 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Cross12/6/1999
On July 21, 1998, Ronald Reece Cross (the "defendant") pled guilty to the following charges arising out of a single incident: violating an habitual traffic offender order, evading arrest, driving under the influence of alcohol (eighth offense), running a stop sign, reckless driving, and violation of registration. Following a sentencing hearing on the above charges, the trial court denied alternative sentencing for the defendant, and instead ordered the defendant to serve an effective ten (10) year, eleven (11) month, and twenty-nine (29) day sentence. The issues on appeal are:
(1) whether the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing to the defendant, and (2) whether the trial court erred in ordering the defendant to serve consecutive sentences.
Because we find that the trial court sentenced the defendant appropriately, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
After the defendant pled guilty to the above charges, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. First, the defendant's sister testified that, in her opinion, the defendant had a "good heart," but that he was an alcoholic. She also testified that most of his extensive criminal record was a result of his drinking, and that she would support her brother in any way possible. The state then offered proof, in the form of several certified copies of convictions, that the defendant was a Range III, Persistent Offender for sentencing purposes. The defendant agreed.
The state then offered evidence that the sentence should be enhanced because (1) the defendant had five prior felony convictions, (2) the defendant had a history of unwillingness to comply with the conditions of a sentence involving release in the community, because in this case the defendant was serving a community corrections sentence when he committed the instant offenses, and (3) the defendant committed a felony while on community release. The defendant agreed that those enhancing factors applied. The defendant argued, however, that because he was an alcoholic and had family support, his sentence should be mitigated pursuant to Tenn Code Ann. § 40-35-113(13), the catch-all provision for mitigating factors. The trial court agreed and considered the defendant's alcoholism as a mitigating factor in sentencing.
The state then argued that the defendant's sentences should be served consecutively, because (1) the defendant had an extensive criminal record, and (2) the defendant was on probation when he committed the offenses in this case. The defense did not object. Consequently, the trial court found the defendant was a Range III, Persistent Offender. The court denied alternative sentencing for the defendant, and instead sentenced the defendant to five (5) years incarceration for violating an habitual traffic offender order, five (5) years for felony evading arrest, and eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days for DUI, eighth offense. The court ordered those sentences served consecutively. The court also sentenced the defendant to six (6) months for reckless driving, thirty (30) days for running a stop sign, and thirty (30) days for violating registration. The latter three (3) sentences were ordered to be served concurrently to the effective ten (10) year, eleven (11) month and twenty-nine (29) day sentence arising out of the first three charges.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When an accused challenges the length, range or manner of service of a sentence, this court has a duty to conduct a de novo review of the sentence with the presumption that the determinations made by the trial court are correct. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d). This presumption is conditioned up
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|