### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs O ct obe r 25, 200 5

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. BR AN DON JEROM E JOHN SON

Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Sulli van Coun ty No. S48083 Allen W. Wallace, Judge, Si tting by Designation

No. E2005-00392-CC A-R3- CD - F iled Dece m ber 15, 2005

Th e Ap pe lla nt, B ra nd on Jer ome John so n, app e a ls the se nte nc ing de c isi on of the Sul liv an Coun ty Criminal Court. J ohnson pled g uiltyto po s s es s i o n o f l ess than .5 g rams of c ocaine for sa le or de liv e ry , ta mpe ri ng wi th e vid e nc e , v a nd a lis m, a nd re sis tin g arr e st. Pur su a nt t o th e ple a a g re e me nt, he wa s se nte nc e d a s a

Ra ng e I st and ard off

e nd e r t o a n e ff

e c tiv e se nte nc e of

fo ur y e ars a ndsix months in t he De partment of Corr ection. On a ppeal, Johnson arg ues that the trial court err ed by deny ing his re quest for a lternative se ntencing . After revie w of the r ecor d, we a ffirm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

D AVI D G. H AYES , J

. , delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined.

Terry L . J ordan, A ssistant P ublic Def ender , for the A ppellant, B randon Jerome Johnson.

Paul G

. Summers, A ttorney Gene ral and Reporter ; Sophia S. L ee, Assistant A ttorney Genera l ; H. Gre eley Wells, J r., District Attorney Gene ral; and J oseph Eug ene Perrin, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

F ac tu al B ac kgr ound

I n Se pte mbe r of 20 03
, a Sul liv a n Cou nty g ra nd jury re turne d a fo ur -c ou nt i nd ic tme nt a g a ins t the Ap pe lla nt ch arg ing him wi th pos se ssi on of ov e r .5 g ra ms of c oc a ine fo r r e sa le , ta mpe ri ng wi th

e vid e nc e , v a nd a lis m, a nd re sis tin g arr e st. Th e Ap pe lla nt e nte re d g uil ty ple a s to p os se ssi on of le ss tha n . 5 g ra ms o f c oc a ine fo r s a le or de liv e ry , a Cla ss C fe lon y ; ta mpe ri ng wi th e vid e nc e , a Cla ss C fe lon y ; va nd a lis m, a

Cla ss A mis de me a no r; a nd re sis tin g arr e st, a Cla ss B mis de me a no r. Th e te rm s of the plea

ag ree ment provided that the A ppellant would plead g ui l t y as a R ang e I offe nder a nd

r e c e i v e s e n t e n c e s o f

f o u r ye ar s , s i x m o n t h s f

o r e a c h o f t h e f e l o n i e s , e l e v e n m o n t h s t w e n t y- n i n e d a ys-2-

for va ndalism, and six months for resisting arr est, to be ser ved conc urre ntly for a n eff ective se ntence of four y ear s and six months. At the guilty plea he aring , the State summarized the fa cts underly ing the c on vic tio ns a s f

oll ow s:

On Fe bruary

20 of 2003, at a

pproxi mately

one o’c lock in the morning , sever al th office rs with the Communit y Police Division of the King sport Police Depa rtment decide d to do a walk throug h of the neig hborhood in River view around t h e E lks L odg e due to the hig h level of street narc otics activity that was oc curring the re. The off ic e r s d iv id e d u p , a n d th e tw o o f f ic e r s , th a t i n c lu d e d St e v e Su mm e y , w a lke d throug h a tunnel that broug ht them into the Ri vervie w Communit y next t o the Elks L od g e . A s th e y

wa lke d th ro ug h th e tunnel , th e y he ardso me bo dy

imm e diate ly

scre am out ‘5-0,’ which is a c ommon street t er m ref erring to police , and upon someone y el l i n g , ‘5-0,’ they noticed that [the Appellant], along w ith two other individuals, beg an to walk dire ctly awa y from them at a ve ry fast pac e. The office rs did not y ell out to [ the Appellant] or attempt to stop them, but simpl y alerted other of fi c e rs by ra dio that [the Ap pe lla nt] a nd his tw o c omp a nio ns we re he a de d in the ir dir e c tio n.

. . . O ff

ic e r C ra wf

or d a sk e d [th e Ap pe lla nt’ s] c omp a nio n if the y c ou ld

sear ch him, a nd his c ompanion ag ree d to a sea rch, a nd in the proce ss of sear ching the companion, they

foun d a sm all amount of marijuana and par aphernalia on the companion. At that point in time, they asked [the Appellant] if t hey could sea

rch him, and [t he Appellant] a g ree d, and they found that Mr. Johnson was in possession of Tw o Hun dr e d an d Fo rt y Do lla rs ($ 24 0. 00 ), wh ic h wa s bro ke n up to, fo r the mos t part, Twe nties, Twenty

Dollar ($20.00) bills, which is a commonly found denomination for street narcotics. I n the cour se of spe aking to [ the Appellant], they asked him whe re the y

[si c] money

had come from and [t he Appellant] indicated from mowing. T he off

icer s, knowing that this being in F ebrua ry was suspicious, a nd they continued to speak to him, and as they spoke with him, the office rs pick ed u p that [t he Appe llant’s] speech wa s muffled, a s if he had some thing in his mouth. The office rs, throug h their experienc es, were we l l aware of the fa ct that often times

coca ine and other

drug s were kept in individuals’ mouths, so that they can e asily

g et rid of them, and at tha t point in time, one of the office rs asked if he c ould see if [the Appellant] had anything in his mouth. [ The Appe llant] immediately started c hewing as har d as he c ould, and at that point in time, the officers felt that [t he Appe llant] was attempting to de stroy

evidence and sta

rted to strug g le with [t he Appe llant] . I n the

c ou rs e of s t ru g g l i n g w i t h h i m , t h e y w e r e ab l e t o e xtr a c tf

r o m [th e A p p e l l a n t ’s ] mouth, a plastic bag that contained numerous white r ocks, that would be c onsistent

w i t h t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f

c o c a i n e

. T h i s b a g a n d i t s c o n t e n t s w e r e s e n tt o t h e T

. B

. I. L ab, where they found, or wher e a chemist with the T.B.I . L aboratory confirme d that 1.3 g rams of c rac k coca ine or coca ine-ba sed was prese nt in that plastic bag . I n the

course of attempting to arre st [ the Appellant] did use forc e and attempt to keep the office rs fro m h a n d c u f

f in g h im
, a n d in th e c o u r s e o f s tr u g g le w ith [t h e A p p e ll a n t]
, Serg eant Cra wford’ s persona l property was da mag ed.-3-

Following a sente ncing hearing, the trial court denied the Appellant’s reque st for alternative sentenc ing. T his appea l follows.

Ana lys is

On appe al, the Appe llant raises the sing le i ssue of whether the trial court prope rly imposed sentenc es of confinement. He contends that the tria l court er red in finding a nee d for c onfinement based o n either the seriousness of the offe nse or the ne ed to deter others. When an a ccuse d challeng es the leng th, rang e, or ma nner of the servic e of a sentenc e, this court has a duty to conduct

a de novo revie w of the se ntence with a presumption that the determinations made by the trial court

are c or re c t. Te nn

. Cod e An n. § 40 -3 5- 40 1( d) (2 00 3) ; State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991). The c ourt must consider the e vidence rec eived at t h e t ri al and sentencing hearing, the pre- sentenc e re port, the principles of sentenc ing, arg ument of counsel, the nature and c hara cter istics of the offe nse, mitigating and enhanc ing fac tors, statements made by the offe nder, a nd the potential for reha bilitation. Ashby , 823 S.W. 2da t 16 8; see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-210 (2003) . The burden of showing that the sentenc e is imprope r is upon the appea ling party

. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35 -4 01 (d ), Se nte nc ing Com mis sio n Co mme nts

.

I n v i e w o f t h e A p p e l l a n t ’ s g u i l t y p l e a s t o C l a s s C f e l o n i e s a s a R a n g e I o ff

e nd e r, it i s undisputed that he is statutorily entitled to the presumption of an alternative sentenc e. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35-102( 6) (2003) . Where a defe ndant is entitled to the statutory presumption of alternative sentenc ing, the State has the burde n of overc oming the presumption with evidence to the contra ry

. State v. Bingham
, 910 S.W .2d 448, 455 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995)
, overruled on othe r grounds by State v. Hoope r , 29 S.W .3d 1, 9 (Tenn. 2000 ). “C o n v er sely , the def endant ha s the burden of establishing his suitability for f ull probation, even if th e d ef en d an t is entitled to the statutory presumption of alternative sente ncing .” Id

.

I n order to deny any form of a lternative se ntencing an d i m p o se a se ntence of total confine ment, the trial court should base its decision on the considera tions li sted in Tennesse e Code Annotated se ction 40-35-103( 1):

(A) Confine ment is nece ssary to protec t society by restra ining [an appe llant] who has

a lon g his tory

of c ri min a l c on du c t;

(B ) Confinement is nece ssary to a void de prec iating the seriousness of the off ense or
c on fi ne me nt i s p art ic ula

rl y su ite d to pr ov ide a n e ff

e c tiv e de te rr e nc e to o the rs lik e ly to commit si milar offe nses; or
(C) Mea sures less restrictive than c onfinement ha ve fr equently or re cently

been

ap p li e d u n s u c c e s s f

u ll y to th e [a p p e ll a n t]

.-4-

Te nn

. Cod e An n. § 4 0- 35 -1 03 (1 )( A- C) (2 00 3) ; se e als o Hooper
, 29 S.W .3d at 5. I n this case, the trial court imposed a

sentenc e of total c onfinement, c oncluding that t h e Appe llant was less than candid to the c ourt and that his primary source of income w as fr om the sale of dr ug s.

Th e pr oo f at the se nte nc ing he ari ng e sta bli sh e d tha t the Ap pe lla nt wa s twe nty -f ou r y e ars old and the f ather of two childre n. Although he testified at the se ntencing hearing that he had only been unemploy ed for the past nine months, the Appellant’s pre- sentenc e report r evea ls only seven months of employ ment since hig h school. He w as employ ed as a g rill cook at McDona ld’s for two months

a nda t We nd y ’s fo r f

ive mon ths

. Th e Ap pe lla nt ad mit te d to the pr e -s e nte nc e of fi c e r tha t he ha d s old drug s to support himself in the pa s t

. T he trial c ourt found that the Appe llant “was not c andid . . . about his employ ment” and inf err ed that he w as “sur viving pe ddling dr ug s.”

Wit h reg ard to prior

criminal history
, the pre -sentenc e re port shows numerous c onvictions for tra ffic of

fense s in addition to convictions for ag g ravated criminal trespass and thef t. The re port also indicates that mea sures less re strictive than conf inement have failed, as the Appellant ha s pr e vio us ly be e n g ra nte d pr ob a tio n fo r mis de me a no r c on vic tio ns on a t le a st s ix oc c a sio ns

. Additionally , eff

orts at reha

bilitation have failed a s the Appellant’s pr obation has pre viouslybeen revoke d. Also, three months af ter plea ding g uiltyto the offe nses i n t his case, the Appellant wa s
arr ested a g ain for posse ssion of coca ine on J uly 29, 2004. At the sentenc ing he aring , the Appellant admitted that he wa s in the possession of coca ine on this d at e; h o weve r, he state d that he wa s “stresse d” at the time.

Th e pr oo f at th e se ntenc in g he ari ng c le arl y re bu ts the pr e su mpt ionthat th e Ap pe lla nt i s a favor able c andidate f

or an a lternative se ntence

. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-102( b). I n view of the Appellan t ’s h i s t o ry

of criminal conduct and unlikelihood of re habilitation, sentence s of total confine ment are authorized. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-103(1) (A) a nd (C).

CO NC LU SION

Ba sed upon the for eg oing, w e af firm the Sullivan County Criminal Court’s imposit ion of an eff ective f our-y ear , six -month sentence of inca rce ration.

___________________________________ DAVI D G. HAY ES, J UDGE