 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Wolford2/18/1999
The appellant, James C. Wolford, appeals the revocation of his sentence of periodic confinement by the Hamilton County Criminal Court resulting in the reinstatement of his original sentence of four years in the Department of Correction.
The decision of the trial court revoking the appellant from his probationary status and reinstating the appellant's four year sentence is affirmed. However, this cause is remanded to the trial court for modification of the judgment to reflect suspension of the appellant's driver's license for a period of four years as authorized by law.
Background
At some time during the early morning hours of September 30, 1992, the appellant, a twenty-two year old Chattanooga entrepreneur, struck a pedestrian, Rodney Walker, with his BMW automobile, resulting in Walker's death. The appellant fled from the scene of the accident to the apartment of his girlfriend. He then returned home where he informed his father of the incident. His father escorted him back to the crime scene where the appellant admitted his involvement to law enforcement officers. Tests subsequently performed on both the deceased and the appellant revealed that both men were legally intoxicated at the time of the offense.
On December 10, 1996, the appellant pled guilty to one count of vehicular homicide as a result of intoxication, a class C felony, in the Hamilton County Criminal Court. As provided in the negotiated plea agreement, the trial court imposed a sentence of four years in the Department of Correction. The court suspended this sentence and imposed a sentence of periodic confinement, ordering the appellant to serve six months on work release at the Hamilton County Workhouse followed by six years probation. In pronouncing sentence, the court deferred entry of the judgment until December 10, 1997, at which time the court would determine whether the conviction should be diverted.
On June 4, 1997, the trial Judge contacted the appellant's counsel, informing him that he was aware that the appellant had participated in a Muscular Dystrophy golf tournament sponsored by Golden Gallon convenience stores and that he would conduct a hearing on the following day to determine whether the appellant had violated the terms of his work release. The Judge informed counsel that, if the appellant did not appear in court the next day, a warrant would issue for the violation. The following day, June 5, the appellant, accompanied by counsel, appeared before the court. The court informed the appellant of its knowledge of the appellant's participation in the golf tournament. The appellant apologized and explained that his participation was for "business relations only." The trial court then questioned the appellant as to " ow many other times have you played golf since you have been on work release?" The appellant responded that the Muscular Dystrophy tournament was the only time that he had played golf while on work release. He stated that he is in the beverage distribution business and that Golden Gallon is his "biggest" account. Accordingly, he maintained that his participation in this golf tournament was "very much in association with his business." The trial court concluded that the appellant had violated the court's order and revoked the appellant's work release. The court also determined that the judgment should be entered at this time, concluding that there "were sufficient reasons why the court would not consider a deferred judgment even at a future date."
On June 9, 1997, the trial Judge again summoned the appellant before the court to inform the appellant that it had come to the court's attention that the appellant may have made false statements
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|