 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Robinson9/19/2005
h, but the court obviously was concerned about the defendant's extensive history of offenses involving a motor vehicle. On the conviction of DUI, third offense, the trial court sentenced the defendant to a term of confinement in the county jail of 11 months and 29 days, requiring that 75 percent of the sentence be served before the defendant becomes eligible for rehabilitative services. On the conviction of driving on a suspended license, the court suspended a sentence of 11 months and 29 days but imposed the latter sentence to run consecutively to the DUI, third offense sentence.
In our view, the defendant's prior record of committing offenses involving a motor vehicle supports the trial court's decision to order maximum sentences, 75 percent of service of the sentences, and consecutive alignment of the two sentences. See Tenn. Code Ann. ยงยง 40- 35-114(2) (authorizing enhancement of sentence for previous history of criminal convictions or criminal behavior), -103(1)(a) (authorizing confinement when necessary to protect society by restraining defendant with long history of criminal conduct), & -115(b)(2) (authorizing consecutive sentencing for defendant with extensive criminal record). In his brief, the defendant argues that his criminal record contains only minor offenses and that he poses no danger to the public. We agree that all of his prior convictions are misdemeanors, but the offenses now under review are only misdemeanors. Moreover, his record shows a bent toward committing the same types of offenses that currently bring him before the court. Finally, although the defendant may have never injured anyone while committing motor vehicle offenses, it is beyond question that driving under the influence is an activity that generally poses great risk to the public. In short, we are unconvinced that the trial court's sentencing determinations are unsupported in the record.
V. Conclusion
In the absence of reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
|