State of Tennessee v. Darrin Mosby - Concurring and Dissenting

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee

State of Tennessee v. Darrin Mosby - Concurring and Dissenting

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee

DecidedJanuary 24, 2011

DocketW2009-02575-CCA-R3-CD

StatusPublished

This text of State of Tennessee v. Darrin Mosby - Concurring and Dissenting (State of Tennessee v. Darrin Mosby - Concurring and Dissenting) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State of Tennessee v. Darrin Mosby - Concurring and Dissenting, (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs July 13, 2010

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DARRIN MOSBY

Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 08-04742 John T. Fowlkes, Jr., Judge

No. W2009-02575-CCA-R3-CD - Filed January 24, 2011

T HOMAS T. W OODALL, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

In this case, I agree with the majority opinion to the extent that it remands the case for reconsideration of the length of the sentences. However, I disagree that the case, upon remand, should include any analysis concerning a possible alternative sentence.

On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court should have suspended his sentence and placed him on probation. I have thoroughly reviewed both the defendant’s testimony and the arguments of his counsel at the sentencing hearing. There is nothing in either to indicate that the defendant sought any alternative sentencing at the trial court level. The entire emphasis was upon the length of the proposed sentences. The petition for acceptance of the plea of guilty implies to me that the defendant understood that whatever sentence was imposed would be served at “TDOC.” There is nothing in the record to indicate that the defendant expected a sentence other than incarceration when he pled guilty. “Probation shall be automatically considered by the [trial] court as a sentencing alternative for eligible defendants . . . [but] the burden of establishing suitability for probation rests with the defendant.” From what I can discern from the record, defendant not only did not put on any proof to meet this burden, he did not even request probation in the trial court.

Accordingly, I would hold that the defendant has waived on appeal any consideration that the trial court erred by not granting probation.

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs July 13, 2010

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DARRIN MOSBY

Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 08-04742 John T. Fowlkes, Jr., Judge

No. W2009-02575-CCA-R3-CD - Filed January 24, 2011

T HOMAS T. W OODALL, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

In this case, I agree with the majority opinion to the extent that it remands the case for reconsideration of the length of the sentences. However, I disagree that the case, upon remand, should include any analysis concerning a possible alternative sentence.

On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court should have suspended his sentence and placed him on probation. I have thoroughly reviewed both the defendant’s testimony and the arguments of his counsel at the sentencing hearing. There is nothing in either to indicate that the defendant sought any alternative sentencing at the trial court level. The entire emphasis was upon the length of the proposed sentences. The petition for acceptance of the plea of guilty implies to me that the defendant understood that whatever sentence was imposed would be served at “TDOC.” There is nothing in the record to indicate that the defendant expected a sentence other than incarceration when he pled guilty. “Probation shall be automatically considered by the [trial] court as a sentencing alternative for eligible defendants . . . [but] the burden of establishing suitability for probation rests with the defendant.” From what I can discern from the record, defendant not only did not put on any proof to meet this burden, he did not even request probation in the trial court.

Accordingly, I would hold that the defendant has waived on appeal any consideration that the trial court erred by not granting probation.

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State of Tennessee v. Darrin Mosby - Concurring and Dissenting, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-tennessee-v-darrin-mosby-concurring-and-d-tenncrimapp-2011.