 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Dillard12/16/1999
it confinement with work release.@
When the sentencing court properly considers the relevant sentencing considerations, this court conducts a de novo review with the presumption that the determination made by the trial court is correct. Tenn. Code Ann. ' 40-35-401(d) (1997); State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn.1991). Although the presumption favoring alternative sentencing applies to the offenses of vehicular assault and driving on a revoked license, because the appellant was convicted of a Class B felony, vehicular homicide by intoxication, the presumption of an alternative sentence is not applicable to this offense. See Tenn. Code Ann. ' 40-35-102(6) (1997). Moreover, the appellant bears the burden of showing that the sentence imposed by the trial court is improper. See Tenn. Code Ann. ' 40-35-210(b)(3) (1998 Supp.).
Alternative sentencing options may be denied if it is shown that the appellant has a history of criminal conduct, that the appellant has not been rehabilitated with less restrictive methods, or that confinement is necessary to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense. See Tenn. Code Ann. ' 40-35-103(1)(A)-(C) (1998 Supp.). Additionally, the potential or lack of potential for rehabilitation of a defendant should be considered in determining whether he should be granted an alternative sentence. Tenn. Code Ann. ' 40-35-103(5).
In the present case, we find that the trial court considered all relevant evidence and so stated on the record. Moreover, as the trial court found, the evidence in the presentence report preponderates against the appellant=s factual allegations in this appeal. Specifically, the record reflects (1) a prior history of criminal offenses involving substance abuse; (2) no present substance abuse or mental health problem necessitating placement in community corrections; (3) failure of previously imposed suspended sentences; (4) the appellant=s failure to appear at initial probation hearing in this matter; and (5) the appellant=s poor employment history. Additionally, the record indicates the appellant=s lack of cooperation and honesty with authorities and lack of remorse for the victims.
After review of the issues before us, we conclude that the appellant has failed to establish that the sentences imposed by the trial court were erroneous. Sentencing Commission Comments, Tenn. Code Ann. ' 40-35-401(d) (1990); Ashby, 823 S.W.2d at 169. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
CONCUR: ALAN E. GLENN, Judge JOE H. WALKER, III, Special Judge
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|