 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Edwards v. Commonwealth6/24/2005
having tried various substance abuse treatment programs. Observing that the jury had been specifically informed that its decision regarding concurrent and consecutive sentencing was only a recommendation, the trial court chose to deviate from the jury's recommendation for fully concurrent sentencing. The reasons given by the trial court for increasing Edwards's sentence to be served from ten to fifteen years were the fact that Edwards had been unable to resolve his substance abuse problem in twenty years and the fact that he had come "extremely close" to killing Hutchinson and Smith as a result. Based on these facts, the court deemed it appropriate that Edwards "be removed from society for a considerable period of time."
It is well established that the trial court is not obligated to accept the recommendation of the jury on concurrent sentencing. Upon review, the question is whether the trial court abused its discretion in rendering a decision which is arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles. In the instant case, the trial court provided several reasons for declining to follow the jury's recommendation to run both of the ten-year sentences concurrently. Under these circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's sentencing.
Having concluded that each of the points of appeal which Edwards has raised is either unpreserved or without merit, we affirm.
ALL CONCUR.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Kentucky DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|