 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Whaley5/21/2003
e trial court based its decision upon the appellant's prior criminal record and her failure to rehabilitate after previous encounters with the law.
The appellant's presentence report reflects that the appellant was arrested for DUI in 1998, but the case was ultimately dismissed. In 1988, she was arrested for DUI but was convicted of reckless driving. Two years prior, the appellant was charged with public intoxication but the case was dismissed. In 1985, the appellant was convicted of DUI. In 1981, the appellant was convicted of disorderly conduct and in 1977 she was convicted of public intoxication. Notably, all of the appellant's criminal charges stem from alcohol related offenses. Her offenses are spaced over time, yet clearly the appellant has not rehabilitated if she continues to engage in criminal activity as a result of alcohol. See State v. Green, 947 S.W.2d 186, 189 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997); State v. Randy Lee Bowers, No. E2000-00585-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 15836, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, Jan. 9, 2001); State v. Randy Lowe Evans, No. W1999-01206-CCA-R3-CD, 1999 WL 1097838, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, Nov. 24, 1999). Moreover, it was also within the trial court's discretion to impose thirty days incarceration for the appellant's assault conviction. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err in sentencing the appellant to an effective thirty days in confinement.
III. Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|