 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Vanblaricum5/25/2005
the imposition of that sentence is in accordance with the principles and purposes of the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989. Id.
The defendant contends that the trial court erred by failing to adhere to the misdemeanor sentencing guidelines in T.C.A. § 40-35-302(d), which provides in pertinent part:
In imposing a misdemeanor sentence, the court shall fix a percentage of the sentence which the defendant shall serve [in confinement] . . . . In determining the percentage of the sentence to be served in actual confinement, the court shall consider the purposes of this chapter, the principles of sentencing, and the enhancement and mitigating factors set forth in this chapter and shall not impose such percentages arbitrarily.
However, the record does not reflect that the trial court failed to consider the sentencing considerations and guidelines set forth in T.C.A. §§ 40-35-102, -103, or -302(d) or that it failed to consider the enhancement and mitigating factors when calculating the percentage of the defendant's sentence to be served in confinement. The record also fails to reflect that the trial court imposed the confinement arbitrarily. Rather, it reflects that the trial court considered the sentencing purposes and principles in addition to the presentence report and the evidence presented when it imposed the sentence in this case. According to T.C.A. § 55-10-403(a)(1), the punishment for any person violating § 55-10-401 shall be a fine of not less than $350.00 and confinement for not less than forty-eight hours. The defendant contends that he should have received the minimum sentence of forty-eight hours confinement, but the trial court determined otherwise based upon his two prior DUI convictions. The defendant also contends that the trial court failed to consider the testimony of the officers at the trial and that his sentence is in retaliation for exercising his right to trial. The record contains no evidence to support these contentions. Because we conclude that the trial court's imposition of the defendant's sentence is in accordance with the principles and purposes of the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989 and complies with the mandate in T.C.A. § 55-10-403(m), the defendant is not entitled to relief on this issue.
Based on the foregoing and the record as a whole, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
|