 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Thacker6/30/2000
not involved;
(5) Persons who do not demonstrate a present or past pattern of behavior indicating violence;
(6) Persons who do not demonstrate a pattern of committing violent offenses; and
(7) Persons who are sentenced to incarceration or on escape at the time of consideration will not be eligible. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(a) (emphasis added).
Additionally, there is a "special needs" category of eligibility for Community Corrections:
Felony offenders not otherwise eligible under subsection (a), and who would be usually considered unfit for probation due to histories of chronic alcohol, drug abuse, or mental health problems, but whose special needs are treatable and could be served best in the community rather than in a correctional institution, may be considered eligible for punishment in the community under the provisions of this chapter. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(c) (emphasis added).
To be eligible for Community Corrections under subpart(c), the defendant must first be eligible for probation under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-303. State v. Staten, 787 S.W.2d 934, 936 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1989).
The defendant complains that due to his chronic alcohol and drug abuse and mental health problems, he qualified under the special needs section and should have been sentenced to a community corrections program. In response, the state first points out that the defendant has failed to include in the record a transcript of the guilty plea and argues that this court should treat the judgment of the trial court as presumptively correct. In the alternative, the state contends that a community corrections sentence was properly denied due to the defendant's prior criminal history, an escape from the workhouse in September of 1998, and the escalating nature of his criminal conduct since the age of 19.
Initially, the record is incomplete. The failure to include the guilty plea hearing transcript requires this court to presume that any missing information would have supported the three-year sentence to the Department of Correction. See State v. Keen, 996 S.W.2d 842 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999); State v. Oody, 823 S.W.2d 554, 559 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) (stating that when necessary parts of the record are missing on appeal, this court must presume that the trial court's decision was correct). More importantly, the investigative report provided by the Department of Correction, which is included in the record in its entirety, supports the decision of the trial court. Although the defendant has no prior felony convictions, he has been convicted of theft of property under $500.00, two instances of driving under the influence , driving on a revoked license, assault, possession of drug paraphernalia, evading arrest, resisting arrest, misdemeanor escape, public intoxication, and underage drinking. While the defendant was on probation on the theft offense, he violated the terms of his release, resulting in a revocation. The defendant was also on probation when this offense was committed. While on bail for this offense, the defendant was charged with and eventually convicted of the assault, possession of drug paraphernalia, escape, and evading arrest offenses. The defendant was in custody at the time sentence was imposed.
The Department of Correction report indicates that the defendant acknowledges a problem with alcohol. Although he denies having any drug dependency, he has used marijuana and barbiturates. On the positive side, while in jail awaiting the disposition of this case, he began to participate in a substance abuse treatment program.
The defendant is not married, has no children, and resides with his grandfathe
Page 1 2 3 4 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|