 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Barnes3/22/1999
disregard for the law convinced the trial court that, despite this presumption of eligibility, the appellant is not an appropriate candidate for any alternative to incarceration. Having determined that the appellant is unsuitable for alternative sentencing generally, we find no error in the trial court's failure to inquire further as to the appellant's eligibility for community corrections specifically.
The appellant next asserts that he is in fact eligible for community corrections pursuant to both subsections (a) and (c) of Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-36-106 and that the trial court erred in denying such a sentence. Again, we do not agree.
Even if the appellant were eligible for community corrections, we would not find the trial court's denial of that sentence erroneous. As this Court has previously explained, an offender's eligibility for community corrections does not amount to entitlement. See State v. Grigsby, 957 S.W.2d 541, 547 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). " iven their ability to review the offender's demeanor and characteristics first hand, trial courts are in the best position to ascertain an offender's amenability to a community corrections program." Therefore, this Court will not disturb a trial court's decision in that regard absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. Id. Because we find no error in the trial court's determination that the appellant is generally unsuitable for alternative sentencing, this issue is without merit.
Moreover, we would not find the appellant eligible for a community corrections sentence. Eligibility under subsection (a) requires, inter alia, that the offender not "demonstrate a pattern of committing violent offenses." Tenn. Code. Ann. § 40-36-106(a)(6). The appellant was arrested for spousal abuse while on bond awaiting sentencing in this case, and, of the fourteen arrests listed in the appellant's presentence report, eight are for battery. Thus, we conclude that the appellant's history does indicate a pattern of violent offenses and that he is, therefore, ineligible for consideration of a community corrections sentence under subsection (a).
To be eligible for community corrections under the "special needs" provision of subsection (c), an offender must first be statutorily eligible for probation. In addition, there must be a determination that "(1) the offender has a history of chronic alcohol, drug abuse, or mental health problems; (2) these factors were reasonably related to and contributed to the offender's criminal conduct, (3) the identifiable special need(s) are treatable, and (4) the treatment of the special needs could be served best in the community rather than in a correctional institution." State v. Grigsby, 957 S.W.2d 541, 546-47 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).
The appellant is statutorily eligible for probation, see T.C.A. § 40-35-303; and he has a history of alcohol abuse. However, the record before us simply does not establish any of the remaining requirements. Nothing suggests that the appellant's alcohol problem contributed to this aggravated burglary. The appellant's previously attempted treatment was apparently unsuccessful, and he offers nothing to suggest that his problem is now treatable. And, even if treatable, there is nothing to suggest that his treatment would be better served in the community rather than a correctional institution. The appellant has failed to carry his burden of showing that his sentence is improper.
The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, Judge
CONCUR:
GARY R. WADE, Judge
THOMAS T. WOODALL, Judge
Page 1 2 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|