 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Brown12/15/2000
the circumstances of the offense when they are of such a nature as to outweigh all other factors favoring probation. State v. Bingham, 910 S.W.2d 448, 456 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).
If the court determines that a period of probation is appropriate, it shall sentence the defendant to a specific sentence but shall suspend that sentence and place the defendant on supervised or unsupervised probation either immediately or after the service of a period of confinement. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-303(c), 40-35-306(a). A sentence of probation following a period of confinement is commonly referred to as "split confinement." See id. § 40-35-306(a).
The Defendant in this case was afforded the presumption of alternative sentencing in that he was given a sentence of split confinement. See State v. Lane, 3 S.W.3d 456, 461 (Tenn. 1999). He asserts, however, that he should have been granted full probation instead of having to serve a portion of his sentence in confinement. In arguing that he should have been granted full probation, the Defendant points to his lack of a criminal record, his stable employment, his youth, and his immaturity. He asserts that any "lack of acceptance" of his responsibility is due to his immaturity. Notwithstanding, we are unable to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to grant full probation. The burden of proving suitability for full probation was on the Defendant, and the Defendant failed to meet that burden. In sentencing the Defendant, the trial court found the existence of three enhancement factors, which are not challenged by the Defendant. The trial court further relied upon the multiple acts of sexual intercourse and the Defendant's letters to J.R. asking her not to testify for the court's determination that the Defendant had committed criminal acts for which he was not prosecuted. The trial court specifically found that the Defendant's lack of remorse was a significant factor in its determination that a period of incarceration was appropriate. It appears that the trial court considered the sentencing principles and imposed a lawful sentence by ordering a period of confinement. Thus, we are compelled to uphold the sentence of sixty days incarceration.
However, we note that the Defendant was sentenced to community corrections following his period of incarceration, rather than to probation. Because the Defendant was convicted of a sexual offense, he is not eligible to participate in the community corrections program. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(a)(2); State v. Boston, 938 S.W.2d 435, 438 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). We therefore modify the Defendant's sentence to sixty days incarceration followed by supervised probation, and we remand the case to the trial court to determine the conditions of probation.
Page 1 2 3 4 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|