 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Harris5/23/2005
t the application of mitigating factor (8). Consequently, we agree with the trial court that the proof does not support application of mitigating factor (8).
The defendant also challenges the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentencing. As a general rule, a trial court may exercise its discretion and impose consecutive sentencing after considering one or more of the statutory criteria set forth in Tennessee Code section 40-35-115. Because these criteria are stated in the alternative, the trial court need only find one of the criteria present to support a determination of consecutive sentencing. However, if the trial court imposes consecutive sentencing based solely upon a finding that the defendant is a dangerous offender pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b)(4), the court must also determine whether the sentences imposed are reasonably related to the severity of the offenses and necessary to protect the public from further criminal activity by the defendant. State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933, 939 (Tenn.1995). See also Imfeld, 70 S.W.3d at 708 (citations omitted).
In ordering consecutive sentencing, the trial court determined that the defendant qualified as a dangerous offender under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b)(4). The trial court noted that it considered: the presentence report, including victim impact statements and the defendant's statements to police; the testimony at the hearing, and the nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct involved. The trial court found that the facts presented at trial and at the sentencing hearing showed that the defendant had "no hesitation about committing a crime in which the risk to human life was high." The court also found that consecutive sentencing was "reasonably related to the severity of the offenses committed," necessary to protect the public from further criminal acts by the defendant who "resorted to the most extreme aggravated criminal conduct," and "congruent with the principles of sentencing."
Upon review of the record, we determine that the trial court considered the sentencing principles and all relevant facts and circumstances attendant to finding that the defendant qualified as a dangerous offender. The record reveals that the defendant shot and killed his girlfriend, then shot his brother in the neck. The defendant dumped their bodies on the side of the road. Because of the defendant's violent activity, the defendant's girlfriend died from a gunshot wound to the head, and the defendant's brother suffered partial paralysis. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentencing.
III. Conclusion
Based upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
|