### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A pr il 13, 200 4 S es sio n ST A TE OF TE N N ES SE E v . D A R R EL L S A N D ER LI N
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Hayw ood Coun ty No. 4900B Claybu rn L. Pe eples, Judge

No. W2003-01546-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled May 27, 2004

Th e Ap pe lla nt, Da

rr e ll Sand e rl in, app e a ls f

ro m th e se nte nc ing de c isi on of the Hay wood Coun ty Cir c uit Cou rt . Sa nd e rl in p le d g uil ty to o ne c ou nt o f c hil d a

bu se of his six-y ear-o ld son , a

c la ss D felony . Pursuant to a neg otiated plea a g ree ment, he wa s sentence d as a Rang e I , standard of fende r, with the leng th and manner of service to be determined by the trial court. F ollowing a sentenc ing hearing, the trial court imposed a sentenc e of four y ear s incarc eration. On appea l, Sanderlin arg ues that the trial court erre d by ordering a

sentenc e of total c onfinement rather than a less restric tive alternative. After

revie w, the sente ncing decision is aff irmed. Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed
D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R
. and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J .J ., joined.
David M. Livingston, Brownsville, Tennessee, (on appea l); and Da vid Camp, J ackson, Te nnessee , (at trial) , for the A ppellant, Dar rell Sander lin. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; Michael Moore , Solicitor Genera l; J . Ross Dy er, Assistant A ttorney Gene ral; Gar ry Br own, District Attorney Gene ral; and L arry

Har dister and Ela ine Todd, Assistant District Attorney s Gene ral, for the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION
F ac tu al B ac kgr ound
On Fe bruary

26, 2003, the Appellant, a Rang e I , standard offende r, pled g uiltyto one count of child abuse , with the leng th and manner of ser vice to be de termined by the trial court.
Th e pr e -s e nte nc e re po rt

c on ta ins the fo llo wi ng inf orma tio n w hic h w a s p re pa re d b y De pu ty Ki m Will ia ms w iththe Hay wo odCou nty She ri ff ’s De pa

rt me nt:-2- On Se p te mb e r

2 6 , 2 0 0 1 , I

r e c e iv e d in f

o r mati o n f

r o m L t. K e lv inE v a n s th at he had r ece ived a phone call from the g randmother of [t he victim] , stating that [ the vic tim ’s ] fathe r, Da

rr e ll Sa nd e rl in, ha d ph y sic a lly abu se d h im. Up on sp e akin g wi th the g randmother , I nvestig ator Melvin B onds, and my self went to the residenc e of Mr

. Sanderlin’s mother w ho lives on Dupree Street in Br ownsville, Tennessee. Mr. Dar rell Sanderlin met us at the back door, and afte r advising him we nee ded to see [t he victim] he told us t hat [the victim] was in Stanton. Mr. Sanderlin advised us he wo uldme e t us a t th e sherif f’ s d e pa rt me nt i n a

pp ro xima te ly

15 to 2 0 mi nu te s w ith [t he victim ]. Mr. S anderlin met us within about 10 minut es. . . . We then proc eede d in telling Mr. San d er l i n t hat we ne eded to spe ak to [the victim] alone. My self, I nv e sti g a tor

B on ds a nd Re na e Pul le n ( DC S) int e rv ie we d [th e vic tim ]. [Th e vic tim ] was ve ry nervous a nd would not speak a g ainst either his mother or fathe r. When we asked to see [t he victim’s] ba ck he advise d us that his dad had told him not to l et us look at him without his prese nce. A t this t ime we did pull [t he victim’s] shirt up and ob se rv e d n ume ro us inj urie s, wh ic h co ve re d his ba c k, le g s and arm s. Som e of the se injur i es we re s cabbe d over, and some wer e whe lps. At this t ime I spoke with Mr. Dar rell Sanderlin, who advised me that he h ad d i s ci p l i n ed his son as he ha d been dis c ipl ine d a s a

c hil d, a ndhe didno t th ink that th is w a s w ro ng . M r. Sand erl in d id not show any

remorse at all for the injuries that he had inf licted o n h i s s o n
. Mr. Sa nd e rl in d id n ot w ishto m ake a ny fu rthe r s ta te me nts a ndwa s cha rg e d w ith ag g ravated child abuse and tra nsported to the Hay wood County J ail.
L ater this same date Mrs. Pullen a nd my self spoke with [ the victim’s] m other Ang ela Sande rlin. Mrs. Sanderlin stated to us that her husband had wh i p p ed [the victim] with sw itches. She also advised he had whipped him be fore , and that she ha d asked him not to, but he had done so any way
. At the sentenc ing hearing, Renae Pul len, a case manag er w ith the Department of Children’s Se rv ic e s, te sti fi e d th a t th e vic tim tol d her th at he re c e ive d a sp a nking be c a us e he ha d g ott e n in trouble at sch ool. Mrs. Pull en’s notes r eg arding this case we re a lso admitted into evidence. H er notes ref lect that the Appellant also spanked the victim’s one- y ear -old sister “but that he only popped her le g s.” Moreove r, acc ording to Mrs. Pull en, Ang ela Sande rlin admitted that she too was “ abused” by the Appellant a nd had lef t him “more than onc e[.] ” Upon ex amination by the court, Mrs. Pull en testified that child abuse was a n incre asing problem in the county and “w e’ve g one fr om one to one a ndha lf wo rk e rs to t wo fu ll- tim e wo rk e rs in Hay wo od Cou nty .” Al on g wi th the te sti mon y of Ki m Wil liams and Renae Pullen, the State also introduced the victim’s medical re cords, whic h indicated that “[t] here is evidence of old and ne w injury sug g estive of r epeated abuse .”
Th e Ap pe lla nt c a lle d fou r wit ne sse s on his b e ha lf, B e rn ic e Tay lor , a c ou ns e lor

a t Pa thw a y s; L akis ha B arb e e , a so c ia l wor

ke r with the Carl Pe rkins Ce nte r; Ste ph a nie L ov e la c e , th e ho me c a se ma na g e r f

or the De pa rtme nt o f C hil dr e n’ s Se rv ic e s; andAr e tha Tay lor , th e vic tim ’s fo ste r p are nt. Ac c or din g to the se s wi tne sse s, the Ap pe lla nt wa s re mor se fu l fo r his c on du c t, the Ap pe lla nt andhis wife ha d been involved in pa renting counseling , and the Appe llant and the victim had a strong bond.-3-

Th e Ap pe lla nt a lso test if ied at the se nte nc ing he ari ng . H e te sti fi e d th a t he wa s g a inf ull y employ ed as a

brick mason a nd that he and his w ife had been marrie d for eig ht y ear s. The Appe llant stated, “I rea liz e that it was a littl e excessive and throug h pare nting a nd counseling I have le arne d a lot abo ut d if fe re nt m e tho ds to t ake a s f ar a s p un ish me nt and ho w to de a l with be ha vio ra l pr ob le ms in children.” The Appe llant expl ained that, while he was trying to spa nk the victim, he wa s “running and jumping a

round t he room[ ,]” which caused the Appellant “to mis s ang les and miss his buttocks.”
At the conc lusion of the hear ing, the trial court se ntence d the Appellant to a te rm of four y ear s in the Depa

rtment of Corre ction. This timelyappea l followed.

AN AL YSI S As his only

assig nment of er

ror, the A p p el lant asserts that his sentence “ should have be en p r o b a te d o r

[h e ] s h o u ld h a v e b e e n s e n te n c e d a lt e r n a ti v e ly to th e c o mmu n it y

c o rr e c ti o n p r o g r a m[

. ]” When the sentenc ing c ourt properly considers the rele vant sentenc ing c onsiderations, this court conducts a de novo revie w with the pre sumption t hat the dete rminations made by the t rial court are c or re c t. Te nn . Code An n. § 4 0- 35 -4 01 (d ) ( 20 03 ); State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991)

. Be cause the Appellant was convicted of a class D felony , he is entitled to the presumption that he is a fa vorable candidate for alternative sentenc ing. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-102(6) (2003). We note, howeve r, that “the d et er m i n at i on of whe ther the A ppellant is entitled to an alternative sentenc e and whether the Appellant is e ntitled to full probation are differ ent inquiries.” S t a t e v. Boggs , 932 S.W .2d 467, 477 (Tenn. Crim. App.) , perm. to appe al denied , (Tenn. 1996) . Where a defe ndant is entitled to the statutory presumption of alternative sentencing , the State has the bur den of overcoming the presumption of evide nce to the c ontrary

. State v. Bingham , 910 S.W .2d 448, 455 (Tenn. Crim. App.) , p e r

m . to a p p e a l d e nied , (Tenn. 1995) , overruled on othe r grounds , State v. Hooper , 29 S.W. 3d 1, 9 (T e nn
. 20 00 ). Con ve rs e ly , the de fe nd a nt ha s the bu rd e n of e sta bli sh ing his suitabilit y for f ull probation, even if t h e defenda nt is entitl ed to the statutory presumption of alternative sentenc ing. Id .; see Boggs , 932 S.W .2d at 477. When imposi ng a sente nce of total c onfinement, the trial court should base its decision on the fo llo wi ng c on sid e ra

tio ns : (A) Confine ment is nece ssary to protect socie ty

by restraining a

defe ndant who has a lon g his tory

of c ri min a l c on du c t; (B ) Confinement is nec essary to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offe nse 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 re strictive than conf inement have fre quently

or re cently

been applied unsucc essfully

to the defe ndant.-4-

Tenn. Co d e Ann. § 40- 35-103(1) (2003). Additionally , the potential or lac k of potential for reha bilitation of a d ef

en d an t should be consider ed in determining whe ther he or she should be g rante d an alternative sente nce. T enn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-103(5)

. I n c on c lud ing that to ta l c on fi ne me nt w a s a pp ro pria te , th e tr ia l c ou rt

fo un d th a t:
I also find that child abuse is an increa sing pr oblem in Hay wood County . I do not find this to be an excessive punis h m en t ca s e. I find this to be the case of a vicious crim i n al at tack, one that if it had occ urre d from a strang er w ould have enra g ed the c ommunityand for some rea son there a

re t hose who think that crimes ag ainst people y ou’re supposed to love should be treated diffe rently than those done ag ainst a strang er.
I don’t think that any

form of punishment other than conf

inem ent ca n be handed out in this case if we are to a void de prec iating the seriousness of this offense. I don’t think that less restric tive measure s have w orked w ith this Def endant a nd I

do feel t hat the appr opriate se ntence in this case is four y ear s in the State Penitentiary as a Standa

rd Off ender

. Whil e we do no t di sco unt th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s fi nd ing of a ne e d f or de te rr e nc e in the c ommun ity , th is fi nd ing , w e c on c lud e , is ov e rs ha do we d b y the fi nd ing that a

no n- incarcerative se nte nc e wo uld de pr e c ia te the se ri ou sn e ss o f the Ap pe lla nt’ s c on du c t by tr ivi a lizing t he se ve ri ty

of the c ri me committed.
The fa cts of this case clea rly establish that the Appellant’ s conduct wa s repr ehensible, offe nsive, and of an excessive deg ree
. State v. Hartley , 818 S.W .2d 370, 374-75 (Te nn. Crim. App. 19 91 ). As no te d b y

the tr ia l c ou rt , I fi ndthat e ve n th ou g h th e c ha rg e is c hil d a

bu se , a bo ve a ndbe y on d th a t, this ch ild wa s treate d with exceptional crue lty , both emotionally and phy sically

over w hat must have bee n a p ro l o n ged period of time beca use y ou couldn’t inflict that many injuries in a short period of time. The inj uries to this child I find wer e g reat. Even six day s a ft e r the fa c t ph oto g ra ph s sh ow br

uis e s, the y sh ow we lts , th e y sh ow sc ars , the y sh ow op e n wou nd s. Th os e wo un ds are a ll ove r his ba c k, the ba c k o f h is l e g s, the fr on t of

his le g s, the sid e s o f h is l e g s. I pe rs on a lly

on th e ex hi bi t the State prese nted counted ove r seve nty marks. The re w ere injuries on his leg s, on the front of his le g s, lit e ra lly

g oin g up to th e lin e of

his un de rw e ar at th e po int wh e re his underw ear

cover ed his g enitals. Ther e we re injuries on the back of his arms. All of thi s to a vic tim wh o wa s pa rt ic ula rl y vu lne ra

ble be c a us e of his a g e a nda lso be c a us e of the c ustodial parent/child re lationship that ex isted.
Se e als o S tate v . Ze oli a , 928 S.W .2d 457, 461 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (permitti ng use of e nhancing and mitigating f

actor s as re levant to sec tion 40-35-103(1) c onsiderations). More over, the victim’sT h e pr e- s en t en ce r epor t s h al l be c on s i der ed for s en t en ci n g pu r pos es by t h e cou r t

. T en n
. Code An n
. § 40- 35- 1 2 1 0 (b )( 2 ). -5- medical r ecor ds indicated sig ns of prior a buse. The A ppellant’s explanati on at the sente ncing hearing that he only intended to strike the victim on his buttocks but missed bec ause “ he wa s doing a lot of running and jumping a round the room” was implausible g iven the extent and seve rity of the wo un ds

. Th e Ap pe lla nt sti ll faile d to c omp re he ndthe se ve ri ty of his a c tio ns , a s h e c ha

ra c te ri zedhis discipline of his son as “a littl e excessive.”
Furthermore , measure s less restrictive tha n confine ment have f requen tly or re cently

been applied un s u cc es s fu l ly

to the Appellant. F ollowing a single criminal episode, the Appellant wa s convicted of

five c ounts of burg lary , one count of burg lary other than a

habitation, two counts of theft of pr operty

betwee n $500 and $1,000, and two c ounts of theft of pr opertyunder $500. F or these off enses he was plac ed on co m m u n i t y corr ections and pr obation. I ndeed, the pre- sentenc e re po rt re fl e c ts that:

1
De fe nd a nt w a s p la c e d on Com mun ity Cor re c tio ns ou t of

L a ud e rd a le Cou nty Circuit Court on J une 19, 1999 for a period of two y ear s. He rece ived a c onviction in Dy er Circ uit Court and w as place d on Communi ty Correc tions for a pe riod of one y e ar t o r un c on c ur

re nt w iththe L a ud e rd a le Con vic tions . H e c omp le te d a ll requ ir eme nts of

his be ha vio r c on tr a c t onF e br ua ry 1, 20 00 a ndwa s tr a ns fe rr e d to s u p e r v is e d p r o b a ti o n
. H e w a s d is c h ar g e d f r o m p r o b a ti o n o n M a y

2 4 , 2 0 0 1 [. ] Upon de novo re vie w, we a g re e wi th the tr ia l c ou rt ’s de te rm inatio n th a t c on fi ne me nt i s nece ssary to avoid depre ciating the seriousne ss of the offe nse and that mea sures less re strictive than confine ment have f

reque ntly or rec ently

been a pplied unsucce ssfully

to the defe ndant. The r ecor d amply supports the trial court’s decision in deny i n g al l forms of a lternative se ntencing , including pr ob a tio n. Th is i ssu e is w ith ou t me ri t.
CO NC LU SION
F or the abo ve state d r e a so ns , w e a ff ir m th e se nte nc ing de c isi on of theHay wo odCou nty Circuit Court, ordering the Appellant t o s er v e his four- y ear sentenc e in the De partment of Correc tion.

_ _ _____________________________________ DAVID G. HAY ES, J UDGE