### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A s s i gne d on B r i e f

s M a y 14, 2008
S T AT E OF T E NNE S S E E v . J OHN DOUGL AS DUKE
Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty

No. 2005-D- 2641 Steve D ozier , Judge

No. M2007- 00430-CCA -R3-C D 

### - F il e d M ay 3 0, 200 8

The De fenda

nt, J ohn Doug las Duke, ple d g uilty to statutory

rape . I n acc ordanc e with the plea a g re e me nt, the De fe nd ant a c c e pte d a se nte nc e of

e ig ht een months , w iththe tr ia l c ourt to deter mine the manner

of ser vice of sentenc e. Af

ter the se ntencinghear ing, the t ri al co u rt denied the Def endant a n alternative sentenc e and or dere d him to serve his sentenc e in the wor khouse. The De fenda

nt appea ls, contending that the trial cour t erre d when it denied h i m an alternative sentenc e. Af

ter re viewing the re cord a nd applicable authorities, we f ind n o er ro r and affirm the jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed
R OBER T W. W EDEMEYER , J., d e liv e re d th e op ini on of the c ourt , in

wh ic h J.C. M C L I N and D. K EL L Y T HOMAS , J R ., J J ., joined.
Michae l A. Colavecc hio, Nashville, Tenne ssee, f or the Appe llant, J ohn Doug las Duke.
Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l and

Re po rt e r; Mich ael E. Mo or e , So lic ito r G e ne ra l; Cla re nc e E. Lutz, As sis tant A tto rney Ge ne ra l; V ic tor

S. Joh ns on , I I I , D ist

ri c t A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; Pamela Ande rson and Amy H. Eisenbec k, Assistant District Attorney s Gene ral, for the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION
I. F acts
The De fenda

nt was indicted on c harg es o f s t atutory rape , with the indictment alleg ing that he e n g a g e d in s e xu a l p e n e tr a ti o n w it h a p e r s o n w h o w a s a t le a s t th ir te e n b u t less than eig hteen y ear s o f age an d that he wa s at least four y ear s older than the vic tim. SeeT.C.A. § 39--2-

13 -5 06 (2 00 6) . T he De fe nd ant p le d guil ty to t his of fe ns e , a nd a t th e g uil ty

ple a he ari ngthe State t o l d t h e c o u rt t h at t h e e v i d en ce at t ri al wo u l d h av e p ro v en t h e f

o l l o wi n g: [D]ur ingthe fi rs t w e e k o f D e c e mbe r, tw o- tho us and -f our, the vi c timin t

his c a se wa s at E ig hty -E ig ht M c Ca ll Stre e t, h e re in D a vid so n Co un ty , w ithso me fr ie nd s, wh e n s he fe lt that sh e ha d b e e n d ru g g e d a nd wa s unc on sc iou s. The victim furthe r stated that, whe n she woke up, she fo u n d the Def endant on top of her, ha

ving se x with her. She told the D efe ndant to g et off, a nd he made the state me nt t

hat he wa sn ’t

do ne y e t.
The de tective wa s able to conta ct the De fendant in this case on F ebrua ry third, two-thousand-f

ive. The D efe ndant came and sp o k e wi t h the detec tive. He advised th e d et ective that he did have se x with the victim, and this happened when she was at his house to visi t his sis ter on a wee kend in Dec ember

. Th e vic timin t

his c a se is fo ur

te e n y e ars old ; th e De fe nd ant i s tw e nty -s ix y ear s old. L ater

the victim was intervie wed by detec tives ag ain, and she stated that she had be en d ri n k i n g beer and smoking marijuana

with the Def

endant a nd that she may ’ve g one alongwith the Def endant’ s advanc es at fir st, but she was not awar e of howher pa

nts were pulled down.
Ba sed up o nth e s e f

a c ts , th e tr ia l c o u rt a c c e p te d th e D e f e n d an t’ s g u il ty

p le a
. A t t

he sentenc ing he aring , the following evidenc e wa s prese nted: The State o ff er ed as proof the Def endant’ s prese ntence investigation report. That report showe d that the Def endant ha d sever al previous convic tions: dom estic violence in J anuar y and F ebrua

ry of 2005; resisting arr est and disorderly conduct in 2002; re ckless drivingin 2000; drivin g wh i l e u nder twe nty -one a nd impaired in 1998; possession of marijuana in 1998; and theft in 1996.
The De fenda

nt offer ed the results of his psy cholog ical eva luation, which showed that he had a “ [b] order line rang e of [i] ntellige nce,” placinghim below the “tenth pe rce ntile in terms of the g e ne ra l po pu latio n.” Th e evalua tio n a lso sh ow e d th a t th e De fe nd ant s uf fe re d f ro m anxie ty and “e x tremely

low” self- estee m. Th e De fe nd ant a lso off

ered the re su lts of

a Psyc ho se xua l Ris k A sse ssm e nt p e rf or me d to de te rm ine his ame na

bil ity to t re a tme nt, r is k p ote nti a l, s up e rv isi on and mon ito ri ngre qu ir e me nts

. Th e ass ess me nt s tate d th e De fe nd ant “ wa s d e nyingde via nt s e xua l de sir e s and

wa s d ish on e st about his true sexual interests. He w as trying to ‘ fake g ood ’ i n an at t empt to appea r not to have pr ob le ms. ” As fo r t

he De fe nd ant’ s r isk

a sse ssm e nt, the re po rt

ind ic a te d th a t t he De fe nd ant’ s r isk

“ fo r s e xua l r e c idi vis m is in t he mod e rate low

c a te g or y whe n c on sid e ri ngstatic pr e dic tor s o f r isk for se x ual and violent re cidivism. His risk is enhanc ed to moderate-hi gh by his low sex ual knowledg e, limited intellectual func tioning, use of substances, pr ior criminal misconduct, a nd his previous supervision fa ilure.” L ater , the re port noted that the De fenda nt was ser

ving time f

or vio latin g his pr ob a tio n a

nd tha t, “ F a ilure to c omp ly

wi th s up e rv is ed re le a se is o ne of the hig he st non-sexual predictors of

rec id i v i s m an d sug g ests poor complianc e with rules.” The a ssessment-3-

fu rt h er co n cl u d edth at t h e D ef

en d an tfa i l edt o ap p re ci at e t h e s er i o u s n es s o f h i s ac t i o n s , s t at i n g, “When aske d about his actions his response w as ‘I don’t thi n k I d i d any

thing wr ong .’” The repor t further stated: [The D ef en d an t] will need intensive monitoring and super vision to ensure the sa fe ty of youngfe ma le s. Hi s in te lle c tua l li mit a tio ns make him a po or c and idate for tra ditional commun i t y based Sex Offe nder tre atment or to ef fec tivelyselfmonito r h is b e h av io r

an d d e la y g r a ti f ic a ti o n
. H is s a f

e ty c anb e s t b e ma inta in ed wi t h ex t ern al m ea s u re s o f m o n i t o ri n g. The De fenda

nt called his mother, Patric ia Duke, to testify . She sai d t h at t h e Defenda nt liv e d wi th he r int e rm itt e ntl y his wh ole lif e
. He wo uld oc c a sio na lly le a ve he r ho me and mo ve in wi th h is g ir lf

ri e nd , w ho wa s a lso the mot her of hi s c hil d, but he a lw ay s r e tur ne d. Ab ou t th is offe nse, the De fenda

nt told her that the victim “ca me on” to him b y rubbing ag ainst him. Duke te sti fi e d th a t he r s on

ha d a low I Q a nd that he wa s e sp e c ia lly

su sc e pti ble to s ug g e sti on and e a sil y manipulated. She thoug ht that, despite their ag e diffe renc e, her son and t he victim wer e on an e qu a l le ve l me nta lly

du e to h is l owI Q. Duke fu rt he r t e sti fi e d that, at th e tim e of thi s in c ide nt, the Def endant’ s g irlfriend ha d left, and the Def endant wa s in a state of de pression.
On c r o s s - e xami n a ti o n , Patr ic ia D u k e te s ti f ie d th a t, a t th e ti me o f th is in c id e nt, the De fe nd ant l ive d w ithhe r at 88 Mc Ca ll Street, whe re th is cr ime oc c ur re d. She sa id t

hat sh e a lso ha d h e r t wo da ug hte rs li vi ng wi th he r, and the y we re sixte e n a

nd e ig hte e n r e sp e c tiv e ly . Sh e sa id that sh e wa s n ot a

wa re a t th e tim e that th e De fe nd ant h a d c omm itt e d d ome sti c a ssault a g a ins t hi s g irlfriend, but she be came awa re of this later. Duke a g ree d that t h e De fendant rec eived probation for

his domestic violence c onviction and wa s re q u ired to attend c erta in treatment prog rams. He did not successfully do so an d was re quired to complete another y ear of probation. She a g re e d th a t th e De fe nd ant w a s in c us tod y a t th e tim e of th e sen ten cing he ari ng , s e rv ingtim e for violating his probation. Du k e s ai d she wa s awa re that the Def

endant wa s an alc oholic and us e d d ru g s.
Ba sed upon this evidence , the trial cour t found:
The Court’s revi ew ed the pre -sentenc e re port; and there wer e two re ports that’ve been me ntioned ear lier fr om t he two doctor s, the one we ’ve w aited on for sever al months or more . . . in terms of the psycho-s ex u al ri s k assessment that we now hav[e ] – and

the psy cho lo gic a l e va luatio n th a t w e pr e vio us ly ha d, datin g ba c k to Ju n e ; a n d am f ami li ar w it h th e s e ntencing c o n s id e r a ti o n s u n d e r [4 0

- 3 5

- 1 0 2 ], p u r p o s e s f o r s e n te n c in g u n d e r

[4 0

- 3 5

- 1 0 3 ].
I ’ll mention these enha

ncing a n d / or mitigating f actor s, that may

or may n o tap p l y
. Bu tt h i s wa s an agr e e d

- u p o n s en t en ce o f e i gh t ee nm o n t h s , as a R an ge One of fende r, on the Class “E” felony , statutory rape
. So, it’s not as though the Cou rt h as t o deter mine within a rang e what se nte nc e sh ou ld be im po se d; b ut I ’l l di sc us s so me of the se fa c tor s, a s th e y

a pp ly-4-

to the ac tu a l s e n te n c e , a s w e ll a s d is c u s s th e [4 0

- 3 5

- 1 0 3 ] s e c ti o nth a t I ’ve me nti on e d e arl ie r a

bo ut s e nte nc ingc on sid e ra tio ns
. Wit hout questi o n t h e Defenda nt has a pre vious history of cr iminal co n victions and . . . criminal beha vior. Those a

re se t out in the pre-se ntence re po rt , in c ludi ng mul tip le do me sti c -v iol e nc e c on vic tio ns , d iso rd e rl y c on du c t, driving under the influence , simple possessi o n , and the a cknowledg ed drugusag e, some of which w ould’ve oc curr ed duringthe pende ncy of this case

. I n a dd iti on , th e Defendan t

. . . h a s a pr e vio us iss ue wi th h is w ill ingne ss t o c o mp ly w it

h p r o b a ti o n , b a s e d o n th e p r e - s e n te n c e r e p o rt an d th e is s u e s he’s ha d . . . and is havingand has r esulted now in his s en t en ce i n W h ite County being imposed. The pre -sentenc e re port sets out prior problems he ’s ha d o n that probation, inc lu d in g dr

u g u s a g e , an d , w h il e o nb o n d o nth is c a s e , a s I ’ v e a lr e a dy me n ti o n ed, the drugusag e.
I n terms of m i t igating f

actor s, we have pre sent, and it’s set for th in the one t h at t al ks about suffe ring from mental – not ne cessa rily mental illnesses, but the – the I .Q. situations.
He ha s a seve re s u b s t ance abuse pr oblem[] , but he didn’t want to g et treatment, throug h g roup sessions or other wise, bec ause he had, quote, be tter things to do; and sets out to some ex t ent – and we ’ve g one over that here in the hear ing – a

bout what he f

elt like this si t u at ion presente d to him, that it was the fo ur te e n- y e ar- old ’s fa

ult and he just

c ou ldn ’t c on tr ol h ims e lf

, b e c a us e sh e c a me on to h im a nd a bu se d h im, in t

he wa y that sh e did

that.

. . . . [Defense counsel] is right, that the statu t e t ells courts to consider “E” fe lon ie s fo r pro batio n, un de r t he fa c ts a nd c ir c ums tanc e s p re se nti ngthe m[se lve s] to a cour t, per that pa

rticular de fenda

nt, wh i ch i s what [we]’ve all bee n talking a b o u t, th in g s th a t a

p p ly s p e c if ic a ll y to [th e D e f

e n d an t]

. So, he’s without question eligible for alternative se ntencing . The psychosexual evaluation talks about var ious things that the Court might c onsider: controlling his use of pornog raphy , maki ng him take polyg raphs a bout his sex ual u r g e s , e le c tr o n ic mo n it o r in g , c u r f e w s , e mp lo y

me n t v e r if

ic a ti o n , n o a c c e s s to a computer; you know, follow up obviously with m ed i cal personnel, in terms of medications or f

or trea tment, that might continue to be ne eded.-5- B ut h e re tod ay

a ll – a ll I ’v e he ard

is, le t hi m out, l e t hi m go l iv e with h is curr ent . . . par

tner or live w ith his m om, which I just d o n ’t t h i n k i s the rig ht thing t o d o , b a s e d

o nt h e p r o o f

t h a t ’ s b e e np r e s e n t e d

t o m e h e r e t o d ay. Even the psycho-se x ual eva luation say s – and it set s forth som e of what I ’ve me ntioned about prior pr obation and re cidivism an d d o m estic violence do e sn ’t

. . . n or ma lly su it i tse lf to r e ha bil itatio n; a

nd

. . . make s th e state me nt t hat,

“ F a ilure to c omp ly

wi th s up e rvi sed rele a se ,” wh ic h is wh a t ha sn ’t oc c ur re d, “ is one of the highe st non-sexual p re dictors of re cidivism and sugg est poor compliance with rules.” So, if Iwer e to fa shion some plan, alongthese re commendations that I ’ve alre ady mentio n ed , about polyg raphs a nd elec tronic monitoring, the psy chosexual evaluation is telling me ther e’s poor likelihood of compliance , based on pa st e ff or ts.
Al tho ug h s tatut or

y ra pe is a n “ E” fe lony , it

is s til l a c ri me and

sti ll c ourt s can f actor in confineme nt being nece ssary to avoid the seriousne ss of that offe nse. So, based on al l o f t hat, at this point – not say ing he ’s g one to the pen; he wo n’ t go to the pe n –

I ’m g o[in g to] i mpo se the se nte nc e that w a s a g re e d u po n, to se rv e c onsecu tive to t

he oth e r, Whit e Cou

nty se nte nc e , b e c a

us e of the fa ilure to c omp ly wi th p re vio us re le a se and havi ng the – a g a in, a lbe it n ot e xtre me ly leng thy , but for his ag e a l en g thy criminal history

on multipl e misdemea

nors, run it consecutive w ith the Whi te County case
. When he serve s that and if he c omes up with a better plan, in terms of mental-he alth treatment, a b et t er p lace to stay , someone that isn’t g o[i ng to] g et him out to da y and say , “ Yo u d idn ’t

do any thi ngwr on g . G o d o it

a g a in, ” the n I ’l l loo k at it

. I t is fr om t

his jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

that th e De fe nd ant n owa pp e a ls.
II. Ana lys is
On a p p e a l, th e D e f

e n d an t c o n te n d s th a t th e tr ia l c o u rt e r r e d w h e n it d enied him an alternative sentenc e. He asser ts that the trial court err ed when it c onsidered enhanc eme n t fa ctors in making its s e n te n c in g d e te r mi n a ti o n
. F u rth e r , h e ar g u e s th a t, b e c a u s e th e le n g th

o f the sentenc e wa s ag ree d to by the par ties, t h e t ri al court should only have c onsidered the fac tors of Tenne ssee Code A n n otated sec tions 40-35-102 throug h -104 whe n making its determination about an a lternative se ntence

. W hen a de fe nd ant c ha lle ng e s th e le ng th, ra ng e , o r m ann e r o f s e rv ic e of a se nte nc e , it

is the duty of this Court to conduct a de novo r eview on the rec ord with a pre sumption t hat “the deter minations made by

the cour t from which the a

ppeal is t ak en are corr ect.” T.C.A. § 40-35--6-

401(d) ( 2006). As the Sentencing Commi ssion Comments to this section not e, the burden is now on the appe aling party

to show that the sentenc ing is improper . T.C.A. § 40-35-401, Sentenc ing Comm’n Cm ts. This means that if the t ri al co u rt followed the statutory sentenc ing pr ocedur e, made f indings of f

acts whic h are adequately supported in the re cord, a nd g ave due consideration and prope r we ight to the f actor s and principles that are rele v ant to sentenc ing unde r the 1989 Se n t e n c i n g A c t , T

. C

. A

. § 4 0

- 3 5

- 1 0 3 , w e m ay n o t d i s tu r b t h e s e n t e n c e e v e n i f a d i f f e re nt r e su lt was pre fer

red. Sta te v . R os s , 4 9 S. W.3 d 8 33 , 8 47 (T e nn
. 20 01 ). Th e pr e sumpt ion do e s n ot a

pp ly to the leg al conclusions re ache d by the trial cour

t in sentencinga def

endant or

to the deter minations made by

the tri al cour

t that are predic ated upon unc ontroverte d fac ts. State v. Dean , 76 S. W.3 d 3 52 , 3 77 (T e nn . Cr im. Ap p. 20 01 ); State v. Butler , 900 S.W .2d 305, 311 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) ; Sta te v . S mi th , 891 S.W .2d 922, 929 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)

. I n conducinga de novo r eview of a sente nce, w e mus t co n s i d er : (1) a ny evidenc e rec eived at the trial and/or se ntencinghear ing, ( 2) the pre sentenc e re port, (3) the principles of sentenc ing, ( 4) the a

rgu m en t s o f counse l relative to sente ncingalternatives, (5) the nature a nd c ha ra c te ri sti c s o f t

he of fe ns e , ( 6) any

mitigatingor

e nh anc e me nt f

a c tor s, (7 ) a

ny state me nts made by t h e defe ndant on his or her own beha lf, and (8) the def endant’ s potential or lack of potential for r ehabilitation or trea tment. SeeT. C.A. § 4 0- 35 -2 10 ; State v. Taylor , 63 S.W .3d 400, 411 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) . The pa rty challeng ing a

sentenc e imposed b y t h e t ri al court has the burde n of establishing that the sentenc e is err oneou s
. T.C.A. § 40-35-401 ( 2006), Se nte nc ingCom m. C mts

. A def endant is elig ible for a lternative se nt en ci n g i f t he sente nce a ctually imposed is ten y e ars or le ss. T. C.A . § 40 -3 5- 30 3( a ) ( 20 06 ). F ur the r, a “ sta nd ard of fe nd e r c on vic te d o f a

Cla ss C, D , o r E fe lony

is p re sume d to be a

fa vo ra ble c and idate fo r a lt erna tiv e se nte nc ingop tio ns in the abse nce of

evidenc e to th e contrary .” T.C.A. § 40-35- 102(6) ( 2006). Althoug h probation must be considere d, “the de fenda nt is not automatically

entitled to probation as a matter of law .” T.C.A. § 40-35-303( b). In deter mining whe ther to g rant or de ny probation, t h e trial c ourt may consider the fo l l owing : the circ umstances of the offe nse; the def

endant’ s criminal re cord; backg round and soc ial history ; the defe ndant’s phy sical and me ntal hea l t h ; t h e deter rent e ffe ct on other c riminal activity ; and the likel i h o o d t h at probation is in the best interests of both the p u b li c an d th e d e f

e n d ant. State v. Parke r , 932 S.W .2d 945, 958 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) . The Def endant be ars the bur den of e stablishing sui t ab ility for pr obation. T.C.A. § 40-35-303( b); State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 16 6 , 169 (Tenn. 1991) . Sentence s involving conf inement should be ba se d u po n th e fo llo wi ngc on sid e ratio ns : (A) Confine ment is nece ssary to protect socie ty

by re s t raininga def

endant who ha s a lon g his tor

y of c ri min a l c on du c t; (B ) C o n f i n e m e n ti s n e c e s s ar

y t o a v o i d d e p r e c i a t i n g t h e s e r i o u s n e s s o f t h e of fe ns e or conf inem en t i s p articula

rly suited to provide an e ffe ctive dete rre nce to other s likely to commit si milar offe nses; or (C) Measures less re strictive than conf inement have fre quently

or re cently

been a pp lie d uns uc c e ssf

ull y to t he de fe nd ant.-7-

T.C.A. § 40-35-103 ( 2006). Additionally , the p ri nciples of se ntencingref lect that the se ntence should be no g reater than that deserve d for the of fense committed and should be the le ast sever e measure nece ssary

to ac h i ev e the purposes for which the sente nce is imposed. SeeT.C.A. § 40- 35-103(2) ,(4) ( 2006). The c ourt should also consider the defe ndant’s potential for rehab i l i tation or trea tment in determining the appr opriate se ntence

. See T.C.A. § 40-35-103( 5).
We first conclude that the trial cour t followed t h e statutory

sentenc ing pr ocedur e, made finding s of fa cts which a re a deq uately

supported in the re cord, a nd g ave due consideration and proper weig ht to the fac tors and princ iples that are relevant to sentencingunder the 1989 Se nte nc ingAc t. T he re fo re , w e re vie w i ts c on c lusio n de n ov o w itha pr e sumpt ion

of c or re c tne ss. The trial c ourt “men t i o n [ ed ] ” the enhance ment and mitigating f actor s that applied. I t found that the De fe nd ant h a d a

his tor y of c ri min a l c on vic tio ns and a his tor y of unwi lling ne ss t o c omp ly with conditions of relea se. The D efe ndant asser ts that this i s not an appr o priate c onsideration for the trial cour

t beca use the part i es ag ree d to the duration of the se ntence . We disag ree
. Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40-35-210(b) dir ects the tria l court to consider evi d ence and information offere d by

the par ties on enhanc ement and mitig ating fac tors when imposing sentenc es. I t does not indicate t h at t h es e fa ctors should only be conside red when dete rmining “the dur ation” of a

sentenc e. F urther, w e have p reviously upheld the trial c ourt’s consider ation of enha nceme nt fac tors when de nying a n alternative sentenc e. See State v. C l i f f o rd W ayne M o rris , No. E2005-01957- CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 3071333, at *6 (Te nn. Crim. App., at Knoxvi lle, Oct. 30, 2006) ( holding the tr ial court prope rly applied one of

two enhance m ent fac tors when de nying the defe ndant an a lternative se ntence ), no perm. app. filed

. Fur ther, we conclude that the trial cour t based its denial of a

n alt ernative sentenc e on a p p r o p r i a t e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s
. T h e t r i a l c o u r t f o u n d t h a tt h e D e f

e n d an th a d

a l o n g c r i m i n a l h i s t o r

y, consideringthe Def

endant’ s ag e. The tri al co u rt also consider ed the De fenda nt’s mental hea lth, as re veale d by

the psy cho-se x ual eva luation. The re port conc l uded that ther e wa s a poor likelihood that the Defe ndant would compl y with the terms of probation. Finally , the trial cour t found that conf

inement was ne cessa

ry to avoid depr ec i at i n g t he ser iousness of the off ense. The evidenc e does not pre ponderate ag ainst the trial cour t’s finding s. Th e De fe n dant is not entitled to relief on this issue.
III. Conclusi on
I n acc ordanc e with the af oreme ntioned rea soning a nd authorities, we a ffi rm t h e judg ment of the tr ia l c ourt

.

______________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE