 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Meghreblian11/16/2001
ent through demonstrating the presence of any of the considerations upon which confinement may be based." State v. Joshua L. Webster, No. E1999-02203-CCA-R3-CD, slip op. at 3 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Dec. 4, 2000).
Moreover, having been convicted of aggravated assault, he is ineligible for placement in a community corrections program. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(a)(2) (Supp. 2000). Thus, any alternative to confinement that could have been considered would have necessarily included probation, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-104(c) (1997), and the defendant bore the burden of establishing that he was entitled to any probation. Joshua L. Webster, slip op. at 3-4. This initial burden, combined with the post-judgment presumption of correctness of the trial court's sentence, equates to a daunting burden on the defendant to show on appeal that he should have been awarded some measure of probation.
As noted earlier, the potential for rehabilitation or treatment is one of the factors that forms the basis for granting sentencing alternatives, particularly probation. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(5) (1997); State v. Anderson, 985 S.W.2d 9, 21 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). Lack of candor and credibility are reliable indications of a defendant's potential for rehabilitation. State v. Bunch, 646 S.W.2d 158, 160 (Tenn. 1983); State v. Zeolia, 928 S.W.2d 457, 463 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996); State v. Williamson, 919 S.W.2d 69, 84 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995); State v. Dowdy, 894 S.W.2d 301, 305-06 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). A defendant's lack of candor to the sentencing court reflects poorly on the defendant's rehabilitative potential and thus is a basis to deny probation. State v. Leggs, 955 S.W.2d 845, 851-52 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997); State v. Gennoe, 851 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992).
In the present case, the trial court specifically found that the defendant was not candid and truthful and that, therefore, he was a poor candidate for the rehabilitation that alternative sentencing is designed to engender. The trial judge is in the best position to assess a defendant's credibility and potential for rehabilitation. State v. Nunley, 22 S.W.3d 282, 289 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). We must defer to the trial court's determination of demeanor and credibility issues. We hold that these findings support the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing.
For the reasons explained above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Page 1 2 3 4 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|