 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Arroyo3/27/2003
I. Factual Background
At the guilty plea hearing, the parties stipulated to the following facts. On October 31, 2000, the appellant was driving down Henley Street in Knoxville and ran two red lights. As the appellant ran the second red light, his vehicle struck another vehicle passing through the intersection. The driver of the other vehicle, Anjanette Comer, was killed instantly, and the passenger, Dennis Shockley, died a short time later. The appellant was taken to the hospital where blood testing revealed that he had a blood alcohol level of .18 percent. Moreover, the appellant admitted to having consumed approximately ten beers that day and "numerous alcohol containers, both full and empty, [were] found inside the [appellant's] vehicle."
On January 22, 2002, the appellant entered "blind" guilty pleas to two counts of vehicular homicide by intoxication. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the appellant on each count as a Range I standard offender to twelve years incarceration and ordered that the sentences be served consecutively. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in imposing the maximum sentences and in ordering the sentences to be served consecutively.
II. Analysis
When an appellant challenges the length, range, or manner of service of a sentence, it is the duty of this court to conduct a de novo review with a presumption that the determinations made by the trial court are correct. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d) (1997). However, this presumption of correctness "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). If the record demonstrates that the trial court failed to consider the sentencing principles and the relevant facts and circumstances, review of the sentence will be purely de novo. Id.
In conducting our review, this court must consider (1) the evidence, if any, received at trial and at the sentencing hearing; (2) the presentence report; (3) the principles of sentencing and the arguments of counsel relative to the sentencing alternatives; (4) the nature and characteristics of the offenses; (5) any mitigating or enhancements factors; (6) any statements made by the appellant on his own behalf; and (7) the appellant's potential for rehabilitation or treatment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-102 and -103 (1997), -210 (Supp. 2002); see also Ashby, 823 S.W.2d at 168. The burden is on the appellant to show that the sentence is improper. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401, Sentencing Commission Comments.
The appellant was sentenced as a Range I standard offender, for which the applicable range for Class B felonies is eight to twelve years. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-112(a)(2) (1997). The presumptive sentence for a Class B felony is the minimum within the applicable range if there are no enhancement or mitigating factors. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(c). If the trial court finds that such factors do exist, the court must start at the presumptive sentence, enhance the sentence within the range as appropriate for the enhancement factors, and then reduce the sentence within the range as appropriate for the mitigating factors. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(e). There is no mathematical formula for valuating factors to calculate the appropriate sentence. State v. Boggs, 932 S.W.2d 467, 475 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). "Rather, the weight to be afforded an existing factor is left to the trial court's discretion so long as the court complies with the purposes and principles of the 1989 Sentencing Act and its findings are adequately supported by the record.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|