### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE Re m an de d by S upr eme Co ur t A pr il 22, 200 4 STATE OF TENNESS EE v . MARIO C. EST RADA Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Maury County No. 12131 Robert

L. Jones, Jud ge

No. M2004- 01291-CCA -RM -CD - F iled Jun e 29, 2004

Th is c a se pr e se nts a n app e a l to thi s c ou rt a ft e r re ma nd by or de r of the Te nn e sse e S up rem e C ourt

. The Appe llant, Mario C

. Estrada , appea ls the i mpositi on of a sentenc e of twelve y ear s confineme nt in the Depa

rtment of Corre ction. The sente nce a rose f rom a g uiltyplea enter ed by Estrada to one coun t o f ar s o n , e ig h t c o u n ts o f

a g g r a v a te d a s s au lt , a n d o n e c o u n t o f p o s s e s s io n o f

a p r ohibited we ap o n . I n t h i s ap p ea l , E s tra d a r ai s es t h e i s s u e o f w h et h ert h e t ri al co u r t erre d b y o rd er i n g a sentenc e of total c onfinement rather than a less restric tive alternative. After revie w, we f

ind no error

. Acc ording ly , the judg ment is affirme d.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed
D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., delivere d the opi n i o n o f t he court, in which J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined. Claudia S. J ack, D istrict Publi c De fende r; Robin Far ber, A ssi s t an t P u b lic Def ender , Columbi a, Tenne ssee, f

or the Appe llant, Mario C. Estrada.
Pau l G

. Su mm e r s , A tt o r n e y Gene ral an d Re p o r ter ; M ic h a e l M o o r e , So li c it o r G e n e r a l; Re n e e W. T u r n e r , A s s i s t a n tA t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ; T

. M i c h a e l B o t t o m s , D i s tr i c t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ; a n d J o s e p h L. Penrod, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP INION ON REMAND
P roce dural Hi story
I n the ea rly morning hours of October 1, 2000, the eig hteen- y ear -old Appellant a nd sever al co-de fendants, posse ssing Molotov c ocktails, went to the home of Patricia Hood in Columbia. The incendiary

devic es we re t h rown into the mobile home, which w as occ upied at the time by eig ht individuals including Hood, her three teena g e daug hters, their boyfriends, and her e ighte en-month--2-

oldg rand daug hte r. Th e oc c up a nts we re a wa ke ne d b y the fi rea ndba

re ly ma na g e d to esc ape . T he ir home was ove r seve nty

perc ent destroy ed, re sulting in them being forced t o l ive in a motel for a month. The Appe llant was indicted for : (1) one c ount o f aggr av ated a rson; (2) e ight c ounts of attempted first de g ree murder; a nd (3) one count of possession of a prohibited wea

pon . On Dec ember

10, 2001, the Appellant pled g uilty to: (1) one c ount of arson, a class C felony ; (2) eig ht counts of ag g ravated assault, cl as s C felonies; and (3) one count of possession of a prohibited wea pon, a Class E fe lony . Purs u an t t o t h e plea ag ree ment, the Appellant r ece ived three -y ear sentenc es for

eac h Class C fe lony conviction, and a one y ear sentenc e for possession of a prohibited we apo n. As pr ov ide d b y

the a g reement , th e ars on c on vic tio n a ndthr e e of thea g g ra vate d a ssa

ult c on vic tio ns we re or de re d to run co ns e c uti ve ly , w itha ll o the r s e nte nc e s b e ing c on c ur re nt. Th is resulted in a e ffe ctive twelve -y ear sentenc e, with t he manne r of se rvice of the sente nces to be determined by

th e co u rt . Following a sente nce he aring on Fe bruary 1, 2002, the trial court denied the Appellan t ’s re q u es tfo r a l t er n at i v e s en t en ci n g an d o rd er ed t h att h e t we l v e- y ea r s en t en ce be serve d in c on fi ne me nt. The Appe llant appea led the denia l of alternative sentenc ing. Apanel of this court vacated the conviction s a n d r e man d e d th e c a s e , h o ld in g th a t th e g u il ty p le a s w e r e in v a li d a s a g g r a v a te d assault was not a

lesser- included off

ense of attempted first de g ree murder a s char g ed in the indictment. State v. Mario C. Estrada , No. M2002-00585-CCA-R3-CD (T enn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Mar . 14, 2003). Our supr eme c ourt g rante d the State’s app l i ca t i on for discr etionary app e a l in the c a se . Th e su pr e me c ou rt re ins ta te d the c on vic tio ns a ndre ve rs e d a ndre ma nd e d th e c a se to the Court of Criminal Appea ls for consideration of the sentencing issue in light of their holding that the trial court in the case had subject m atter jurisdiction to acc ept the g uiltyplea a g ree ments as enter ed. State v. Mario C. Estrada , No. M2002-00585-SC-R11-CD (Te nn. 2004). Ana lys is When there is a challeng e to the l eng th, rang e, or manner of service of a sente nce, it is the duty of this c ourt to conduct a de novo revie w with a pre sumption t hat the dete rminations made by the tria l cou rt are c or

re c t. Te nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 35 -4 01 (d ) ( 20 03 ); State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991). This pr esumption is “conditioned upon the af firmative showing in the rec ord that the trial court considere d the sentenc ing principles and a ll r eleva nt fac ts and circ umstances.” Sta te v. Ashby , 8 23 S.W. 2da t 16 9. “ I f the tr ia l c ou rt app lies ina

pp ro pria te fa c tor s o r o the rw ise fails to follow the 1989 Sentencing Act, the presumption of correc tness falls.” State v. Shelton , 854 S.W .2d 116, 123 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992). The S entenc ing Comm ission Comments provide that the burden is onth e A p p e ll a n t t o s h o w th e imp r o p r ie ty o f th e s e n te n c e . T e n n . Co d e A n n . § 40-35-401, Sentencing Commi ssion Com ments. Our re view re q u ires an analy sis of: (1) the e vidence , if any , rec eived at the trial and sentenc ing hearing; (2) the prese ntence report; ( 3) the principles of sentenc ing and the a rg uments of counsel re lative to sentenc ing a lternatives; (4) the nature and cha rac teristics of the of

fense ; (5) any-3-

mitigating or enhancing fac tors; (6) any statements made by

the def endant in his own beha lf; and (7) the def endant’ s potential for re habilitation or treatment. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-102, - 103, -210 (2 00 3) ; Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 168. A def endant c onvicted of a Class C, D, or E felony and sente nced a s a mitigated or standa rd offe nder is pre sumed to be a f avora ble candidate “f

or alternative sentenc ing options in the abse nce of evide nce to the c ontrary .” Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35-102( 6). Guidance reg arding what constitutes “evide n ce to the contra

ry ” to re but the presumption can befound in Tenne ssee Code A nnotated se c tio n 4 0- 35 -1 03 (1 ), wh ic h s e ts f orth the fo llo wi ng c on sid e ratio ns : (A) Confine ment is nece ssary to p ro t ect soc iety

by restraining a

defe ndant wh o h a s a lon g his tory

of c ri min a l c on du c t; (B ) Confinement is nec essary to avoid depre ciating the s eriousness of the of fe ns e or co nf

ine me nt i s p art ic ula

rl y su ite d to pr ov ide a n e ff

e c tiv e de te rr e nc e to others likely

to commit si milar offe nses; or (C ) M e a su re s le ss r e stric tiv e than c on fi ne me nt hav e fr e qu e ntl y or re c e ntl y been a pplied unsucce ssfully

to the defe ndant[.] Althou gh t h e p re sumption of an alternative sentenc e wa s available to the Appellant, as he was convicted of only C and E felonies, the trial court denied any form of alternative s entencing finding : (1 ) t hat a se ntence other than total c onfinement would de prec iate the se riousness of the offe nses base d upon the fac t that the Appellant’s acts we re e quivalent to “ter rorist ac tiviti es” and (2) that the Appellant ha d a “hor rible” c riminal rec ord.
I n order to deny an alternative sente nce ba sed upon t h e s er i o u s ness of the of fense , “the ci rc u m s t an ce s o f t h e o f

f e n s e a s co m m i t t ed m u s tb e e s p ec i al l y v i o l en t , h o rr i fy i n g, s h o ck i n g, repr ehensible, of

fensive, or

otherwise of

an ex cessive or

exagg erated deg ree ,” and the nature of the offe nse must outweig h all fac tors favoring a sentenc e other

than conf inement. State v. Bingham , 910 S

. W

. 2 d 4 4 8 , 4 5 4 (T en n . C ri m . Ap p . 1 9 9 5 ) ( q u o t i n g State v. Hartley , 818 S.W .2d 370, 374-75 (Te nn. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91 ). We a g re e wi th the tria l c ou rt that in thi s c a se the c ir c ums ta nc e s o f the of fe ns e meet the Bingham s t an d ar d

. T h e A p p el l an t ’s ac t s we re tru l y re p re h en s i b l e, v i o l en t , an d s h o ck i n g. He h u rl ed a Molotov coc ktail throug h the window of a mobile home occupie d by eig ht sleeping pe op le in the mid dleof

the nig ht. Th e Ap pe llant h a d n o r e g ardwh a tso e ve r f or the liv e s o f M rs . Hood, her granddaug hter, or the six teena g ers, one of whom wa s preg nant. L uckily , disaster wa s averted, but the victims suffer ed g reat emotional stress and property loss beca use of the Appellant’s actions.
T he court also rejec ted alternative sente ncing based upon the Appellant’s prior criminal history . It is true that his adult historyconsisted of only two convictions for unde rag e drinking , two convictions f

o r public intox ication, and one conviction for vandalism. Howeve r, the trial c ourt noted the Appellant’ s prior juvenile re cord. The Appe llant has a leng thy history of juvenile a djudications-4-

which includes an act of violence w ith a wea

pon. Moreove r, we note that the Appe llant has previously

been pla ced on pr obation and wa s subsequently revoke d. Ba sed upon these fa ctors, we ag ree that his sentence would best be served in conf inement. CO NC LU SION
Ba sed upon the for eg oing, w e conc lude that the tr i al co u rt did not err in denying the Appellant an a lternative se ntence . Acc ording ly , we a ffirm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

___________________________________ DAVID G. HAY ES, J UDGE