# FILED
March 14, 2000 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE FEBRUARY

2000 SESSION
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) Appellee, ) No. M1999-00272-CCA-R3-CD

) ) Hickman County v. ) ) Honorable Timothy L. Easter, Judge ) DARRELL BAKER, ) (Aggrav ated assault

and vandali sm) ) Appellant. )
For the Appellant : For the Appellee : John H. Henderson Paul G. Summers District Public Defender Attorney General of Tennessee Post Office Box 68 and Franklin, TN 37065-0068 David H. Findley Assistant Attorney Gener al of Tennessee 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243 Ronald L. Davis District Attorney General Post Office Box 937 Franklin, TN 37065-0937

OPINION FILED:____________________

AFFIRMED Joseph M. Tipton Judge2 O P I N I O N
The defendant, Darrell Baker, appeal s as of right from sentences impos ed by the Hickman County Criminal Court. Upon hi s pleas of guilty, the defendant was sentenced as a Range I, standar d offender to six-year ter ms for two aggravat

ed assaults , Class C fe lonies, a nd a two-yea r term fo r vandalis m causin g damage o ver five hundred dollars, a Class E felony. The trial court ordered the aggravated assault sentences to be served cons ecutively for an effectiv e sentence of twelve y

ears in the Department of Correction. The defendant c ontends that the trial court erred by not imposing the min imum sentenc es available for the offens es and by imposin g a consecutive sentence. We affirm the trial co urt.

The record in this case reflects that the defend ant twice assaulted his former wife in her home in v iolation of a protection order , once with a shotgun, and damaged her cars and house. It also reflects a history of his violence or threat of violence against the v

ictim and her teenage son. H e has been convicted prev iously of two felonies and numerous misdemeanor s. He violated probati on by committing the offenses in the present case, and he has previously vi olated probation. The defendant has a history of drug and alcohol abuse, even after rehabi litation attempts. The defendant is qualified for Range I I sentencing, although the plea agreement allowed him to be sentenced as a Range I offender.

The trial court based the leng th of the sentences upon its finding that the defendant had a lengthy record of convictions and crimina l behavior, that the defendant had failed previous attempts at serving a sentence that included release into the community, and that the defendant committed the offenses while he was on p robation. SeeTenn. Code Ann. § 45-35-114(1), ( 8), (13). Relative

to consecutive sentences, the trial court found that the defendant w as an offender with an extensi ve criminal history; a3

dangerous offender whose behavi or indicated little regard for human life and who had no hesitation about committing a crime when the risk to human life was high; and an offender who committed the crimes w hile on probation. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 115(b)(2), (4), (6).

On appeal, the trial court’ s sentencing determinations , reached by considering the sentencing principles and all the relevant facts and circumstances, are presumed to be correct. State v. Ashby , 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991). The burden is now upon the defendant to s how that the sentences are i nappropriate. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d), Sentenc ing Commission Comment; Ashby , 823 S.W.2d at 169.
The defendant contends that the length of his sentences is excessiv e, noting that enhancement factor (13) was improperly appl ied because he was only on misdemeanor probation when he c ommitted the present offenses. He prov ides no other basis for a reduction of the sentences. Although we believe that enhancement factor (8) is not applicabl e, we conclude that the leng th of sentences imposed by the trial court remains appr opriate.
As for the consecutive sentences, the defend ant contends that the fact that all but two of his tw enty misdemeanor and two felony convictions occurr

ed over four years before the present offense s should mean that his record is not extensive. He also cont ends tha t the evide nce at th e senten cing heari ng did not establis h by a preponderance of the evidence that he is a dangerous offender whose behavior indicates little or no regard for human life and no hesitation a bout committing a crime in which the r isk to hum an life is high. Fina lly, he ques tions the use of co nsecutive sentences based upon his being on probation at the time of the offenses, arg uing that such sentences do not reasonably relate to the severity

of his offenses and are not4

necessary to protect the public against his further criminal conduct. We disagree with all his contentions.

An extensive record need not be based entirely upon recent convictions. See State v. James H. Crawford , No. 03C01-9802-CR-00082, Sullivan County, sl ip op. at 4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 4, 1999). Also, the record amply supports the trial court’s finding that the defendant is a danger ous offender. The record reflects a hi story of violent conduct that became i ncreasingly danger ous over time. The defendant’s use of a deadly weapon in an assault against the victim, his often stated intent to kill the victim and her son, and his drug and alcohol abuse combine to show that the defendant continues to present the risk of life-threatening violence. In this respect, he remains a threat to the public and deserv es the sentences he receiv ed.
In consideration of the foregoing and the record as a whole , the judgments of conviction ar e affirmed.

______________________________

Joseph M. Tipto n, Judge
CONCUR:

___________________________ David H. Wel les, Judge

___________________________ L. Terry Laff erty, Senior Judge