 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Reid7/20/2001
not abuse his discretion in refusing to grant a mistrial. Defendant is not entitled to relief on this issue.
C. Consecutive Sentencing
Defendant also contends that the trial court erred when it imposed consecutive sentences because neither the trial court nor the State gave advance notice of its intent to seek same. Defendant argues that the failure to give such notice deprived him of his right to due process as guaranteed by both the United States Constitution and the constitution of Tennessee. We disagree.
In this case, the trial court's ability to impose consecutive sentences on Defendant is governed by Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115. This statute places full responsibility for determining whether consecutive sentences are proper upon the trial judge. Specifically, it directs that where "a defendant is convicted of more than one (1) criminal offense, the court shall order sentences to run consecutively or concurrently as provided by the criteria in this section." Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(a) (1997) (emphasis added). The statute continues by stating that " he court may order sentences to run consecutively if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence" that any of the seven criteria enumerated in the statute apply. Id. § 40-35-115(b) (emphasis added). The imposition of consecutive sentences is not dependent upon any required notice from the prosecution. Neither does the statute require that a judge review information relevant to a defendant's sentence prior to the sentencing hearing in order to give a defendant "notice" of any kind.
In his brief, Defendant asserts that the United States Supreme Court "has repeatedly emphasized the importance of giving the parties [in a proceeding] sufficient notice to enable them to identify the issues on which a decision may turn" and cites Lankford v. Idaho, 500 U.S. 110, 126 (1991), in support of this statement. Defendant further contends that "without such notice, the court is denied the benefit of the adversary process." However, in Lankford, the petitioner's argument centered on the fact that the nature of the sentencing proceeding did not provide the petitioner with any indication that the trial judge contemplated death as a possible sentence. Id. at 119. Importantly, the Court observed that a hearing to decide sentencing matters, e.g., whether sentences should run concurrently or consecutively, would have proceeded in exactly the same way as the hearing in issue did. Id.
Consequently, while counsel for both sides were arguing the merits of other aspects of sentencing, the judge was the only person in the courtroom who knew that the real issue that they should have been debating was the choice between life and death. Id. at 120. Since the counsel for petitioner did not have adequate notice of the critical issue that the judge was actually debating, i.e., that his sentencing hearing could result in the death penalty, the Court in Lankford determined that the petitioner's due process rights were violated. Id. at 127. The Court made no statement, nor did it infer, that a petitioner would be entitled to notice of sentencing procedures which are well-established, routine, and published by statute. We also observe that the facts in the instant case did not create the secret, one-sided type of proceeding which the Lankford Court found violative of the petitioner's constitutional due process rights. By contrast, Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115 specifically enumerates what criteria the judge will examine when making a determination regarding consecutive sentences and, in doing so, also provides sufficient information so that a defendant may adequately prepare to argue against such sentencing if he so choos
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|