 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hawkins11/4/2005
ese items would have added little, if anything, to the defense in this matter, and we agree. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err in refusing to give the proposed instruction.
F. Constitutionality of Lesser-Included Offense Statute
Lastly, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to declare Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-18-110 (2003) unconstitutional, citing State v. Robert Page, No. W2003-01342-CCA-R3- CD, 2004 WL 3352994 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, Aug. 26, 2004), perm. to appeal granted, (Tenn. 2005). However, the appellant makes no claims that the trial court erred in its charging lesser-included offenses. Rather, it appears that he is seeking an advisory opinion as to a statute which he does not claim affected his trial. We decline to provide such an opinion.
III. Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing authorities and reasoning, we affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment to reflect the date of the judgment as March 9, 2004, rather than March 9, 2002.
|