 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Davis9/20/1999
ll relevant facts and circumstances." State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991). However, the Supreme Court has held trial Judges in misdemeanor cases are not required to make specific findings of fact on the record regarding sentencing decisions. State v. Troutman, 979 S.W.2d 271, 273-74 (Tenn. 1998).
Consecutive sentencing is governed by Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115 (1997). This section allows consecutive sentencing at the discretion of the trial court if one of the seven statutory criteria is found to exist by a preponderance of the evidence. The trial court found that § 40-35-115 (2) ("The defendant is an offender whose record of criminal activity is extensive") applied in this case. In addition to the statutory requirements of § 40-35-115, the Supreme Court has imposed three additional requirements for consecutive sentencing. First, the trial court must find consecutive sentences are reasonably related to the severity of the offenses committed. Second, the trial court must find consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from further criminal conduct. Third, consecutive sentences must be consistent with general principles of sentencing. State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933, 937-39 (Tenn. 1995).
In the case sub judice, the trial court found one mitigating factor present, that serious bodily injury was neither caused nor threatened. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(1) (1997). The trial court also found two enhancement factors, a prior criminal history and a history of unwillingness to comply with the conditions of a sentence involving release in the community. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114 (1) & (8) (1997).
In fact, the defendant's prior criminal history consists of more than twenty misdemeanor and four felony convictions. He also committed an offense while on probation. Based on this history, the trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days to be served consecutively with the defendant's sentence for driving on a revoked license. Based on our de novo review with a presumption of correctness, we find no error in the decision of the trial court.
This assignment has no merit.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE
CONCUR: JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
|