State v. Richards

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: December 1, 2010
• Docket: 03C01-9702-CR-00072
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE FILED AUGUST 1997 SESSION October 3, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) C.C.A. No. 03C01-9702-CR-00072 Appellee, ) ) Sullivan County V. ) ) Honorable R. Jerry Beck, Judge ) CHARLES ANTHONY RICHARDS, ) ) (Sentencing-Aggravated Robbery) Appellant. ) )

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

Patricia Hall Long John Knox Walkup Attorney at Law Attorney General & Reporter 2100 Riverview Tower 900 S. Gay Street Marvin E. Clements, Jr. Knoxville, TN 37902 Assistant Attorney General Criminal Justice Division 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, TN 37243-0493

H. Greeley Wells, Jr. District Attorney General

Edward E. Wilson Asst. Dist. Attorney General P.O. Box 526 Blountville, TN 37617

OPINION FILED: ___________________

AFFIRMED

PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge OPINION

The appellant, Charles Anthony Richards, pled guilty to aggravated

robbery. After a hearing, he was sentenced to eight years incarceration. His

sentence is to be served consecutively to an unrelated federal sentence. The

appellant contends that the trial court erred in ordering his sentence to be served

consecutively to his federal sentence.

The Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that when a

defendant is being sentenced and he or she has additional unserved sentences

from other states or from federal courts, the sentence imposed shall be

consecutive to the unserved sentence unless good cause exists to run the

sentences concurrently. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(2). Furthermore, consecutive

sentencing is proper if the court finds that the defendant has an extensive history

of criminal conduct or that the defendant committed the crime while on probation.

Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-115(b)(2) & (6) (1990).

The record reveals that the trial court considered the appellant’s extensive

history of criminal conduct in determining his sentence. This included committing

aggravated robbery while on probation. As the state notes, these were different

convictions for different crimes affecting different victims. This Court agrees that

the appellant should not get a free ride for multiple criminal conduct. The trial

judge had ample authority to order the appellant’s sentence to be served

Accordingly, we find no error of law mandating reversal. The judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

__________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge

-2- CONCUR:

__________________________ GARY R. WADE, Judge

__________________________ WILLIAM M. BARKER, Judge

-3-