 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bartlett4/9/1998
nt: (a) that the crimes involve aggravating circumstances; (b) that consecutive sentences are a necessary means to protect the public from the defendant; and (c) that the term reasonably relates to the severity of the offenses. Gray, 538 S.W.2d at 393. In State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933, 938 (Tenn. 1995), our high court reaffirmed those principles, holding that consecutive sentences cannot be required of the dangerous offender "unless the terms reasonably relate to the severity of the offenses committed and are necessary in order to protect the public (society) from further criminal acts by those persons who resort to aggravated criminal conduct." The Wilkerson decision, which modified somewhat the strict, factual guidelines for consecutive sentencing adopted in State v. Woods, 814 S.W.2d 378, 380 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991), described sentencing as a "human process that neither can nor should be reduced to a set of fixed and mechanical rules." Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d at 938.
The state concedes that the trial court failed to make findings of fact to support consecutive sentencing as required by law. The judgment forms for each conviction show all sentences are concurrent to each other and consecutive to the defendant's prior felony sentences. That appears to have been the intent of the trial court.
Accordingly, the defendant's convictions are affirmed. The sentences are modified to conform to the judgment entered by the trial Judge, all to be served at seventy-five percent minimum service.
Gary R. Wade, Judge
CONCUR: Thomas T. Woodall, Judge Curwood Witt, Judge
|