### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs N ove m be r 16, 200 4 STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. RO BBIE O. AL LEN
Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Sulli van Coun ty

No. S48,313 P hylli s H. Miller, Judge

No. E2004-00850-CC A-R3- CD - F iled Fe bruary 24, 2005

The a ppellant, Robbie O. Allen, e ntere d Alford plea s in the Sulli van C ounty Criminal Court to two counts of fe lony

failure to appea

r. F oll o wi n g a sente ncing hearing, the trial court se ntence d the appellant on e ach c ount to two y ear s incarc eration in the Te nnessee Depa rtment of Corre ction, to be serve d concur

rently

. On ap peal, the a ppellant cha lleng es the trial c ourt’s denia l of alternative sentenc ing. U pon revie w of the r ecor d and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgme nts of the trial c ou rt

. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt s o f theCr im ina l C our t a r e Affir m e d.
N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in w hich D AVI D H. W EL L ES and D A V ID G. H AYES , J J ., joined.
Wil liam A. Kenne dy , Blountville, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Robbie O. Allen. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral and Reporter ; John H

. Ble dsoe, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; H. Gre eley Wells, J r., District Attorney Gene ral; and William B. Har per, A ssist an t District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee . OP IN ION
I. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound
T h e S t at e r ec i t ed t h e f

o l l o wi n g fa ct s att h e p l eah ea ri n g: [O] n September 26th, 2003, the [ appellant] was to appe ar . . . in the Cr imi na l Co urt f

or Sul liv a n Co un ty

. . . o n tw o c a se s, th e fi rst c a se being S47,994 in which he was ch ar g ed with a Class [A] mis de m e a n o r o f

f e n s e o f t h e f

t u n d e r f i v e h u n d r e d

. H e w a s a l s o to ap p ea r i n Case No. S48,019, ag ain for a Class A misdemeanorA n Al ford pl ea, al s o known as a bes t i nt er es t gu i l t y pl ea, may be ent er ed by a defendan t wh o wi s hes t o pl ead 1 gu i l t y y et procl ai m hi s i nn ocenc e. N ort h Car ol i na v. Al ford, 400 U

. S. 25, 37- 38 , 91 S. Ct

. 160 , 167

- 68 ( 19 70 )

. T he l aw of t hi s s t at e pr ovi des t hat t he t r i al co ur t m ay accept a defendan t ’ s bes t i nt er es t pl ea provi ded t hat t he cour t i s s at i s f i ed tha t t h e re is a fa c tua l b a sis fo r th e p le a . D o rtc h v. S ta te , 7 0 5 S .W .2 d 6 8 7 , 6 8 9 (T e n n . C rim . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ). -2- offe nse of f

ailure to appea

r, and on that date, Septembe r 26th, 2003 he failed to appea

r. Th e app e lla nt sub se qu e ntl y e nte re d Alf or d ple a s to two co un ts of failu reto a pp e ar, Cla ss E fe lon ie s, wi th the le ng th an d man ne r of se rv ic e of the se nte nc e s to be de te rm ine d by the tria l c ou rt

. 1 Following a hea

ring , the trial court impos ed conc urre nt two y ear sentenc es and de nied alternative sentenc ing. The appellant now bring s this appeal c halleng ing the trial court’ s denial of a lternative s en t en ci n g. II. Ana lys is
When an appellant challeng es the leng th, r ang e, or manner of service of a sentenc e, it is the duty of this court to conduc t a de novo revie w with a pre sumption t hat the dete rminations made by the tr ia l c ou rt

are c or re c t. Te nn . Code An n. § 40- 35 -4 01 (d ) (2 00 3) . How e ve r, thi s p re su mpt ionis “conditioned upon the a ffirmative showing in the rec ord that the trial c ourt consider ed thesentenc ing principles and a ll releva nt fac ts and circumstance s.” S tate v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991). The bur den of showing that a sente nce w as improper is on the appellant. Tenn. Code Ann. § 4 0- 35 -4 01 , Se nte nc ing Com mis sio n Co mme nts

. I n conducting our re view, this court must consider (1) the evidenc e, if any , rec eived at trial an d a t th e s e n te n c in g h e arin g ; ( 2 ) th e p r e s e n te n c e r e p o r t; ( 3 ) th e p r in c ip le s o f s e n te n c in g and the arg uments of counse l relative to the se ntencing alternatives; ( 4) the nature a nd char acte ristics of the of fe ns e ; ( 5) a ny

mit ig a tin g or

e nh a nc e me nt fa c tor s; (6 ) a ny state me nts ma de by the app e llant o n h is own beha lf; and (7) the appellant’s potential for rehabilitation or treatment. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40- 35-102, -103, a nd -210 (2003) . See also Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 168.
Tenne ssee Code A n n otated sec tion 40-35-102(5) pr ovides that only “convic ted fe lons committing the most sever e off enses, possessing criminal hi stories evincing a cle ar disre g ard f or the la ws a ndmor a ls o f s oc ie ty , a nde vin c ing failu re of pa st e ff orts a t re ha

bil itatio n sh a ll be g ive n f

ir st priority re g ardi ng se nte nc ing inv olv ing inc arc e ratio n. ” A d e fe nd a nt w ho do e s n ot f a ll w ith in this c la ss o f o ff

e nd e rs a nd wh o is “ a n e sp e c ia lly mit ig a te d or stand ard of fe nd e r c on vic te d of a Cla ss C , D or E fe l o n y i s p resumed to be a fa vorable candidate for a lternative se ntencing options.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-102( 6). Furthermore , “[t] he trial c ourt must presume that a de fendant sentence d to eig ht y ear s or less and not an offe nder for whom inca rce ration is a priority

is subject to alternative sentenc ing and that a sente nce othe r than inca rce ration would re s u l t in succe ssful reha bilitation.” State v. By

rd, 861 S.W .2d 377, 379-80 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) (c itation omit ted); see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 303(a) (2003). How ever , the pre sumption of alternative se ntencing m ay be rebutted by

“evide nce to the contra

ry .” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-102( 6); see a lso St ate v. Hoope r,-3-

29 S.W .3d 1, 5 (Tenn. 2000). Guidance as to w hat constitutes “evide nce to the c ontrary ” is found in Tennesse e Code Annotated sec tion 40- 35-103(1) (2003), which provides for confine ment when: (A ) C o n fi n em en ti s n ec es s ar y t o p ro t ec ts o ci et y

b y re s tra i n i n g a de fe nd a nt w ho ha s a

lon g his tory

of c ri min a l c on du c t; (B ) Confinement is nec essary to a void depre ciating the seriousne ss of the offe nse o r confine ment is particular ly suited to provide an eff ective de terre nce to other s likely to commit si milar offe nses; or (C) Me as u re s less restrictive tha n confine ment have f reque ntly or re c e ntl y be e n a pp lie d u ns uc c e ssf

ull y to the de fe nd a nt. Additionally , “[t] he potential or la ck of pote ntial for re habilitation or treatment of the defe ndant should be consider ed in determining the se ntence alternat i v e or leng th of a term to be imposed.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103( 5). A def endant with a long history of criminal conduct and “e vincing failure of past ef forts at re habil itation” is presumed unsuitable f or alternative sentenc ing. T enn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-102(5)

. At the sentenc ing he aring , b o t h p arties relied on the pre sentenc e re port. Def ense c ounsel acknow ledg ed the a

ppellant’s “f

airly extensive recor d,” but noted that the instant convic tions were the appe llant’s first felony convictions. I n the appe llant’s statement t o t h e probation officer who pr e pa re d the pr e se nte nc e re po rt , the app e llant cl a ime d tha t he ha d fa ile d to app e ar in co urt a s a re su lt of suffe ring from kidney stones and being heavily medicate d. He f

urther c laimed that he attempted to contact the court, leaving his cellular tele phone number with the court c lerk’s of

fice . Howeve r, he wa s unsure if the cler

k’s office telephoned beca use his c ellular telephone “ could not g et a sig nal in because of the mountains.”
After considering the pre sentenc e re port an d t h e arg uments of counse l, the trial court sentenc ed the a

ppellant to two y ear s on eac h conviction, t o be served concurre ntly . The trial c ourt c o rr e c t l y n o t e d t h at b e c au s e t h e ap p e l l a n t w a s c o n v i c t e d o f C l a s s E f e l o n i e s a n d s e n te nc e d a s a Rang e I standard of

fende r to less than eig ht y ear s, he was en t itled to a presumption in favor of alternative sentenc ing. Howeve r, the trial court denied the appellant’ s reque s t fo r alternative sentenc ing, f

inding,
I ’ve gon e o v e r

a ll th e ti me s th a t .

. . y o u v io late d s o me s u s p e n ded sentenc e. You’ ve bee n place d on probation .

. . five ti mes. You’ve g ot s pli t c on fi ne me nt o ne -- -- we ll, ma y be that w a s si x t ime s f

ull probation. Sp l it confinement one , two --- - two times y ou’ve g otten split confine ment, so I find that y ou’ve not de monstrated to the Court that full probation would serve the ends of justice , y ourself or the community . You do have a history of vi o lence , so I

find that y ou shouldn’t be g rante d community corr ections. You ha ve a history of-4- no t ob e y ing c ou rt

orde rs . T he re ’s no re a so n to fe e l th a t y ou wo uld obey any order s of this court if I

put y ou in communitycorr ections or on so me so rt

of pr ob a tio n o r s pli t c on fi ne me nt o r anythi ng lik e that. Also, I d o n’t find that y ou’re truthful and I don’t find that y ou take re sp on sib ili ty

fo r y ou r a c tio ns , c on sid e ri ng the fa c t that y ou g a ve thi s big long statement about kidney stones and why y ou couldn’t be he re fo ur day s a ft e r y ou wen t to the e me rg e nc y ro om w he n y ou we nt t o court somewhe re e lse two day s after y ou wer e in the eme rg ency ro om. W e c o n cl u d e t h a t t h e r ec o rd s u p p o rt s t h e t ri al co u rt ’s d en i al o f a l t er n at i v e s en t en ci n g. Although the se we re the appellant’ s first felony convictions, he ha s an extensive criminal history of misdemeanor c onvictions, including assault, theft, and three prior convictions of failure to appe ar. Mo re ov e r, t he app ella nt h a s b e e n s e nte nc e d to pr ob a tio n o n n ume ro us oc c a sio ns bu t c on tin ue s to commit criminal offe nses. Additionally , the appe llant’s untruth ful ness and f ailure to a cce pt responsibilityfor his ac ti o n s , as fo und by the trial court, refle ct poorly upon his potential for r e h ab i l i t a t i o n . S e e S t a t e v . D o w d y, 8 9 4 S

. W

. 2 d 3 0 1 , 3 0 6 ( T e n n . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 )

. A c c o r d i n g l y, we co n cl u d e t h att h e t ri al co u rt p ro p er l y d en i ed al t er n at i v e s en t en ci n g. III. Conclusi on F ind ing no e rr or , w e a ff

ir m th e jud g me nts of

the tr ia l c ou rt

.

___________________________________ NORMA McGEEOGLE, J UDGE