 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Duncan8/31/1999
ased upon the facts of that case and the circumstances of that defendant. State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229, 235 (Tenn. 1986). In addition, trial Judges are traditionally vested with broad discretionary powers in sentencing matters. Appellate courts should not place trial Judges in a judicial straight-jacket in sentencing matters, and we should be reluctant to interfere with their traditional discretionary powers. Moten v. State, 559 S.W.2d 770, 773 (Tenn. 1977).
Because the defendant was a standard offender convicted of Class C, D, and E felonies, he was presumed to be a favorable candidate for an alternative sentencing option. The trial Judge gave the defendant the benefit of this statutory presumption by sentencing him to split confinement, an alternative sentencing option. See State v. Adam Short, No. 03C01-9703-CC-00090, Bledsoe County (Tenn. Crim. App. filed January 28, 1998, at Knoxville). The defendant now seeks the more favorable alternative of serving his entire sentence in community corrections. However, the presentence report reflects that the defendant was forty-two years old at the time of his conviction. He had previously been convicted of driving with a revoked license, public intoxication, and driving under the influence . The defendant had also been convicted of a weapons offense not specifically defined in the presentence report. In light of the defendant's previous criminal history and the seriousness of the convictions in the case at bar, we conclude that split confinement is proper. As such, this contention is without merit.
In sum, we find no merit to the defendant's contentions and thus affirm the judgment of the trial court.
JOHN H. PEAY, Judge
CONCUR:
DAVID G.. HAY HAYES, Judge
JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, Judge
Page 1 2 3 4 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|