 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Blackburn10/19/2001
a suspended license, public intoxication, and theft of property over $1,000. At age twenty-one, he was again convicted of theft of property over $1,000. Furthermore, he has violated his parole numerous times. Now, at age twenty-five, he has committed the instant offenses. The record clearly indicates that this defendant has a record of extensive criminal activity. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(2).
The trial court also found that the defendant was a "dangerous offender" whose behavior indicated little or no regard for human life and who had no hesitation about committing a crime when the risk to human life was high. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(4). In applying the factors set out in Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d at 939, the trial court found that a consecutive sentence was reasonably related to the severity of the aggravated robbery. In so finding, the trial court stated, " e are talking about an aggravated robbery, in which someone lost their life, was murdered. I think that does warrant an extended sentence, because it does reasonably relate to the severity of the offenses committed." The trial court further found that a consecutive sentence was necessary to protect the public from further serious criminal conduct by the defendant. See id. In its findings, the trial court stated, "I think given [the defendant's extensive criminal history] and the facts of this case, a consecutive sentence is necessary to protect the public from further serious criminal conduct by this defendant." See id.
Our review of the record also indicates that such a sentence is clearly congruent with the principles of sentencing. See id. Considering the trial court's findings, and given the circumstances of this aggravated robbery and the defendant's extensive prior criminal record, we agree with the trial court's conclusion that this defendant was also a "dangerous offender" who had little or no regard for human life. Thus, because the defendant has an extensive prior criminal activity and qualifies as a "dangerous offender," the trial court did not err in ordering the defendant's sentences to run consecutively.
Conclusion
After thorough review, we hold that sufficient evidence exists to support the defendant's convictions for aggravated robbery and for first degree murder. Furthermore, we hold that the trial court did not err in refusing to allow into evidence the guilty plea of co-defendant Dickerson and in refusing to allow into evidence statements made by co-defendant Dickerson to "Poncho" Parker. Finally, we hold that the trial court did not err in ordering the defendant's sentences to run consecutively. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
|