 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Davidson5/12/2000
delines and principles. See State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933, 934 (Tenn. 1995). The appellant bears the burden of showing that the sentencing was improper. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d) (sentencing comm'n comments); State v. Jernigan, 929 S.W.2d 391, 395 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). The following considerations apply: (1) the evidence received at trial and at the sentencing hearing; (2) the presentence report; (3) the principles of sentencing and arguments as to the sentencing alternatives; (4) the nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct involved; (5) any statutory mitigating or enhancement factors; (6) any statement made by the accused on his own behalf; and (7) the potential or lack of potential for rehabilitation or treatment. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-102, -103, -210; State v. Smith, 735 S.W.2d 859, 863 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987).
The defendant correctly asserts that the trial court did not find that incarceration of the defendant was necessary for the protection of the community, a finding required by the Tennessee Supreme Court for imposing consecutive sentencing based on a defendant's status as a "dangerous offender." See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(4); State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 1995).
We note the defendant's extensive conviction record:
(1)Three counts of aggravated assault and one count of reckless endangerment in May, 1995;
(2)vandalism and public drunkenness in 1992;
(3)driving under the influence, driving on revoked, and destruction of court property in March 1988;
(4) public intoxication in April 1987;
(5) driving on suspended license in September 1988;
(6) carrying a weapon for the purpose of going armed in 1984;
(7) reckless driving and driving under the influence in 1985; and
(8) concealing stolen property in 1990.
The 1995 aggravated assault charges resulted from the defendant's "shoot-out" with Pickett County Sheriff's Office deputies, and the defendant was on probation for those convictions when he committed the instant felonies.
Therefore, the record supports consecutive sentencing on two bases: (1) an extensive criminal record; and (2) the defendant committed the instant offenses while on probation. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(2),(6). Either of these conditions allows consecutive sentencing. Further, neither of these factors requires an explicit finding of necessity to protect the community. See State v. Lane, 3 S.W.3d 456, 460-61 (Tenn. 1999). Therefore, we find no error regarding the consecutive sentencing.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the judgment and sentences from the trial court.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|