### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on

Briefs A pril 9, 200 2
STATE OF TENN ESSEE v. CHRISTOP HER CAMPBELL
Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 98-09491 Carolyn Wade Blackett, Judge

No. W2001-01916-CCA-R3-CD - Filed April 22, 2002

The Appellant, Christopher Campbell, appeals the senten cing dec ision of the Shelby Coun

ty Criminal Court following his jury conviction for aggravated robbery. At sentencing, the trial court ordered that Campbell’s eight-year sentence in this case be ser ved consecutively to three p ri or convictions for aggr

avated r obbery. On appea

l, Campbell argues that

the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentences. Because the trial court failed to recite any reasons for imposing consecutive sentences as required by Rule 32, Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, we are unable to perf orm appella te review o f t he sentencing issue. Accordingly, the case is remande d for determination of consecutive sentencing as provided by Rule 32.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgment of the Criminal Court Remanded for Determination of Consecutive Sentencing.

D AVID G. H AYES , J., d e livered the opinion of the court, in which D AVID H. W ELLES and J AMES C URWOOD W ITT , J R ., JJ., joined.

AC Wharton , Jr., Shelby County Pu blic Defender; W. Mark W ard, Ass istant Shelby County Pu blic Defend er, Memphis, Tenn essee, f or the Ap pellant, Christophe

r Campbell.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Michael Moore , Solicitor Genera l; John H. Bledsoe, Assistant Attorney General; William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General; and Glen Baity, Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tenne ssee.

OPINION

The Appellant was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery by forcibly taking at gunpoint Ai r Jordan te

nnis shoesfrom a thi

rteen- year-o ld victim. D uring the robbery , the minor

vic ti m sustained bruising to his face and body. This offense occurred on March 3, 1998, and the Appellant
was subsequently indicted in July of 1998. The Appellant’s jury trial was concluded on January 12, 2001, and appr oximately

seven mon

ths later , the Appe

llant was sentenc ed to eigh t years c onfin emen t1 The t ri al co ur t ’s en t i re pr on ou nc eme nt w it h regar d to cons ecuti ve sent ences is as f oll ows: “[ t]he Court i s goi ng to sen tence you to do eigh t year s con secu tive to th e oth er sen tence s that y ou h ave , at thirty p ercen t.”
-2- to be served consecutively to three prior convictions for a ggr avated r obbery. The pre-sentence re port reflec ts that in February of 2000, the Appellant pled guilty to three counts of aggravated robbery stemming from

offenses committed on July 11, 1999, and September 11, 1999. The July 11, 1999, offenses involved the Appellant robbing two persons at gunpoint of eight hundred dollars and two hundreddollars, respectively. The September 11, 1999, offense involved the Appellant taking a person’ s vehicle

at gunpoin

t.

It is obvious from the dates of the three prior aggravated r obbery convictions that

they were committed subs eque nt to the c ommission a nd the indi ctment of

the offe nse curr ently on a

ppeal. Thus, it must be a ssumed tha t these offenses were committed while the Appellant was on some form of release status or hadescaped confinement. However, no mention of this fa ct was ever made by the trial judge or the State at sentencing. If, indeed, the Appellant committed the three aggravated robberies while on b ail for the aggravated robbery in the pre sent case, then, under the mandatory
consecu tivelysentenc ing provis ions of Rule 32(c)( 3), th e Appellant must serve his eight-year sentence consecu

tive to the

effec tive sixte en-yea

r sente nce he was already serving. See State v. Blanton , 926 S.W.2d 953, 961 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (holding that the order o f convi ctions is irrelevant as the se

ntencesare con secutive

in either

case). At senten

cing th e S tate sought consecutive sentenc ing based solely upo n their a ss ertion that the Appellant was a dangerous offender. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-115(4). Following the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the trial judge recited no reasons for her ruling but circ led “yes” on a sentencing form document beside the statements: (1) [t]he Defendant is a profe ssional criminal who ha s knowing ly devoted himself to criminal acts as a major source of livelihood; and (2) [t]he Defenda nt is an offende

r whose record of criminal activity is extensive. 1 Rule 32(c)(2), Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, expres sly provides in pertine nt part: “[t]he judgment to make the sentences consecutive or concurrent shallexplicitl

y recite the judge ’s reas ons there for, and is revie wa ble on appeal.” The circling of “yes” or “no” on a sentencing form does not satisfy the ma ndatory requirements of Rule 32.

CONCLUSION

In view of th

e foreg oing defi ciencie s, this ca se is remanded for a sentencing determination supported by findings of fact with regard to imposition of permissive consecutive sentences a s provided by Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(2) , or mandatory consecutive sentences as provided by Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure 32(c) (3).

___________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE