### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A ugus t 18 , 200 4
STATE OF TENNESS EE v . JI MMY RAY DOCKERY
Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Sulli van Coun ty No. S45,847 P hylli s H. Miller, Judge

No. E2004-00696-CC A-R3- CD - F iled Novem ber 30, 2004

The de fenda nt, J immyRay Docke ry , appea ls the Sulli van County Criminal Court’s decision to deny probation on his two-y ear sentenc e for

attempt to fraudulently obtain a controlled substance. B ased
on ou r r e vie w o f the re c or d, we a ff ir m th e jud g me nt.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt of t he Cr im ina l C our t i s A ffirm 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 D AVI D G. H AYES and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J ., joined.

J o h n D

. P ark e r , J r
. , K i n g s p o r t , T e n n e s s e e , f o r t h e A p p e l l a n t , J i m m y R a y D o c k e r y.
Paul G. Summers, A ttorney Gene ral & Reporter ; K athy D. Asligne r, Assistant A ttorney Gene ral; H. Gre eley We l l s , J r. , District Attorney Gene ral; and B arry

P. St aubus and Car ey

Tay lor, Assistant District Attorney s Gene ral, for the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

The de fenda nt pleaded g uiltyto an attempt to fraudulently obtain a contr olled substance , a Class D fe lony

. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 53- 11-402(a )(3) , (b)( 1) (Supp. 2003). B ased upon the a lle g a tio ns se t f

orth i n th e ind ic tme nt, the of fe ns e e ma na ted fro m th e de fe nd a nt’ s a tte mpt to obtain L ortab via the use of a bog us presc ription. The defe ndant ag ree d to a $2,000 fine a nd a twoy ear sentenc e. The defe ndan t an d the state a g ree d to submit the determination of the manner of service of the sente nce to the trial court. Following a sente ncing hearing, the trial court or dere d the sentenc e to be se rved in the D epartment of Correc tion. On appea l, the defe ndant claims that the trial
c ou rt e rr e d in fa ili ng to g ra nt p ro ba tio n. We d isa g re e a nda ff ir m th e jud g me nt.
Whe n th e re is a c ha lle ng e to the ma nn e r o f s e rv ic e of a se nte nc e , it

is the du ty

of thi s court to conduc t a de novo revie w of the re cord w ith a presumption that the determinations made by the trial court are corr ect. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 401(d) ( 2003 ). This presumption is “conditioned upon t h e affirmative showing in the rec ord that the trial c ourt consider ed the se ntencing-2-

principles and a ll releva nt fac ts an d ci rcumstances.” State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991). “The burden of

showing that the sentenc e is imp ro p er i s u pon the appe llant.” Id. I n the event the r ecor d fails to demonstrate the require d considerat i o n b y t h e trial court, r eview of the
s e n t e n c e i s p u r e l y de novo
. Id. I f a pp e llate re vie w, ho we ve r, re fl e c ts tha t th e tr ia l c ou rt pr op e rl y c on sid e re d a ll r e le va nt f

a c tor s a ndits fi nd ing s of f a c t are a de qu a te ly

su pp orte d b y

the re c or d, thi s 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 ld h a v e p r e f e rr e d a d if

f e r e n t r e sult.” S t a te v. Fletche r , 805 S.W .2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991)

.

The mechanics of arriving a t an appr opriate se ntence are spelled out in the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989. I n the pre sent ca se, the trial c ourt ac cepte d the ra ng e cla ssification and le n gt h o f sentenc e neg otiated by the parties, and the c ourt mere ly determined the manner

of service of the two-y ear sentenc e. I n making this determination, the court is required to c onsider (1) the evidenc e, if a ny , rec eived a t the trial and the sentenc ing hearing, (2) the pr esente nce r eport, (3) the principles of

sentenc ing a nd arg uments as to sentenc ing a lternativ es, (4) the nature and char acte ristics of the criminal conduct involved, (5) e vidence and information offe red by the parties on the enha nceme nt and mitigating fac tors, (6) any statements the def

endant wishe s to make in the defe ndant’s beha lf about sentenc ing, a nd (7) the pote ntial for re habilitation or treatment. T e n n . Code Ann. §§ 40-35-210( a), ( b); -35-103( 5) (2003)

.

Th e de fe nd a nt is a

sta nd ardof

fe nd e r c on vic te d o f a

Cla ss D fe lon y . A s su c h, he is presumed to be a favor able candidate for alternative sentenc ing options in the abse nce of evidenc e to the contra

ry
. See id

. § 40 -3 5- 10 2( 6) (2 00 3)

. Ho we ve r, thi s pr e su mpt ion do e s no t ent it le a ll offe nders to an a lternative se ntence ; rather , it requires tha t sentencing issues be dete rmined by the fac ts and circ umstances pr esente d in eac h case

. See State v . Taylor , 744 S

. W

. 2 d 9 1 9, 922 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). The pr esumpti o n o f fa vorable candida cy for a lternative se ntencing may be rebutted, f

or instance , by

a showing that confine ment may be n ec es s ar yto “protec t society by restra ining a

defe ndant who has a long history of criminal conduct” or t hat “mea sures less re strictive than conf inement have fre quently

or re cently

been a pplied unsucces sfully

to the defe ndant.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-103(1) (A), ( C) (2003).

I n th e pr e se nt case, th e defe nd ant c la ims that he sh ou ld h a ve be e n g ra nte d fu ll probation. To be sure , he wa s elig ible for pr obation. Se e id . § 40-35-306( 2) (2003) . Howeve r, the determination of entit l em ent to full probation nec essarily require s a sepa

rate inquiry

from that of determining whe ther a

defe ndant is entitled to a less bene fice nt alterna tive sentenc e. S ee S tate v. Bingham , 910 S.W .2d 448, 455 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) , overruled o n o t h er grounds by State v. Hooper , 2 9 S

. W

. 3 d 1 ( T e n n
. 2 0 0 0 )

. A d e f e n d a n t i s r e q u i r e d t o e s t ab l i s h h i s “ s u i t ab i l i t y fo r f ull probation as dist inguishe d from his favor able c andidac y for a lternative se ntencing in ge nera l.” Sta te v. Mounge r , 7 S.W. 3d70 , 7 8 (Tenn . Crim. Ap p. 19 99 ); see Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-303(b) (2 00 3) ; Bingham , 910 S.W .2d at 455-56. A de fendant seeking full probation bea rs the burde n of showing that probation will “subserve the ends of j ustice and the best interest of both the public and the def endant.” State v. Dy kes , 803 S.W .2d 250, 259 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990), overruled on othe r grounds by State v. Hoope r , 29 S.W .3d 1 (Tenn. 2000)

.-3- I n the present case , we are hampere d in conducting our pre scribed de novo revie w of the sentenc ing de termination bec ause the defe ndant fa iled to include i n the appe llate re cord the transcript of the plea submission hearing. See, e .g., State v. Linda Gail Philpot , No. M2000-01999- C C A

- R 3

- C D , s l i p o p
. a t2 n
. 2 ( T e n n
. C r i m
. A p p
. , N a s h v i l l e , M a y 2 , 2 00 1) ; S t a te v. Gibson , 973 S.W. 2d23 1, 24 4 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 97 ); State v. Miller , 737 S.W .2d 556, 558 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). T h i s t ra nscript would have been instruc tive beca use during the plea c olloquy the court rec eives a statement of the fac ts supporting the pr oposed convic tion. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 11(f). A statement of f

acts re ndere d pursuant to Rule 11(f) would be helpf ul in understanding the nature and ci rc umstances of

the offe nse, and a s noted above , information about the na ture a nd circ u m s tance s of the off

ense is ty pically essential in adjudicating a manner -of- service sentenc ing issue. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40- 35-210(b) (4); -35- 103(1)( B) (2003). Thus, in the absence of a full and fa ir rec ord re vealing the base s for the appea l, we must presume the corr ectne ss of the trial court’s de termination. State v. Iv y , 868 S.W .2d 724, 728 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) . The rule is apt here , wher e no testimony was pre sented a t t he sente ncing hearing. T he state r elied upon a pr e se nte nc e re po rt , b ut the tr ia l j u d g e a p p a r e ntl y a lso re lie d u po n p e rs on a l, h ist or ic a l e xpe ri e nc e wi th t h e c as e. W e s u rm i s e t h at s o m e o f t h at ex p er i en ce wa s gai n ed d u ri n g t h e p l eas u b m i s s i o n h ea ri n g, the transc ript of which we do not have.

That said, we obs er v e t h at the trial court duly ref err ed to, and r elied upon, the sentenc ing principles and g uidelines. As such, the de fendan t ’s appea l is also hampere d by the statutory presumption of corr ectne ss of the sentenc ing de termination. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35- 401(d) ( 2003). The de nial of probation was, in part, base d upon the d efendant’s prior criminal
rec ord and a

previous re vocation of his probation on a felony conviction. The defenda nt rec eived 1997 convictions of possession of a firea rm by an intox icated pe rson, publ i c i n t o x i cation, three
c ou nts of the ft , a ndfi ve c ou nts of

a tte mpt to c omm it the ft . Si g nificant ly , th e de fe nd a nt w a s a lso convicted in 1997 of

an attempt to fra

udulently obtain a contr oll ed s u b s tance , the same ty pe of offe nse that is the basis of the sentenc e now under revie w. I n that 1997 conviction, the def endant
rec eived a probate d two-y ear

sentenc e. The resulting five-y ear probation wa s revoke d on November 11, 2002, based upon the 2001 filing of drug ch arge s and fa ilure to notify the proba tion officer

of the de fe nd a nt’ s c ha ng e of a dd re ss. Although the defe ndant enjoy ed the pr esumption of favor able c an didacy for alternative sentenc ing, the rec ord reve als two solid ba ses for overc oming the presumption: (1) that confine ment is nece ssary

to restra in a defe ndant who has a long history of criminal conduc t and (2) that measure s less restricti ve than c onfinement ha ve re cently been a pplied unsucce ssfully

to the defe ndant. See Te nn
. Cod e An n. § 40 -3 5- 10 3( 1) (A ), (B ) (2 00 3)

. Th us , ba se d on the re c or d that is befor e us, we fail to se e any basis that overc omes the statutory presumption of the c orre ctness of the denial of a n alternative sentenc e.

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