 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Stratton7/22/2003
At the September 23, 2002, sentencing hearing, Defendant testified that on the date of the offense, he got off work at approximately 12:00 noon and went to the Party Pub, where he played cards and drank alcohol. He left the Party Pub at 12:00 midnight. He walked around the corner and entered Bill's Hair to use the restroom. Defendant "got on the computer, just messing around. Had all the lights on and everything." Defendant did not remember whether he took anything from Bill's Hair. He testified that "a lot of my recollection of what happened is what I've been told [by police officers]." He left Bill's Hair and went inside Just So Decorating through the back door, which was open. Defendant "just walked in there and got on the computer. Just - I mean, just basically, you know, drinking still." When police officers arrested Defendant, he was standing against the back of the building. Defendant did not attempt to run. Defendant was advised of his Miranda rights, and he refused to answer any questions and requested the presence of a lawyer.
Defendant entered guilty pleas to both offenses as a Range I standard offender. At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a two- year sentence for each conviction and ordered the sentences to be served concurrently with each other, but consecutively to his sentence for a prior conviction. The trial court emphasized Defendant's extensive criminal history, finding that the presumption favoring alternative sentencing was "overcome by the fact that these offenses were committed while you were on bond for several other felony offenses." The trial court further found that Defendant's potential for rehabilitation was poor, stating that "[Defendant has] not been able to get a hold on [his alcohol] problem, in spite of being involved in some treatment [programs], and continue to commit crimes." The trial court therefore ordered Defendant's sentence to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction.
Defendant complains that the trial court erred by refusing to order alternative sentencing. Our review of a defendant's sentence is de novo with a presumption that the trial court's determinations are correct. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d) (1997); State v. Imfeld, 70 S.W.3d 698, 704 (Tenn. 2002). For this presumption to apply to the trial court's determinations, however, there must be an affirmative showing in the record that the trial court considered sentencing principles and all relevant facts and circumstances. State v. Pettus, 986 S.W.2d 540, 543-44 (Tenn. 1999).
If the trial court has imposed a lawful sentence by following the statutory sentencing procedure, has given due consideration to the factors and sentencing principles, and has made findings of fact adequately supported by the record, this Court may not modify the sentence even if it would have preferred a different result. State v. Fletcher, 805 S.W.2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). However, if the trial court fails to comply with the statutory directives, our review of the sentence is de novo without a presumption of correctness. State v. Winfield, 23 S.W.3d 279, 283 (Tenn. 2000).
When determining a defendant's suitability for alternative sentencing, the sentencing court may consider the following factors: (1) whether confinement is necessary to protect society by restraining a defendant who has a long history of criminal conduct; (2) whether confinement is necessary to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense; (3) whether confinement is particularly suited to provide an effective deterrent to others likely to commit similar offenses; (4) whether measures less restrictive than confinement have frequently or recently been applied uns
Page 1 2 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|