### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ma y

22, 200 7

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . WI LLI AM THOMAS HECKART

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Sulli van Coun ty Nos. S50,356; S50,357; S50,856; S50,866 Phyllis H. Mill er, Judge

No. E2006-01961-CC A-R3- CD - F iled Jun e 20, 2007

Th e de fe nd ant, Willi a m T ho ma s H e c ka rt , p le d guil ty

in t he S ull iva

n Co un ty Cr imi na l Co ur

t to

r e c k l e s s e n d an g e r

m e n t , a C l a s s E f

e l o n y; t w o c o u n t s o f a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t , a C l a s s C f

e l o n y; misdemeanor violation of t he sex offe nder r eg istry , a Class A misdemeanor ; and fe lony violation of the sex offende r re g istry , a Class E fe lony , and was sentenc ed as a Rang e I offe nder to a

n eff ective six- y e ar s e nte nc e in t

he De pa rtme nt o f C or

re c tio n. On

a pp e a l, h e argue s that the tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in denying his re quest for probation or ot her alternative sentencing . Following our re view, we aff irm th e ju d g me n t o f th e tr ia l c o u rt b u t r e ma n d f o r e n tr y o f a c o r r e c te d ju d g me n t f

o r m in count two of

case number S50,856 to ref lect that the c onviction offense was a Class C felony

.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt s o f the Cr im ina l C our t A ffirm e d and

Re m ande d for Ent r y o f Co r r e c te d Judg m e nt

A L AN E. G L EN N , J

. , d el i vere d the opinion of the cour t, in which J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R . and J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J J ., joined.

L e sli e S. H a le , A ssi sta

nt P ub lic De fe nd e r, fo r t

he a pp e lla nt, Willi a m T ho ma s H e c ka rt

. Robert E. Cooper, Jr., At t o rney Gene ral a

nd Reporter ; Cameron L . Hy der, A ssistant Attorney Gene ral; H. Gr eele y

Wells, J r., Dist rict Att orney Gene ral; and W illiam B. Har per, A ssistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

F AC TS

I n separ ate c ases, the de fenda nt was indicted by the Sulli van County Gra nd J ury on one count of rec kless endang erme nt, one count of misdemeanor violation of the sex offender reg istry law, one count of fe lony

violation of the sex off

ender reg istry law, and two counts of ag g ravated assault. On-2-

J uly 11, 2006, he ente red no c ontest g uilty pleas to all counts and w as se n t en ced as a Rang e I offe nder to a

n eff ective se ntence of six y ear s in the Depa rtment of Corre ction.

At the g uil ty ple a

he ari ng , th e pr os e c uto r i nf or me d th e tr ia l c ourt

of the pr oo f t

he State wo uld have pr e se nte d at tr ia l:

Judg e , in ta lki ngwi th [d e fe ns e c ouns e l] Iun de rs tand t h a t t h e d e f e n d a nt wo uld dispute any

[si c] of these fac ts but had these c ases g one to trial the e vidence that the State would p re sent, starting with Case No. S50,357, on Fe bruar y the 19 , 2005

th Offic er D ennis Hickman w ith the Kingspor t P o l i ce Depa rtment was c alled to the M & M M ar

k e tl o c a t e d

o nN o rt h E a s t m anR o a d i nK i n g s p o rtan d

S u l l i v anC o u n t y. When h e ar rived he spoke with Sherrita ( phonetic) Sexton who stated that the defe ndan t , W i l l i am He ck ar t , h adre p ea t ed l y s t ru ckh er

an d grab b edt h e st eering w

heel wh ile sh e wa s att e mpt ing to dr ive on Ea st Cen te r S tr e e t. E ve ntu a lly sh e wa s a ble to

sw e rv e int o th e pa

rk ing lot of the mark e t and g e t aw ay fr om him

. Th e State wo uld also prese nt the test imony of two witnesses who sa id that they observe d [t he defe ndant] striki ng Ms. Sex ton and pulling he r hair w hile she wa s driving down the

ro a d. Th e y wo uld a lso te sti fy that the c ar wa s we a vin g and sw e rv ing a ll over East Center Stree t. Office r Hickma n was a bl e to observe r ed mar

ks and an a

brasion on Ms. Sex ton’s fac e and he ad.
The prose cutor infor

med the cour

t that the State’s proof in ca se number S50, 856, involving the tw o c ounts of

a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult , w ou ld h a ve be e n a s f oll ow s:

I n that case on April the 18 of 2005 Off icer Trac y Mowdy with the th Ki ng sp or t Po lic e De pa

rtme nt w a s c a lle d to the e me rg e nc y ro om at Ind ian Path Hospital located on B rookside Dr ive in King sport and Sullivan C o u n t y . When he

arr ive d h e sp ok e to T e rr

y L a ug hli n w ho was a nu rse the re a t th e e me rg e nc y ro om. He state d that the def

endant, William Heckar

t, who was a

patient there at the hospital had wa lked out of his r oom a nd beg an to c hase Mr. L aug hlin in the hall with a knife,

m ade se vera l attempts and swung at him. Eventually [t he def endant] stopped and said he wa s g oing to lea

ve and a t that point [ the def

endant] beg an to walk out of the building. At that point Mr. L aug hlin, along w ith another i n d i v i dual, Anthony Stil tner, be g an to follow him. There wer e seve ral v i s i t o rs in the are a and the y advised just to kind of st ay awa y beca use of the f

act that [the defe ndant] had a knife. At that point [ the defendant] then bega n to chase ag ain M r. L aug hlin and Mr. Stiltner wi th a kn if

e an d th e ir te s ti mo n y w o u ld b e th a t th e y w e r e p u t in f e ar by [t he defe ndant’s] actions.
Finally , the prosec utor informed the trial court of the State’s proof in the misdemeanor a

nd fe lony vio la tio n o f t

he se x off e nd e r r e g istry

c a se s:-3- Th e State ’s pr oo f i n S5 0, 35 6 wou ld be that the de fe nd ant, Willi a m H e c ka rt , was c onvicted o n Fe bruar y the 3 , 1998 here in Sull ivan County of the off

ense of rd sexual battery . As a result of that he was require d to r eg ister with the TB Ias a se x offe nder. H e did so. I t was shortly there afte r he was pl ace d on probation, we nt over the sex offende r reg istry forms with his probation office r, Wendy Minton, signed that he under stood what the re quirements we re unde r the regi s t ration progr am and the State would prese nt evidence that in 2001 the sex offender moni t o ri ng forms we re mailed to [t he def

endant] at the addr ess t h at h e h ad p ro vided to the TB Iand that those forms we re r eturne d unclaimed to them, that he f ailed t o re t u rn monitoring forms seve ral times in October and in D ece mber of 2001, that he wa s require d to do

so as a r esult of being a convic ted sex offende r. And that would be the State’s proof in S50,356.
The proof in S50,866 would be that a s a result of a chang e in the law that was passed in Jul y

of 2004 [the defe ndant] ag ain as a result o f h i s conviction of sexual batte ry and be ingc la ssi fi e d a s a se x o ff e nd e r wa s re qu ir e d to re g ist e r i n p e rs on wi th

a re g istering ag ency

here in Sull ivan County

during the month of Aug ust 2004 and that betwee n the dates of August 1 , 2004 and August 31 , 2004 he fa iled to reg ister st st with the reg isteringag ency

. T h e S t ate would present proof that at that time [t he defe ndan t] w a s li v in g in

K in g s p o rt a

n d s h o u ld h a v e r e g is te r e d

w it h th e K in g s port Police Depa

rtment in person a s a sex offende r.
At the Aug ust 14, 2006, sentencinghear ing, the six ty -three -y ear -old defe ndant testified that he ha d s a ve d e no ug h mo ne y to r e nt a ro om at a mote l and that he wo uld “ lik e to g o o n p ro batio n to see if [he c ould] handle it.” He said that his sister, who lived in “Carolina,” had sent him the money to p ay fo r t he mo tel lo dgin g an d th a t he mig ht l a te r s e e k to have his pr ob a tio n tr ans fe rr e d to “Carolina. ” H e a c kn o w le d g e d h e h a d p r e v io u s ly b e e n in th e “ H ay H o u s e p r o g r a m” b u t h a d been asked to lea

ve due to his fa ilure to ask “pe rmission to go up town.” H e believed, how ever , that he ha d b e e n g ive n “ a

ra w d e a l” by the Ha

y Ho us e sta ff

. T he de fe nd ant t e sti fi e d th a t he wa s c ur re ntl y “takingblood pressure pills, baby aspirin for [his] hear

t, a fluid pil l , a go u t pill and some mental health medicine ,” all of w hich was a dminist ere d by the jail nur ses. He sa id he planned to c ontinue taking his medication on his own i f release d on probation. He stated that, as an older inmate, he wa s “thre atene d a lot” in j ail, which made life di fficult for him. I n addition, the hol ding cell in which the jail staff ha d place d him for his protection did not have a television.

At the conc lusion of the hear ing, the trial court denied the defe ndant’s re quest for pr obation or alter native sente ncing , finding th a t measure s less restrictive tha n confine ment had fr equently been applied unsucc essfully

to the defen d an t

. T h e t rial cour t ag ree d, howeve r, to rec ommend that the defe ndant be inca

rce rate d at a specia l ne eds fac ility

. There afte r, the de fenda nt filed a timely

notice of appe al to this court.O n J u n e 7, 2005, t h e G en er al As s embl y a men ded T en n es s ee Code An n ot at ed s ec t i on s 40- 35- 102( 6) , - 210, 1

an d - 4 0 1

. S ee 2 0 0 5 T en n. P ub

. A cts ch. 3 5 3 , § § 1 , 6 , 8

. T he am en d ed co d e se cti o ns, ho w ev er, d o no t ap p l y i n thi s ca se becau s e t he def

endan t ’ s of

f ens es wer e c om mi t t ed pri or t o t he ena ct ment of t he s t at ut e and he di d n ot el ect t o be s ent enc ed

u n d e r th e 2 0 0 5 a m e n d m e n t.

U n der t h e ame n ded code s ec t i on , a de f en dan t w h o r ec ei v es a s en t en ce of t en y ea r s or l es s i s e l i g i bl e f or 2

p ro b a tio n . S e e T e n n . C o d e A n n . § 4 0 -3 5 -3 0 3 (a ) (2 0 0 6 ).

-4- AN AL YSI S

Th e so le iss ue the de fe nd ant r a ise s on app e a l is wh e the r the tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in de nyinghis reque st f or probation or alternative sentenc ing. He argues, among other things, that the time he had alre ady serve d in jail prior to sentencing should se rve as an adequate deter renc e for the cr imes and that the fa cts surroundingthe offe nses wer e not suffic iently serious to w arr ant a sentenc e of fur ther confine ment. The State argues that the trial court did not abuse its discr etion in denying pr obation or alt er n at ive sentenc ing ba sed on the de fenda nt’s numerous past fa ilures to comply with the conditions of probation or a lternative se ntencing . We ag ree 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 th e tr ia l c ourt , th is c o u rt c o n d

u cts a de novo revie w of the r ecor d with a pre sumption t hat the trial c ourt’s deter minations are c orre ct. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401( d) (2003)

. Th i s p resumpti on of 1

corr ectne ss, how ever , is “ conditioned upon the aff irmative showing in the rec ord that the trial court considere d the sentenc ing pr inciples and a ll releva nt f acts and circ umstances.” State v. Ashby , 823 S.W. 2d 16 6, 16 9 ( Te nn . 1 99 1) . T he burd e n is on the a pp e a lin g pa

rt y to s ho w that th e se ntenc e is imp ro pe r. Te nn . Co de Ann. § 4 0- 35 -4 01 (d ) ( 20 03 ), Se nte nc ingCom mis si on Com me nts

.
As a standa

rd off ender convicted of Class C and E fe lonies, the defe ndant was pr esumed t o b e a f a v o r a b l e c an d i d a t e f

o r a l t e r n a t i v e s e n t e n c i n gi nt h e a b s e n c e o f e v i d e n c e t o t h e c o n t r a r

y. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-102(6) (2003). Moreove r, because he re ceive d a sente nce of eig ht y ear s
or le ss, he wa s e lig ibl e fo r p ro batio n a nd the trial court

wa s r e qu ir e d to c on sid e r p ro batio n a s a sentenc ing option. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35-303( a), (b) (2003). Howeve r, althoug h the def endant 2

wa s e nti tle d to the pr e su mpt ion of a lte rn a tiv e se nte nc ing , h e wa s n ot a uto ma tic a lly

e nti tle d to probation as a

matter of law. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-303( b) (2003). The burde n was upon the defe ndant to show he was a sui table candidate for probation. I d.; State v. Goode, 956 S.W.2d 521, 5 2 7 ( T e n n

. C r i m

. A p p

. 1 9 9 7 ) ; S t a t e v

. B o g g s , 9 3 2 S

. W

. 2 d 4 6 7 , 4 7 7 ( T e n n

. C r i m

. A p p

. 1 9 9 6 )

. In order to meet thi s burden, the de fenda nt “must demonstrate that proba tion will ‘subserve the e nds of justice and the best interest of both the public and the def endant.’ ” State v. B ingha

m, 910 S.W .2d 448, 456 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (quoting State v. Dy kes, 803 S.W.2d 250, 259 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990)).

There is no br ight line rule for deter mining when a defe ndant should be g rante d probation. B ing ham, 9 10 S.W. 2d

a t 45 6. Ev e ry

se nte nc ingde c isi on

ne c ess ari ly

re qu ir e s a

c a se -b y -c a se analy sis. I d. Fa ctors to be c onsidered inc lude the cir cumstance s surrounding the o ff en s e, the-5-

defe ndant’s cr iminal recor d, the def endant’ s social history an d p re s en t condition, the need f or deter renc e, and the best interest of the defe ndant and the public. G oode, 956 S.W.2d at 527.

Th e pr e su mpt ion

in fa vo r of a lte rn a tiv e se nte nc ing may be ov e rc ome by fa c ts c on ta ine d in the pr esen tence re po rt , e vid e nc e pr e se nte d b y the State , th e te sti mony

of the a c c us e d o r a

de fe ns e witness, or any

other sourc e, provide d it is m ade pa rt of the r ecor d. State v. Parker , 932 S.W .2d 945, 958 (Tenn. Crim. App. 19 9 6 ). A trial court may deny alternative sentenc ing a nd sentenc e a de fe nd ant t o c on fi ne me nt b a se d o n a ny on e of the fo llo wi ngc on sid e ratio ns :
(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 pr ov ide 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 sures less re str ictive than conf inement have fre quently

or re cently

been applied unsucc essfully

to the defe ndant[.]
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-103(1)

.
I n this c ase, the trial court imposed a sentenc e of confine ment based on the de fe n dant’s extensive history

of failure to c omply with the conditions of probation. The tr ial court noted, a mong other thing s, that the defe ndant’s pre sentenc e re port containe d “pag e af t er pag e of violation of alternative sentenc ing,” which included the defendant’s rece nt failure to comply with the rules of the Hay House. W e can find no err or i n the t rial court’s sentenc ing determinations. As t he trial c ourt

no te d, the de fe nd ant h a s an e xten siv e c ri min a l hi sto ry a s w e ll as an e xten siv e his tor y of fa ilure to comply with the conditions of probation. B y our count, the de fe n d an t has bee n found g uilty of violating his probation on at least seven se p ar ate occasions in the past. B ased on this re cord, w e conclude that the trial cour t did not err in deny

ing the defen d an t p robation or other alternative

s en t en ci n g.

CO NC LU SION

Ba sed on the fore g oing a

uthorities and re asoning , we a ffirm the judg ement of the trial court but r e ma n d f o r e n tr y o f a c o r

r e c te d ju d g me n t f

o r m in c a s e n u mb e r S5 0 , 8 5 6 to r e f le c t th a t the d e f e n d an t ’ s c o n v i c t i o nf

o r a g g r a v a t e d

a s s a u l ti s a C l a s s C , r a t h e r

t h anC l a s s D , f

e l o n y.

___________________________________ AL AN E. GL ENN, JUDGE