Preview:

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE DECEMBER 1997 SESSION

FILED
February 27, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Court Clerk

STATE OF TENNESSEE Appellee, v. TRAMPAS DALE SWEENEY Appellant

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

NO. 01C01-9702-CC-00053 WILLIAMSON COUNTY Hon. Donald P. Harris (Sentencing)

For the Appellant C. Diane Crosier Assistant Public Defender P.O. Box 68 Franklin, TN. 37065

For the Appellee John Knox Walkup Attorney General & Reporter Sarah M. Branch Assistant Attorney General 2nd Floor Cordell Hull Building 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN. 37243-0943 Joseph D. Baugh, Jr. District Attorney General Williamson County Cthse. Ste. G-6 P.O. Box 937 Franklin, TN. 37065-0937 Jeff Burks Assistant District Attorney General P.O. Box 937 Franklin, TN. 37065-0937

OPINION FILED:____________________ AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20 WILLIAM M. BARKER, JUDGE

OPINION The appellant, Trampas Dale Sweeney, appeals as of right the sentences he received following guilty pleas in the Circuit Court of Williamson County to the offenses of evading arrest and driving a motor vehicle while classified as an habitual motor vehicle offender ("HMVO"). 1 The trial court sentenced the appellant as a Range III persistent offender and ordered him to serve five (5) years in the Tennessee Department of Correction for driving a motor vehicle while declared an HMVO, a Class E felony; and eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days in the Williamson County Jail for evading arrest, a Class A misdemeanor. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently for a total effective sentence of five (5) years. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court failed to properly consider probation for the offense of driving while declared an HMVO. He further contends that he should have been placed on community corrections. We affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. The appellant in this case is no stranger to the criminal justice system in Tennessee. He was originally declared an habitual motor vehicle offender on June 2, 1989, based upon his four (4) prior convictions for driving with a revoked license and one (1) prior conviction for driving while under the influence of an intoxicant. Since 1989, the appellant has received six (6) convictions for operating a motor vehicle while declared an HMVO, two (2) convictions for driving with a revoked license, two (2) convictions for driving while under the influence of an intoxicant, one (1) conviction for marijuana possession, and one (1) conviction for evading arrest.2

The appe llant w as ind icted on th e follo wing char ges : (1) O pera ting a mo tor ve hicle in W illiam son Cou nty, T enn ess ee w hile cla ssifie d as a n HM VO ; (2) D riving a m otor v ehic le upo n a pu blic highway in Williamson County, Tennessee when his privilege to do so was canceled, suspended, or revoked; (3) Evading arrest; and (4) Possessing a controlled substance, to-wit: diazepam, being classified as a Schedule IV controlled substance. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the appellant pled guilty to evading arrest and operating a motor vehicle while declared an HMVO, and the State entered nolle prosequi on the rem aining co unts. One of the HMVO violations, committed on March 19, 1994, occurred while the appellant was free on bo nd fr om a 199 3 off ens e. Ad dition ally, the offe nse s at is sue in this c ase were com mitte d wh ile the appe llant was on probation from conviction s in 1994 .
2

1

2

In the present case, appellant challenges his sentences on the ground that he is somehow suitable for probation or community corrections. This issue is without merit. When an appellant challenges his sentence, we must conduct a de novo review of the record. See Tenn. Code Ann.

Download swenytds.pdf

Tennessee Law