 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Sharpton10/22/1999
tors as found in T.C.A. §§ 40-35-113 and -114, and (6) the defendant's statements in his or her own behalf concerning sentencing. T.C.A. § 40-35-210(b).
In addition, the legislature established certain sentencing principles which include the following:
(5) In recognition that state prison capacities and the funds to build and maintain them are limited, convicted felons committing the most severe offenses, possessing criminal histories evincing a clear disregard for the laws and morals of society, and evincing failure of past efforts at rehabilitation shall be given first priority regarding sentencing involving incarceration; and
(6) A defendant who does not fall within the parameters of sub-division
(5) and is an especially mitigated or standard offender convicted of a Class C, D or E felony is presumed to be a favorable candidate for alternative sentencing options in the absence of evidence to the contrary. T.C.A. § 40-35-102.
After reviewing the statutes set out above, it is clear that the intent of the legislature is to encourage alternatives to incarceration in cases where defendants are sentenced as standard or mitigated offenders convicted of C, D, or E felonies. However, it is also clear that there is an intent to incarcerate those defendants whose criminal histories indicate a clear disregard for the laws and morals of society and a failure of past efforts to rehabilitate.
In the case at bar, the defendant pled guilty to a Class C felony and, as such, she is presumed to be a favorable candidate for alternative sentencing. T.C.A. § 40-35-102. The State contends that the circumstances and seriousness of the offense, coupled with the need for deterrence, render a sentence of full probation erroneous. We agree that the facts of this case are indeed tragic. However, the law presumes the defendant to be a favorable candidate for probation and this Court presumes the trial court's sentence to be correct. See T.C.A. §§ 40-35-102, -402(d); Ashby, 823 S.W.2d at 169. Based on the foregoing presumptions and applicable law and the fact that the State has failed to carry its burden of overcoming such presumptions, we cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the defendant full probation. As such, we affirm the sentence as imposed.
JOHN H. PEAY, Judge
CONCUR:
DAVID H. WELLES, Judge
JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, Judge
Page 1 2 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|