to a bar after work, intentionally drank beer and shots, intentionally got into his vehicle, and drove despite being nearly three times the legal limit.
Prosecutors also told the court Rios did not have a Wisconsin driver’s license and had never had one.
The state did not request a specific sentence length, leaving the final decision to Borowski, but made clear that incarceration was required.
Defense Asked for 10 Years
Rios’ defense attorney asked for a 10-year bifurcated sentence: five years of initial confinement and five years of extended supervision.
The defense described Rios as a hardworking 60-year-old man who came to the United States from Mexico in 1995, served in the Mexican Navy, worked multiple jobs, and supported his family. His attorney said Rios had no prior OWI history and was deeply remorseful.
Rios personally apologized to the family.
“How can I ask forgiveness?” he said. “I am speechless. I am guilty. I am guilty of what happened.”
He also spoke about prior military service and rescue work, saying he had once helped save more than 100 people during flooding and earthquake response.
But he acknowledged none of that changed what happened.
“It doesn’t matter everything I did in my life,” Rios said. “Because in the end, I failed.”
Judge: “Frankly, It’s a House of Horrors”
Before imposing sentence, Borowski described the volume of homicide cases moving through Milwaukee County Circuit Court as overwhelming.
“Frankly, it’s a house of horrors,” Borowski said, noting that Rios was the third homicide defendant he had dealt with that day.
Borowski said Milwaukee County is facing a serious homicide problem, including domestic violence homicides, shootings, and intoxicated driving homicides.
He said Rios and the victim were similar in age and criticized any public characterization of Riegling as merely an “elderly Franklin man.”
“For the news media, mid-60s is not elderly,” Borowski said, adding that Riegling could have reasonably expected many more years with his wife, children, and grandchildren.
“All You Had to Do Was Call an Uber”
Borowski repeatedly emphasized that modern transportation options made Rios’ decision to drive inexcusable.
“There was a time in the ’80s or ’90s when it might have been hard to find a ride,” Borowski said. “But nowadays, you click the button on your phone, and miraculously, Uber or Lyft shows up in five minutes, maybe eight minutes.”
The judge directly questioned Rios during sentencing about how much alcohol he consumed before getting behind the wheel.
“Now that we are here, how much did you really have to drink?” Borowski asked Rios during the hearing. According to statements discussed in court, Rios admitted consuming approximately nine or ten drinks, including multiple shots, before driving.
“You were basically obliterated,” Borowski said.
Borowski repeatedly returned to the amount of alcohol consumed that night, emphasizing that Rios was not someone who accidentally crossed the legal limit after one or two drinks.
“There’s no way that I can handle nine or ten drinks, including five or six shots,” Borowski told him. “No way. I’m surprised you could stand up. I’m surprised you could operate a vehicle.”
The judge said the level of intoxication made the decision to drive especially aggravating and underscored that Rios knew he was severely impaired before entering his vehicle.
Borowski called drunk driving “self-centered, selfish behavior” and said those who drive intoxicated disregard pedestrians, other drivers, and the broader community.
“You did not intend to kill Mr. Riegling,” Borowski said. “But you intended to drive drunk.”
Judge Questions Overserving Accountability
In remarks directly relevant to the broader public questions raised after the crash, Borowski questioned whether Wisconsin should hold establishments accountable when they overserve intoxicated patrons.
“Maybe it’s time in Wisconsin that we’ve got a way to hold owners of establishments, bartenders, and owners responsible for overserving people like this defendant,” Borowski said.
He added that he would like someone to answer whether it is time to hold bar owners, restaurant owners, and possibly bartenders responsible when someone is “clearly overserved.”
Those comments are significant because, while Wisconsin’s dram shop liability laws are limited, municipalities still possess substantial authority over liquor licensing and operator licensing.
Under Wisconsin law, the City of Franklin has the authority to approve, deny, suspend, or revoke:
- Class B liquor licenses issued to establishments
- Operator licenses, commonly referred to as bartender licenses
- Annual liquor license renewals
- Alcohol-related licensing conditions tied to public safety concerns
That means Franklin officials are not powerless in situations involving serious alcohol-related incidents.
The Franklin Common Council and License Committee retain authority to review liquor license renewals and operator licenses connected to establishments or individuals involved in incidents raising public safety concerns.
The judge’s remarks are likely to intensify questions regarding whether Franklin officials should conduct an independent review not only of Irish Cottage’s liquor license renewal, but also whether any review of operator licenses or bartender conduct is warranted following testimony and evidence presented during the criminal proceedings.
The issue is not whether a bartender intended harm. Rather, the public policy question raised during sentencing is whether municipalities should examine alcohol service practices and licensing oversight when an individual later convicted in a fatal drunk-driving homicide consumed large amounts of alcohol at a licensed establishment before getting behind the wheel.
Earlier this month, Franklin Community News raised similar questions regarding whether the city should more closely examine liquor license renewals tied to serious public safety incidents instead of treating them as routine annual approvals.
Borowski’s comments from the bench now place those questions squarely into the public conversation.
The Sentence
Borowski rejected the defense recommendation of five years of confinement, stating it was not enough to punish Rios or deter the community.
“It’s not a maximum case,” Borowski said, citing Rios’ limited criminal record and guilty plea. “But he needs to be punished and deterred.”
The court imposed:
- 12 years initial confinement
- 6 years extended supervision
- 566 days sentence credit
- No fine
- Court costs, fees, surcharges, and DNA surcharge
- Alcohol and other drug assessment
- Mental health evaluation
- No firearms or weapons while on supervision
- Full-time employment requirement upon release
- No eligibility for Challenge Incarceration Program
- No eligibility for Substance Abuse Program
- Restitution hearing scheduled for July 17
A Case That Raises Larger Questions
Friday’s sentencing closed one criminal chapter, but it did not answer all of the public policy questions surrounding the crash.
Rios is now headed to prison. The Riegling family remains permanently changed. And Franklin residents are left with broader questions about impaired driving, liquor licensing, alcohol service, and whether local officials are willing to examine the systems that allow intoxicated patrons to leave establishments and endanger the public.
The judge’s comments made clear that this was not simply a tragic accident.
It was, in his words, the result of selfish, preventable choices.
And in Wisconsin, those choices continue to destroy families.
