 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Leslie3/23/1999
The defendants, Lauren E. Leslie and Janie Whitehead, pleaded guilty in Monroe County Criminal Court to assault, a Class A misdemeanor. In addition, Leslie pleaded guilty to reckless endangerment, also a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced Leslie to two concurrent sentences of eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days. The trial Judge ordered him to serve thirty (30) percent of that sentence as a "standard offender." Whitehead received a sentence of eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days to be suspended after serving the first thirty days in confinement. In addition, the defendants are jointly and severally liable for restitution in the amount of $957. In this direct appeal, the defendants contend that the trial court erred in ordering them to serve a portion of their sentences in confinement. After reviewing the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
When an accused challenges the length, range, or manner of service of a sentence, it is the duty of this court to conduct a de novo review with a presumption that the determinations made by the trial court are correct. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d)(1997).
A misdemeanant, unlike the felon, is not entitled to the presumption of a minimum sentence. State v. Randall C. Conner, No. 03C01-9401-CR-00024, slip op. at 6 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Aug. 12, 1994); State v. Bernell B. Lawson, No. 63, slip op. at 7 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, May 23, 1991). Misdemeanor sentencing is controlled by Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-302. The statute requires the court to impose a "specific number of months, days or hours . . . consistent with the purposes and principles of the [Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989]." Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-302(b) (1997). Then the court is to determine a percentage of the sentence which the misdemeanant must serve before becoming eligible for certain release programs. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-302(d). In determining the percentage, the court must consider enhancement and mitigating factors as well as the legislative purposes and principles related to sentencing. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-302(d); State v. Palmer, 902 S.W.2d 391, 393-94 (Tenn.1995); State v. Gilboy, 857 S.W.2d 884, 888-889 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993).
Finally, the misdemeanor sentencing statute authorizes the court to place a defendant on probation immediately or after service of a portion of the sentence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-402(e). The trial court maintains jurisdiction over a defendant placed in jail and may reduce or modify the sentence or place the defendant on probationary supervision. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-314(c). The statute is designed to provide a trial court with continuing jurisdiction in misdemeanor cases and a wide latitude of flexibility. State v. Dwight Johnson, No. 03C01-9209-CR-00328, slip op. at 7 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, May, 18, 1993), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. 1994).
As noted above, appellate review in this case is de novo review on the record of the "length, range or the manner of service of the sentence . . . conducted with a presumption that the [trial court's] determinations . . . are correct." Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-402(d) (1997). In a recent opinion, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that in misdemeanor sentencing a trial court is not required to place specific findings on the record. State v. Kenneth Eugene Troutman ---S.W.2d ---, No. 03S01-9705-CC-00049 (Tenn., Knoxville, Nov. 9, 1998). Although the court had previously held that the statutory presumption of correctness was "conditioned upon the affirmative showing in the record that the trial court considered the sentencing principles and all relevant fact
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|