### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs D ec embe r 1, 200 9

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. CO RTE RR IUS WO RTH Y

D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e C rim ina l C o u rt fo r S h elb y C o u n ty N o. 08- 06051 Jam es M

. L am m ey, Jr. , Judge

N o. W 2009- 00761- C C A

- R 3- C D - F i l ed A pri l 9, 2010

The de fenda

nt, Corterrius Worthy , appea ls the sentencingdecision of the Shelby County Criminal C o u rt

. T h e d e f

e n d an te n t e r e d a n o p e ng u i l t y p l e a t o o n e c o u n to f

r o b b e r y, a C l a s s C f

e l o n y. Following a hea

ring , the t ri al cour

t denied the de fenda

nt’s application for

judicial diversion and sentenc ed the de fenda

nt to a term of three y ear s. The court also denied the defe ndant’s re quest for probation and or dere d that the sentenc e be se rved in the Shelby County Workhouse. On appe al, the defe ndant ar g ues that the trial c ourt err ed by denying judicia l diversion and fa iling to g rant probation. Following revie w of the r ecor d, we f ind no error

and af firm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

T enn. R

. A pp. P

. 3 A ppeal as of R i ght ; Judgm ent of

t he C ri m i nal C ourt A f f i rm ed

J OH N E VER ETT W I LLI AMS , J

. , del i ver ed t he opi ni on of the co u rt , i n w hi ch T HOMAS T. W OO DA LL a n d J .C . M C L IN , J J

. , j oi ned.

R o b e rt W ilso n Jo n e s, D istric t P u b lic D e fe n d e r, an d B a rry W . K u h n , A ss ista n t P u b lic D ef ender
, f or t he appe l l ant , C or t er r i us W or t hy.

R o b e rt E . C o o p e r, A tto rn e y G e n e ra l an d R e p o rte r; D a v id H . F in d ley , S e n io r C o u n se l; W i l l i am L

. G i bbons
, D i s t r i ct A t t or ney G ener al ; and L or a F ow l er , A s s i s t ant D i s t r i ct A t t or ney G e n e ra l, f o r t h e a p p e lle e , S ta te o f T e n n e s s e e

.
OP I NI ON

Fac t ual Backg r ound

Th e un de rl y ingfa c ts o f t

he c a se , a s r e c ite d at th e g uil ty ple a he ari ng , a

re a s f oll ow s:
[H]a d th e c a se g on e to t ri a l, t he State ’s pr oo f w ou ld be tha t th e of fe ns e
occur red he re in Shelby County , Tenne ssee. I t happene d on May 10th, 2008. On that-2-

day [,] office rs of the Shelby County Sheriff’ s Offic e responde d to a robbe ry call at 6980 Holmes.

A w itn e ss[, ] one Ms. Ann G re g or y [,] wo ul d have t e sti fi e d th a t sh e jus t walked out of

the [ W al gre ens] to her vehicle with her purse on her r ight shoulder

. She was try ing to g et i n the car when she felt a tug on her shoulder and the purse wa s taken f rom her w hile her ba ck wa s turned. She turne d around a nd observe d a man g e t in to a g re e n v e hic le and

le a ve the sc e ne e a stb ound on Ho lme s.

S h e was a ble to - - witness wa s able to provide a descr iption of the suspect in the car , the tagnumber on the c ar

. The c ar - - off icer s ran the ta g number a nd found it reg i s t er ed to [ the def endant]. Offic ers located [the defenda nt] and he

ma tc he d the de sc ri pti on of the su sp e c t in the arm e d rob be ry . He wa s a dv ise d o f h is ri g hts , o ff e re d th e op po rt

un ity to g ive a state me nt. He did

a g re e to g ive a

state me nt, howeve r, he denied doi ng the robbery but admitted he was the onl y person that dr ove that particula

r ca r that day

. Additionally , a witness positively identified him from a photo lineup a s the person who took Ms. Gr eg ory ’s purse on Ma y 10th, 2008. . . .

The de fenda

nt was subseque ntly

indicted by a S h el by

County g rand jury

for one count of robber y . He late r ente red a

n open g uilty

plea to the c harg ed off

ense a nd filed an a

pplication for judicial diversion. Followingthe trial court’s acc eptanc e of the plea, a sentenc ing he aringwas he ld.

At the hearing , the S tate int roduce d the presentence r e p o rt i n to e v id e n c e

. T h e r e p o rt indicated that the de fenda nt was twenty -one y ear s old at the time of sentenc ing a nd had no childre n. Th e re po rt

fu rt he r i nd ic a te d th a t th e de fe nd ant h a d g ra du a te d f ro m hi g h s c ho ol a

nd c omp le te d s ome colleg e. Additi o n al l y , t he re port ref lected that the defe ndant had he ld various jobs throug h a temporar y ag ency , as we ll as working at Fe dEx

. Finally , the re port indicated no pr ior convictions

as an a dult, alth o u gh i t n o t ed thre e prior instanc es of juvenile misconduc t. Additionally , the defe ndant g ave a

statement that he ha d no drug or alc ohol problems.

The de fenda

nt was the only witness to testify at t he hearing

. He indicated t hat he be lieved he was en t i t l ed to diversion beca use he w as “a

respe ctable guy ” with plans to join the navy . He acknow ledg ed that he w as unemploy ed at the t i m e o f s entenc ing a nd further asser ted that he ha d complied wi t h al l t er m s of his rele ase on bond imposed by the cour t. On cross-e x amination, the defe ndant denied a ll knowledg e of the crime, indicating that it wa s committed by someone else a nd that he only

pled g uilty

beca use it was in his best interest to do so. He te stified that a fr iend living with him had acc ess to his car ke y s on the day of the c rime, and the defe ndant insisted that he had informed both the police and trial c ounsel of this fac t. T he defe ndant had no explanation a s to why his then g irlfriend infor

med police that he was not at home at the time of the cr ime, and he te stified at the sente ncing hear ing that, in fact, he was at home when the c rime wa s committed.-3-

After hear ing the evidenc e pre sented, the tria l c ourt denied the defe ndant’s application for judicial diversion and imposed a sentenc e of thre e y ear s. The cour t further denied the de fenda

nt’s reque st for probation and order ed that the s entenc e be serve d in the workhouse. T his tim ely appea l followed.

Ana lys is

On appea l, the defe ndant raises two challeng es to the sentenc e imposed by the trial cour

t. When

an a c c us e d c ha lle ng e s th e le ng th, ra ng e , o r mann e r of se rv ic e of a se nte nc e , th is c ourt ha s a du ty to conduct a de novo revie w of the s entenc e with a presumption that the determinations made by the tr ia l c ourt

are c orre c t. T .C. A. § 4 0- 35 -4 01 (d ) ( 20 06 ); State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn.1991) . This pr esumption is “conditioned upon the af firmative showingin the rec ord that the trial court c onsidered the sentenc ing pr inciples and a ll releva nt fac ts and circ umstances.” Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169. The burde n is on the defe ndant to show that the sentenc ing w as improper . T.C.A. §40-35-401, Sentenc ing Comm’n Cmts.
When conducting a de novo revi ew o f t h e s en t en ce , t h i s co u rt m u s t co n s i d er: (a) the evidenc e, if a

ny , rec eived at the trial and the sentenc ing hear ing; ( b) the pre sentenc e re port; (c) the principles of se ntencingand ar g uments as to sentenc ing a lternatives; (d) the nature and

c ha ra c te ri sti c s o f t

he c ri min a l c on du c t in vo lve d; ( e ) any statut or y mit ig a tin g or

e nh anc e me nt f

a c tor s; (f) any statement that the defe ndant made on his own behalf; a nd (g ) the potential or la ck of pote ntial fo r re ha bil itatio n or

tr e a tme nt. T. C.A . § § 4 0- 35 -1 02 , - 10 3, -2 10 (2 00 6) ; Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 168. Fur thermore , we e mphasize that f acts rele vant to se ntencing must be established by a pre pondera

nce of t he evidence and not bey ond a re asonable doubt. Sta te v . W inf ie ld , 23 S.W .3d 279, 283 (Tenn. 2 0 0 0 ) ( ci t i n g Sta te v . P oo le , 945 S.W .2d 93, 96 (Tenn. 1997) ).

I. Jud icial Diversion

F ir s t, th e d e f

e n d an t c o n te n d s th a t t

h e tr ia l c o u rt e r

r e d in d e n y in g h is r e qu e s t f

o r ju d ic ia l diversion. Specif

ically , he conte nds that the court e rre d by rely ing sole ly on the circ umstances of the of fe ns e , w hic h h e fu

rt he r a sse rt s w e re no t e sta

bli sh e d o n th e re c or d. “ Judic ia l di ve rs ion is a leg islative l ar ges s where by a def endant a djudicated guilty may , upon succe ssful completion of a div e rs ion pr og ra m, r e c e ive an expun g e me nt f ro m a ll ‘ of

fi c ia l r e c or ds ’ a

ny re c or datio n r e la tin g to ‘a rr e st, ind ic tme nt or inf

or ma tio n, tr ia l, fi nd ing of g uil ty , and dis mis sa l and dis c ha rg e ’ p ur su a nt t o the diversion statute.” State v. Schindler , 98 6 S .W .2 d 2 09 , 2 11 (T e nn . 1 99 9) . Ade fe nd a nt i s elig ible for judicial diversion when he or she is found guilty or plea ds g uilty

to a Class C, D, or E felony and has not pr eviously been c onvicted of a felony or a Class A misdemea

nor. T.C.A. § 40-35- 31 3( a )( 1) ( B ) ( I ) ( 2 0 0 6 )

. W i t h t h e s e r e qu i r e m e n t s i n m i n d , i t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t is statutorily elig ible for judicial diversion. Howeve r, elig ibilit y under the diversion statute does not

ensure the g rant of dive rsion.

The de cision of whethe r to g rant a reque st for judicial diver s i o n l i es wit hin the sound dis c re tio n o f t

he tr ia l c ourt , and thi s c ourt wi ll no t dis tur b that de c isi on

on a pp e a l a bs e nt a n a bu se-4-

of discre tion. State v. Robinson , 139 S.W .3d 661, 665 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004) . When a def endant challeng es th e tr ia l c o u rt’ s d e n ia l o f ju d ic ia l d iv e r s io n , w e ma y n o t r e v is it

th e is s u e if

th e r e c o rd

c o nta in s any

substantial evidence supporting the trial court’ s decision. State v. Cutshaw , 967 S.W .2d 33 2, 34 4 ( Te nn . Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ); State v. Parke r , 932 S.W .2d 945, 958 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996)

. I n d e c idi ngwh e the r to g ra nt jud ic ia l div e rs ion , th e tr ia l c ourt mus t c on sid e r t

he fo llo wi ngfa c tor s: (1) the a ccuse d’s amenability to corr ection; (2) the circumstances of the offe nse; (3) the acc used’s criminal re cord; (4) the accused’ s social hi story ; (5) the status of the ac cused’ s phy sical and me ntal health; (6) the deter

renc e value to the acc used as well as others; a nd (7) whe ther judicial diver sion will serve the e nds of justice. State v. Elec troplati ng, Inc. , 990 S.W .2d 211, 229 (Tenn. Crim. App. 19 98 ); Parker , 932 S.W .2d at 958. Ad d i t i o nally , the trial cour t may consider the defe ndant’s “attit u d e, behavior

since a rre st, prior rec ord, home e nvironment, curr ent drugusag e, emotional stability , past employ

ment, g ener al re putation, marital stability , family responsibility and attitude of law enf orce ment.” State v. W

ashington , 866 S.W .2d 950, 951 (Tenn. 1993)

.
Th e re c or d mu st i nd ic a te th at th e c ourt ha s w e ig he d a ll o f t

he fa c tor s in

re a c hin g its deter mination. Electroplating, Inc. , 990 S.W .2d at 229. I f the trial c ourt denies a reque st for judicial d iv e r s io n , it

s h o u ld s tate in th e r e c o r d

“ th e s p e c if

ic r e a s o n s f

o r it s d e te r mi n a ti ons.” Parker , 932 S .W. 2d a t 95 8- 59 . I f t

he tr ia l c ourt

“ ba se d it s d e te rm inatio ns on on ly so me of the fa c tor s, it mus t explain why

these fa ctors outweig h the others.” Electroplating, Inc. , 990 S.W .2d at 229. I n Sta te

v . Cu rry , a pretria l dive rsion case , our supreme court held that the circ umstances of the offe nse and the need for deter

renc e, alone, may justify a denial of diversion but only if all of the r eleva

nt fac tors have be e n c on sid e re d a s w e ll. 98 8 S. W.2 d 1 53 , 158 (T e nn . 199 9)

. “ Judic ia l dive rs ion is s imi lar i n purp os e to p re tr ia l di ve rs ion and is t o b e imp os e d w ith in t

he dis c re tio n o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

su bje c t on ly to the same c onstraints applicabl e t o prosec utors in apply ing pr etrial diver sion under [Tennessee Code Annotated se ction] 40-15-105.” State v. Ande rson , 857 S.W .2d 571, 572 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992).

I n d e nyingthe de fe nd ant’ s r e qu e st f or div e rs ion , the tr ia l c ourt ma de the fo llo wi ngsp e c if ic fi nd ing s o f f

a c t:
Well, u n d er [Tennessee Code Annotated se ction] 40-35-313 and State v. Parker , there are cer

tain fac tors I have to disc uss r eg ardle ss of whether I g ive judicial div e rs ion or no t. T he re are a

nu mbe r o f t

he se : th e accus e d’ s ame na bil ity to
corr ection[;] circ umstance[s] o f t h e off ense[;] the ac cused’ s criminal re cord[;] the status of his ph y sic a l and me nta l hea lth [;] the de te rr e nt v a lue to t he a c c us e d a s w e ll

a s o the rs [; and ] wh e the r jud ic ia l dive rs ion wi ll se rv e the int e re st of the pu bli c a s w e ll as the a ccuse d.

Amon g o t h er things - the defe ndant’s attitude. I g uess I ’ll start with the defe ndant’s attitude.

He c omes ac ross as ex tremely arr og ant and c ocky . Def ense c ounsel indicated that he wa s conce rned that may be he should have prepped him a little bit better and-5-

let him be more humble, but I don’t - I don’t believe th at wo u l d have be en a g ood thing. I mean, I would like to know what they ’re rea lly like, and y ou would think that

someone would not ha

ve to be told to be humble when they are in a situa t i o n l i ke thi s; b ut h e do e s com e across a s e xtre me ly - e xtre me ly - j us t hi s a ir - d e fi ant a

nd in y our f a c e so rt of - t hat’ s th e fe e lin g Ig e t by

- s o, his a tti tud e do e sn ’t

se e m to be re a lly g ood.

Imean, of

course he could have gone to trial and still been elig ible to ask for judicial diversion.

Ijust thi nk that - he ma i n t ai n s t h at h e did not do this, but t he story that he g ive s ju st d oe sn ’t

se e m to a dd up , esp e c ia lly in lig ht of the fa c t th a t he wa s p os iti ve ly ide nti fi e d; and that’ s wh y I a sk e d that thi s sh e ri ff ’s of fi c e ph oto sp re a d b e e nte re d in be c a us e he wa s p os iti ve ly

ide nti fi e d; a

nd Ise e no thi ngsu g g e sti ve a bo ut t his ph oto sprea d. He wa s p o sitively identified af

ter his ca r tag- his car

is seen leaving the

scene of the robbe ry . So, I don’t believe what he ha d to say on the witness stand.
His behavior, sinc e ar

rest, has be en go o d

. He has attempted to - it say s he wants to g et in the navy , which is g ood.

He did do wh a t th e da ily

re po rt ingc e nte r t old

him to d o. So, tha

t’ s a plu s.

His home environment - he’s ha d a fe w cont ac t s with juvenile court but nothing r eal major

that Iwould - that I

could say

-
He doe s - he pr esents- he seems like a ve ry intelligent young man. No history , that Ican se e, of a ny ty pe of dr ug usag e.

His emotional stability seems to be okay , I suppose; althoug h Ithink that the way that he answ ers some of the questions, i t wa s ev idence to me he wa s very intelligent - cunning , Ig uess is a g ood word to use.

Hi s p art e mpl oy me nt - e xac tly

wh a t th a t w a s .

. . B ut he ha d atte nd e d s ome colleg e. Para

mount [ S] taffing s. Select [S] taffing . Posit ion canc elled on both.

Of c ours e , g oin g to a

n a g e nc y , I thi nk is a de a d en d. I do n’ t thin k tha t w a s a wise choic e g oing to, but at lea st he was attempting to g et some work.

The fa mily responsibilities - it doesn’t seem li k e ther e wa s any thing ther e ag ainst him. I think it’s good that he doesn’t have illeg itimate kids all over the plac e, wh ic h is a

ra ri ty the se da y s.-6- There ’s no - nothing - attitude to law en fo rce ment has not bee n addre ssed - there ’s nothing in the r ecor d.

Nor wa s there a

ny thing in the r ecor d to sho w how pervasive this is in the

c omm un ity to s ho w d e te rr e nt v a lue to t he a c c us e d a s w e ll a s o the rs

. Social history , as I

said, it doesn’t seem too bad.

Cr imi na l r e c or d, ob vio us ly is so me thi ngIhave to c on sid e r. He ha s a c ou ple

o f contacts. He said he’ s never been in trouble , but Ithink what he mea nt is he’s

never been c onvicted of a

ny thing. B ut even so, the juve nile rec ord isn’t bad.
The proble m Iam having in gr anting judicial diversion is the circ umstances of the of fe ns e . I kn owof on e c a se , b e c a

us e Iwa s in vo lve d in

it, where a litt le old lady was knoc ked down e x actly the same w ay

- g ot h er p u rse; and now that y oung man is serving life in prison bec ause the woman h i t h er head a nd died. And the y oung man who did it is serving life in p ri s o n fo r m urder in the perpe tration of a felony ; and that ver

y well could have b ee n the ca se her e. That’s the problem I ’m havin g wi th t

his

.
First of all, I believe that the defe ndant is the one who pe rpetrated this crime;

and so , y ou kn ow , it ’s a ve ry , ve ry se ri ou s - and I thi nk a tta c kin g a lit tle old la dy to take he r purse shows a ver y , very depra ved hea rt. And as much a s he appe ars to be the ty pe of pe rs on tha t - by loo kin g a t th e y oungman, he is d re sse d w e ll; he ’s we ll spoken. When y ou look behind i t - when y ou look at t he fact of this - when y ou try to imagine or think of a pe rson who wo u l d d o t h i s s ort of thing - how - w ell, what ty p e o f person would do something like this? - the ty pe of pe rson that would do something like this, I

don’t think is the ty

pe of person who is de servingof diversion. Ithink there is some ca se law that say s the ac cused’ s amena bility to corre ction may

ou tw e ig h a ll the oth e rs

.
B ut wh e n y ou thi nk of - wh e n y ou thi nk of so me on e wh o comm it s a crime lik e thi s, wh a t ty

pe of pe rs on that wo uld be . I

me an, Ig ue ss i t’ s o ne thi ngthat c ou ld be wa lking by

a vehicle, s eeing a wallet on the s eat - money sticking out of the wallet and jus t, y ou know, one time - y ou know, a g uy , - “I need $50 - t here it is - t ake it,” that can be understanda

ble. B ut for someone to watch a l ittle old lady and wa it and appr o ac h an d pull her down or knoc k her dow n to the g round, that take s an
e xtra or din ary

la c k o f f e e lin g , and Ido n’ t th ink that any on e wh o w ou ld c omm it something like that is amenable to c orre ction.
So, in looki ng at all of these , Ithink the circumstanc es of the offense far, fa r outweig h any

of the other s; and bec ause of that, looking at the i ntere st of the public,-7-

Ithink it out weig hs the interest of the acc used in [getting ] j udicial diversion. So, I ’m g oing to show judicia l diversion denied.
First, we addre ss the defe ndant’s conte ntion that the “cir cumstance s of t he off ense” wer e not
e sta bli sh e d b y

the re c or d. He sp e c if

ic a lly c ha lle ng e s th a t th e re c or d f a ile d to e sta

bli shthat th e vic tim

was a s ev en t y -s even-y ear -old “little, old lady ” or that she was “ knocked dow n.” We re ject the defe ndant’s arg ument. Whil e it is true that this specific infor mation is not contained in the rec itation of the fa c ts s ta te d at th e g uil ty ple a he ari ng , it

is c on ta ine d w ith in t

he re c or d. Th e pr e se nte nc e re po rt , which wa s admitted without obje ct i o n b y t he def endant, indicates that a witness obser ved the defe ndant “a

pproac h the vi ctim[ ,] pushing he r to the g round[,] and stea ling he r purse .” More over, the State, in response to a question from the c ourt, indicated that the victim was seventy -seve n y ear s old

. Whil e we a g re e wi th t he de fe nd ant t

hat argume nts of

c ouns e l are no t su

bs tanti ve e vid e nc e , th is statement wa s not offer ed in the cour s e o f ar gu m ents but, rather , as a r esponse to a que stion. Cf. Sta te v . H owe ll , 868 S.W .2d 238, 257 (Tenn. 1993) (statements of c ounsel offe red dur ing a rg ument
are not substantive evidence ). More o ver, the defe ndant made no obje ction to the statement at the time; thus, any

argument reg ardingits admissi on is waived. See Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a)

.
I n support of his a

rg ument that the trial cour t abused its discretion in deny ing dive rsion, the defe ndant re lies upon: (1) the positive fac tors enumer ated by the trial cour t; (2) that an a dmission of g uilt is not a pre requisite to diversion; and ( 3) that the c ourt made no f inding with re g ard to the defe ndant’s ame nability to c orre ction. Acc ording to the defe ndant, the trial cour t improperly

denied diversion in this case ba sed solely upon the circ umstances of the offe nse. We disag ree

.
I n very extensive findings, the trial court noted its consider ation of the re quired fa ctors and the weig ht which the cour t f elt they wer e entitled to. I n fac t, the court a cknowledg ed that many of t h e f ac t o rs d i d we i gh i nt h e d ef

en d an t ’s fa v o r. Ho we v er , t h e c o u rt wa s v ery ex p l i ci ti ni t s fi n d i n gs that the circ umstance s o f t he off ense, the defe ndant’s attitude, and his lac k of truthfulness c arr ied

more we ight a

nd supported the de nial.

Moreove r, we disag ree with the defe ndant’s as s er t i o n that the trial cour t require d an admission of g uilt as a prer equisite to a g ranting of diversion. The de fenda nt is corre ct that ca se law is clear that such an a dmission i s not a prer equisite

. Sta te v . Le wis , 978 S.W .2d 558, 567 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). Howe ver, our rea ding of the trial court’s f indings do not indicate that the cour t
re qu ir e d suc h. Ra the r, our re a din g ind ic a te s tha t the c ourt wa s c on sid e ri ngthe de fe nd ant’ s d e nia ls in te r ms o f c r e d ib il it

y , a f a c to r w h ic h is p r o p e r ly c o n s id e r e d

. A n der s on , 857 S.W .2d at 572 (u ph old ing de nia l of jud ic ia l div e rs ion on the ba sis of

untr uth fu lne ss) ; see also State v. D owdy , 894 S.W. 2d 30 1, 30 5 ( Te nn . C ri m. App

. 19 94 ) ( ho ldi ngc on sid e ra tio n o f a de fe nd ant’ s c and or

wh ile testify ing w as probative of prospe cts for r ehabilitation).
We must also reject the de fenda nt’s contention t h at t h e trial court f ailed to consider

the de fe nd ant’ s ame na

bil ity to c or re c tio n. Whil e the State c on c e des th at th e court ma de no e xplic it fi nd ing wi th r e g ar d t o t h i s i s s u e , w e d i s a g r e e

. I n i t s f i n d i n g s , t h e t r i a l c o u rt c l e ar l y s t a t e d t h a t it believed someone who commits this ty pe of depra

ved crime is not amena ble t o co rrection.-8-

Moreove r, as noted by

the State, eve n absent this statement, t h e record would amply support the finding

. As noted, dishonesty and lac k of ca

ndor ar e indicator s of a lac k of ame nability to corre ction. Dowdy , 894 S.W .2d at 305. The tria l court’s stateme nt on the rec ord is expli cit in that he found the defe ndant was dishonest a nd not a cr edible witness.
Thus, based upon the fore g oing, w e re ject the de fenda

nt’s contention that the trial c ourt de nie d d ive rs ion

so le ly on the ba sis of

the c ir c ums tanc e s o f t

he of fe ns e . T he c ourt

c on sid e re d a ll the re quired fa ctors and a dd re s s ed t h eir respec tive weig hts. The cour t determined that the circ umstances of

the offe nse, along with the defe ndant’s amena bility to corre ction, attitude, and lac k of ho ne sty wi th t he c ourt ou tw e ig he d th e po sit ive fa c tor s in fa vo r o f d ive rs ion . We fi nd no thi ngin the re cord w hich indicates that the decision wa s an abuse of discre tion.

II. P robation

Ne xt , t h e d e f

e n d an t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u rt a l s o c o m m i t t e d e r r o r b y d e ny ing him a probationar

y sentenc e and or deringthat he ser ve the se ntence i n t h e workhouse. Ag ain, the defe ndant re lies upon the argument that the trial co u r t i mp r operly

denied pr obation based solely upon the circ umstances of

the offe nse.

A def endant who doe s not possess a criminal history showing a cle ar disre g ard f or society ’s laws and mora ls, who has not failed pa st rehabilitation eff orts, and who “is an e specia lly mitigated

or sta nd ard of fe nd e r c on vic te d o f a

Cla ss C , D or

E f e lony , s ho uld

be con sid e re d a s a

fa vo ra ble candidate for alternative sentenc ing options in the a bsence of evide nce to the c ontrary .” T.C.A. § 40-35-102( 6). The f

ollowing c onsiderations provide guidance reg ardingwhat constitutes “evidenc e to the contra

ry :”
(A) Confinement is nece ssary to protect socie ty

by restra ining a

defe ndant who ha s a lon g his tor

y of c ri min a l c on du c t;
(B ) Con fi ne me nt i s n e c e ssa ry to a vo id d e pr e c ia tin g the se ri ou sn e ss o f t he of fe ns e
or c on fi ne me nt i s p art ic ula rl y su ited to prov ide an e ff e c tiv e de te rr e nc e to others likely

to commit si milar offe nses; or (C) Measur es l ess restrictive than confinement have freque ntly or re cently been applied unsucc essfully

to the defe ndant. . . .

T. C.A . § 40 -3 5- 10 3( 1) ; see also State v. H ooper , 29 S.W .3d 1, 5 (Tenn. 2 0 0 0 ). Additionally , the principles of se ntencingref lect that the se ntence should be no g reater than t h at d es er ved for the offe nse committed and should be the le ast seve re measure nece ssary to achieve the purposes f or which th e s en t ence is imposed. T.C.A. § 40-35-103(2) , (4). The court should also consider the defe ndant’s potential for reha bilitation or treatment in deter mining the appropr iate sente nce. T .C.A. § 40-35-103( 5).-9-

A def endant is elig ible for probation if the actua l se ntence imposed upon the def endant is ten y ear s or less and the of

fense for whic h t h e d ef

endant is sentenced is not specif ically excluded by statute. T. C.A . § 40 -3 5- 30 3( a ) ( 20 06 ). Th e tr ia l c ourt sh a ll a uto ma tic a lly

c on sid e r p ro batio n a s a sentenc ing a lternative f

or elig ible defe ndants; howeve r, the defe ndant bear s the burden of proving his or he r su ita bil ity fo r pr ob a tio n. T. C.A

. § 40 -3 5- 30 3( b)

. No c ri min a l de fe nd ant i s a uto ma tic a lly

e nti tle d to pr ob a tio n a s a ma tte r of law. T. C.A . § 40 -3 5- 30 3( b) , Se nte nc ingCom m’ n Cm ts; Sta te

v . D av is , 940 S.W .2d 558, 559 (Tenn. 1997)

. Rather, the de fenda nt must demonstrate that probation would serve the ends of justice and the best interests of both the public and the de fenda nt. State v. Souder , 105 S.W .3d 602, 607 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002). I n deter mining whe ther to g rant probation, the cour t must consider the nature and circ umstances of the offe nse; the def endant’ s criminal re cord; his or her ba ckg round and soc ial history ; his or her pre sent condition, both phy sical and mental; the deter rent e ffe ct on the def

endant; and the defe ndant’s potential for reha bilitation or treatment. Id.

Withre g a rd to p ro batio n, the tr ia l c ourt state d a s f

oll ow s:
Now, we ’ve ta l k ed about probation. Unfortunately , for the de fenda nt, I belie v e th a t - Ib e li e v e th a t s it u a ti o n s li k e th is , it

w o u ld s e r io u s ly d e p r e c iate the

se ri ou sn e ss o f t

he of fe ns e to g rant pr ob a tio n. Ijus t c an’ t se e it. Ime an, it i s a depra ved heart - - som eone that would do something like this just doesn’t deser ve, in my opinion - it’s about like stealing from a w idow. I don’t think that there ’s any place in our judicial sy stem for someone who would steal fr om a widow or stea l from an old lady

- espe cially

knocking them to the g round and taking the ir purse.

I f y ou think of t hat act - and I ’m just imag ining what it would be like to be a littl e ol d lad y

wi th a purs e . Y ou

kn ow , a purs e ha s e ve ry

thi ngthat be lon g s to someone in it; and it’s a sac red pla ce, r eally . There are things in there t hat belong just to t hat per son, and stealingthis off a c ounter whe re she is standing looking at some items would be bad enoug h; but phy sically g rabbing it and forc ing this per son to the g round to take it, I don’t believ e wa rr an t s probation, either . Ithink the seriousness of the offe nse - we ll, I beli ev e it would - it would deprec iate the seriousness of the offe nse to g ive probation as well.

There is no dispute that the def en d an t was elig ible for a

sentenc e of pr obation based upon his re c e ivi nga

thr e e -y e ar s e nte nc e

. Ho we ve r, the tr ia l c ourt fo un d that the de fe nd ant h a d f a ile d to establish his suitability

. As noted, the defe ndant contends that the cour t improperly

denied pr obation based solel y u p o n the “se riousness of the of fense .” We ag ree that in order f or probation to be proper ly denied ba sed solely

upon the nature offe nse, th e cr i m i nal ac t, as committed, must be “espe cially

violent, horrifying, shoc king, r epre hensible, off ensive, or otherwise of

an excessive or exagg erated deg ree .” State v. Cleavor , 6 91 S.W. 2d 54 1, 54 3 ( Te nn . 1 98 5) . I nit ia lly , w e are un a

ble to conclude that the decision to deny probation was based so le ly on the seriousne ss of the off ense. Whil e w e a g r e e th a t t

h is w a s a p r im ar y c o n c e r n , th e c o u rt a ls o c le ar ly

w e ig h e d th e d e f e n d a n t’ s
amena bility to corre ction and lac k of ca ndor, as we conclude d in our revie w of judicial diver sion. Reg ardle ss, we g ive cr edenc e to the trial c ourt’s ruling that the offe nse was of an e g reg ious nature.-10-

The de fenda

nt phy sically

assaulted a

n elder ly woman in a par

king lot, knockingher to the g round, in order to stea l her purse

. As noted by the trial court, the defe ndant’s cr ime amounted to a showing of “ a ve ry , v e ry

de pr a ve d h e art ” and

sh ow e d “ an e xtra or din ary la c k o f f

e e lin g.” From the se statements, i t is appare nt that the trial court f ound the def

endant’ s actions to be re prehe nsible. As such, we conclude that the re cord be fore u s supports the denial of pr obation. The de fenda nt has simply failed to c arr

y his burden of e stablishing that probation would “subserve the ends of justice and the best interests of both the public and the def endant.” See State v . Souder , 105 S.W .3d 602, 607 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002)

.
CO NC LU SION

Ba sed upon the fore g oing, the judgme nt of the Shelby County Criminal Court is aff

irmed.

______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __________________ J OHN E VE RE T T W I L L I AM S , J UDGE