 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bartlett4/9/1998
e offense." Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114(9) (Supp. 1993). The state concedes that factors (2), (7), (9), and (13)(C) should not have been applied and are not supported by the record. Only (1) and (8) were properly applied. Nonetheless, the defendant's sentence is within the range specified by the statute and less than the maximum possible. We attach considerable weight to the defendant's prior record, his lack of candor, and his heedless disregard for the authority of law enforcement. The ten-month sentence is just.
The state would have this court uphold the defendant's sentences for evading arrest by the application of the following additional enhancement factors:
(10) The defendant had no hesitation about committing a crime when the risk to human life was high;
(15) The defendant abused a position of public or private trust...; and
(16) The crime was committed under circumstances under which the potential for bodily injury to a victim was great.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114 (10), (15), (16) (Supp. 1993). The application of enhancement factor (10) is appropriate not only for evading arrest but also for the reckless driving offense. The defendant showed no hesitation in endangering the lives of other motorists for the entire length of the police chase. Because the trial court failed to apply (16), we are hesitant to do so. No particular facts in the record would support that. While the defendant was a participant in the Community Corrections program when these offenses occurred, we do not classify these offenses as a violation of public trust. Because the trial Judge properly applied an enhancement for failure to comply with sentencing on release to the community, the inclusion of (15) would be a duplication.
Consecutive sentences may be imposed in the discretion of the trial court only upon a determination that one or more of the following criteria exist:
(1) The defendant is a professional criminal who has knowingly devoted himself to criminal acts as a major source of livelihood;
(2) The defendant is an offender whose record of criminal activity is extensive;
(3) The defendant is a dangerous mentally abnormal person so declared by a competent psychiatrist who concludes as a result of an investigation prior to sentencing that the defendant's criminal conduct has been characterized by a pattern of repetitive or compulsive behavior with heedless indifference to consequences;
(4) The defendant is a dangerous offender whose behavior indicates little or no regard for human life, and no hesitation about committing a crime in which the risk to human life is high;
(5) The defendant is convicted of two (2) or more statutory offenses involving sexual abuse of a minor with consideration of the aggravating circumstances arising from the relationship between the defendant and victim or victims, the time span of defendant's undetected sexual activity, the nature and scope of the sexual acts and the extent of the residual, physical and mental damage to the victim or victims;
(6) The defendant is sentenced for an offense committed while on probation;
(7) The defendant is sentenced for criminal contempt.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b). Even if the court finds one of these factors applicable, however, aggravating circumstances must be present before consecutive sentences may be imposed. Gray v. State, 538 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tenn. 1976).
In Gray, our supreme court ruled that before consecutive sentencing could be imposed upon the dangerous offender, as now defined by subsection (b)(4) in the statute, other conditions must be prese
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|