 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Schrantz12/2/2003
g the eleven-month-twenty-nine-day sentence in the present case to run consecutively with his sentences in a large number of convictions imposed by courts in four counties. The record before us shows that the defendant was convicted on various charges of forgery and violating the bad check law in Madison, Henderson, Crockett, and Perry Counties. The most recent adjudications occurred in September 1998, when he received, in addition to several misdemeanor convictions, a felony theft conviction in Henderson County and felony theft and forgery convictions in Madison County. On that date, he received sentences of up to two years for various convictions in both Henderson and Madison Counties. He was apparently on parole on April 1, 2001, when the instant offenses were committed.
When there is a challenge to the length, range, or manner of service of a sentence, it is the duty of this court to conduct a de novo review of the record with a presumption that the determinations made by the trial court are correct. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d) (2003). 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).
Although consecutive sentencing is not mandated by the terms of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b) or by Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(3), the consecutive sentencing order in this case is amply supported by the permissive provisions of Code section 40-35-115(b)(2), which authorizes the trial court to utilize consecutive sentencing when the offender has an "extensive" record of criminal activity. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115 (b)(2) (2003). No word describes the defendant's record of criminal activity better than "extensive." Accordingly, the trial court was justified in imposing the instant sentence to run consecutively to the previous sentences.
IV.
In conclusion, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgment of the lower court.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|