State v. Angie Harris

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: March 26, 1998
• Docket: 02C01-9707-CR-00247
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

MARCH 1998 SESSION FILED March 26, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr. STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) Appellate C ourt Clerk ) APPELLEE, ) ) No. 02-C-01-9707-CR-00247 ) ) Shelby County v. ) ) Honorable W . Fred Axley, Judge ) ) (Sentencing) ANGIE M. HARRIS, ) ) APPELLANT. )

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

Larry E. Fitzgerald John Knox Walkup Attorney at Law Attorney General & Reporter 22 North Second Street, Suite 410 425 Fifth Avenue, North Memphis, TN 38103 Nashville, TN 37243-0497

Janis L. Turner Counsel for the State 425 Fifth Avenue, North Nashville, TN 37243-0493

William L. Gibbons District Attorney General 201 Poplar Avenue, Suite 3-01 Memphis, TN 38103

Johnny McFarland Assistant District Attorney General 201 Poplar Avenue, Suite 3-01 Memphis, TN 38103

OPINION FILED:_______________________________

AFFIRMED

Joe B. Jones, Presiding Judge OPINION

The appellant, Angie M. Harris (defendant), entered pleas of guilty to two counts of

forgery, a Class E felony. The trial court, finding the defendant was a standard offender,

imposed a Range I sentence consisting of a $500 fine and confinement for one (1) year

in the Shelby County Correctional Center in each count pursuant to a plea agreement. The

trial court suspended all but thirty days of the defendant’s sentence and placed her on

probation for the balance of the sentence. The effective sentence imposed were fines

totaling $1,000 and confinement for one (1) year. In this court, the defendant contends

“the Trial Court erred in not granting the Defendant’s Petition for Suspended Sentence and

in failing to grant the Defendant probation [pursuant] to the Tennessee Criminal Sentencing

Reform Act of 1989.” After a thorough review of the record, the briefs submitted by the

parties, and the law governing the issue presented for review, it is the opinion of this court

that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

This court has conducted a de novo review of the record pursuant to Tenn. Code

Ann. § 40-35-401(d). When the trial court imposed sentence, the court said it considered

the defendant’s social history, attitude, nature and circumstances of the offenses, and her

candor in her testimony. The court found the defendant was less than candid. This finding

alone justified the sentence imposed by the trial court. See State v. Neeley, 678 S.W.2d

48 (Tenn. 1984).

. ________________________________________ JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE

CONCUR:

______________________________________ GARY R. WADE, JUDGE

______________________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE