 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Wilson8/2/2001
found beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant killed the victim during the perpetration of a robbery. This evidence is also sufficient to sustain Defendant's conviction for especially aggravated robbery. Furthermore, we note that it is not the role of this Court to weigh the credibility of witnesses, rather that function belongs to the jury. State v. Cribbs, 967 S.W.2d 773, 793 (Tenn. 1998). We find that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery, although these convictions must be reversed due to the trial court's failure to allow the jury to consider the options of certain lesser-included offenses as discussed above.
IV. SENTENCING
The Defendant also challenges the trial court's order requiring him to serve his twenty-three-year especially aggravated robbery sentence consecutively to his life sentence for felony murder. Although we have reversed Defendant's convictions and remanded for a new trial, we choose to address the sentencing issue in the event of further appellate review or for guidance on remand, in the event Defendant is convicted following his second trial.
The Defendant contends that the trial court erred in finding him to be a dangerous offender and, consequently, imposing consecutive sentences. He argues that the sentence is excessive and effectively nullifies any possibility of parole eligibility for the life sentence.
The Defendant also asserts that the sentence is excessive, because by the time he is eligible for parole, he will be over 70 years old and too old to pose a danger to the public.
When a defendant appeals the manner of service of a sentence imposed by the trial court, this court conducts a de novo review of the record with a presumption that the trial court's determinations are correct. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d). The presumption of correctness is "conditioned upon the affirmative showing in the record that the trial court considered the sentencing principles and all relevant facts and circumstances." State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991). The burden of showing that the sentence is improper is upon the appealing party. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d), Sentencing Commission Comments. However, if the record shows that the trial court failed to consider the sentencing principles and all relevant facts and circumstances, then review of the sentence is purely de novo. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d at 169.
Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-35-115(b)(4) provides that a trial court may order sentences to run consecutively if the court finds that "the defendant is a dangerous offender whose behavior indicates little or no regard for human life, and no hesitation about committing a crime in which the risk to human life is high." However, consecutive sentencing may not be imposed on a dangerous offender, "unless the terms reasonably relate to the severity of the offenses committed and are necessary in order to protect the public from further serious criminal conduct by the defendant." State v.. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933, 938 (Tenn. 1995); State v. Lane, 3 S.W.3d 456, 461 (Tenn. 1999). The trial court is required to state on the record its specific findings of fact behind, which support consecutive sentencing. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-209(c); Ashby, 823 S.W.2d at 169.
Here, the trial court found that the Wilkerson factors existed and that the Defendant qualified as a dangerous offender. The trial court also stated its findings on the record. The trial court further found that the the Defendant had an extensive criminal history (Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(2)), and that the Defendant was on probation at t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|