 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. White6/25/1999
The Defendant, Lawrence Eugene White, appeals as of right from his sentencing in the Hardin County Circuit Court. Defendant pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement with the State to one (1) count of violation of the habitual motor vehicle offender statute (Count One) and one (1) count of possession of drug paraphernalia (Count Two). In return, Defendant received a one (1) year, six (6) month sentence for Count One and a sentence of eleven (11) months, twenty-nine (29) days for Count Two. In addition, Defendant agreed to pay a fine in the amount of $750.00. The trial court was to determine the manner of service of the sentence. Defendant's sole issue on appeal is the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing in the form of Community Corrections. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
When an accused challenges the length, range or the manner of service of a sentence, this court has a duty to conduct a de novo review of the sentence with a presumption that the determinations made by the trial court are correct. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d). This presumption is "conditioned upon the affirmative showing in the record that the trial court considered the sentencing principles and all relevant facts and circumstances." State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991).
In conducting a de novo review of a sentence, this court must consider: (a) the evidence, if any received at the trial and the sentencing hearing; (b) the presentence report; (c) the principles of sentencing and arguments as to sentencing alternatives; (d) the nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct involved; (e) any statutory mitigating or enhancement factors; (f) any statement that the defendant made on his own behalf; and (g) the potential or lack of potential for rehabilitation or treatment. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-102, -103, and -210; see State v. Smith, 735 S.W.2d 859, 863 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987).
If our review reflects that the trial court followed the statutory sentencing procedure, imposed a lawful sentence after having given due consideration and proper weight to the factors and principles set out under the sentencing law, and made findings of fact adequately supported by the record, then we may not modify the sentence even if we would have preferred a different result. State v. Fletcher, 805 S.W.2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).
At the sentencing hearing, Defendant testified that he moved to Hardin County in 1994 as a disabled American veteran. Defendant described that when he takes his medications, the "law thinks I'm drunk." While Defendant denied that he drank that much, he stated he has to drive to Memphis every week to go to the VA hospital. To subsidize his income, he performed mechanical maintenance on vehicles. On the evening in question, Defendant was driving someone's truck with faulty brakes to his home to perform the repairs. Because the brakes were not functioning properly, he was unable to come to a complete stop at the stop sign and he was pulled over by the police as a result. In summation, Defendant stated, "I don't rape, steal, rob or none of the above. I'm just trying to get along and sooner or later die from what I got in Vietnam."
The State did not present any proof at the sentencing hearing other than Defendant's presentence report. The report included the following convictions:
Habitual Motor Vehicle Offender Violation1/10/96
(Arrest 6/9/95)
Driving While Intoxicated, Third Offense1/10/96
(Arrest 6/9/95)
Driving While Intoxicated6/13/88
(Arrest 5/29/88)
Driving on Revoked License9/23/87
(Arrest 2/2/87)
<
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|