 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Dillard12/16/1999
The appellant, Stephen Craig Dillard, appeals the sentencing decision of the Sullivan County Criminal Court. In November 1998, the appellant entered nolo contendere pleas to vehicular homicide, vehicular assault, and driving on a revoked license. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court imposed an eight year sentence for class B vehicular homicide, a two year sentence for class D vehicular assault, and a six month sentence for driving on a revoked license. The manner of service of the sentences was to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the sentences to be served concurrently in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The appellant appeals the trial court=s denial of an alternative sentence.
After review of the record, we affirm.
Background
The proof relied upon by the State at the guilty plea hearing revealed that, on December 27, 1996, the appellant was the driver of a vehicle in which Tommy Brian Helton and Danny Lynn Jessee were passengers. The vehicle left the roadway and overturned. Jessee died as a result of injuries sustained in the car crash and Helton suffered abrasions and a fractured scapula. Helton also lost use of his arm for one month, during which time he was unable to work. The cause of the fatal crash offered by the appellant to law enforcement officers at the time of the incident was that he Aswerved@ to miss an animal that had run onto the road. The appellant later admitted that he had consumed five beers during the day. The deputy investigating the incident reported that Athe subject was not honest or cooperative with investigators@ and that Athe subject would not submit to an interview. . . following his release from the hospital.@
The offense occurred at approximately 8:30 pm. At 9:58 pm, a blood sample was taken from the appellant as part of the medical protocol of the Holston Valley Hospital and Medical Center. The analysis of this sample revealed a serum blood alcohol content of .076 percent. The medical proof would have established that, at the time of the offenses, the appellant=s blood alcohol level was .089 percent. At 12:55 a.m., a deputy with the Sullivan County Sheriff=s Office obtained another blood sample from the appellant. This sample was sent to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation for analysis. The analysis revealed Ameprobamate being in the system, carisoprodol . . ., diazepam, and nordiazepam.@ This laboratory analysis also revealed the presence of cocaine and marijuana metabolites in the sample, however, these could not be confirmed without either a urine sample or additional blood. A qualitative drug screen completed at the hospital as part of a general diagnostic procedure confirmed, however, the presence of tranquilizers, meprobamate, hydro-carisoprodol, and benzodiazepems in the appellant=s system.
The presentence report indicates that, at the time of the offense, the appellant was thirty-four years old, divorced, and living with his parents. The appellant=s prior criminal history consists of convictions for DUI, possession of drugs, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The appellant reported to the probation officer that, although he is in good health physically, Ahis mental health is poor@ due to Aanxiety and depression.@ He conceded that he is not currently under a doctor=s care and is not prescribed any medications. The appellant reported Amoderate use of alcohol@ and prior use of marijuana and Valium. He contends that his last use of alcohol was December 1, 1998; he quit using marijuana in 1996; and he last used Valium in 1995. The appellant denied any other drug use, although the record received from Woodridge indicated that the appella
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|