 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Farrar4/16/2002
r. As a standard offender convicted of a Class D felony, he was subject to a sentence ranging from not less than two to not more than four years. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-112(a)(4) (1997). The sentence to be imposed by the trial court for a Class D felony is presumptively the minimum sentence in the range when no enhancement or mitigating factors are present. See id. § 40-35-210(c). Procedurally, the trial court is to increase the sentence within the range as appropriate based on the presence of any applicable enhancement factors, and then reduce the sentence as appropriate based on the presence of any mitigating factors. Id. § 40-35-210(e). The weight to be afforded an enhancement or mitigating factor is left to the trial court's discretion as long as the trial court complies with the purposes and principles of the 1989 Sentencing Act and its findings are adequately supported by the record. Id. § 40-35-210 (1997), Sentencing Commission Cmts.; State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229, 236 (Tenn. 1986).
The trial court found four enhancement factors applicable to the defendant's case: the defendant's previous history of criminal convictions or criminal behavior in addition to those necessary to establish his range; the defendant's history of unwillingness to comply with the conditions of a sentence involving release into the community; the offense was committed while the defendant was out on parole for a previous felony conviction; and the defendant was adjudicated to have committed delinquent acts as a juvenile that would have constituted felonies if committed by an adult. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114(1), (8), (13), and (20) (1997). Although the defendant does not challenge the enhancement factors on appeal, we note that the record fully supports the application of these factors and the weight the trial court assigned to them. The defendant's record of prior arrests and convictions, which covers over seven pages in his presentence report, reveals a substantial history of criminal conduct, beginning with his convictions for grand larceny and second degree burglary at the age of 12, and including his adult felony conviction for aggravated robbery, for which he received a sentence of ten years and for which he was out on parole at the time of the instant offense.
At his sentencing hearing, the defendant proposed as mitigating factors that he acted under strong provocation; that substantial grounds existed to excuse his conduct, in that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time; and that he had a good work history. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(2), (3), and (13) (1997). The trial court considered, and rejected, each of these proposed mitigating factors:
As far as the mitigating factors, I do not find that there was strong provocation. It's speculation in this case to say that he was provoked by a remark about his sister. Number one, that remark was not made by the victim in this case. And number two, the Defendant has never told us that that is what provoked him because he insists that he did not do that. So, I don't think that's present here.
I fail to see that, in this particular case, the fact that he was inebriated is a mitigating factor here. And I don't find that it is one here. As far as his work record being a mitigating factor, he has worked some. He's been in jail a lot. I don't find that to be a mitigating factor. So, on the enhancement - and I should have said this a minute ago. On the enhancement the presumption begins at 2 years. And I enhance him up to 3 years and 6 months. I don't find a mitigating factor to bring that back down.
Our review reveals no abuse of discretion by the trial court in its sentencing determinations in this case. We a
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.
|
|