 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Sharpton10/22/1999
The defendant, Shelia Sharpton , pursuant to a plea agreement, pled nolo contendere to two counts of vehicular homicide, a Class C felony. The defendant was sentenced to a term of four years on each count to run consecutively. The trial court subsequently suspended the entire sentence. The State now appeals and contends that the trial court erroneously suspended the defendant's sentence. After a review of the record and applicable law, we find no merit to the State's contentions and thus affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The facts surrounding the defendant's conviction are tragic. On March 8, 1996, the defendant, after consuming at least two alcoholic beverages in her home, drove to the local skating rink to pick up her daughter. Alice Brown, a young female friend of the defendant, accompanied the defendant to the skating rink. After the defendant's daughter and another young girl, Krystal Dodson, entered the vehicle, the defendant drove to a nearby Kwik-Sak to purchase wine coolers. After purchasing the alcohol and driving away from the store, the defendant's vehicle was involved in a one car accident. As a result of this accident, the defendant's daughter, Ms. Brown, and Ms. Dodson were killed. Shortly after the accident, the defendant's blood alcohol level was measured at .13.
The State now contends that the trial court erroneously suspended the defendant's sentence. When the State complains of a defendant's sentence, we must conduct a de novo review with a presumption of correctness. T.C.A. § 40-35-402(d). The burden of showing that the sentence is improper is upon the appealing party. T.C.A. § 40-35-401(d) Sentencing Commission Comments. This presumption, however, "is conditioned upon the affirmative showing in the record that the trial court considered the sentencing principles and all relevant facts and circumstances." State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991). In the case at bar, the record indicates that the trial court did consider the sentencing principles and the relevant facts and circumstances. As such, our standard of review is de novo with a presumption of correctness.
In addition, if our review reflects that the trial court followed the statutory sentencing procedure, imposed a lawful sentence after having given due consideration and proper weight to the factors and principals set out under the sentencing law, and that the trial court's findings of fact are adequately supported by the record, then we may not modify the sentence even if we would have preferred a different result. State v. Fletcher, 805 S.W.2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).
The Sentencing Reform Act of 1989 sets out sentencing considerations which are guidelines for determining whether or not a defendant should be incarcerated. These include the need "to protect society by restraining a defendant who has a long history of criminal conduct," the need "to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense," the determination that "confinement is particularly suited to provide an effective deterrence to others likely to commit similar offenses," or the determination that "measures less restrictive than confinement have frequently or recently been applied unsuccessfully to the defendant." T.C.A. § 40-35-103(1).
In determining the specific sentence and the possible combination of sentencing alternatives, the court shall consider the following: (1) any evidence from the trial and sentencing hearing, (2) the presentence report, (3) the principles of sentencing and the arguments concerning sentencing alternatives, (4) the nature and characteristics of the offense, (5) information offered by the State or the defendant concerning enhancing and mitigating fac
Page 1 2 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|