 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Price11/24/1999
he especially aggravated kidnapping and the aggravated robbery. He also threatened to shoot Weinstein in the leg for no apparent reason. Moreover, the Appellant's commission of the especially aggravated kidnapping and the aggravated robbery was obviously made easier by his commission of the aggravated burglary in which he obtained the gun.
The trial court expressly found that consecutive sentencing would serve to protect society from the Appellant's criminal conduct. The record indicates that before he was sentenced in this case, the Appellant was convicted of the offenses he committed during the high speed chase in Decatur County: possession of a weapon with intent to go armed, driving with a revoked license, evading arrest, reckless driving, and driving while under the influence of an intoxicant. The record also indicates that in addition to the two convictions for driving under the influence of an intoxicant and aggravated assault that occurred before he committed the offenses in this case, the Appellant was subsequently convicted of criminal trespassing and another offense of driving while under the influence of an intoxicant. Further, the record indicates that the Appellant committed the offenses in this case while he was on probation for other offenses. The Appellant has clearly shown that he has no respect for the law. In addition, his conduct has become increasingly dangerous over time. Thus, it is clear that consecutive sentencing would serve to protect society from the Appellant's criminal conduct.
Finally, although the trial court made no express finding, we conclude that consecutive sentencing in this case is congruent with general principles of sentencing. This issue has no merit.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
CONCUR: THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE NORMA MCGEE OGLE, JR., JUDGE
|