### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ugus t 26 , 200 8 S es sio n
STATE OF TENNESS EE v . SHANE KE NT ROGE RS

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Su llivan County

No. S49480 R. Jerr y Beck, Judge

No. E2007-02239-CC A-R3- CD - F iled October 27, 2008

The De fenda

nt, Shane Kent Roge rs, pled g uilty to one count of violating a motor vehic le habitual of fe nd e r o rd e r, a

Cla ss E fe lony , a

nd on e c ount o f va

nd a lis m ov e r fi ve -h

un dr e d do lla

rs , a lso a Cla ss E felony . The trial c ourt sentenc ed the De fenda nt as a multiple offe nder to two concur rent thre e-year se nte nc e s to be se rv e d in

the Te nn e sse e De pa

rtme nt of Cor

re c tio n. On a

pp e a l, the De fe nd ant c la ims that the trial court err ed when it did not grant him a lternative sentenc ing. After a thoroug h revie w of the re cord a

nd the applica

ble law, we aff

irm the judg ments of the trial c ourt.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nts of

the Cr im inal Cou rt Aff irm ed

R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS and J.C. M C L IN , J J ., joined.

Jose phF . H arr iso n, B lou

ntv ill e , T e nn e sse e , f

or the Ap pe lla

nt, Sha ne Ke nt R og e rs

. Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; Mic ha e l E. Mo or e , So lic ito r G e ne ra l; L e sli e E. P ri ce, A ss is tan t A tt orn ey Gen eral ; H . Gr eel ey

W ell s, D i s t r ict At to rney Gen eral ; J ame s F. Goodwin, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

I. F acts

A. P le a He ar ing

This case arises f

rom the De fenda

nt’s arr est on April 3rd, 2004, for violating a habitual motor vehicle of fende r orde r and attempted burg lary . I n 2003, the Defenda nt was de clar ed a ha

bitual motor
ve hic le of fe nd e r ( an “ HM VO ” ) purs ua nt to Te nn e sse e Cod e Anno tate d § 5 5- 10 -6 16 . A t th e g uil ty plea he aring , the State desc ribed the proof it would have presente d had the case g one to trial. The2

State explained that four off icer s of the B ristol, Te nnessee , Police Depa rtment would have te stified to t he fo llo wi ng :

[After the off

icer s responde d to a “bur g lary in p ro gre s s ” ca ll at the Dollar Tree Store in Sull ivan County ,] a witness stated t hey had see n a white male wea ring a white t-shirt usinga cr owbar to try and pry open the back door of the D ollar Tre e Store. . . .[and] that the suspect ha d left in a lig ht blue vehicle.

. . . . [After i d en t i fy i n g a v eh i cl e a n d dri v er t h at m at ch edt he witness’s de scription,] Offic er V ance stopped the vehic le in the par king lot of Taco Bell. He ha d the driver exit the vehicle . The dr i v er w as identified a s the Def endant, Shane Kent Rog ers . .

. . and at that time Offic er Privette said that he had seen a crow bar lying in plain view i nt h e f l o o rb o ar d o f t h e v eh i cl e t h at M r. R o ger s wa s dri v i n g. Mr. Rog ers did n o t h av e a d ri v er ’s l i ce n s e, but ga ve Of fice r Va nce a Tenne ssee identific ation car d. . . . Offic er Eme ry drove the witness by

the site wher e Offic er Vanc e and [t he Def endant] had stopped, and the witness said that the Def endant was the person that he had seen try ing to pry open the door to the Dollar Tr e e Sto re . T he re wa s d ama g e do ne to t he do or of the e sta bli sh me nt.
The State fur

ther stated that the proof at trial would indicate that the da mage ca u s ed b y

the Def endant would amount to at least five- hundred dollar s. Also, the State would have of fer ed proof t h a tt h e D e f

e n d an t ’ s nu mb e r an d k i n d o f p r i o r c r i m i n a l c o n v i c t i o n s p l a c e d h i m w i t h i n t h e R an g e II offe nder c ateg ory . At the hea ri n g , the Def

endant pled guilty

to one count of violatinga habitual mot or ve hic le of

fe nd e r o rd e r a

nd on e c ount o f v and a lis m ov e r f ive -h un dr e d d oll ars

. Subsequent to the plea hearing , but befor e the sentenc ing hear ing, a Virg inia court c onvicted t h e D e f e n d an to f dr i v i n g u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e i nV i r g i n i a

. T h e i n c i d e n tr e s u l t i n g i nt h e V i r g i n i a D

. U

. I. conviction oc curr ed prior to the T ennesse e HMVO violation and vandalism in April 2004. The Def endant r ece ived a sentenc e of eig hteen months of incar cer ation and three and one ha lf y ear s of probation for the Virg inia conviction. I n J une 2007, the Def endant was rele ased afte r ser ving f ifteen months in Virginia, whe reupon he returne d to Tennesse e.
B. Se nt e nc ing He ar ing

At the sentenc ing he aring , the trial court hear d testimony from the De fenda

nt’s sister and the Def endant, revie wed the prese ntence repor t, a nd rea d letters from sever al o f t h e D efendant’s employ er a

nd jail administrators.

The De fenda

nt’s sister, Debr a L y

nn Moretz, testified t hat s he, having se en the De fenda nt “at the lowest,” be lieved the De fenda nt now to be more r esponsible and to have ch an ged his attitude toward dr ug use. More tz s tated that she w ould not testify on her b ro t h er’s behalf if she did not3

believe he had chang ed. Moretz testified t hat since the Def endant’ s J une 2007 re lease from prison, he has r esided with their mother and herself, displaying a more mature dispositi on by taking
re sp on sib ili ty

fo r t he ir mot he r’ s c are : “[H]e ’s g ro wn up . He ’s take n r e sp on sib ili ty . H e ’s he lpi ngme wi th o ur mot he r. He ’s sta

yingc le an. Ic ou ldn ’t

ask f or a be tte r b ro the r. ” She e xpla ine d th a t th e ir mot he r’ s il l he a lthrequ ir ed “aro un d th e c loc k” su pe rv isi on . Sh e wa

rn e d th a t he r e mpl oy e r l ike ly
wo uld s oo n tr ansf

e r h e r t o M or

ri sto wn , r e qu ir inghe r t o le ave the ir mot he r’ s h ou se and

mov e to John so n Ci ty . T he De fe nd ant’ s c are fo r t he ir mot her w ou ld, the re fo re , b e c ome mor e e sse nti a l. Mo re tz a ssu

re d th e c ourt

tha t, were sh e to m ov e , s he wo uld ma int a in c on ta c t w iththe De fe nd ant,
rema ining a

vailable to him as a r esourc e per son.
The Defenda

nt testified t hat at the t ime of t he hearing he was thirty -three y ear s old, divorced, and the fathe r of two children for whom he paid $420.00 per month in child support. The Def endant stated t hat he beg an working for S un Chemical Company on J uly 27, 2007, which wa s shortly afte r his J une 2007 re lease . The De fenda nt introduced a

letter c onfirming h i s em p l o y m ent wit h Sun Chemical Company

and his g ood work re cord.

The De fenda

nt rec ounted t hat he beg an to consume a lcohol at ag e six teen, a nd he conside red him s el f t o be a r ecove ring alcoholic. He stated that he ha s not consumed alcohol since his J une 2007 rele ase f

rom prison. He further disclosed that he used marijuana be tween the ag es of f ourtee n and twenty -four , and coca ine and methamphetamines in his late twenties. The Def endant attributed his drug abuse to re lationship tension with hi s g irlfriend a nd a hig h workload. H oweve r, the Def endant testified that he had not a bused these substanc es since A pril 2004 and had pa ssed ea ch drugscre en administere d by his curre nt employ er.
Th e De fe nd ant c on fi rm e d Mo re tz’ s a c c ount of the ir mot he r’ s c on dit ion , e xpla ini ngthat th e ir mother suffe red f

rom Alzheimer’s, diverticulitis, a nd a bad hear

t c ondition. He explained that she has limited mobil ity

and re quires assistanc e to tran s p o rt , b athe, a nd fee d herse lf. The De fenda nt stated that his sister’s depa rture w ould leave only

him to care for their

mother.

The De fenda

nt testified that at the time of the se ntencinghear ing he was ser ving a suspended sentenc e for a conviction in V irg inia for driving under the influence

. He introduce d a l et t er from C.W . Martin of the V irg inia Depa rtment of Corre ctions attesting that while confined, the Def endant incurre d no disciplinary

infrac tions and completed a computer litera cy

prog ram. He i n troduce d a let ter fr om J ason McMurr y , the offic er supe rvising his Virg inia-orde red suspe nded sente nce, attesting that the Def

endant ha d complied with the probation conditions up t o the time of trial. The D e f e n d an ti n t r o d

u c e d a l e t t e r f r o mJ i m m y H ar

r i s o n , J a i l A d m i n i s t r a t o r o f L a u d e r d a l e C o u n t y, T e n n e s s e e , s t a t i n g t h a td

u r i n g t h e D e f

e n d an t ’ s c o n f

i n e m e n t i n L a

u d e r d a l e C o u n t y h e w a s a “ t r u s t y” inm a te and

pa sse d e a c h d

ru g sc re e n. Th e De fe nd ant c on c lud e d b y statin g that he regrett ed h is
c on du c t be c a

us e it h a d d on e “ no thi ngbut hu rt [his ] fa mil y , [his] kids , an d the ir mot he rs .” On c ro ssexamination, the Defe ndant admitted t hat he ha d rec eived twe lve distinct suspended sentenc es and that the State had f

iled probation violation repor ts ag ainst him at least six times.

Th e State int

ro du c e d a nd re lie d s ole ly

on the pr e se nte nc e re po rt

. Acco rd ingto t he re po rt , the Def endant dr opped out of hig h school in the tenth g rade but r ece ived a G.E.D. two y ear s later.4

Al so , in 20 03 , th e De fe nd ant e arn e d a c e rt if ie d nurs ing a ssi sta

nt lic e ns e and

late r r e ne we d th e lic e ns e while incar cer ated. The repor t r evea ls that the Def

endant’ s mother stated in an inter view with the pr ob a tio n of

fi c e r t hat th e De fe nd ant’ s f

a the r p hy sic a lly

a bu se d h im unti l th e fathe r w a s sh ot t o d e a th when the D ef

en d an t was ten year s old. Accor ding to the r eport, his mother stated that the Def endant’ s problems seeme d to beg in after his father ’s death and that she “fe lt ve ry strong ly that the Def endant ne eded psychiatric help.”

The re port also re veale d that the Def endant ha d spent three of the pa st thre e and a half y ear s in confi n em ent for of

fense s committed in Tennessee and Virg inia. The re port also containe d a leng thy list of t he Defenda

nt’s past criminal charg es. The parties stipulated to the fac t that the repor t contained a

fewredunda

ncies. H o we v er, without t akingacc ount of the re dundancie s, the repor t sug g ests that the De fe n d an t h as been cha rg ed with at lea st thirty -five of fense s, a number the trial court c alled “ove rwhe lming.”

After revie wi n g t h e evidence pre sented, the tria l court denie d the Def endant’ s motion for alternative sentenc ing. After expressing hesitancy to impose confine ment on a man with a pre sent intent to chang e his life despite a troubled childhood, the court e x plained that the looming prese nce of the Def

endant’ s extraordinary

criminal re cord r equire d strict measure s. The cour t then order ed the Def endant to se rve his e ffe ctive three y ear sentenc e in conf

inement, with cre dit for time alre ady
serve d.

II. Ana lys is

Th e De fe nd ant c on te nd s th a t the tr ia l court imp ro pe rl y

de nie d a lte rn a tiv e se nte nc ingbe c a us e th e De fe nd ant h a d s ho wn him se lf op e n to re ha

bil itatio n, the De fe nd ant h a d n ot r e c e ntl y fa ile d to comply with measure s less restric tive than conf inement, and the State did not pre sent evidenc e of a heig htened ne ed to deter acts like those of

the Def endant. The S t at e an s wer s that the trial cour t proper ly balanc ed the potential for rehabilitation, the need to deter like acts, and the likelihood that the Def endant would r espond we ll to measures less than inc arc eration. W e agree with the State.

Whe n a de fe nd ant a

pp e a ls the mann e r o f s e rv ic e of a se nte nc e imp os e d b y

a tr ia l c ourt , th is court c onducts a de novo revie w of the re cord w ith a presumption of cor rec tness as to the trial cour t’s de te rm inatio n. T. C.A

. § 40 -3 5- 40 1( d) (2 00 5)

. Ho we ve r, thi s p re sumpt ion of c or re c tne ss a ri se s o nly if the record affirmatively shows that the t rial j udg e considered both the sentencingprinciples and all relev an t facts and circ umstances . State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991) . The appea ling party

car ries the bur den of showingthe sentenc e is improper. T.C.A. § 40- 35-401(d) , SentencingCommi ssion Com ments. Even if we pref er a differ en t result, we ma

y not disturb the sentenc e if the tria l court followed the statutory sentenc ing pr ocedur e, made finding s of fa ct adequately

supported in the re cord, a nd g ave due consideration a nd proper weig ht to the fac tors and pr inc ipl e s th a t are re le va nt t o s e nte nc ingun de r t

he 19 89 Se nte nc ingAc t. State v. Fletcher , 805 S.W .2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991)

. Th e Te nn e sse e Sup re me Court no te d re c e ntl y that, du e to the 20 05 se nte nc ingame ndme nts , no de fe nd ant i s presumed to be a f avora ble ca ndidate for

alternative sentenc ing. State v. Carter , 2545

S.W. 3d 3 3 5 , 3 47 (T e nn . 2 00 8) (c iti ngT. C.A .§ 40 -3 5- 10 2( 6) (2 00 6) ). I ns te a d, a de fe nd ant n ot w ith in “the pa rame ters of subdivis ion (5) [ of T.C .A. § 40-35-102], and who is an especially mitigated or sta nd ard offend er con vic te d o f a

Cla ss C , D , o r E fe lony , ‘ sh ou ld b e c on sid e re d’ a s a fa vo ra ble candidate for alternative sentenc ing options in the abse nce of evidenc e to the contr ary .” Id. (f oo tno te omitted). Gene rally , defe ndants classified a s Rang e I I or Rang e I I Ioffe nders a re not to be c onsidered
as fa v o rab l e c an d i d at es fo r a l t ern at i v e s en t en ci n g. T. C.A . § 40 -3 5- 10 2( 6) ; 2007 Te nn . Pub. Ac ts 512. When determining whether to impose a sentenc e of c onfinem e nt, a tria l c o urt should consider whether : (A) Confine ment is nece ssary to protect socie ty

by restra ining a

defe ndant who has
a lon g his tor

y of c ri min a l c on du c t; (B ) Confinement is nec essar y to avoid depre ciating the s eriousness of the offe nse or c on fi ne me nt i s p art ic ula

rl y su ite d to p ro vid e an e ff

e c tiv e de te rr e nc e to o the rs lik e ly to commit si milar offe nses; or (C) Mea su res less r estrictive than c onfinement have fr equently or re cently

been applied unsucc essfully

to the defe ndant. T.C.A. § 40-35-103 ( 2008). Also, the trial c ourt may consider the mitigating and enha ncingfac tors
se t f or th i n T .C. A. §§ 40 -3 5- 11 3 a nd -1 14

. T. C.A

. § 4 0- 35 -2 10 (b )( 5) ; State v. Boston , 938 S.W .2d 435, 438 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). A trial court should also consider a def endant’ s potential or lack of potential f

o r rehabilitation when determiningif an a lternative se ntence would be appr opriate. T. C.A . § 40 -3 5- 10 3( 5) ; Boston , 938 S.W .2d at 438.

I nco n d u ct i n g de novo revie w of a sentenc ing det er m i n ation, we must consider (1) the evidenc e, i f an y , re ce ived at the tria l and sentenc ing he aring ; (2) the pr esente nce r eport; (3) the principles of se ntencingand ar g uments as to sentenc ing a lternatives; (4) the nature and char acte ristics of the criminal conduct; (5) any mitigating or st atutory enhanc ement factors; (6) any statement that t h e d ef

en d ant made on his own be half; and ( 7) the potential for reha bilitation or tr e a tme nt. T. C.A . § 40 -3 5- 10 2, -1 03 , - 21 0 ( 20 07 ); see State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 168 (Tenn. 1991).

I nt h e c as e u n d er

s u b m i s s i o n , t h e D ef

en d an tca n n o tav ai l h i m s el f o f t h e C o d e’ s l an gu age g rantingstandard a

nd espec ially

mitigated offe nders “ favor able c onsideration” f or alter native sentenc es, bec ause the Def endant is a Rang e I Ioffe nder. T.C.A. § 40- 35-102(6) . There fore , the trial court ha d no responsibility to g ive t he Defenda nt favor able c onsideration. As longas the trial c ourt considere d the sentenc i n g p ri n ciples and r eleva nt fac ts and circ umstances in sente ncingthe De fe n d an t, the trial court’ s determination is presumptively corr ect. Fletche r , 8 0 5 S. W. 2 d a t 7 8 9. When sentencingthe Defenda nt, the trial cour

t considere d the Def

endant’ s likeliness to reoffe nd and the De fenda

nt’ s re h ab i litative potential. The pre sentenc e re port reve aled that the De fe n d an th adb ee n

co n v i ct edo f a tl ea s tt we n t y -n i n e o ff en s es , i n cl u d i n g dri v i n g u n d er t h e influence, driving with a suspended license, violation of habitual motor vehicle offe nder or der, posse ssion and6

distribution of int ox icatingliquor b y a p e rson under

the ag e of twe nty -one, bur g lary , theft, interf ering with the proper

ty rig hts of another , and eludingpolice. The trial court state d:

He–he has brig ht spots. A n d I mean that by favor able f

actor [si c]. He has obtained a G ED. I t’s set out in the repor t. . . . [T] he r eport’s just entire ly neg ative. His sister has stuck w ith him. S he
say s “ I ’m g oin g to g ive up ne xt tim e .” B ut s he ’s ha d a lot of e nd ur anc e to p ut u

p w ith him until now and try

to help hi m and st ill be supportive. A l ot of people just have to close the door some time. . . .

. . . .

. . . . Th e ho pe is that he ’s do ingbe tte r. Th e re are c e rt a in i nd ic a tio ns of that. B ut,
on the oth e r

h an d , th e Co u rt a

n d th e ju d g e is

–

u n d e r th e la w , is r e qu ir e d

to b a lance favor able f

actor s, unfavor able f

actor s. . . .
An d I ’v e sat he re and

tho ug ht a

bo ut t his

. Ev e n w ithhis ba d r e c or d– te rr ibl e re co rd , n o tj u s ta b adre co rd

–t h e C o u rt ’s o f t h e o p i n i o nh e j u s th as t o o m u ch b agga ge by way of prior c onvict i o n s

. . . I ’m g oing to de ny probation or other

alternative
se nte nc ing , in c lud ingc omm un ity c or re c tio ns

.
T h e D e f e n d an t’ s c o u n s e l c o n te n d s th a t th e tr ia l c o u rt o mi tt e d f r o m it s c o n s id e ration the Def e n d a nt’s chang ed beha

vior and troubled pa st. W e re spectfully disag ree . The trial c ourt descr ibed the De fe nd ant’ s c ri min a l r e c or d a s th e fa c tor tha t ti pp e d th e sc a le s in fa

vo r o f c on fi ne me nt. De fe ns e counsel a sserts, howeve r, that the trial c ourt’s re fer ence to the Def endant’ s criminal re cord r evea led that the criminal rec ord was the only fac tor the trial court considere d. Howeve r, the trial co u rt discussed the g ravity

of the c riminal history

only afte r noting t h e m i t i gati ng circ umstances of the Def endant’ s troubled past and his pr esent attempts to c onform to the law. There fore , in context, t he trial court’ s focus on the D efe ndant’s leng thy criminal history

re fl ec t ed a proper w eig hing of
se nte nc ingpr inc ipl e s, mit ig a tin g c ir c ums tanc e s, and re ha bil itativ e po te nti a l. T h e t

r i a l c o u r t pr op e rl y denied a lternative se ntencingbased on its finding that the Def endant’ s lo n g crimi nal history
nece ssitated confine ment.
Whil e the tria l court’s findingthat the Def endant’ s criminal history

mandated c onfinement is sufficient to deny

alternative sentenc ing, we also conclude that the trial cour t properly relied on the Def endant’ s past failure to c omply with r elea se conditions. The Def endant c oncede d that he had violated probation conditions at least five times. The trial court found that the De fenda nt’s persistent criminal conduc t, despite having bee n g rante d a number of alter native sente nces, indicates that confine ment is now nece ssary . We ag ree

.7

Her e, the r ecor d aff

irmatively shows that the t rial cour t ga ve due c onsideration and w eig ht t o t h e e v i d en c e p r e s e n t e d at t h e p l eah ea ri n g, t h e p re s en t en ce re p o rt , t h e p ri n ci p l es o f s en t en ci n g, mitigatingfac tors, and the De fenda nt’s potential for r ehabil itation. W e conc lude that the trial c ourt’s denial of a

n alternative sentenc e is presumptively corr ect. The Def

endant is not entitled to relief

. III. Conclusi on
After a thoroug h revie w of the r ecor d and applicable authorities, we c onclude that the tr ial court properly

denied the D efe ndant alter native sente ncing . We affir m the judgme nts of the trial court.

__________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER