 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Mitchell12/20/1999
o those necessary to establish the appropriate range; and the appellant has a previous history of unwillingness to comply with the conditions of a sentence involving release in the community. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114 (1997). The trial court found that the only mitigating factor was that the appellant's criminal conduct neither caused nor threatened serious bodily injury. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113 (1997). In balancing these factors, the trial court placed great weight on the appellant's extensive criminal history and placed little weight on the lack of serious bodily injury. As a result, the trial court sentenced the appellant to eight years incarceration in the Department of Corrections.
Furthermore, the weight to be given to each factor is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. The record reflects that the trial court correctly considered the sentencing principles and all relevant facts and circumstances. The trial court determined that reduction of the appellant's sentence for burglary because the crime did not involve serious bodily harm was not appropriate. In light of the appellant's extensive criminal record, the maximum sentence was appropriate in this case. This issue is without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Norma McGee Ogle, Judge
CONCUR:
David H. Welles, Judge
David G. Hayes, Judge
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|