 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Raines4/17/2002
s adequately provoked to act in an irrational manner or was acting under a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily injury. Furthermore, the evidence supports the jury's finding. There were two other grown men present, who could have assisted the defendant if he was attacked by the victim. The victim was unarmed and half-drunk by the defendant's own testimony. Finally, the victim did not threaten the defendant until the defendant returned outside with a deadly weapon. From the evidence presented at trial, a rational trier of fact could have rejected the defendant's claim of self-defense or that he was adequately provoked to behave irrationally. This issue, therefore, is without merit.
Proposed Jury Instruction
The defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing the defendant's request to instruct the jury on his constitutional right under the Second Amendment to keep and maintain a weapon at his place of residence. We first note that the defendant has cited no authority in support of his position. Furthermore, there is nothing in the record with regard to the defendant's request for the proposed jury instruction or the trial court's denial of such request. According to the State's brief, the trial court's ruling on the proposed instruction was made in chambers and off the record. According to Rule 10(b), Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, "Issues which are not supported by argument, citation to authorities, or appropriate references to the record will be treated as waived in this court." Accordingly, this issue is waived.
Length of Sentence
The defendant next challenges the length of his sentence. The defendant argues that the trial court erred by not giving greater weight to the mitigating factors and urges this Court to reduce his sentence to fifteen years, the minimum in the applicable range. After a review of the record, we conclude that we are without discretion to alter the defendant's sentence, even if we would have preferred a different result. When an accused challenges the length, range, or the manner of service of a sentence, this Court has a duty to 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 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). However, if our review reflects that the trial court followed the statutory sentencing procedure, imposed a lawful sentence after having given due consideration and proper weight to the factors and principles set out under the sentencing law, and made findings of fact that are adequately supported by the record, then we may not modify the sentence even if we would have preferred a different result. State v. Fletcher, 805 S.W.2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).
When conducting a de novo review of a sentence, this Court must consider: (a) the evidence, if any, received at the trial and the sentencing hearing; (b) the presentence report; (c) the principles of sentencing and arguments as to sentencing alternatives; (d) the nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct involved; (e) any statutory mitigating or enhancement factors; (f) any statement that the defendant made on his own behalf; and (g) the potential or lack of potential for rehabilitation or treatment. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-102-103, 210. If our review of the record reveals that the trial court failed to comply with the statutory provisions of sentencing, appellate review is de novo without a presumption of correctness. State v. Winfi
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.
|
|