 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Raines4/17/2002
eld, 23 S.W.3d 279, 283 (Tenn. 2000) (citing State v. Poole, 945 S.W.2d 93, 96 (Tenn. 1997)).
The presumptive sentence for a Class A felony is the midpoint in the statutory range. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(c). In determining the appropriate sentence for a Class A felony conviction, the sentencing court, if there are enhancing factors but no mitigating factors, may set the sentence above the midpoint but still within the range. See id. § 40-35-210(d). If there are mitigating factors, but no enhancement factors, for a Class A felony, then the sentencing court shall set the sentence at or below the midpoint of the range. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(d). There is no mathematical formula for valuating factors to calculate the appropriate sentence. State v. Boggs, 932 S.W.2d 467, 475 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). "Rather, the weight to be afforded an existing factor is left to the trial court's discretion so long as the court complies with the purposes and principles of the 1989 Sentencing Act and its findings are adequately supported by the record." Id. at 475-76 (citations omitted).
In the instant case, 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. The defendant was classified as a Range I offender convicted of a Class A felony, therefore the appropriate statutory range of punishment was fifteen to twenty-five years. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-112(a)(1). The trial court correctly began its determination of the appropriate sentence length for the defendant at the midpoint, or twenty years, and enhanced the defendant's sentence two years for a sentence of twenty-two (22) years. In its sentencing ruling, the trial court found three applicable statutory enhancement factors: (1) the defendant has a previous record of criminal convictions or behavior in addition to what is required to establish the appropriate range; (9) the defendant employed a firearm during commission of the offense; and (20) the defendant was convicted of a crime as a juvenile that would constitute a felony if committed by an adult. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-114 (1), (9), (20).
In mitigation, the trial court applied factor (6), the defendant, because of his youth or old age, lacked substantial judgment in committing the offense. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(6). The trial court also considered as a mitigating factor the fact that the defendant himself had been shot within a year of the offense. However, the trial court rejected mitigating factors (2), the defendant acted under strong provocation, and (3), substantial grounds exist to excuse or justify the criminal conduct but fall short of a defense. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-113(2), (3).
After a de novo review of the record, we conclude that the trial court properly applied the statutory enhancement factors and mitigating factors. The proof at the sentencing hearing established that the defendant had a juvenile conviction for aggravated assault, a Class C felony if committed by an adult, and a DUI conviction. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102. Thus, factors (1) and (20) were properly applied. Enhancement factor (9) was also properly applied. The use of a deadly weapon is not an element of the offense of second-degree murder. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-210. This Court has ruled that enhancing a murder sentence for the use of a deadly weapon is permissible. State v. Butler, 900 S.W.2d 305, 313 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). With respect to the mitigating factors, the trial court declined to apply factors (2) and (3), finding that both were "a part of th
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.
|
|