 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Adams3/31/2000
App.) perm. app. denied (Tenn. 1994).
The record clearly establishes that the trial court fully complied with the principles of sentencing as mandated by the Tennessee Reform Sentencing Act of 1989. In enhancing the sentence, the trial court found two (2) factors applicable: (1) the defendant has a previous history of criminal convictions or criminal behavior in addition to those necessary to establish the appropriate range; and (8) the defendant has a previous history of unwillingness to comply with the conditions of a sentence involving release in the community. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114. The record fully supports the application of these enhancement factors. The defendant has a history of DUI convictions and participated in forging stolen checks. The defendant, at the time of the commission of the theft, was on bail release for DUI and on probation for the offense of aggravated assault. As to mitigation, the trial court did not apply any factor. Although mitigation factor (1), that the defendant's criminal conduct neither caused nor threatened serious bodily injury, is applicable, we find in our de novo review that the defendant is entitled to little weight as to this factor. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113. Also, the trial court found that the defendant was not candid in her testimony as to the correctness of her name and address. More specifically, the defendant would not answer a direct question as to her name or address.
We find that the defendant's sentence of six (6) months incarceration is not excessive. The defendant's consistent history of criminal conduct and her poor history of rehabilitation outweigh the defendant's argument that twenty-one (21) days in custody has taught her the error of her ways. We are unfavorably impressed that the defendant, while on bond and during probation, intentionally decided to assist a fellow inmate in stealing items from a department store. The efforts of past counseling for DUI's and psychological treatment have not been successful to rehabilitate this defendant. There is no merit to this issue. The trial court's judgment of six (6) months confinement is affirmed.
L. T. LAFFERTY, SENIOR JUDGE
CONCUR:
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk
|