 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Haycraft1/30/2003
Factual Background
Prior to the trial court's acceptance of the plea, the prosecution essentially stated that on November 18, 2000, a Kingsport police officer had seen the defendant driving on a public road. Recognizing the defendant as an individual whose license had been revoked and who had been declared a habitual traffic offender, the officer stopped the defendant and found him to have red eyes along with an odor of alcohol about him. After the defendant performed poorly on field sobriety tasks, the officer placed the defendant under arrest. The result of a subsequent intoximeter test revealed the defendant's blood alcohol level to be .12. Furthermore, the prosecution indicated that on April 16, 1994, the defendant had been convicted of driving under the influence and on December 20, 1995, had been declared a habitual traffic offender.
Denial of Alternative Sentencing
The defendant's sole issue in this case revolves around the trial court's refusal to grant him probation or any other form of alternative sentencing. "When reviewing sentencing issues . . . , the appellate court shall conduct a de novo review on the record of such issues. Such review shall be conducted with a presumption that the determinations made by the court from which the appeal is taken are correct." Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d). "However, the presumption of correctness which accompanies the trial court's action is conditioned upon the affirmative showing in the record that the trial court considered the sentencing principles and all relevant facts and circumstances." State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991). In conducting our review, we must consider a defendant's potential for rehabilitation, the trial and sentencing hearing evidence, the pre-sentence report, the sentencing principles, the sentencing alternative arguments, the nature and character of the offense, the enhancing and mitigating factors, and the individual defendant's statements. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-103(5), -210(b); Ashby, 823 S.W.2d at 169. We are also to recognize that the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the sentence is improper. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d at 169.
Moreover, Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-103 subsection (1) provides that sentences involving confinement are to be based on the following considerations:
(A) Confinement is necessary to protect society by restraining a defendant who has a long history of criminal conduct;(B) Confinement is necessary to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense or confinement is particularly suited to provide an effective deterrence to others likely to commit similar offenses; or(C) Measures less restrictive than confinement have frequently or recently been applied unsuccessfully to the defendant. Tenn. Code Ann. §40-35-103(1); see State v. Batey, 35 S.W.3d 585, 588 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000) (quoting same).
Additionally, a trial court may consider the enhancement and mitigating factors set out in Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40-35-113 and -114, "as they are relevant to the [section] 40-35-103(1) considerations." Batey, 35 S.W.3d at 588; see State v. Zeolia, 928 S.W.2d 457, 461 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). The trial court should also consider the defendant's potential for rehabilitation when determining whether an alternative sentence would be appropriate. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(5); Zeolia, 928 S.W.2d at 461. This Court has further indicated that "a trial court should consider the circumstances of the offense, the defendant's criminal record, the defendant's social history and present condition, the need for deterrence, and the best interest of both the defendant and the public" in determining whether to
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|