 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Jones3/12/2003
Factual Background
A police officer approached the defendant, who was sitting in a Ranger pick-up truck next to a gas station pay phone at approximately 12:30 a.m. After identifying himself, the officer asked the defendant for identification and noticed four baggies of marijuana sitting in the defendant's vehicle in plain sight. The officer subsequently arrested the defendant and performed a search incident to arrest. The search revealed a "roach clip," rolling papers, and a knife with a blade over four inches in length. The defendant pled guilty to the above-referenced charges and received a plea agreement for a one-year sentence for his possession conviction and a suspended sentence for his two other convictions. The manner of service for the defendant's one-year sentence was left to the discretion of the trial court, and the defendant requested probation. The trial court conducted a probation hearing and subsequently granted the defendant a split-confinement sentence, which included four years of probation and one year of incarceration. This period of incarceration was to be suspended after the defendant served ninety days in the county jail. As mentioned supra, the defendant now appeals his sentence, challenging the authority of the court to give him a sentence of split-confinement and alleging that the trial court abused its discretion by applying improper weight to the enhancement and mitigating factors that were applied to his sentence.
Standard of Review for a Trial Court's Sentence Determination
This Court's review of the sentence imposed by the trial court is de novo with a presumption of correctness. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d). However, this presumption is conditioned upon an affirmative showing in the record that the trial judge considered the sentencing principles and all relevant facts and circumstances. State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991). If the trial court fails to comply with the statutory directives, there is no presumption of correctness and our review is simply de novo. State v. Poole, 945 S.W.2d 93, 96 (Tenn. 1997).
The burden is upon the appealing party to show that the sentence is improper. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d) (Sentencing Commission Comments). In conducting our review, we are required, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-210, to consider the following factors in sentencing:
(1) the evidence, if any, received at the trial and the sentencing hearing;
(2) the presentence report;
(3) the principles of sentencing and arguments as to sentencing alternatives;
(4) the nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct involved;
(5) evidence and information offered by the parties on the enhancement and mitigating factors in §§ 40-35-113 and 40-35- 114; and
(6) any statement the defendant wishes to make in his own behalf about sentencing. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(b).
An especially mitigated or standard offender convicted of a Class C, D or E felony is presumed to be a favorable candidate for alternative sentencing in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Id. § 40-35-102(6). A trial court must presume that a defendant sentenced to eight years or less who is not an offender for whom incarceration is a priority is subject to alternative sentencing. State v. Byrd, 861 S.W.2d 377, 379-80 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). It is further presumed that a sentence other than incarceration would result in successful rehabilitation of the defendant unless rebutted by sufficient evidence in the record. Id. at 380. This presumption may be rebutted by evidence demonstrating the defendant's unfitness for probation or al
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.
|
|