### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs S ep te m be r 14, 200 4 STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. RO BBIE C HET WA LLEY
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Obi on Coun ty No. 3-434 William B. Acre e, Judge

No. W2003-02987-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled October 7, 2004

The de fendant, Robbie C het Walley , was c onvicted of posse ssion of drug para pherna lia and wa s sentenc ed to eleve n months, twenty -nine da y s, all suspended e x cept f or six ty day s. On appeal, he arg ues that the trial c ourt err ed in denying a lternative sentencing

. Ba sed upon our review, we aff irm the jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed
A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., joined.
J a m e s T

. P o w e l l , U n i o n C i t y, T e n n e s s e e , f o r t h e ap p e l l a n t , R o b b i e C h e tW a l l e y. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral and Reporter ; Michelle Chapman McI ntire, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; Thomas A. Thoma s, District At t o rney Gene ral; and James T. Cannon, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.

OP IN ION
F AC TS
The de fendant pled g uilty to possession of drug paraphe rnalia in the Obion County Gene ral S e s s i o n s C o u r ta n d w a s s e n t e n c e d t o e l e v e n m o n t h s , t w e n t y - n i n e d a ys , w i t h a l l b u tt h i r t y d a ys suspended. He t h en appealed this sentence to the Obion CountyCircuit Court, and a sente ncing hearing w as held on De cembe r 12, 2003.
At the h earing , Deputy

Brian Osborne of the Obion County Sheriff’ s Depa

rtment testified that he re sponded to a c all at the def endant’ s re s i dence on Aug ust 26, 2003. The def endant ha d c a lle d th e sh e ri ff ’s of

fi c e a ndre po rt e d th a t a n in trud e r w a s try ing to brea k in andha d ta ke n h is g irlfriend’ s three- y ear -old child. When Deputy Osborne a

rrived at the residenc e, the de fendant, who appea red to be in a “ha llucinoge nic state,” was outside talking to two other off icer s. The def

endantB y t h e t i me of t h e def en dan t ’ s s en t en ci n g h ea r i n g , M s
. Li t t l e an d t h e def en dan t h ad mar r i ed. 1

T h e def en dan t w as c on v i ct ed of c h i l d n eg l ec t i n t h e O bi on Coun t y J u v en i l e Cour t on N ov embe r 4, 2003. 2
-2- told Osborne that “Jerry

Sherrill was trying to c limb through the w indows of the house and up throug h the air c onditioner ducts of the house .” Osborne went inside t h e h o use whe re he found a naked three -y ear -old boy ly ing in the hallway near a bathr oom. He later

determined that the boy

was the child of the de fendant’s g irlfriend, Crissy L ittle. Osborne a lso found a hy podermic needle on 1 top of the shower

stall in the bathroom. The de fendant t o l d t h e o ff i cers that he had “ injected cocaine.” Af

ter the de fend an t ’s g randmother arrived at the house , she told Osborne she had no knowledg e of the needle and “it didn’t belong to her house.” Osborne said that the defe ndant was c ha rg e d w ithpo sse ssi on of

dr ug pa ra ph e rn a lia a ndc hil d n e g le c t. 2 Crissy Walley , th e defe ndant’s wife , testified that she a nd the def endant ha d been ma

rried o n e m o n t h a n d t h a ts h e w a s p r e g n a n tw i t h t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s b a

b y. S h e s a i d t h e t h r e e - ye ar - o l d b o y, who was f ound on the floor the day

of the def endant’ s arr est, was he r son and that the de fendant was ba by sittin g him

wh ile sh e wo rk e d. She sa id h e r s on wa s no t ha rm e d in a ny

way that day . Sh e sa id that Jer e my

Me ne e s h a d v a nd a lize d th e ir ho us e in the pa st.
The de fendant testified that he ca lled the police the day of his arr est bec ause someone shot throug h the back window of the hous e. He told the pol ice that J ere my Menee s might have done the shooting, but he never said anything about J erry Sherrill. He also told the police that someone wa s try ing to b re ak inthe ho us e , b ut de nie d saying the int ru de r wa s in the du c t wor

k. Th e de fe nd a nt s a id that when the of

fice rs ar rived “ they

started f ocusing on me, y ou know, like, ‘Something ’s wrong with y ou.’” He tried to show the window to the office rs, but the y would not look at it. He informe d the of fi c e rs that a

thr e e -y e ar- oldc hil d w a s in the ho us e
. Th e de fe nd a nt sa id the c hil d w a s a sle e p in the floor without his pants on beca use he ha d spilled mil k on them, and the de fendant had put the pants in the dry er. The defe ndant denied te lling t h e o ff i ce rs that he had injec ted coc aine. Aske d abo ut the hy

po de rm ic ne e dle fo un d inthe ho us e , th e de fe nd a nt expl a ine d tha t a nur se wh o c a me to the house to g ive his g randf ather B12 shots must have lef

t it there.
Th e de fe nd a nt s a id h e ple d g uil ty to the c hil d n e g le c t c ha

rg e be c a us e his a tto rn e y

tol d h im it w a s in his be st i nte re st t o d o s o. He fu rthe r s a id h e ple d g uil ty to the ins ta nt of fe ns e be c a us e his attorney told him he would r ece ive probation if he did so. He said he w as “shoc ked” at the sentenc e he re c e ive d. Th e de fe nd a nt s a id h e andhis wi fe plann e d to mov e to N a sh vil le in o rd e r f or him to start elec tronics and unde rwater we lding sc hool in J anuar y 2004. He sa id if he we re inc arc erated he would have to wait until Marc h or April to start school. The defe ndant ac knowledg ed that he ha d prior convic tions for DUI and vanda lism but said the convictions occur red eig ht y ear s ag o when he was e ighte en y ear s old.
Rub y Mc Danie l, the de fe nd a nt’ s g rand mothe r, te sti fi e d that he r h us ba nddidre c e ive mon thl y B12 shots at the house . She said she wa s in the bathroom with Deputy Osborne when he found the needle on top of the shower. To her knowledg e, the defe ndant had never used a nee dle to inject any-3-

type of dr ug . On cr oss-examination, Mrs. McDaniel said that he r husband h ad been in a nursing ho me fo r a

bo ut s ix mon ths

. As ke d if that me a nt h e r h us ba ndha d b e e n a dmi tte d to the nu rs ing ho me in J une 2003, bef

ore the instant offense occ u rr ed in Aug ust, Mrs. McDanie l said, “I don’t – I couldn’t tell y ou.”
At the conc lusion of the hearing, the trial court f ound th at the def

endant ha d shown no remorse and had be en untruthfu l i n h i s t est imony . Applying e nhance ment fac tor (1), Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114( 1) (1997), the trial court sentenc ed the defe ndant to e leven months, twenty -nine day s in the county

jail, all suspended except for six ty day s. AN AL YSI S
The de fendant arg ues that the trial c ourt err ed in d e n y ing a lternative se ntencing and “by using an enhance ment fac tor solely for the purpose of punishing the de fendant for stateme nts made by the defe ndant during the sentenc ing he aring .”
When an ac cused c halleng es the leng th and manner of ser vice of

a sente nce, it is the duty

of this court to conduct a de novo review on the re cord w ith a presumption that "the determinations made by the court from which the a p p ea l i s t ak en are corr ect." Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-401(d) (2003). This pre sumption i s "c onditioned upon the aff irmative showing in the re cord that the trial c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d t h e s e n t e n c i n g p r i n c i p l e s a n d a l l r e l e v a n tf a c t s a n d c i r c u m s t a n c e s
. " S t a t e v . A s h b y, 823 S.W. 2 d 1 6 6 , 1 6 9 ( T e n n
. 1 9 9 1 )

. T h e p r e s u mp ti o n d o e s n o t a p p ly to th e le g a l c o n clusions rea ched by the t rial court in sentenc ing the acc used or to the determinations made by the trial court wh ic h a re pr e dic ate d u po n un c on tr ov e rt e d f a c ts. Sta te v. B utl e r, 90 0 S. W.2 d 3 05 , 3 11 (T e nn . Crim. App. 1994); State v. Smith, 891 S .W.2d 922, 929 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994); State v. Bone stel, 871 S.W. 2d16 3, 16 6 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 93 ). Ho we ve r, thi s c ou rt is re qu ir e d to g ive g re a t w e ig ht t o the tr ia l c ou rt ' s d e te rm inatio n o f c on tr ov e rt e d f a c ts a s th e tr ia l c ou rt ' s d e te rm inatio n o f the se fa c ts i s p re d i ca t ed u p o n t h e w i t n es s es ' d em ea n o r a n d ap p ea ra n ce wh en t es t i fy i n g.
I n conducting a de novo re v i ew of a sente nce, this court must consider (a) any evidenc e rec eived at the trial and/or se nt en ci n g hearing, ( b) the pre sentenc e re port, (c) the principles of sentenc ing, ( d) the a

rg uments of counse l relative to sentencing alternatives, (e) the nature and char acte ristics of the offe nse, (f) any mitigating or enhanceme nt fac tors, (g ) any statements made by the accused in his own beha lf, and (h) the ac cused' s potential or lack of potential for r ehabilitation or treatment. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40- 35-103, -210; State v. Scott, 735 S.W .2d 825, 829 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). The party challeng ing the sentenc e imposed by the trial court has the burde n of establishing that the sentenc e is err oneous. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401, Sente ncing Commi ssion Cm ts.; Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169.
Misdemeanor

sentenc ing is c ontrolled by Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 4 0 -35-302, wh ic h p ro vid e s, in p art , th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt sh a ll i mpo se a

sp e c if ic se nte nc e that is c on sis te nt w ith-4-

the purposes and pri n ci p l es o f t he 1989 Sentenc ing Re form Ac t. See Tenn. Code A nn. § 40-35-302( b). Althoug h the Sentencing Reform Ac t typically treats misdemeanants and f elons the same, misdemeana nts a

re not g iven the presumption of a minimum sentenc e. See State v. Seaton, 91 4 S. W.2 d 1 29 , 1 33 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 95 ). A s e pa rate se nte nc ing he ari ng is n ot r e qu ir e d in misdemeanor se ntencing , but the trial court must " allow the parties a re asonable opportunity to be hear d on the question of the leng th of any s en t en ce and the manner in which the sentenc e is to be serve d." T enn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-302(a ). A misdemeanor sentenc e, unlike a fe lony sentenc e, has no sentenc e rang e. State v. B aker , 966 S.W .2d 429, 434 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997)

. The trial court has gre at flexibil ity and discre tion in fashioning a misdemeanor se ntence . The sentenc e must be spec ific and in a ccor dance with the principles, purpose s, an d go al s of the 1989 Sentencing Act. T en n
. C o d e Ann. § 40-35-302(b); State v. Palmer, 902 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tenn. 1995). The trial court should consider enhanc ement and miti g ating fac tors in making its sentenc ing determinations; however, unlike the f elony sentenc ing statute, which require s the trial court to place its fi nd ing s o n th e re c or d, the mis de me a no r s e nte nc ing statut e " me rel y re qu ir e s a

tr ia l ju dg e to consider e nhance ment and mitigating f actor s when c alculating the per centa g e of a misdemeanor sentenc e to be se rved in c onfinement." State v. Troutman, 979 S.W.2d 271, 274 (Tenn. 1998). The trial court is authorized to place the misdemeanant on probation either immediate ly or af ter a term of conf inement. Tenn. Code A nn. § 40-35-302( e). Wh en a d ef en d ant cha lleng es a misdemeanor sentenc e, this cou rt co n d u cts a de novo re v i ew wi t h a p re s u m p t i o n t h at t h e t ri al co u rt 's de te rm inatio ns are c or

re c t.
I n sentenc ing the defe ndant, the trial c ourt stated: What’s bothering me, t houg h,

. . . [t he defenda nt] has come into court and shown no re morse whatsoever for not only the incident for

which he wa s on trial [si c] today , but also for the companion ca se which w as decide d in J uvenile Court. He show s no ca n d o r whatsoever, or a complete lac k of candor. Somebody is not telli ng the truth.
Mr. Osborne came in an d testified that [the defendant] was intox icated, he was c laiming s omebody was in his air c onditioning sy ste m.
. . . He te sti fi e d that th e de fe nd a nt a dmi tte d to him that th is ne e dle wa s h is. On the oth e r h a nd , [th e de fe nd a nt] c ome s in a ndsa y s, “That’s not true. I

was not intox icated. I

didn’t say

anything a

bout the duct work. That wasn’t my needle

. I told them t hat.” Somebody ’s not telling the tr uth. [The defe ndant], y ou wo u l d h ave he lped y ourself – and the Cou rt fi nd s tha t the te sti mon y of the of fi c e r, Mr . O sb orne , is c re dib le and y ours i[s] not. I t would have be en much more h el p fu l h ad y ou c ome int o c ou rt

a ndsa id, “ Th a t’ s tr

ue . I ma de a mis take . I

ne e d to g e t on to N a sh vil le .” B ut y ou c ome int o c ou rt a nde ve rythi ng is-5- so me bo dy

e lse ’s fa ult . It’ s y ou r la wy e r’ s fault that y ou ple d g uil ty in tw o di ffere nt c ou rt s, y e t y ou ’r e inn oc e nt, c omp le te ly inn oc e nt, did nothing wr ong , but y ou pled g uiltyany way . I just don ’t buy

all of that. Taking y our lac k of re morse and y our lack of candor , y ou’ve been untr uthful, enhanc ement fa ctor number 1 appli es. The Court thinks that some jail ti me is indicated in this case

. I ’m g oing to se ntence y o u to 11 months and 29 day s in the c ou nty ja il, to s e rv e 60 da y s. A t rial court may deny alternative sentenc ing and sentenc e a de fendant to confinement ba sed on a ny on e of the fo llo wi ng c on sid e ratio ns : (A) Confinement is ne cessa ry to pr otect socie ty

by restraining a de fe nd a nt w ho ha s a

lon g his tory

of c ri min a l c on du c t; (B ) Confinement is nece ssary to avoid depre ciating the se ri ou sn e ss o f the of

fe ns e or c on fi ne me nt i s p art ic ula rl y su ite d to provide a n eff

ective de terre nce t o o thers likely to commit si milar offe nses; or (C ) M e a su re s le ss rest ri cti ve t han con fi ne me nt h a vefre qu e ntl y or re cently

been a pplied unsucce ssfully

to the defe ndant[.] Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-103(1) (2003).
I n determining that the defendant should serve six ty day s of his sentence in confineme nt, the trial court a

pplie d e n h anceme nt fac tor (1), Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 114(1) ( 1997), “ [t] he def endant ha s a pr e vio us his tory

of c ri min a l c on vic tio ns or c ri min a l be ha vio r in a dd iti on to tho se ne c e ssa ry to establish the appr opriate r ang e,” and found that the de fendant ha d been untr uthful and had shown no remorse
. I n State v. Robert Duff

and Ve rnita Cox , No. 02C01-9307-CR-00152, 1995 WL 390951, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. J une 28, 1995), perm. to a ppeal denied (Tenn. Nov. 6, 1995), this court noted that “[i] n acc ordanc e with this ge nera l principle, Tennes s ee co u rts have r epeatedly held that untruthfulness is a fa ctor whic h may be considere d in de termining the appr opriatene ss of probation.” (citing State v. Nee ley , 678 S.W .2d 48, 49 (Tenn. 1984) ; State v. Bunc h, 64 6 S

. W

. 2 d 1 5 8 , 160 (Tenn. 1983) ). I n addition, “[a]lt houg h untruthfulness i s not mentioned as a fac tor in Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103( 1), this court has c ontinued to declar e it a re l ev an t fac tor in determining the suitabilit y of probation subsequent to the enac tment of the 1989 Act.” I d. (citing State v. Ander son, 857 S.W .2d 571, 574 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992) ).-6-

Acc ording to testimony at t he sentencing hearing, the defe ndant had be en convic ted in 1997 of DU I a nd tw o c ou nts of

va nd a lis m, a ll a

ri sin g ou t of

the sa me inc ide nt. Ad dit ion a lly , a s th e re su lt of hi s telephone call t o the Obion County Sheriff’ s Depa rtment, which resulted in the cha rg e which is the basis for this appea l, he also wa s char g ed with and c onvicted of c hild neg lect. We note that the State has a

rg ued on appe al that the trial c ourt’s dete rmi n at i o n t h at t he def endant should be incar cer ated f

or a portion of his sentenc e is not aff ecte d by the holding in B lakely

v. Washington, __ U.S. __, 124 S. C t. 2531 (2 0 0 4 ), because one of the re asons for ove rcoming the statutory presumption that th ed e f

e n d ant was a

favor able c andidate f

or probation was his prior criminal recor d. I n Appre ndi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 2362 (2000), the court conc luded that the Six th Amendment' s prohibition agains t i n cr easing punishment bey ond the “statutory maxi mum” based upon a dditional findings made by the trial court did not apply to “the fa ct of a

prior c on vic tio n. ” Ac c or din g ly , a s to the pr e se nt a pp e a l, we c on c lud e that e ve n if the tr ia l c ou rt

e rr e d in imposing a sixty -day

period of confine ment based on the court’s determination that the defe ndant was not re morseful a nd was untruthful at the hea ring , his prior criminal re cord supports the sentence

. CO NC LU SION
B a se d u po n the fo re g oin g auth oriti e s a ndre a so nin g , w e a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

.

___________________________________ ALAN E. GL

ENN, JUDGE