DUI Lawyers Directory. Search for a dui lawyer near you. Operating a vehicle while drinking could cause judicial actions.
 Zip Code Search for DUI Lawyers
Defending Alleged Drunk Driving Criminal Acts Read about successful dui defense cases from member dui lawyers Read about successful dui defense cases from member dui lawyers Membership at DUI Defenders Discuss issues related to dui/dwi/owi Contact Us about a DUI Lawyer
facebook.com/MyDUI

  to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.

State v. Young

12/20/1999

icates little or no regard for human life and who has no hesitation in committing a crime in which the risk to human life is high. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(4) (1997). We agree that Appellant is a dangerous offender for whom consecutive sentencing is appropriate. Appellant has repeatedly endangered the lives of other motorists by committing the offense of DUI. Indeed, this Court has previously held that a defendant with multiple DUI convictions "may be properly classified as a `dangerous offender' for whom consecutive sentencing is appropriate." State v. Carl E. Campen, No. 01C01-9512-CC- 00433, 1997 WL 661728, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Oct. 24, 1997). Further, we conclude in our de novo review that the Wilkerson test is satisfied. First, consecutive sentencing is appropriate to the seriousness of the offenses. Certainly, both DUI and DORL are serious offenses. See Carl E. Campen, 1997 WL 661728, at *4. Second, it is clear that consecutive sentencing is necessary to protect society from Appellant's criminal conduct. Appellant has continued to commit the offense of DUI, even though his driver's license has been revoked or suspended on three different occasions. It is clear that the prior lenient punishments that have been imposed on Appellant have done absolutely nothing to deter his continued violation of the DUI and DORL laws. Third, we conclude that consecutive sentencing in this case is entirely congruent with general principles of sentencing. This issue has no merit.


XIII. CONCLUSION


Because the trial court improperly imposed thirty days of confinement for the open container conviction, we vacate that portion of Appellant's sentence. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.


JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE


CONCUR:


THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE


NORMA MCGEE OGLE, JUDGE






Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

Tennessee DUI Attorneys    DUI Lawyers


  to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.

FDP  |   RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Leads  |  Partner Websites  |  Draeger FAQ
SiteMap | DUI Blog | DUI Lawyers | DUI Attorneys | Trading Partners | Member Agreement | Terms of Service
Attorneys Click Here | DUI Case Laws | FAQ | DUI Forum | Directory of DUI Attorneys | Success Stories  | Press Releases
Copyright © 2004. “DUI Defenders”. All rights reserved.