 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Williams4/17/2002
We conclude that sufficient evidence was presented to support the Defendant's conviction for second degree murder. Because the Defendant admitted that he shot the victim, the primary determination for the jury was the Defendant's state of mind at the time of the crime. Three witnesses to the crime testified that the shooter, identified by one of the witnesses as the Defendant, shot the victim several times in rapid succession from close proximity. One witness testified that during the shooting, the Defendant said to the victim, "I told you I was going to get you," while another witness testified that after the shooting, the Defendant said to the victim, "Look at you now." One of the witnesses testified that during the shooting, the Defendant was circling the victim as if to find certain spots from which to fire his gun. Another witness stated that he saw the victim attempt to cover his face for protection during the shooting. The medical examiner who reviewed the victim's autopsy report confirmed that the victim was shot from close proximity and died from multiple gunshot wounds. He also testified that defensive wounds were found on the victim's body. This is clearly sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the Defendant was aware that his conduct was reasonably certain to cause the victim's death. See id. Although the Defendant and defense witnesses testified that the victim confronted and threatened the Defendant prior to the shooting, the jury apparently did not believe that the Defendant acted in self-defense when he shot and killed the victim. We may not re-evaluate the jury's findings of fact. Matthews, 805 S.W.2d at779. This issue is without merit.
II. SENTENCING
The Defendant next contends that he was improperly sentenced. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I standard offender to twenty years incarceration. Because the Defendant was convicted of a Class A felony, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-210(b), the appropriate sentencing range in his case was between fifteen and twenty-five years. See id. § 40-35-112(a)(1).
When a criminal defendant challenges the length, range, or manner of service of a sentence, the reviewing court must conduct a de novo review of the sentence with a presumption that the determinations made by the trial court are correct. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d). This presumption, however, "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 the event that the record fails to show such consideration, the review of the sentence is purely de novo. State v. Shelton, 854 S.W.2d 116, 123 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992).
In making its sentencing determination, the trial court, at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, determines the range of sentence and then determines the specific sentence and the propriety of sentencing alternatives by considering (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, (6) any statements the defendant wishes to make in the defendant's behalf about sentencing, and (7) the potential for rehabilitation or treatment. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-210(a), (b), -103(5); State v. Williams, 920 S.W.2d 247, 258 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).
When imposing a sentence, the trial court must make specific findings of fact on the record supporting the sentence.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|