 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Farrar4/16/2002
R>
I. Sentencing
As his first issue, the defendant contends that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. He argues that the court failed to consider or apply appropriate mitigating factors, including evidence that he was provoked, that he is a good worker, and that he had not used drugs or alcohol, except on the night of the incident, for the previous two years. The State argues that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing the defendant to three years and six months.
When an accused challenges the length and manner of service of a sentence, it is the duty of this court to conduct a de novo review on the record with a presumption that "the determinations made by the court from which the appeal is taken are correct." Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d). This presumption 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 conducting a de novo review of a sentence, this court must consider (a) any evidence received at the trial and/or sentencing hearing, (b) the presentence report, (c) the principles of sentencing, (d) the arguments of counsel relative to sentencing alternatives, (e) the nature and characteristics of the offense, (f) any mitigating or enhancement factors, (g) any statements made by the accused in his own behalf, and (h) the accused's potential or lack of potential for rehabilitation or treatment. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-103 and -210; State v. Scott, 735 S.W.2d 825, 829 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987).
The party challenging the sentence imposed by the trial court has the burden of establishing that the sentence is erroneous. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401, Sentencing Commission Cmts.; Ashby, 823 S.W.2d at 169. Since the record in this case demonstrates that the trial court considered all relevant facts and circumstances and followed the principles of the 1989 Sentencing Act, our review of this issue is de novo with a presumption of correctness given to the trial court's sentencing determinations.
The defendant was the only witness to testify at his sentencing hearing. He said that he was 28 years old, married, and the father of two children - a nine-year-old by his first wife and an eighteen-month-old daughter by his current wife. He had been employed at the time of his arrest at Lockwood Construction Company in Franklin, Tennessee. Prior to that job, he had worked for Sterling Construction Company in McMinnville, and the owner had offered to hire him again if he was released from prison. The defendant testified that he had been drinking on the evening of the incident and that he had taken "offense," as he assumed "anybody would," to the degrading comments made about his sister. Although he maintained he was innocent of the offenses, testifying on cross-examination that he knew he had not cut the victim because he did not carry a weapon, the defendant acknowledged that he had made a mistake by becoming drunk that evening. He stated that he had a history of drug and alcohol abuse, but had not used either for the two years preceding the incident. However, on the night in question, he had given in to feelings of discouragement caused by "complications" with his ex-wife over back child support he owed and "just . . . threw up hands and said, I am through with it. I'm going to get drunk." He said that he had learned his lesson about drinking.
The defendant's lengthy criminal record contained only one adult felony conviction, for an aggravated robbery committed at the age of 20. The trial court therefore appropriately classified him as a standard, Range I offende
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|