 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bailey11/29/2001
rs likely to commit a similar offense. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(1)(B).
In State v. Hooper, 29 S.W.3d 1, 10-12 (Tenn. 2000), our supreme court specifically enumerated five factors to be considered when deciding whether a need for deterrence is present and whether incarceration is "particularly suited" to achieve that goal:
(1) Whether other incidents of the charged offense are increasingly present in the community as a whole;
(2) Whether the defendant's crime was the result of intentional, knowing, or reckless conduct or was otherwise motivated by a desire to profit or gain from the criminal behavior;
(3) Whether the defendant's crime and conviction have received substantial publicity beyond that normally expected in the typical case;
(4) Whether the defendant was a member of a criminal enterprise, or substantially encouraged or assisted others in achieving the criminal objective;
(5) Whether the defendant has previously engaged in criminal conduct of the same type as the offense in question, irrespective of whether such conduct resulted in previous arrests or convictions.
In addition to these factors, the court emphasized that the five factors are neither exhaustive nor conclusive. Id. at 12. In other words, the sentencing court may consider additional non-enumerated factors provided that: (1) the sentencing court specifically recites these factors on the record; and (2) these additional factors are supported by "at least some proof." Id. Additionally, in concluding the need for deterrence exists, the sentencing court need not find that all five factors are present.
In this case, Officer Williams testified that alcohol-related injuries had increased 7-8% from the previous year. The trial court accredited this testimony by stating, "This officer has worked those type of cases for as long as this court can remember. He knows consequences or the results . . . out there." Accordingly, we conclude, based on Officer Williams' testimony at trial, that the first factor of Hooper has been met. Moreover, we note that the Appellant had three DUI convictions prior to the offenses in the present case. It is clear from the record that the Appellant's past DUI convictions were of the same type of criminal conduct as was involved in this case. Apparently, the Appellant gleaned nothing from his prior punishments and continued to disregard the law. Thus, the fifth factor of Hooper is also met.
After affording the trial court the presumption of correctness upon de novo review, we cannot conclude, under the guidance provided by the supreme court in Hooper, that the trial court acted unreasonably in ordering confinement based on grounds of deterrence. Clearly, the record demonstrates that the Appellant's conduct has resulted in tragic consequences to two innocent victims. To prevent further endangerment to the public, a need for deterrence exists as previous efforts to rehabilitate have miserably failed. We affirm the trial court's imposition of total confinement.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing reasons, we find no reversible error. Accordingly, the Appellant's consecutive four-year sentences for vehicular assault in the Washington County Criminal Court are affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|