### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A ugus t 15 , 200 7
STATE OF TENNESS EE v . JAMES DAVID MAY

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Bedf ord County No. 14691 Lee R ussell, Ju dge

No. M2006- 02143-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Septem ber 18, 2007

The de fenda

nt, J ames David May , pled g uilty in the Be dford County

Circuit Court to one count of jail esca pe, a Class E felony

. He wa s sentence d as a Rang e I I , multipl e off ender to three y ear s and six months in t he De partment of Correc tion. On appeal, the def endant c halleng es the imposition of inc a rc e r a t i o n , ar g u i n g t h a ti tw o u l d b e m o r e a

p p r o p r i a t e t o s e n t e n c e t h e d e f e n d an tt o c omm un ity
c or re c tio ns . F oll ow ingour r e vie w, we a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

. 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 opi nion of the c ourt, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH and J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J J ., joined.

Andre w J ackson Dea

ring , I I I , Assistant Publ ic Def ender (on appe al), a

nd Michae l Coll ins, Assistant P u b l i c D e f e n d e r ( a tt r i a l ) , f

o r t h e a p p e l l an t , J a m e s D a v i d

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

ne y Ge ne ra l and

Re po rt e r; B e nj a

m i n A

. B a l l , A s s i s t a

nt Attor ne y Ge ne ra l; W. Micha el McCown, District Attorney Gene ral; and Michae l D

. Randles, Assista n t Di strict Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

F AC TS During April 2000, the def endant wa s incarc erated in the B edfor d County J ail for violation of par ole. He w as assig ned to a wor k cre w stationed at a site in B edfor d County

. On April 19, 2000, the def endant e scape d from the wor k site, met up with a

n acqua intance, and fled to L ouisiana, whe re he wor ked for a time with a traveling car nival. The defenda

nt rema ined at larg e until 2006, when he was appre hended and returned to Tenne ssee, whe re he was c harg ed with fe lony jail esca pe. On Aug ust 3, 2006, the defe ndant pled guilty to felony esca pe.-2-

At the se nte nc inghe ari ng , th e de fendan t tes tif ie d o n h is o wn

be ha lf , s ayingthat hi s p a st problems with the law ha d taug ht him the importance of staying out of

trouble. He said that he wa s single but planned to marry the mother of his two young children a s soon as he wa s relea sed fr om custody . The de fenda

nt testified t h at h e h ad completed the te nth gr ade a nd planned to take the G. E. D. te st w ith in t

he mon th. He sa id t

hat he ha d n ot u se d a lc oh ol o r d ru g s w ith in t

he pa st s ix y e ars

. He infor med the cour

t tha t h e h ad experience in perfor ming c ontrac t labor and pla nned to see k simil ar e mploy

ment upon rele ase.
On cr oss-examination, the defe ndant acknowledg ed that he had fathere d two other c hildren with a sec ond woman and that he did not support these children. He admitted that his prior sentenc e of community

corr ections had be en re voked, as ha d two pri o r gra n t s o f par ole, and that he had previously

esca ped fr om confineme nt, resulting in a conviction for misdeme anor ja il escape

. The trial c ourt sentenc ed the de fenda nt to three y ear s and six months incarce ration. The c ourt fo un d th a t th e de fe nd ant w a s n ot a n a pp ro pr iate c and idate fo r c omm un it y corre c tio ns , ta

kin g int o a c c ount h is p ri or

c ri min a l c on vic tio ns and re pe a te d vio latio ns of c omm un ity c or re c tio ns and

pa ro le require ments.

AN AL YSI S On appe al, the def

endant a rg ues that community corr ections is a more a ppropriate sentenc e than incar cer ation. When a def endant c halleng es the leng th or manner o f a s entenc e, this court conducts a de novo revie w, with a presumption that the deter minations of the court fr om which the appea l is taken are corr ect. State v. Pettus, 986 S.W .2d 540, 543 (Tenn. 1999) . The pre sumption of cor rec tness is c onditional, and applies only wher e ther e is an “ aff

irmative showing in the rec ord that the trial cour

t considere d the sentenc in g p ri nciples and a ll releva nt fac ts and circ umstances.” State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991). The pa rty challeng ing the sentenc e imposed by the trial cour

t has the burde n of establishing that the sentenc e is err oneous. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-401, Sentenc ing Commission Cm ts.; Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169. I n this c ase, the defe ndant has the burd e n o f i llu str a tin g that th e se nte nc e imp os e d b y the tr ia l c ourt

is e rr on e ou s.
The Te nnessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Ac t of 1989, ena c te d to “ p r o mo te ju s ti c e , ” T e nn. Code Ann. § 40-35-102 (2006), provides that the sentenc e imposed upon an of fende r should be the “lea st severe measure nece ssary to achie ve the purposes for which the se ntence is imposed.” Tenn. Cod e Ann

. § 40 -3 5- 10 3( 4) (2 00 6) . T hu s, tr ia l ju dg e s are “ e nc oura g e d” to u se “ a lte rn a tiv e s to incar cer ation that include re quirements of repa ration, victim c ompensation or community service .” Tenn. Cod e A n n

. § 4 0

- 3 5

- 1 0 3 ( 6 ) ( 2 0 0 6 )

. A ne s p e c ia ll y mi ti g a te d

o r s ta n d ar d o f f e n d e r c o n v ic ted of a Class C, D, or E f

elony should be considere d as a favor able candidate for alternative sente ncing in the absenc e of e vidence to the contra ry . Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-102(6) (2006).

I f an of fende r mee ts the criter ia under Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40-35-102(6), the trial court “must presume that he is subject to alternative sentenc ing.” Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169. Ho we ve r, if

the c ourt is p re se nte d w ith“ e vi den ce su ff ic ie nt t o o ve rc ome the pr e sumpt ion , th e n it-3-

may sentenc e the de fenda

nt to confi n em ent accordingto the statutory provision.” I d. The p r e s u mp ti o n in f

a v o r o f a lt e r

n a ti v e s e n te n c in g ma

y b e o v e r c o me “ b y f

a c ts c o n ta ined in the pr e se nte nc e re po rt , e vid e nce p res e 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 a part of the rec ord.” State v. Parker , 932 S.W .2d 945, 958 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996)

. The defe ndant is not an espec ially mitigated or

standard of

fende r entitled to the pre sumption of a lt e rn a tiv e se nte nc ingse t f or th i n T e nn e sse e Cod e Anno tate d s e c tio n 4 0- 35 -1 02 (6 ). He is classified a s a multiple of

fende r based on pr ior convictions of two c ounts of ag g ravated burg lary and one count of

felony theft. See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 106 (2006). None thel es s , t h e def endant
asser ts that he meets the e ligibility criter ia for c ommunity

corr ections, set forth in Tenne ssee Code Annotated se ction 40-36-106. To qua lify for c onsiderati o n fo r punishment in the community , an offe nder must meet a ll of the following criter ia:

(A) Per sons who, without this option, would be incarce rate d in a cor rec tional instit ution; (B ) Persons who a

re c onvicted of pr operty -re lated, or dr ug - or a lcohol-re lated felony offe nses or other

felony offe nses not involving cr imes ag ains t the person a s provided in title 39, chapte r 13, par ts 1-5; (C ) P e rs on s w ho are c on vic te d o f n on vio le nt f e lony of fe ns e s; ( D ) Pe r s o n s w h o ar e c o n v ic te d o f f e lo n y o f f e n s e s in w h ic h th e u s e or possession of a we apon wa s not involved; (E) Per sons who do not demonstrate a prese n t o r past pattern of beha vior indicating violence; [and] (F ) Persons who do not demonstra t e a pattern of committing violent
o f f e n s e s [. ] Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 36-106(a )(1)

. Assuming, arguendo , that the def endant satisfies these six require ments, it does not
nece ssari ly

f o ll o w th a t c o mm

u n it y c o r r e c ti o n s is th e mo s t a

p p r o p r iate s an c ti o nin

th is c ase. Tenne ssee Code A nnotated s ec tion 40-36-106 establishes only the elig ibilit y

require ments for community

corr ections. I t does not cre ate an entitlement of fr eedom f rom confine ment. The trial
c ourt re ta ins the dis c re tio n to imp os e inc arc e ratio n in a pp ro pr iate c a se s.
Th e de f e n d an t h a s n o t c ar

r i e d h i s b u r d e n o f e s t a

b l i s h i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u rt e r re d in
se nte nc inghim

to i nc arc e ratio n. The tr ia l c ourt arr ive d at it s d e te rm inatio n a ft e r c on sid e ri nga ll rele vant sentenc ing pr inciples and the f acts a nd circ umstances pa

rticular to this case . The c ourt-4-

found multiple factor s justify ing a n enhanc ement of the defe ndant’s sente nce a bove the a dvisory minimum established by

the Tenne ssee Sentenc ing Guidelin e s

. T h e c o u r t c o n s id e r e d

th e d e fenda

nt’s l o n g p r e v i o u s h i s t o r

y o f c r i m i n a l c o n v i c t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g c o n v i c t i o n s f o r t h e f t , a g g r a v a t e d

b u r g l ar y, misdemeanor ja il escape , and drivingunder the influence . The c ourt found that the def endant led the commission of an offense involvi ng two or m ore criminal actor s and that the de fenda nt before trial or sente ncing failed to c omply with t h e co n d itions of a sentenc e involving r elea se into the community

. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114( 1), (2), (8) ( 2006). De fense counsel, re cog nizi ng that the re cord a

mply supported a se ntence of inca rce ration, did not reque s t p ro b at ion at the sentenc ing he aring : “J udg e, we ’d ask the Court to g ive [ the defendant] a mi nimum sentenc e or a s close to a m i n i m u m s entence as the Court sees fit. We know the Court’s not g oing to g ive [the de fe nd ant] p ro batio n, so I ’m no t g oin g to sit in fr on t of the Court and argue that.” Ye t, o n a pp e a l, the def endant a rg ues that community

corr ections is a more appropr iate for m of puni s h m ent than incar cer ation.

Th e Te nn ess ee C ri min a l Se nte nc ingRe fo rm Ac t of 19 89 e nume ra

te s se ve ra l pr inc ipl e s a court should consider

befor e im p o s in g a sentenc e of c onfinement. Confineme nt is appropriate wher e “nec essar y to protec t society

by restra ining a

defe ndant who has a

long history

of cr iminal conduct”; “nec essar y to avoid depre ciating the seriousne ss of the off ense or confine ment is particular ly suited to provide an effe ctive dete rre nce to other s likely to commit si milar offe nses”; or w here “[m] easur es less restric tive than conf

inement have fre quently

or re cently

been a pplied unsucce s s fu l l y

to the defe ndant[.] ” Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 103(1)( A)-( C) (2006). The t ri al co u rt found that the defe ndant’s leng thy

history of violation of the conditions of par ole and a lternative se ntencing , along wi th h is my

ri a d p ri or c on vic tio ns , ju sti fi e d a

se nte nc e of

c on fi ne me nt: [E] very tim e o r v ir

tu a ll y e v e r

y ti me [th e d e f

e n d an t h a s ] b e e n g iv e n an y k in d of a brea k by a judg e, he ha s been revoke d. He has violated the terms of his rele ase, e very time or vi rtually ever

y time. And for that rea son I find him to be a ve ry , very poor ri sk to g e t a lte rn a tiv e se nte nc ing , and I fi nd that he is h ig hly lik e ly to r e pe a t un le ss he is incar cer ated.

Th e re c or d s up po rt s th is d e te rm inatio n b y the tr ia l c ourt

. CO NC LU SION

We conclude that the trial court pr operly sentenc ed the de fenda

nt to incarc erat i on. Ac c or din g ly , w e a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

.

___________________________________ AL AN E. GL ENN, JUDGE