### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs D ec em be r 13, 200 5, a t K noxv ill e STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. SA RA H LEIGH PA NN ELL Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Marshall County Nos. 16202-16206 Rober t Cr igler, Judge

No. M2005- 00984-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Janu ary 5, 2006

The de fenda nt, Sarah L eig h Pannell, appea ls from th e Mar shall CountyCircuit Court’s denial of
a lte rn a tiv e se nte nc ing . T he re c or d s up po rt s th e c ou rt ’s or de r, a ndwe a ff ir m.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt s o f the Ci r c uit Co ur t a r e Affir m e d.
J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON and D AVI D G. H AYES , J J ., joined.
Don n a L e ig h H ar g r o v e , D is tric t P u b li c D e f e n d e r ; an d A n d r e w Ja c k s o n D e ar li n g , I I I , A s s is tant Di stric t Pu bli c De fe nd e r, fo r the Ap pe lla nt, Sara h L e ig h Pa nn e ll.
Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt er; B re nt C . Ch e rry , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil liam Michael McCown, D istrict Attorney Gene ral; and Weakley E. Ba rnar d, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION
On Ap ri l 6, 20 05 , th e de fe nd a nt p le a de d g uil ty to the fo llo wi ng c ha

rg e s:
Ca se Cou nt Of fe ns e Cla ss
16 20 2 1 wo rthle ss c he c k Cla ss A misdemeanor
16 20 2 2 wo rthle ss c he c k Cla ss A misdemeanor
1 6 2 0 3 1 i d e n t i f i c a t i o n t h e f

t C l a s s D f

e l o n y-2-

1 6 2 0 3 2 c r i m i n a l i m p e r
- C l a s s E f e l o n y sonation
16203 3 possession of drug Class A para pherna lia misdemeanor
16 20 4 1 wo rthle ss c he c k Cla ss A misdemeanor
16 20 4 2 wo rthle ss c he c k Cla ss A misdemeanor
16 20 5 1 wo rthle ss c he c k Cla ss A misdemeanor
16 20 6 1 wo rthle ss c he c k Cla ss A misdemeanor
16 20 6 2 wo rthle ss c he c k Cla ss A misdemeanor
16 20 6 3 wo rthle ss c he c k Cla ss A misdemeanor
The terms o f

th e g u il ty

p le a s w e r e o p e n
. A f

te r c o n d u c ti n g a

s e n te n c in g h e ar in g , th e tria l c o u rt imposed a sentence of 11 months, 29 day s in eac h misdemeanor, to be serve d at 75 per cent. The trial court sente nced the defe ndant to an inca rce rative te rm of five y ear s as a multiple offe n d er for identification theft a nd merg ed the c onviction of criminal impersonation into t hat of identification theft. The trial court a ligne d all misdemeanor se ntence s to r un concur rently with the five-y ear

felony sentenc e. The defe ndant’s effec tive sentenc e for the cases on appea l is five y ear s in the Depa rtment of Corre ction.
The prese ntence report f iled as an exhibi t to the sentenc ing he aring reve aled that the defe ndant had g arne red at least four prior felony and 16 misdemea nor convic tions.
I n the sentenc ing hearing, a probation off

icer testified that the 27-y ear -old defe ndant had bee n twice c onvicted of f ailure to appea

r. She testified that the def endant ha d previously

been on parole that was re voked, re sulting in her r elea se fr om custody in March 2004.
The de fenda nt testified that her addiction to dr ug s had “c ost her eve rything, [f]rom family , relationships, t o my self-pride, m y fre edom, m y dignity .” She rec ounted t hat s he had been involved with drug s since she was 13 and was first introduced to cra ck coc aine by her f ather when she wa s 15. Other dr

ug s followed, including “L SD” and “ cra nk.” S h e testi fied that she ha d-3-

participated in reha

bilitation prog rams, including t hose admini stered in prison, but she had pe rsisted in u sin g dr

ug s, e ve n w hil e sh e wa s in pris on. Sh e state d, “ Mo st o f the pe op le that I g re w u p w ith have e ither committed suicide or overdosed. I have lost my life. I don’t know who I

am anymore.” She pleade d,
I

want some he lp. I

need some help. Whether I g et it from this Court
o r t h e s t a t e p e n i t e n t i ar y, i t i s n o t

– i t r e a l l y d o e s n ’ tm a t t e r

e i t h e r w a y. I will ge t it som ewhe re. . . . I h ave ne ver trie d. I have ne ver ha d any thi ng to t

ry fo r. No w I

do . I a m lo sin g too ma ny

of my famil y members. I w a n t to b e h o me s o o n , h o p e f u ll y s o o n
. I k n o w Iam g oing to have to g o do some time. I understand that.

. . . I just hope that a c ha nc e wi ll b e g ive n e ith e r b e fo re I go or aft er I g o to g e t in somewher e whe re I

can g et me some he lp for my self.
Th e de fe nd a nt a c kn ow le dg e d th a t sh e ha d c ha rg e s p e nd ing in o the r c ou nti e s.
Th e de fe nd a nt’ s mo the r, De br a Pa nn e ll, te sti fi e d th a t sh e su ff e re d f ro m he patit is C and t h at t h e d ef

endant’ s g randmother

was terminally

ill with cancer . Ms. Pannell opined that the de fe nd a nt’ s a tti tud e re c e ntl y c ha ng e d wh e n the de fe nd a nt re a lize d that sh e wa s th e “ on ly pe rs on in this world that [ Ms. Pannell had] to depend on.”

Now on appe al, the def

endant c laims that the trial court should haveawa rded he r an alternative sentenc e involving pr obation. We disag ree
.

When there is a c halleng e to the manne r of se rvice of a se ntence , it is g ener ally the duty of this court to conduct a de novo re view of the rec ord with a pre sumption t hat the de te rm inatio ns ma de by

the tr ia l c ou rt

are c or re c t. Te nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 35 -4 01 (d ) ( 20 03 ). Th is presumption, howeve r, is c onditioned upon the aff irmative showing in the rec ord that the trial c ourt considere d the sentenc ing principles and a ll releva nt fac ts and circ umstances. State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (T en n. 1991). The bur den of showing that the sentenc e is improper is upon the appellant, and in the event the rec ord fails to de monstrate the require d considerat i o n b yt h e t rial
cour t , re v i ew o f t h e sente nce is pure ly de novo. Id. I f appe llate re view re flec ts the trial court proper ly considere d all rele v ant factors and its finding s of fa ct ar e ade quately supported by

the
rec ord, th is c o u r t mu s t a f f irm th e s e n te n c e , “ e v e n if w e w o u ldh a v e p r e f

e rr e da d if f e r e n t r e sult.” State v. Fletc her , 805 S.W .2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991)

.

I n making its sentencing determination, the trial court, af ter de termining the ra ng e of sentenc e and the specific sentenc e, then de termines the p ro p ri etyof sentenc ing a lternatives by considering (1) the e vidence , if any , rec eived at the trial and the se ntencing h ea ri n g; (2 ) t he prese ntence report; (3) the principles of sentenc ing and arg uments as to se ntencing alternatives; (4) the nature and cha

rac teristics of the c riminal conduct involved; (5) evidenc e and inf ormation offe red by the parties on the e nhance ment and mitigating f actor s; (6) any

statements the def

endant wishe s to make in the def

endant’ s behalf a

bout sentencing ; and (7) the potential for re h abilitation or-4-

tr e a tme nt. Te nn . Co de An n. §§ 40 -3 5- 21 0( a ), (b ), 40 -3 5- 10 3( 5) (2 00 3) ; S t a t e v. H olland , 860 S.W .2d 53, 60 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993)

.

A d e fe nd a nt w ho is a n e sp e c ia lly mit ig a te d or sta nd ard of fe nd e r co nv ic te d o f a

Cla ss C, D, or E fe lony

is presumed to be a

favor able c andidate f

or alternative sentencing options, “in the absenc e of e vidence to the contrary .” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-102( 6) (2003). Our sente ncing law also provides that “ convicted f elons committing th e mos t severe offe nses, possessing criminal his torie s e vin c ing a

c le ar d isr e g ardfo r the la ws a nd mor a ls of so c ie ty , a nd e vin c ing failu re of pa st ef f o r ts a t r e h ab il it a ti o n , s h a ll b e g iv e n f ir s t p r io r it y

r e g ar d in g s e n te n c e s in v o lv in g in c ar c e r a tion.” Id . § 40-35-102( 5). A de fenda nt’s presumption of fa v orable candida cy for a lternative se ntencing may be re butted; not all offende rs who enjoy the pre sumption receive an alternative sente nce. Rather, se ntencing issues are d etermined by the fa cts and c ircumstance s prese nted in eac h case

. State v. Taylor , 744 S.W .2d 919, 922 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987)

.

As a multiple offe nder, the def endant in the pr esent c ase did not enjoy the presumption of fa vorable candida cy for a lternative se ntencing

. I n this sit uation, the state ha d no burden to justify

a sente nce involving incar cer ation. S ta te v
. Mic h a e l W

. D in k ins , No

. E2001- 01 71 1- CCA -R 3- CD , s lip op . at 3 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. , K no xvill e , A pr . 2 6, 20 02 ); Sta te v
. J os hu a L. W ebster , No. E1999-02203- CCA-R3-CD, slip op. at 3 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knox ville, Dec

. 4, 2000);
see Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-103(1) (2003)

. T h u s , t h e burden of establishing a

claim to any alternative sentenc e re sted upon the def endant, a nd she has f

ailed to de monstrate on appea l that she
car ried this burden be low.

The defe ndant’s criminal rec ord is c ompelling, a nd it alone justifies the trial court’s
or de r o f c on fi ne me nt. Th e de fe nd a nt’ s tes tim on y re ve a ls that she ha s p ro pe rl y a sse sse d th e ne c e ssi ty of a he avy

sanction. We ca n on l y h o pe that her intent to rehabilitate he rself is g enuine a nd long ab i d i n g. The judg ments of the trial c ourt are aff irmed.

___________________________________ J AMES CURW OOD WI TT, J R., J UDGE