 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Parvin8/29/2001
433, 1997 WL 661728 at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Oct. 24, 1997)). Therefore, the defendant's contention that his actions were not dangerous because they did not result in bodily injury is not persuasive.
Finally, the defendant argues that either he should be released on probation or serve an alternative sentence, because, if he is denied probation, he will be required to serve an extraordinary amount of time before he is eligible for probation. Specifically, the defendant states that he will be required to serve 1,704 days before he will begin to serve his sentence for the case at issue, Case S42,853. As stated above, the trial court's sentencing determinations are entitled to a presumption of correctness if the trial court properly considered the sentencing principles and all relevant facts and circumstances. In the instant case, the trial court simply alluded to the defendant's lengthy, "terrible record" when denying the defendant's request for probation or alternative sentencing. However, we find that the sentence was properly imposed, and probation was properly denied. As discussed supra, the trial court properly categorized the defendant as a career offender per Section 40-35-108(1), in light of the defendant's six prior felony convictions, and therefore, the sentence imposed in Case S42,853, a six- year sentence, was properly imposed. Therefore, because the trial court properly exercised its discretion, the defendant's argument that the length of his sentence is too great is without merit.
In light of the above considerations, we hold that the defendant has failed to meet his burden of proving that he is a suitable candidate for probation or alternative sentencing per Tennessee Code Annotated Section 40-35-303(b).
Conclusion
For the forgoing reasons, we find that none of the defendant's allegations merit relief. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
|