 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Rhyan1/27/2003
R>
The state argued that no mitigating factors applied and that the trial court should apply enhancement factor (1), that the defendant has a previous history of criminal convictions or behavior in addition to those necessary to establish the range; factor (10), that he had no hesitation about committing a crime when the risk to human life was high; and factor (16), that he committed the crime under circumstances in which the potential for bodily injury to the victim was great. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114(1), (10), (16) (Supp. 2001) (amended 2002).
The trial court ruled as follows:
In this particular case we have a death being involved where the [victim] died in this case. And taking into consideration the victim impact statement, which the court has considered and read by this victim's family, the presentence report, the prior record of defendant, statements of counsel, the mitigating factors filed by defendant and the enhancing factors filed by the state, the court finds that the defendant should be sentenced and must be sentenced according to the law mid-range and finds enhancing factors to allow the court to sentence this defendant to 22 years, range I, Tennessee Department of Corrections.
Appellate review of sentencing is de novo on the record with a presumption that the trial court's determinations are correct. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d). As the Sentencing Commission Comments to this section note, the burden is now on the defendant to show that the sentence is improper. This means that if the trial court followed the statutory sentencing procedure, made findings of fact that are adequately supported in the record, and gave due consideration and proper weight to the factors and principles that are relevant to sentencing under the 1989 Sentencing Act, we may not disturb the sentence even if a different result were preferred. State v. Fletcher, 805 S.W.2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).
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 this respect, for the purpose of meaningful appellate review,
the trial court must place on the record its reasons for arriving at the final sentencing decision, identify the mitigating and enhancement factors found, state the specific facts supporting each enhancement factor found, and articulate how the mitigating and enhancement factors have been evaluated and balanced in determining the sentence. T.C.A. § 40-35-210(f) (1990). State v. Jones, 883 S.W.2d 597, 599 (Tenn. 1994).
The sentence to be imposed by the trial court is presumptively the midpoint in the range for a Class A felony unless there are enhancement factors present. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(c). Procedurally, the trial court is to increase the sentence within the range based upon the existence of enhancement factors and, then, reduce the sentence as appropriate for any mitigating factors. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(d)-(e). The weight to be afforded an existing factor is left to the trial court's discretion so long as it complies with the purposes and principles of the 1989 Sentencing Act and its findings are adequately supported by the record. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210, Sentencing Commission Cmts.; State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229, 237 (Tenn. 1986); see Ashby, 823 S.W.2d at 169. In this case, the trial court failed to state at the sentencing hearing which enhancement and mitigating factors it found applicable. At the motion for new trial hearing, the trial court stated that it
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|