 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Allen2/24/1999
l convictions in addition to those necessary to establish the appropriate sentencing range. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114(1) (1997). The court also found that enhancement factor (2) applied because Appellant was the leader in an offense involving two or more persons. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114(2) (1997). The court also found that enhancement factor (8) applied because Appellant had a previous history of unwillingness to comply with conditions of release into the community. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114(8) (1997). Finally, the court found that the only mitigating factor that applied was factor (1), that Appellant's criminal conduct neither caused nor threatened serious bodily injury. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(1) (1997).
Appellant does not challenge the trial court's application of the three enhancement factors, nor does he contend that the trial court failed to apply any additional mitigating factors. Instead, Appellant simply makes the conclusory statement that under the facts of this case, his sentences are excessive. Not only is this unsupported allegation simply not sufficient to satisfy Appellant's burden of demonstrating that his sentences are improper, we conclude in our de novo review that, given Appellant's prior criminal record, sentences of ten months and fifteen days for possession of marijuana and three months for driving on a revoked license are entirely appropriate in this case. This issue has no merit.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
CONCUR:
JOHN H. PEAY, 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.
|
|