 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Allen3/15/1999
ancement factors. Furthermore, we agree that no mitigating factors applied to this appellant. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's imposition of the maximum sentence of ten years for this appellant. This issue is without merit.
IV. CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES
Both appellants challenge the trial court's order requiring that their respective robbery convictions be served consecutive to a robbery conviction in Jefferson County. The record reflects that, on the date of the appellants' sentencing hearings in this case, both appellants had been convicted in Jefferson County of aggravated robbery. However, the sentencing hearing for that conviction had not been held and thus no sentence had been imposed.
In support of their argument, the appellants cite State v. Thompson, 565 S.W.2d 889 (Tenn. 1977) and State v. Arnold, 824 S.W.2d 176 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). The State concedes that the trial court erred in imposing the robbery convictions consecutive to the Jefferson County convictions. We agree. In Thompson, 565 S.W.2d at 890, the supreme court held that consecutive sentences may only be ordered in conjunction with a previously imposed sentence. (Emphasis added). This court has held that "the last sentencing court should have the responsibility to determine whether or not a sentence should be served consecutively." Arnold, 824 S.W.2d at 178 (citing State v. Stafford, 368 N.W.2d 364, 366 (Minn. App. 1985)). "The consecutive sentencing is no less in futuro even though the `conviction' existed at the time of the sentencing." Arnold, 824 S.W.2d at 178 (citing State v. White, 18 Ohio St. 3d 340, 481 N.E.2d 596, 598 (1985)).
Therefore, we conclude that the trial court erred by imposing the ten year sentences consecutive to pending sentencing decisions to occur in futuro for both appellants. However, we find no error in the trial court's decision to run appellant Haney's sentence consecutive to the outstanding seven year sentence for theft in Cocke County. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court found that Haney's criminal activity was extensive and that he was on probation at the time the present offense of robbery was committed. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(2) and (6) (1997). We conclude that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from the possibility of the appellant Haney's future criminal conduct and the aggregate
sentence is reasonably related to the severity of the present offenses. See State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933, 939 (Tenn. 1995).
V. CONCLUSION
The judgments of convictions for both appellants are affirmed. Moreover, we affirm the trial court's imposition of the ten year sentence for each appellant; however, we hold the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences for the appellants with regard to the pending sentences in Jefferson County. The appellant Haney's consecutive sentence with Cocke County is affirmed.
This case is remanded for entry of judgments of conviction consistent with this opinion.
DAVID G. HAYES, Judge
CONCUR:
JAMES ERRY L. SMITH, Judge
JAMES CURWOOD WILLTT, JR., Judge
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|