### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE ATJAC KSON A ssi gne d onBrie fs Marc h 3, 200 9 STA TE OFTEN NES SEE v. MA URICE JON ES
D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e C rim ina l C o u rt fo r S h elb y C o u n ty N o. 08- 01632 P aul a Skah an, Judge

N o. W 2008- 01877- C C A
- R 3- C D - F i l ed F ebruary 8, 2010

T he d efen dan t , M auri ce Jone s, enter ed an op en p l ea agreem ent t o o ne co un tof C l ass E fel onys exual bat t ery i n t he S hel by C ount yC r i m i nal C our t
. Fol l ow i ng a s ent enci ng hear i ng, th e trial c o u rt im p o se d a se n ten c e o f tw o y e a rs, a ll s u sp e n d e d to p ro b a tio n b u t six tyd a y s to be s erved i n t he countyw or khous e. A s a s peci al condi t i on of hi s pr obat i onary s ent ence , t he t r ia l cour tor der ed thatt he def endanti s notal l ow ed uns uper vi s ed cont actw i t h anym i nor chi l d underei ght een y ear s of age , i ncl udi ng hi s ow n chi l dr en. O n appea l , t he def en dant a ss e rts th a t th e trial c o u rt e x c e e d e d its a u th o rity in d e n y in g h im u n su p e rv ise d c o n tac t w ith hi s m i norchi l dr en. Fol l ow i ng r evi ew of the r ecor d, w e concl ude t hat t he s peci al condi t i on i s overbr oad as w r i t t en. A ccor di ngl y , t he ca s e the r emanded t o t he tr i al cour tfori m pos i t i on o f a m o re d e f

in e d a n d le s s lim itin g c o n d itio n . T enn. R . A pp. P . 3 A ppeal as of R i ght ; Judgm ent of

t he C ri m i nal C ourt R em anded
J OH N E VERETT W I L L I AMS , J

. , del i ver ed the opi ni on of the C our t , i n w hi ch A L AN E. G L ENN and C AMI L L E R. M C M UL L EN , J J

. , j oi ned.
R o b e rt W i l son Jon es, D i stri ctP ub l i c D efen der, and H arryE

. S ay l e, II I, A ssi st ant Pub lic D efe nder( on appea l ) ; and A ndr ew B erns t ei n, M emphi s , T ennes s ee (at t r i al ) , fort he app el l ant, M auri ce Jone s. R ober tE

. C ooper , J r . , A t t or neyG ener al and R epor t er ; J

. R os s D y er , Seni orC ouns el ; W i l l i am L

. G i bbons , D i s t r i ctA t t or neyG ener al ; and ScotA

. B earup, A s s i s tant D i s t r i ctA t t or ney G e n e ra l, f

o r t h e a p p e lle e , S ta te o f T e n n e s s e e .-2- OP I NI ON
Fac t ual Backg r ound
T he basi c under l y i ng fac t s s uppor t i ng t he convi ct i on, as r eci t ed byt he St at e att he gui l t yp le a hea r i ng, ar e “thaton t he per i od of t i m e s etouti n t he i ndi ctm ent [, O ct ober17, 2006, t o O ct ober17, 2007, ] t he def endant

. . . w as r es i di ng i n t he r es i dence w i t h t he mi nor vi ct i m as a step fa ther, and t hatdur i ng t hatper i od of t i m e [the def endant ] di d have s exual cont actw i t h t he vi ct i m . ” B as ed upon t hes e act i ons , t he defenda nt w as i ndi ct ed bya Shel by C o u n ty g ra n d ju ry f

o r o n e c o u n t o f

s e x u a l b a tte ry. Subse quent l y , t he def

endantpl ed gui l t yas c h a r g e d , wi th th e a g r eements peci fy i ng t hat t he s ent ence , i ncl udi ng t he appr opr i at enes s of j udi ci al di ver s i on, w as t o be det erm i ned byt he tr ia l c o u rt
. A tt he s ent enci ng hear i ng, t he St at e i nt r oduced vi ct i m i m pact stat em ent s fr om t he vict i m and her m other , as w el l as a l et t er fr om t he v i c tim ’s treat i ng psy cho l og i st
. A l so in tro d u c e d w e re th e p re se n ten c e re p o rt, th e d e f e n d a n t’s p sy c h o se x u a l ev a lu a tio n , an d h is honor abl e di s char ge fr om t he arm y . A ddi t i onal l y , t he def endantt es t i fi ed. H e ac know l edged t hathe had c om m i t t ed s exual bat t eryagai ns tt he vi ct i m , t he daught er of hi s l i ve- i n gi r l fr i end, w ho had l i ved w i t h hi m fors i x y ea rs a n d w ho vi ew ed hi m as a fa therfi gur e. H e t es t i fi ed t hat , fol l ow i ng t he abuse , t he vi ct i m and her m ot her m oved t o M i nnes ot a. I n contr adi ct i on t o s t at ement s cont ai ned i n t he vi ct i m i m pacts t at ement , t he def endant d en ied thathe had penetr at ed the vi ct i m , t hathe had e j acul at ed i n t he vi ct im ’s pre s ence , ort hathe had be en n ak ed in the v ict im ’s be d

. T h e d ef en d an t i n sist ed that h e h ad o n lyfo n d led th e v ict im ’s b re a sts a n d b u tto c k s. M o re o v e r, th e d e f e n d a n t d isp u ted th e v ictim ’s s tate m e n t th a t th e a c ts cont i nued for m or e t han tw o y ear s and s t at ed thathe had f ondl ed herno m or e than t en t i m es o v e r les s t han a on e-y ear peri od

. H e al so t est i fi ed thathe h ad st op ped t he ab use a p p ro x im a telya m o n th a n d a h a lf p rio r t o th e v ictim re p o rtin g it. M o re o v e r, h e re late d th a t, fol l ow i ng hi s arr es t , he had so ughtcouns el i ng. Fi nal l y , he t es t i fi ed that , aft erhe w as char ged, t he D epart m entof H um an Servi ces conduct ed an i nves t i gat i on butdi d notr emove h is c h ild re n f

ro m h is c a re . T he def endantt es t i fi ed that he r ece i ved an honor abl e di s char ge fr om t he arm yaft er foury ear s of s ervi ce w hen hi s w i fe di ed of c ance ri n or dert o as s um e car e of hi s fourm i nor chi l dr en, w ho w er e ages s even, fi ve, t hr ee, and one. A ccor di ng t o t he def endant , he r et ai ns c u sto d yo f

th e se c h ild re n , n o w f

o u rte e n , tw e lv e , ten , an d e ig h t y e a rs o ld a n d is th e so le pr ovi derof s uppor tand ca r e t o t hem. H e ac know l edged thathe has been ga i nful l yempl oy ed les s th a n tw o w e e k s in th e p rio r se v e n y e a rs a n d th a t h is m a in so u rc e o f in c o m e is s ur vi vor s hi p benef

i t s . H e t es t i fi ed thathe has no pr i orcr i m i nal r ecor d butackno w l edged-3-

t hat , aft ert he i ns t antchar ge, he had be en arr es t ed forD U I , vi ol at i on of the i m pl i ed cons ent l aw , and s i m pl e pos s es s i on of m ar i j uana. The pr es ent ence r epor tadmi t t ed i nt o evi dence s u p p o rt e d th is te s tim o n y . T he tr i al cour tal s o r evi ew ed the ps y chos exual eval uat i on w hi ch w as s ubm i t t ed. T he r epor ti ndi cat ed thatt he def endantw as at an extr emel yl ow r i s k t o r eoff end. H ow ever , t he exami ni ng doct ordi d i ndi cat e t hat bei ng t he sol e car et aker t o hi s chi l dr en m i ghtel evat e the r i s k. T he doct orfur t hernot ed that pr ocedur es neede d t o be t aken t o ens ur e thatt he def endant is n o t a lo n e w ith h is c h ild re n . A ft erhear i ng t he evi dence pr es ent ed, t he t r i al cour t deni ed the def endant ’ s r eques tfor di ver s i on and i m pos ed a s ent ence of tw o y ear s , s us pended t o pr obat i on fol l ow i ng s ervi ce of s i xt yday s . A s a spec i al condi t i on of thatpr obat i on, t he tr i al cour tor der ed thatt he def endant w as t o have “ no uns upervi s ed cont act w i t h t he defenda nt ’ s m i nor chi l dr en or anychi l d under e ig h te e n y e a rs o f

a g e .” T h e d e f

e n d a n t h a s tim e ly ap p e a le d

. A n a ly sis O n a p p e a l, th e d e f

e n d a n t ra ise s th e sin g le is su e o f w h e th e r th e trial co u rt e x c e e d e d its author i t yi n deny i ng t he def endant uns uper vi s ed cont act w i t h hi s m i norchi l dr en, w hi ch he des cr i bes as an unauthor i zed c ondi t i on of pr obat i on. H e cont ends t hatt he condi t i on i s not r eas onabl yr el at ed t o t he r ehabi l i t at ion o f the def endantand “i s des t ruct i ve of the natur al fami l y , and unr eas onabl y r es t r i ct s [the defe ndant ’ s ] fr eedom t o exer ci s e hi s r es pons i bi l i t i es as a par ent
. ”
W hen a c r i m i nal defe ndantchal l enges t he l ength, ran g e, orm annerof s ervi ce of a s ent ence , t he r evi ew i ng cour t m us t conduct a de novo r evi ew of the s ent ence w i t h a pr es um pt i on t hatt he det erm i nat i ons m ade byt he tr i al cour tar e corr ect
. T

. C

. A

. § 40- 35- 401( d) ( 2006)

. T h is p res um pt i on, how ever , “i s condi t i oned upon the af fi r m at i ve s how i ng i n t he r ecor d t hatt he t r i al cour tcons i der ed the s ent enci ng pr i nci pl es and al l r el evantfac t s and ci r cumst ance s . ” St at e v. A s hby , 8 2 3 S

. W

. 2 d 1 6 6 , 1 6 9 (T en n . 1 9 9 1 ). In th e e v en t th e re co rd f a i l s t o s h o w s u c h c o n s i d e r a t i o n , t h e r e v i e w o f t h e s e n t e n c e i s p u r e l y de novo

. St at e v. Shel t on , 8 5 4 S .W .2 d 1 1 6 , 1 2 3 (T e n n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ).
I f our r evi ew r efl ect s t hatt he tr i al cour tfol l ow ed the s t atut or ys ent enci ng pr ocedur e, t hatt he courti m pos ed a l aw ful s ent ence aft erhavi ng gi ven due con side rati on and pr oper w eigh t t o the f

ac tors an d p ri n ciples set o u t u n d er the sen tenc ing law , an d that the tri al co u rt ’s fi ndi ngs of fa ctar e ade quat el ys uppor t ed byt he r ecor d, t hen w e m ay notm odi fyt he s ent ence “eve n i f w e w oul d have pr efe r r ed a di ffe r ent r es ul t
. ” St at e v. F l etcher , 805 S. W

. 2d 785, 789 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1991)

. T he def endantbear s t he bur den of s how i ng t he i m pr opr i etyof the-4-

s e n te n c e im p o s e d

. A s hby , 8 2 3 S .W .2 d a t 1 6 9

. T he Sent enci ng A ctpr ovi des t hat“the tr i al cour thas gr eatl at i tude i n for m ul at i ng puni s hm ent , i ncl udi ng t he i m pos i t i on of condi t i ons of pr obat i on. ” S ta te v . B u rd in , 924 S .W .2 d 8 2 , 8 5 (T e n n . 1 9 9 6 ). H o w e v e r, th e p rim a ry p u rp o se o f a se n ten c e o f p r o b a tio n “ is r ehabi l i t at i on of t he def endant , ” id . a t 8 6 , a n d th e c o n d iti o n s o r p ro b a tio n m u st b e su ited to t hi s purpos e. “O nce the tr i al jud g e d eterm i nes t hatpr obat i on i s j us t i fi ed undert he ci rcum st ances, t he cond i t i on s i m po sed m ust be r easona ble and real i st i c and m ustno tbe so s t r i ngent as t o be har d, oppr es s i ve or pa l pabl yunj us t
. ” S til lerv . S ta te , 516 S. W

. 2d 617, 620 ( T enn. 1974)

. T he A ct does notgr antt o t he tr i al cour t“unfe t t er ed author i t y ” t o i m pos e any condi t i on on t he def

endant ’ s pr obat i on butl i m i t s t he court ’ s d iscreti o n t o “the bounds of t r adi t i onal not i ons of r ehabi l i t at i on. ” B u rd in , 9 2 4 S .W .2 d a t 8 7 ; s ee al s o St at e v. Mathes , 1 1 4 S

. W

. 3d 915, 918 ( T enn. 2003) ( di s appr ovi ng pr obat i on condi t i on t hatdi d “nots er ve e ith e r th e g o a l o f

re h a b ilita tio n o r th e g o a l o f d e ter re n c e ” ); St at e v. R obi ns on , 139 S. W

. 3d 661, 666 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 2004)

. T hatbei ng s ai d, how ever , t he bur den of de m ons t r at i ng th e im p ro p ri e ty o f

a p ro b a tio n c o n d itio n re s ts w ith th e d e f e n d a n t. B u rd in , 924 S. W

. 2d at84.
I n s uppor tof hi s ar gum ent , t he defen d an tr el i es upon St at e v. R obi ns on , a c a se in w h ich a lice n se d p h a rm a c ist w ith n o p rio r crim in a l re c o rd re c e iv e d p ro b a tio n a f ter ill e g a lly d is b u rs in g c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e s to a ro m a n tic in te re s t o v e r a p e ri o d o f tim e . R obi ns on , 139 S

. W

. 2 d a t6 6 3

. T h e t r i a l c o u r ti m p o s e d a c o n d i t i o n w h i c h p r e c l u d e d h i s p r a c t i c i n g p h a r m a c y. Id

. at 6 6 6

. A p a n e l o f t h i s c o u r t f o u n d t h a t t h e c o n d i t i o n was : ( 1 ) p u n i t i v e a n d not reh ab il it ati v e; (2) w as n o t bas ed u p o n co n ce rns o f f u ture c ri m inality ; (3 ) w as u n n ec essa ry and overbr oad i n l i ghtof t he r egul at or y author i t y of t he Tennes s ee Boar d of Phar m acy ; and (4 ) w a s u n d u ly re s tr ic tiv e in p re v e n tin g la w f u l e m p lo ym e n t. Id

. at667. T he def endantl i kens t he i ns t antcondi t i on t o t he one i n R obi ns on, as s er t i ng: he al s o has no pr i orcr i m i nal r ecor d; t he cr i m e w as agai ns t onl y one per s on; he w i l l be r egul at ed byt he B oar d of Pr obat i on and Par ol e; t he D epart m entof H um an S ervi ces found no r eas on t o r emove hi s chi l dr en; and the condi t i on depr i ves hi m of a ba s i c ri ght , t hat bei ng t he ri ght t o exer ci s e par ent al pr i vi l eges and re s p o n s ib iliti e s . T he St at e di s agr ees and ass er t s t hatt he def endant ’ s cas e i s m or e aki n t o t he fa ct s of St a te v

. Jam es R ober tLaw s on , N o. E 2001- 01415- C C A

- R 3- C D ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. at K noxvi l l e, J ul

. 5, 2002)

. I n Law s on , t he defe ndant w as a fatherconvi ct ed of c hi l d abus e for sla p p in g h is d a u g h ter in th e f a c e , k n o c k in g h e r to th e g ro u n d , an d h itt in g h e r w ith a b e lt. Jam es R ober tLaw s on , N o. E 2001- 01415- C C A

- R 3- C D

. T he tr ial court , as a condi t i on of pr obat i on, or der ed t hat t he defe ndant coul d not l i ve i n t he s ame hous ehol d w i t h a s m al l chi l d. Id

. T he S t at e cont ends t hat , l i ke i n Law s on , t h e d e f e n d a n twa s c o n v i c t e d “ o f a h e i n o u s c r i me agai ns ta mi norchi l d w ho vi ew ed the defe ndant as a ‘ father fi gur e. ’ ” T he St at e furt herl i kens t he t w o c a s e s b a s e d u p o n t h e s t a t e me n tb yt h e d o c t o ri n t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s p s y c h o s exual-5-

eval uat i on t hatpr ocedur es need t o be i m pl ement ed t o ens ur e ade quat e s u p erv isi on fort he d e f e n d a n t’s m in o r c h ild re n . T h e S tate c o n ten d s th a t th e in sta n t co n d iti o n : (1 ) r e a s o n a b ly r el at es t o t he defenda nt ’ s cr i m e; ( 2) i s r ehabi l i t at i ve i n purpos e; ( 3) i s bas ed upon conc erns o f f u tu re c ri m in a lity; a n d (4 ) i s n o t u n d u ly re s tr ic tiv e . A ft err evi ew of the r ecor d and r el ev an t cas e l aw , w e ar e unabl e t o adoptei t hert he St at e’ s ort he def

endant ’ s ar gum ent
. T he def endant ’ s ar gum entand r el i ance upon R obi ns on i s m i s pl ace d, as w e fa i l t o s ee a compar i s on betw een a n empl oym entcondi t i on ver s us one ut i l i zed t o pr ot ectchi l dr en fr om abus e, as w el l as r egul at i on byt he B oar d of Phar m acyver s us t he B oar d of Pr obat i on and Par ol e. N onethel es s , w hi l e w e do agr ee w i t h t he St at e thatt he i ns t antcas e i s m or e aki n t o t he fa ct s i n Law s on , w e ar e al s o pr ecl uded fr om concl udi ng t hat t he condi t i on i n t hi s cas e i s pr oper . B as i cal l y , w e conc l ude t hatt he condi t i on of pr obat i on ati s s ue, t hatt he defe ndant have no uns uper vi s ed cont act w i t h hi s ow n m i norchi l dr en orany c h ild un der t he age of ei gh t een, i s ov erbr oad , i s no t properl y defined, and is u n d u ly re s tr ic tiv e . T he pr obl em ar i s es w i t h t he t erm “uns uper vi s ed cont act
. ” T he fa i l ur e t o defi ne the term “un supervi sed con t act ” creat es probl em s w i t h clar i t yfor t he d efen dan tt o k no w his r es t r i ct i ons and w i t h enfor cea bi l i t y , l eadi ng t o an unj us tr es ul t
. A s w ri tt en, t he condi t i on w o u ld p recl ude anys or tof uns uper vi s ed comm uni cat i on betw een the def endantand any person u nd er the ag e of e i gh t een, i n c lu d i ng bu tno tl i m i t ed to t el eph on e con versat i on s, emai l s , and l et t er s . T aken t o t he extr eme, i t w oul d al s o pr ecl ude t he defe ndant fr om ent er i ng a r e t a i l e s t a b l i s h me n ti f t h e c l e r k wa s a l o n e a n d h a p p e n e d t o b e u n d e re i g h t e e n . Wh i l e we w oul d agr ee t hat t he condi t i on of pr obat i on i s r el at ed t o the off ens e, w e mustconcl ude that the c o n d it ion , as w ri tt en , is ai m ed m o re a t pro tecti n g p o ssible v ict im s tha n at th e d ef en d an t’ s re h a b ilita tio n . S e e S ta te v . G len n E . P re ss in e ll , N os . E 2008- 01290- C C A

- R 3- C D , E 2008- 01735- C C A

- R 3- C D ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. atK noxvi l l e, Feb. 10, 2009)

. A s w r itt en, t he c o n d itio n is to o in d e f

in ite to b e re a s o n a b le o r r e a lis tic

. T h e c o n f u sio n is e v id e n c e d f

ro m th e re c o rd itse lf

, as d e f e n se c o u n se l w a s f

o rc e d to a s k f o ra c l a r i f

i c a t i o n a s t o w h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t c o u l d s p e a k w i t h h i s c h i l d b yp h o n e . We r eal i z e t h a t t h i s i s n o t t h e e f f e c t i n t e n d e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t , who e x p r e s s e d gr eatand j us t i fi abl e conc erns fort he s afe t y of t he defe ndant ’ s m i nor chi l dr en, and w e r ecogni ze a nd appl aud the ef

for tt aken t o pr ot ectt hos e chi l dr en. H ow ever , w e ar e confi dentt hatt he tr i al co u rt can f

as hi on a condi t i on w hi ch i s bot h m or e def i ned and l es s l i m i t i ng t han the one im p o s e d in o rd e r t o a c c o m p lis h th a t g o a l.
CO NC L US I ON
B e c a u se th e trial c o u rt’s im p o sitio n o f th e c h a llen g e d c o n d iti o n o f p ro b a tio n is-6-

ov erbr oad , w e rem and t o the tri al cou rtw i t h instruct i on t o fash i on a m ore defined an d les s lim itin g c o n d itio n .

_________________________________ J OHN E VE RE T T WI L L I AM S , J UDGE