STATE OF TENNESSEE v. GEORGE ANTHONY FLEVARIS - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Jul 18, 2013

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Stephen M. Wallace, District Public Defender; K. Justin Hutton, Assistant District Public Defender (on appeal), Todd East, Kingsport, Tennessee (at trial) for the appellant, George Anthony Flevaris.

Attorneys 2:

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Renee W. Turner, Senior Counsel; Barry P. Staubus, District Attorney General; and William Harper, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): WILLIAMS

Defendant pled guilty to fourteen counts of aggravated burglary, Class C felonies; one count of burglary of an automobile, a Class E felony; four counts of theft of property with a value in excess of $10,000 but less than $60,000, Class C felonies; seven counts of theft of property with a value in excess of $1,000 but less than $10,000, Class D felonies; one count of theft of property with a value in excess of $500 but less than $1,000, a Class E felony; and five counts of theft of property with a value less than $500, Class A misdemeanors. The defendant was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to six years for each aggravated burglary, two years for the burglary of the automobile, six years for each Class C felony theft of property, four years for each Class D felony theft of property, two years for each Class E felony theft of property, and eleven months and twenty-nine days for each misdemeanor theft of property. The trial court ordered partial consecutive sentencing, resulting in an overall effective sentence of twenty-two years. The defendant now appeals the trial court’s sentencing decision, urging that the trial court erred in its application of certain enhancement and mitigation factors. Because a trial court’s mere error in the application of statutory enhancing and mitigating factors no longer provides any basis for reversing a defendant’s sentence, and because the defendant’s sentences are generally consistent with the principles and purposes of the Sentencing Act, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Attachments: