 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Anderson4/29/2005
ant was convicted of fourth offense DUI. According to Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-403(a)(1), the fourth or subsequent conviction for DUI is a Class E felony,
punishable by a fine of not less than three thousand dollars ($3,000) nor more than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000); by confinement for not less than one hundred fifty (150) consecutive days, to be served day for day, nor more than the maximum punishment authorized for the appropriate range of a Class E felony; and the court shall prohibit the person from driving a motor vehicle for a period of five (5) years.
In calculating the sentence for a Class E felony conviction, the presumptive sentence is the minimum in the range if there are no enhancement or mitigating factors. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(c). If there are enhancing but no mitigating factors, the trial court may set the sentence above the minimum, but still within the range. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(d). If both enhancing and mitigating factors are present, the trial court must start at the presumptive minimum, enhance the sentence within the range as appropriate for the enhancing factors, and then reduce the sentence as appropriate for the mitigating factors. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(e). Undisputably, the appellant was a Range I offender; thus, one year was the minimum sentence against which the trial court was to balance any mitigating and enhancement factors.
No particular weight for each factor is prescribed by the statute. See State v. Santiago, 914 S.W.2d 116, 125 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). The weight given to each factor is left to the discretion of the trial court as long as it comports with the sentencing principles and purposes of our code and as long as its findings are supported by the record. Id.
The trial court found the existence of enhancement factor (2), "the defendant has a previous history of criminal convictions or criminal behavior in addition to those necessary to establish the appropriate range." Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114. According to the presentence report, the appellant had a conviction for vandalism involving an automobile accident. As a result, the trial court enhanced the sentence from one (1) year to two (2) years. The trial court made it clear that it was not enhancing the appellant's sentence on the basis of the three prior DUI's, but on the vandalism conviction. This Court has recognized that a single prior misdemeanor conviction may support an enhancement of the defendant's sentence, even when unrelated in nature to the current charge. See e.g., State v. Willie Givens, No. M2000-02883-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 1400049 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, June 28, 2002). The appellant has failed to prove that the sentence was improper. This issue is without merit.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand the case to the trial court for the limited purpose of correcting the judgments.
Page 1 2 3 4 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|