### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs F eb ru ar y 3, 200 9 STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. TER ENC E A LAN CA RD ER
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court forMcN airy County

No. 2270 J. WeberMcC raw, Judge

No. W2008-01450-C CA-R 3-CD - Filed Jun e 30, 2009

The de fenda n t , Tere nce A lan Carde r, pled guilty to theft of prope rty over $1,000 but less than $1 0, 00 0 a ndre c e ive d a se nte nc e of tw o ye ars to be se rv e d on pr ob a tio n a ft e r s e rv ic e of 60 da ys in jail. The defendant wa s also order ed to provide r estitution t o the victim in the amount of $80,000 to be pa id ba c k a t$ 1 , 0 0 0 p e r m o n t h

. O n ap p e a l , t h e d e f e n d a n tar g u e s t h a tt h e tr i a l c o u r te rr e d in ord er i n g co n fi nement and se tting restituti on. Following our review, we aff irm the sentenc e as imposed but conclude that the trial court made inade quate f indings in assessing restituti on pursuant to Tennesse e Code Annotated sec tion 40-35-304. Ther efor e, we rema nd for r econside ration of the re sti tut ion a wa

rdba se d u po n th e re qu ir e d f ind ing s. Tenn. R. App . P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Cir cuit Court Af firme d in part; Reve rsed in part and Remanded
J. C. M C L IN , J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which C AM I LLE R. M C M ULLEN , J., joined and J OHN E VERET T W I L L I AMS , J., concur ring in result only .
Chadwick G. H unt, Savannah, Te nnessee , for the a ppellant, Ter ence Alan Carde r. Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr ., At to rn e y G e n e r a l an d R e p o r t e r; Da vidH. Fin dle y, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y G e ne ra l; D. Mic ha e l D un avan t, Di st ri ct A tt orn ey G ener al; and Bo b Gr ay, As si st ant Di st ri ct A tt orn ey G ener a l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee. OP IN ION
The re cord r efle cts that the def endant wa s originally indicted for thef t of prope rty valued at $60,000 or more. Howeve r, he ple d guilty to t he re duced c harge of theft of property over $1,000 but less than $10,000. While the guilty pl ea tr anscript was not included in the appe llate re cord, the de fe nd a nt’ s p re se nte nc e re po rt giv e s a brie f s umm a tio no f

the fa c ts u nd e rl yin g th e de fe nd a nt’ s g uil ty ple a . T he pr e se nte nc e re po rt state s a s f

oll ow s: [O]n or about 5/ 8/06 in McNa iry County, Def endant did ente r at lea st one home and oth e r p ro pe rt y a lon gs ide Hw y 6 4 Ea st, ow ne d by Mr

. Ev e re tt Ha ge rm a n on mul tip le-2-

occa sions. Defe ndant sold property that be longed to Mr. Hage rman . . . . De fenda nt did rec eive money in the amount of $1,000 to 10,000 . . . .
A sentenc ing hearing was held on June 6, 2008. At the hearing, the prese ntence report was a dmi tte d int o e vid e nc e
. Th e pr e se nte nc e re po rt re fl e c te d that in 20 06 the de fe nd a nt ple d g uil ty t o theft of pr operty ove r $500 but less than $1,000 and w as sentenc ed to one year probation. The r eport also reve aled that in 20 0 6 th ed efe ndant was c onvicted of misdemeanor drug possession and r ece ived probation. The de fenda nt also had convic tions for driving without a li cense , failure to appea r, and traff ic violations. The pre sentenc e re port indicated that the defe ndant lived with his girlfriend of ten year s and had two daughters. The report st ated that the defendant had been self-e mployed as a diesel mecha nic since 2000.
Th e vic tim , E ve re tt H a ge rm a n, te sti fi e d th a t app ro xim a te ly $ 20 0, 00 0 w orth o f h is p ro pe rt y was stolen, including 75 vehicle s. Mr. Hage rman noted that the defe ndant denied ste aling all of the pr op e rt y, bu t Mr . Ha ge rm a n be lie ve d the de fe nd a nt “w a s the on e se lli ng thi s stuf f. ” Ac c or din g to Mr. Hage rman, he had re cover ed about $80,000 wo rt h o f h is property. Prior to the thef ts, he had been the North American Coordinator for a charity which purchased vehicles for transport to third world countrie s. S i n ce t h e t h ef t s, howeve r, he ha d been r elieved of his positi on and had ta

ken e mpl oy me nt a s a truc k drive r to he lp re pa y the c ha ri ty. Mr . H a ge rm a n s a id that heha d c re a te d a lis t detailing the stolen property and its value. Howeve r, Mr. Ha germa n suggested that not all the stolen pr op e rt y w a s n ote d o n th e lis t.
At the conc lusion of the hearing, the court sentenced the defe ndant t o two year s as a Range I off ender . The c ourt order ed the de fenda nt to serve 60 days in confinement with the r emainder on pr ob a tio n. Th e c ou rt

e xp la ine d it s se nte nc ing de c isi on a s f oll ow s: [ T ] h e th e Co u r t h a s r e v ie w e d th e p r e
- s e n te n c e r e p o r t. T h e Co u r t d o e s f in d that he has cri mi nal o ff

e ns e s b ut d oe s f

indthat th e se of

fe ns e s a ndc on vic tio ns , a s I un de rs too d, oth e r tha n a

min or tr a ff ic of fe ns e , o c c ur

red aft er the e ve nt d a te of thi s particula r crime.
The Court also conside rs whethe r or not [the defe ndant] will abide by the terms of probation , whether or not he might be re asonably e xpecte d to be reha bilitated and hi s potential or l ack of potential for suc h reha bilitation. The court also looks greatly at the interest of soc iety in being protec ted fr om future c riminal c on du c t a ndwh e the r f

ull pr ob a tio n w ou ld u nd uly de pr e c ia te the se ri ou sn e ss o f this offe nse.
It app e ars to b e a

ve ry su bs ta nti a l a mou nt o f p ro pe rt y .
. . take n. Th e wi tne ss tes ti f ie d in it ia ll y ab o u t $ 2 0 0 , 0 0 0

. A lth o u g h s o me w h a t c o n v o lu te d te s ti mo n y, he believes w hile [the de fenda nt] was involved in this theft, there may have been othe rs and [the defe ndant] is conne cted to the other s. . . . With rega rd to h o w t o s entenc e him, considering the f actor s as I’ve stated, putting great empha sis on depre cating the seriousness of a $200,000 the ft, the Court-3-

is going to require some partial jail sente nce. T he sente nce is going to be suspende d e xc e pt f or 60 da ys
. AN AL YSI S
On app e a l, the de fe nd a nt f ir st c ha lle ng e s h is s e nte nc e of 60 da ys in c on fi ne me nt. Ap pe llate revie w of sente ncing is a de novo r eview of the re cord w ith a pres u m p t i o n that the trial court’s sentenc ing determinations ar e cor rec t. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-401(d) . This presumption of corr ectne ss is conditioned upon the aff irmative showing in the rec ord that the trial court considere d the sentenc ing principles and all releva nt fac ts and circ umstances. State v. Pe ttus , 986 S.W.2d 540, 5 4 3 -4 4 (Tenn. 1999). Howe ver, if the rec ord shows that the trial c ourt failed to c onsider the sentenc ing principles and a ll releva nt fac ts and ci rc u m s tance s, then revie w of the c hallenged sentenc e is purely de novo without the presumption of corr ectne ss. State v. Ashby , 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991). The party challenging the sentenc e imposed by the trial court ha s the burden of es t ab l i s h ing that the sentenc e is err oneous. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401( d), Sentenc ing Commi ssion Com ments. In cond u cting our de novo r eview, this court must consider (1) the evidenc e, if a ny, rec eived at the trial and sente ncing hea ring, (2) the prese ntence report, (3) the principles of se ntencing and a rguments as to sentenc ing alternatives, (4) the nature a nd char acte ristics of the criminal conduct, (5) any mitigating or st atutory enhance ment fac tors, (6) a ny state me nt that th e de fe nd a nt ma de on his ow n be ha lf, (7) the po te nti a l for re ha bil itatio n or t

re a tme nt, and (8) any statistical data pr ovided by the Administrative Of fice of the Courts r elative to statewide sentenc ing prac tices for

simil ar of

fense s. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40- 35-102, -103, - 210.
Our sente ncing law pr ovides that a de fenda nt’s sentenc e should be no greater than that deser ved for

the offe nse committed and should be the le ast sever e mea sure ne cessa ry to ac hieve the purpos es fo r which the se ntence is imposed. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-103(2) , (4). Acc ordingly, a def

endant who doe s not possess a criminal h istory showing a clea r disrega rd for so c ie ty’ s la ws a nd mor a ls, wh o h a s n ot f a ile d p a st r e ha

bil itatio n e ff

orts, a ndwh o “ is a n e sp e c ia lly mitig ate d o r s ta nd ardof

fe nd e r c on vic te d o f a

Cla ss C , D , o r Efe lon y, sh ou ld b e c on sid e re d a s a favor able c andidate for alternative sentencing opt ions in the absenc e of e vidence to the contra ry.” Id . § 40 -3 5- 10 2( 6) ; see also State v. Fields , 40 S.W.3d 435, 440 (Tenn. 2001) . Evidence to the c on tr ary ma y b e e sta

bli sh e d b y s ho wi ng that: (A) Confine ment is ne cessa ry to pr otect society by restra ining a defe ndant who has a lon g h ist ory o f c ri min a l c on du c t; (B) Confinement is nec essary to avoid depre ciating the seriousness of the off ense or c on fi ne me nt i s p art ic ula

rl y s uit e d to pr ov ide a n ef fe 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 strictive than co nfinement ha ve fr equently or r ece ntly been applied unsucc essfully to the defe ndant[.]
Id . § 40-35-103( 1). As par t of its determination, the trial court may also consider the def endant’ s potential or lac k of potential for reha bilitation. Id . § 40 -3 5- 10 3( 5) . T he c ou rt sh a ll c on sid e r, bu t is-4-

n o t b o u n d b y , th e a d v is o r y s e n te n c in g g u id e li nes. Se e id . § 40-35-102( 6)(D)

. See also State v

. Carter , 254 S.W.3d 335, 347 (Tenn. 2008)

. A d e fe nd a nt w ho re c e ive s a se nte nc e of te n ye ars or

le ss i s e lig ibl e fo r p ro batio n, su bje c t to certain exce ptions. Tenn

. Code Ann. § 40-35- 303(a) (2006). Eve n if eligible, howeve r, the defe ndant is not automatic al l y en t i t l ed to probation as a matter of law. See id. § 40-35-303( b). Rather, the defe ndant bears the burde n of proving suitability for probation. Id

. Among the fa ctors applicable to a probation consideration ar e the c ircumstanc e s of the off ense; the de fenda nt’s criminal rec ord, social h i s t ory, and pr esent c ondition; t he nee d for de terre nce, and the best intere st of the defe ndant and the public. State v. Gre ar , 5 6 8 S

. W

. 2 d 2 8 5 , 2 8 6 ( T e n n
. 1 9 78 ); see also State v. Goode , 956 S.W.2d 521, 527 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997)

. The re cord in the instant case reflec ts that the defendant rece ived an alternative sentenc e of split confinement. The defenda nt put on no proof demonstrating his suitabilit y for probation. The court de termined that 60 da ys in c onfinement was war rante d afte r consideration of the defe ndant’s criminal hi story which included a theft convic tion for which the de fenda nt rec eived pr obation, and the seriousne ss of the nea rly $200,000 theft committed by the def endant. Give n that the court’s findings are adequately supported by the r ecor d, and the de fenda nt’s sentenc e complies with our sentenc ing statutes, we disce rn no abuse of discretion by the court in imposing confinement of 60 da ys fo llo we d b y p ro batio n. Th e iss ue is w ith ou t me ri t.
The de fenda nt next argue s that the trial court erre d in setting excess i ve re stitut ion. The defend ant su bmi ts that a s a me c ha nic he c a nn ot b e re a so na bly e xp e c te d to sa tis fy $8 0, 00 0 in restitution during the term of his two-ye ar se ntence

. In or de ri ng re sti tut ion , th e tr ia l c ou rt state d a s f

oll ow s: It appe ars to be a

very substantial amount of property .

. . taken. The witness testified initially about $200,000. Although s omewhat c onvoluted testimony, he believes while [the de fenda nt][ wa s involved in this t heft, ther e may ha ve bee n others and [ the defe ndant] is conne cted to the others. But that’s a lar ge amount of r estitution. Although the court wa s conce rned about the amount that [the defenda nt] should be pa ya ble fo r, the a mou nt that w a s te sti fi e d to which I cou ld I c ou ld r e a c h s ome certainty on is $80,000, so the amount of restitution is goi ng to be $80,000.
The trial c ourt asked defense counsel how much t he def endant c ould pay. Def

ense c ounsel informed the court that the defe ndant was a mecha nic and c ould pay $150 per month. The victim testified that he wa s North American Coordinator for va rious mission projects in Central and South America . He was re lived of t he duty afte r t he property was stolen. He said I “a lrea dy paid bac k $70,000 out of my own pocket a nd there ’s a lar ger f igure than $80,000 that has to be paid ba ck . . . .”
Af te r h e ari ng the vic tim ’s te sti mon y, the tr ia l c ou rt c omm e nte d a s f

oll ow s: I under stand, but certainly you have a civil rec ourse. A c ivil sui t cou ld be fi le d a ga ins t [ the de fe nd ant] a s w e ll a s any oth e rs that yo u th ink are re sp on sib le to-5-

you for that a mount of money, but the C ourt is lim ited on the sentenc ing to 2 years and . . . the Court is bound by certain sentenc ing guidelines. . . . I re cognize having that r e pa id i n tw o y e ars is p ro ba bly no t go ing to h app e n, so yo u’ re go ing to ha ve to pu rs ue it c ivi lly , w hic h y ou ha ve the ri gh t to that a s w e ll. But going back to the i ssue of how m uch [the defe ndant] can pay per month, $100 rea lly does not go much t owar d this restitution. I will order restitution in the a mou nt of $1 00 0 pe r mon th. I s ug ge st, [t he de fe nd a nt]

. . . w or

k tw o jo bs . T hat st ill certainly won’t get it paid. It is an amount I think that [the de fenda nt] ca n pay and the Court can only se t an amount which is re asonably e xpecte d to be paid by the de fe nd a nt.
When a defe ndant cha llenges the validit y and amount of restitut ion, this court conducts a de novo revie w of both the amount of restitution or dere d and the method by which it was determined. State v. Johnson , 968 S.W.2d 883, 8 8 4 (T en n. Crim. App. 1997) (citing Tenn. Code A nn. § 40-35-401( d) (1990) ). The trial court is entit led t o a pre sumption of corre ctness on appe al. See id.
Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 40- 35 -3 04 se ts o ut the pr oc e du re s th e tr ia l c ou rt mus t follow in or d e r in g r e s ti tu ti o n
. T h e tria l c o u r t “ may d ir e c t a d e f e n d a n t t o ma

k e r e s ti tu ti o n to the victim of the offe nse as a

condition of probation.” Id. § 40-35-304( a). “ Whene ver the court be lieves that r e sti tut ion ma y b e pr op e r o r the vic tim of the of fe ns e or the dis tr ic t a tto rn e y g e ne ra l r e qu e sts , the court shall ord er the prese ntence service office r to include in the pre sentenc e re port documentation regarding the nature a nd amount of the victim’s pec uniary loss.” Id . § 40-35-304( b). The a mount of restitution that the defendant m ay b e d i re cted to pay is li mited to “the victim's pecunia ry loss.” Id . T he ph ra se “ pe c un iary los s” inc lud e s: (1) All spec ial damage s, but not gener al damages, as substantiated by e vidence in the rec ord or a s agre ed to by the def endant; and (2) Rea sonable out-of

-pocke t exp en s es incurr ed by the victim re sulting from the filing of char ges or cooperating in the investigation and prosecution of the of fense ; provided, that pa yment of spec ial prosec utors s h al l n o t be conside red a n out-of-poc ket expe nse. Id

. § 40-35-304( e). The re is no set formula for a war ding restitution. Johnson , 968 S.W.2d at 886. The sum of re stitut ion ordere d must be rea sonable a nd does not have to equal the pr ecise pecunia ry loss. Sta te v . Smi th , 8 98 S.W .2 d 7 42 , 7 47 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 94 ). Ho we ve r, the c ou rt mus t consider not only the victim’s pec uniary loss but also the financial resour ces and future ability of the de fe nd a nt t o p a y. Te nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 35 -3 04 (d ); State v. Bottoms , 87 S.W.3d 95, 1 0 8 (Tenn. C r i m
. A p p
. 2 0 0 1 )

. “ T h e p u rp o s e o f r e s t i t u t i o n i s n o t o n l y t o c o m p e n s a t e t h e v ic tim bu t a lso to punish and reha

bilitate the guilty.” Johnson , 968 S.W.2d at 885.
In orde ring restitution, the trial court shall specify the amount of time and pa yment and may permit payment or pe rformance of re stitut ion in inst allments. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-304(c ). The court may not, howe ver, e stablish a payment or sc hedule e x t en ding beyond the expir ation of the-6-

sentenc e. Id . at 30 4(g)(2 ). If th e de fe nd a nt, vic tim , o r d ist ri c t a tto rn e y p e tit ion s th e tr ia l c ou rt , it may hold a hearing and, if appropriate, waive, adjust, or modify its order re garding re stitut ion. Id

. at 304(f) . Further, any unpaid portion of the re stitut ion may be converted to a civil judgment. Id

. a t 30 4( h) (1 ); Bottoms , 87 S.W.3d at 108.
In this case , the t rial court did not addre ss, at l east on the record, the financ ial resour ces of the def endant or his future a

bility t o pay the r estitution amount. In addition, while the c ourt implied that th e de fe nd a nt w ou ld n ot pa y re sti tut ion be yo nd his pr ob a tio na ry te rm , the c ou rt didno t c le arl y specify the time period the pa yments would be made . We notethat the trial co u rt must set an amount of restitut ion that the defendant can reasonably pay within the t ime that he will be withi n the jurisdiction of the trial court. Sm ith , 898 S.W.2d at 747. Her e, the trial court orde red the defe ndant to pay $80,000 in restitution by installments of $1000 per month. Theft of prope rty over $1,000 but le ss tha n $ 10 ,0 00 is a

Cla ss D fe lon y a ndc arrie s a ma ximum s e nte nc e of

fo ur ye ars. As su c h, it wo uldbe imp os sib le fo r the de fe nd a nt t o p a y $ 80 ,0 00 by makin g p a yme nts of $1 00 0 p e r m on th i n four ye ars let a lone the two yea rs to which the de fenda nt was s en t en ce d. “An or der of restitution which obviously cannot be fulfilled s erve s no purpose for the [de fenda nt] or the victim.” Johnson , 968 S.W.2d at 885. Acc ordingly, we re mand the ca se to the trial court to consider evide nce of the defe ndant’s ability to pay and to se t an amount of re stitut ion that the defe ndant ca n rea sonably pay within the appropriate time fra me. CO NC LU SION
In consider ation of the for egoing and the r ecor d as a w hole, the judgment of the tria l court is a ff ir me d in pa

rt , a ndthe c a se is r e ma nd e d f or the tr ia l c ou rt

to d e te rm ine whe th er $8 0,00 0 is a rea sonable a mount of restitution given the defe ndant’s financial resource s and future abili ty to pay.

___________________________________ J.C. McLIN, JUDG E