 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Reid7/20/2001
es.
Defendant also contends that his right to notice regarding the possibility of consecutive sentencing is specifically articulated in Article I, section 9, of the Tennessee Constitution and quotes the following passage from that section: " n all criminal prosecutions, the accused hath the right to be heard by himself and his counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him . . . ." Tenn. Const. art. I, § 9 (alteration in original). This constitutional provision does not support the interpretation proposed by defendant, however. It simply provides that the accused has the right to be informed, with some degree of certainty, of the crime of which he stands accused. Bosley v. State, 401 S.W.2d 770, 771 (Tenn. 1966). This was accomplished by Defendant's indictment, which we have examined and found satisfies the constitutional guarantees of notice to the accused according to the requirements outlined by our supreme court in State v. Hill, 954 S.W.2d 725, 727 (Tenn. 1997). After due consideration, we hold that imposition of consecutive sentences according to the criteria established in our existing statutes and rules, including Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115, without specific additional notice, does not violate a defendant's due process rights.
Furthermore, we find ample support in the record to sustain the trial court's sentencing determination under the criteria provided in Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115. The transcript of the sentencing hearing reveals that the trial court found that the following were applicable in Defendant's case "by a preponderance of the evidence": (2) " he defendant is an offender whose record of criminal activity is extensive," (4) " he 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," and (6) " he defendant is sentenced for an offense committed while on probation." Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115 (2), (4), (6) (1997). We concur with these findings. Defendant is not entitled to relief on this issue.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
|