 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Mitchell5/10/2005
sentences. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(1). The Defendant has failed to prove that the evidence preponderates against these findings. Accordingly, we find no error in the consecutive nature of the Defendant's sentences. This issue is without merit.
III. Conclusion
We note that there are some clerical errors in the judgment for count one, in case number 5504, for the Defendant's burglary of an automobile conviction. Therefore, we remand for entry by the trial court of an amended judgment reflecting the following: that the Defendant was represented by appointed counsel, not retained counsel, and that the Defendant was convicted and sentenced as a Range II multiple offender, with a release eligibility of 35%. In accordance with the foregoing reasoning and authorities, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
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.
|
|