### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d onBr ie fs F eb ru ar y 3, 200 4
STATE OF TENNESS EE v . SHAUN DAVID PIERCE

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Marshall County Nos. 15276, 15308, 15309, 15310 Charles Lee , Judge

No. M2003- 01076-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Fe bruary 19, 2004

Th e De fe nd ant, Sha

un Da vid Pie rc e , ple d g uil ty

to f our c ounts of

burg lary of an a uto mob ile , a

Cla ss E felony , two counts of thef t over one -thousand dollars, a Class D felony , two counts of thef t over fi ve -h un dr e d d oll ars , a

Cla ss E fe lony , f

our c ounts of

the ft un der

fi ve -h un dr e d d oll ars , a

Cla ss A misdemeanor, a

nd two counts of vanda lism under five-h u n d r e d d o ll a rs, a Class A misdemea

nor. The De fe nd ant r e c e ive d a

n e ff e c tiv e se nte nc e of

sixte e n y e ars . T he sole is sue i n th is d ir e c t a pp e a l is wh e the r the tr ia l c ourt e rr e d by no t a llo wi ng the De fe nd ant t o s e rv e his se nte nc e in t he c omm un ity
c or re c tio ns pr og ra

m. We a ff

ir m th e jud g me nts of

the tr ia l c ourt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nts of

the Circ uit Court Aff

irm ed

D AVI D H. W EL L ES , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH and T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J J ., joined.

Andre w J ackson D ear ing, L ewisburg , Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Shaun Pierce

. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a

nd Reporter ; J. Ross Dy er, Assistant A ttorney Gene ral; Mike Mc Cow n, Di str ic t A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; a

nd Wea kle y E. B arn ard , A ssi sta

nt D istri c t A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.
OP IN ION

The De fenda

nt pled g uilty

to the afor ementioned a ssortment of crimes on Fe bruar y 7, 2003. Th e De fe nd ant a dmi tte d to br e akin g int o f our c ars and ste a lin g ob

je c ts i ns ide in a

n e ff or t to fu nd his drughabit. The trial court sentenc ed him as a Rang e I Ioffe nder, a classification the Defe ndant does not contest, to an ef

fec tive sen t en ce o f s i x t een year s, which the De fenda nt does not contest. The De fe nd ant’ s so le iss ue is w he the r t he tr ia l c ourt

sh ou ld h a ve a llo we d h im t o s e rv e his se nte nc e s in the c omm un ity c or re c tio ns pr og ra

m.-2-

When an ac cused c halleng es the leng th, r ang e, or manner of service of a sentenc e, this Court has a duty

to conduct a de novo revie w of the se ntence with a pre sumption t hat the dete rminations
ma de by the tr ia l c ourt

are co rrect

. S ee Te nn . Co de Ann. § 4 0- 35 -4 01 (d ). Th is p re sumpt ion is “conditioned upon

the af firmative showingin the rec ord that the trial c ourt consider ed the se ntencing principles and a ll releva

nt fac ts and circ umstances.” State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991). When conducting a de novo r eview of a se ntence , this Court m ust consider: (a ) the e vidence , if any , rec eived at the trial and sentenc ing hear ing; (b) the prese ntence repor t; ( c) the principles of sentenc ing a

nd arguments as t o s entencing a lternatives; (d) the nature and cha rac teristics of the criminal conduc t involved; (e) a ny statutory mitiga t i n g o r enhanc ement fa ctors; (f) any statement made by the def endant r eg ardingsentenc ing; a nd (g ) the potential or la ck o f p o t enti al for reha bilitation or treatm en t

. See Te nn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35- 102, -103, -210; State v. B rew er, 875 S.W. 2d 29 8, 30 2 ( Te nn . Cr im. Ap p. 19 93 ); S tat e v. Th oma s, 75 5 S. W.2 d 8 38 , 8 44 (T e nn . Cr im. App. 1988).

I f our revie w reflects that the trial court followed the statutory sentenc ing pr ocedur e, that the court imposed a la

wful sentenc e af

ter having giv en d ue conside ration and pr oper w eig ht to the fac tors and princ iples set out under the se ntencinglaw, and that the trial court’ s findings of fac t are adeq u at el y

supported by

the re cord, the n we may

not modify

the sentenc e eve n if we w ould have pref err ed a dif

fer ent re sult. S ee State v. Pi k e, 9 7 8 S

. W.2d 904, 926-27 (Tenn. 1998); State v. Fletc her, 805 S.W.2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).

A def endant who “ is a

n espec ially mitigated or standard offe nder convicted of a Class C, D, or E felony is presumed to be a favor able candidate for alternative sentencing options in the absenc e of evide nce to the c ontrary .” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-102( 6); State v. Fields, 40 S.W.3d 435, 440 (Tenn. 2001) . Guidance reg ardingwhat constitutes “e vidence to the contra ry” which w ould rebut the pre sumption of alternative sentenc ing can be found i n Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40-35- 10 3( 1) , w hic h s e ts f

or th t he fo llo wi ngc on sid e ratio ns : (A) Confine ment is nece ssary to protect socie ty

by restra ining a defe ndant who has
a lon g his tor

y of c ri min a l c on du c t; (B ) Confinement is nece ssary to avoid depreciating the se riousness of the of fense or c on fi ne me nt is part ic ula

rl y su ite d to pro vid e an ef fe c tiv e de te rr e nc e to oth e rs lik e ly to commit si milar offe nses; or (C) Mea sures less re strictive than conf inement have frequently

or re cently

been applied unsucc essfully

to the defe ndant[.] See id.; State v. Hooper , 29 S.W .3d 1, 5 (Tenn. 2000) ; Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 170. Additionally , the principles of sentenc ing r efle ct that the sente nce should be no g reater than that deser ved for the offe nse committed and should be the l east severe measure nece ssary to achieve the purposes f

or which the sentenc e is imposed. S ee Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-103(2) , (4). TheA t t he s ent enc i ng he ar i ng , t he D ef endan t mai nt ai ned t hat t he pres ent enc e r eport i ncor r ect l y l i s t ed hi s bi r t h y ear 1

as 1972, w h en i t w as , i n f ac t , 1973, ma k i n g h i m t we n t y - n i n e y ea r s ol d.
-3- c ourt sh ou ld also c on sid e r t he po te nti a l f

or re ha bil itatio n o r t

re a tme nt o f t

he de fe nd ant i n deter mining the a

ppropriate sentenc e. See id. § 40- 35-103(5)

. The Community

Correc tions Act was meant to pr ovide an alternative means of punishment for “ selec ted, nonviolent felony offe nders .

. . , there by rese rving secur e conf inement fa cilities for violent felony

offe nders.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-103( 1); see a lso St ate v. Samuels, 44 S.W.3d 489, 492 (Tenn. 2001) . Pursuant to statute, person s wh o s at i sfy all of the followingminimum
c ri te ri a are e lig ibl e fo r p art ic ipatio n in a c omm un ity c or re c tio ns pr og ra

m: (1) Per sons who, without this option, would be i n ca rc er ated in a corre ctional instit ution; (2 ) P ersons who a

re c onvicted of pr operty -re lated, or dr ug /alcohol-re lated fe lony offe nses or other

felony offe nses not involving crimes ag ainst the person as provided in titl e 39, cha

pter 13, pa

rts 1-5; (3 ) 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; (4) Per sons who are convicted of felony offe nses in which the use or possession of
a we apon wa s not involved; (5) Per sons who do not demonstrate a prese nt or past pattern of beha vior indicating violence; [and] (6) Per sons who do not demonstrate a pattern of

committing violent offe nses[.] Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106( a). Howeve r, persons who are sentenc ed to incar cer ation or who a re on esca pe at the t ime of consideration will not be eligible, even i f t hey meet these criter ia. See id.

Persons who do not otherwise s at i s fy the minimum criteria and who would usually be
c on sid e re d unf

it f or pr ob a tio n d

ue to h ist or ie s o f c hr on ic a lc oh ol a bu se , d ru g a bu se , or me nta l he a lth problems, but whose spec ial needs a re tre atable a

nd could be serve d best in the community may be considere d elig ible for pa rticipation in a community corr ections prog ram. I d. § 40-36-106( c).

Ev e n th ou g h a

n o ff e nd e r m e e ts t

he re qu ir e me nts fo r e lig ibi lity , h e or sh e is n ot a

uto matic a lly entitled to participation in a community corr ections prog ram. See State v. Ba ll, 973 S.W .2d 288, 294 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) ; State v. Taylor, 744 S.W .2d 919, 922 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987) . Rather, the Act pr ovides that the cr iteria shall be inter prete d as m inimum standards to g uide a trial court’s deter mination of whether

that offe nder is eligible for community corr ections. See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106( d).

Th e De fe nd ant a

pp are ntl y argue s th a t he sh ou ld h a ve be e n all ow e d to ser ve his se nte nc e s in Communi ty

Correc tions under the “spe cial nee ds” cate g ory

. See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-36- 106(c)

. The pre sentenc e re port ref lects that the De fenda

nt is thi rty

y ear s old, marrie d with thr ee c hildren,

1
and ha s r e c e ive d his GE D. He ha s no long -t e rm e mpl oy me nt his tor

y
. Hi s cr imi na l hi sto ry

is q uit e-4-

extensive. I t dates bac k to 1991 a nd includes ten burg lary

convictions, one c onviction for possession of mari jua na , a ro bb e ry c on vic tio n, and

se ve ra l mi sd e me ano rs

. At the s e n te n c in g h e ar in g , th e D e f e n d an t a dmi tt e d

th a t h e w a s g u il ty

o f a ll th e in stant
o ff en s es . He e x plained that he be came addicted to c ocaine while he wa s in prison, and he wa s nursing a habit that cost be tween thr ee- hundred a nd fifty and five-hundre d dollars per day . He br oke i n t o an d s t o l e i t em s o u to f c ar s t o b u y dru gs

. He t es t i fi edt h at h e kn ew wh at h e h add o n e w as wr o n g, bu t th a t he wa s una

ble to f ig ht h is a dd ic tio n. He a sk e d th e tr ia l c ourt to b e le nie nt a

nd he lp h im battl e his dr

ugpr ob le m.
As the trial cour

t corre ctly noted, t he Defenda

nt was not entitled to the presumption that he
was a favor able c andidate f

or alter native sente ncingbeca

use he w as not “a

n espec ially

mitigated or standard of

fende r.” Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35-102( 6). Howeve r, due to the nonviolent nature of the
c ri me s he c omm itt e d, he wa s e lig ibl e to s e rv e his se nte nc e in t he c omm un ity c or re c tio ns pr og ra

m. Se e id. § 4 0- 36 -1 06 (a ). As we have a lr e a dy no te d, a lth ou g h a

n o ff end er may

be e lig ibl e to participate in the prog ram, he or she is not automatically entitled to it. S ee B all, 973 S.W .2d at 294.

The trial c ourt denied t h e Defendant a ny form of a lternative se ntence based on the Def endant’ s leng thy

criminal history

and his unwillingne ss to comply with measure s less restrictive than conf inement. See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103( 1)(A) , (C). Without question the Def endant’ s criminal history

is ex tensive. Many of his crimes involve stea ling or damag ing the proper

ty of others in an attempt to support his coca ine habit. I ndeed, at the s entenc ing hear ing, the Def endant told the trial court, “ I f I

could leave rig ht now and wa lk out that door , Iwould find the nea rest plac e to g et
so me c oc a ine , a

nd wh ic h w ill be pr ob a

bly c los e by .” Cle arl y c on fi ne me nt is n e c e ssa ry in t his c a se to protect the public from the Def endant, who has a long history of cr iminal activity . See id. § 40- 35-103(1) (a)

.
F ur the rm or e , th e re c or d s ho ws that, in 19 93 , th e De fe nd ant’ s p ro batio n w a s r e vo ke d b e c a us e he wa s c on vic te d o f r ob be ry and e va din g arr e st. I n Mar c h of 199 9, the De fe nd ant wa s all ow e d to
serve his four-y ear

sentenc e in the community corr ections prog ram, but in 2001 he wa s convicted of po sse ssi on

of mari jua na , in 20 02 he wa s c on vic te d o f d ri vin g on a su sp e nd e d li c e ns e , a

nd in Fe bruar y of 2003 he w as convic ted of the instant of fense s. Thus, it appear s that the Def endant wa s s e r v i n g a c o m m u n i t y c o r

r e c t i o n s s e n t e n c e w h e nh e c o m m i t t e d t h e i n s t an to f

f e n s e s

. O b v i o u s l y, measure s less restric tive than confinement have been unsuccessful with the Defenda nt. See id. § 40- 35 -1 03 (1 )( C) . T he re fo re the tr ia l court did no t er r by re fu sin g to a llo w the De fe nd ant t o s e rv e his
se nte nc e s in

the c omm

un ity c or re c tio ns pr og ra

m. The judg ments of the trial c ourt are aff irmed.

___________________________________ DAVI D H. WEL L ES, J UDGE