 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Sanders8/24/1999
The Defendant, Anthony D. Sanders, appeals as of right pursuant to Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. He was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of vehicular homicide by intoxication, a Class C felony at the time the offense was committed. The agreed sentence was the statutory minimum of three years as a Range I standard offender. The manner of service of the sentence was left to the discretion of the trial Judge. The Judge ordered that the sentence be served in the Department of Correction. The Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial Judge erred by not allowing his sentence to be served on probation or allowing some other sentencing alternative to incarceration. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The Defendant was the driver of an automobile involved in a one- vehicle accident. The passenger of the vehicle, who was the Defendant's brother-in-law at the time, was thrown from the vehicle and killed when the vehicle ran off the road and overturned. Shortly after the accident, the Defendant gave conflicting statements concerning whether it was the Defendant or his passenger who was driving. The Defendant's blood alcohol content was determined to be .22 percent.
When an accused challenges the length, range, or manner of service of a sentence, this Court has a duty to conduct a de novo review of the sentence with a presumption that the determinations made by the trial court are correct. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d). This presumption 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).
When conducting a de novo review of a sentence, this Court must consider: (a) the evidence, if any, received at the trial and sentencing hearing; (b) the presentence report; (c) the principles of sentencing and arguments as to sentencing alternatives; (d) the nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct involved; (e) any statutory mitigating or enhancement factors; (f) any statement made by the defendant regarding sentencing; and (g) the potential or lack of potential for rehabilitation or treatment. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35- 102, -103, -210; State v. Thomas, 755 S.W.2d 838, 844 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988).
If our review reflects that the trial court followed the statutory sentencing procedure, that the court imposed a lawful sentence after having given due consideration and proper weight to the factors and principles 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).
Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-35-102 outlines when alternative sentencing is appropriate. A defendant who 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 absence of evidence to the contrary." Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-102(6). Furthermore, the trial court must presume that a defendant sentenced to eight years or less and not an offender for whom incarceration is a priority is subject to alternative sentencing and that a sentence other than incarceration would result in successful rehabilitation unless sufficient evidence rebuts the presumption.
Even though probation must be considered, a defendant is not automatically entitled to probation as a matter of law. Fletcher, 805 S.W.2d at 787. Factors such as the defendant's potential for rehabilitation, the nature and seriousness
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|