### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs a t K noxv ill e Ja nuary 24, 200 6

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. JAM ES H. CA RTE R

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Gr und y County

No. 4020 J. Curtis Sm ith, Jud ge

No. M2005- 01162-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Fe bruary 8, 2006

Th e de fe nd a nt, Jame s H. Cart e r, ple d g uil ty to t wo c ou nts of

bu rg lary , Cl a ss D fe lon ie s; t wo c ou nts of va nd a lis m ov e r $1, 00 0 but le ss tha n $10 ,0 00 ,Cl a ss D fe lon ie s; an d one c ou nt o f r e sis tin g arr e st
a C l a s s B m i s d e m e a n o r

. T h e tr i a l c o u r t i m p o s e d R a n g e I s e n t e n c e s o f f o u r ye ar s f o r e a c h b u r g l ar y,
w h i c h w e r e t o b e s e r v e d c o n s e c u t i v e l y, a n d f o u r ye ar s f

o r e a c h v a n d a l i s m , t o b e s e r v e d c o n c u rr e n t l y. The six-mont h sentenc e for resisting arr est was a lso ordere d to be serve d concur rently . The e ffe ctive sentenc e is, there fore , eig ht y ear s. I n this appeal, the de fendant a sserts that the trial court err ed by

or de ri ng his se nte nc e s f

or the tw o b ur g lary

c on vic tio ns to b e se rv e d c on se c uti ve ly . T he jud g me nts of the trial c ourt are aff

irmed.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nts of the Trial Court Affi rm ed

G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OS EP H M. T I P TO N and J AM ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J J ., joined.
Robert G. Morg an, Jasper, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, J ames H. Carter.

Paul G . Su mme rs , Attorne y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; Jenn if e r L . B le ds oe , A ssi stant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; and Da vid O. McGove rn, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for the appellee
, State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION
On April 8, 2005, the de fendant enter ed pleas of guilty to two counts of burg lary and to two

c ou nts of va nd a lis m ov e r $ 1, 00 0, a ll Cl a ss D fe lon ie s, a ndto on e c ou nt of re sis tin g arr e st, a

Cla ss B misdemeanor. The trial court imposed the maxim um sentence s allowed for eac h conviction: four y ear s for e ach Class D felony and six months for the Class B misdemeanor. T he trial c ourt order ed the def e n d a n t t o s e r v e h is s e n te n c e s f o r th e b u r g la

r y c o n v ic ti o n s c o n s e c u ti v e ly a n d th e r e ma inder

o f h i s s e n t e n c e s c o n c u rr e n t l y.

On June 1, 20 04
, the de fe nd a nt br ok e int o a re staur a nt a nd a ph arm a c y , c a us ing da ma g e to
eac h property in e x cess of $1,000. When c onfronted by the Trac y City Police, the defe ndant re fused-2-

to c oo pe rate . At the se nte nc ing he ari ng , the de fe nd a nt expl a ine d tha t on the nig ht of the of fe ns e s, he had be en taking presc ription me dication for anxiety attacks, which rea cted with the alcohol he ha d consumed, c ausing "a

pretty m es s ed up st ate." He c laimed that he we nt to a bar and reme mbere d

no thi ng un til he fo un d h ims e lf in a pip e . T he de fe nd a nt co nte nd e d tha t whe n he a tte mpt e d to c limb out of the pipe, he broke f ree , landed in a r estaurant, and was trying to e scape when a police off

icer

arrived. He insisted that he actua lly complied wit h the orders of t he officer but the office r spra y ed h i mw i t h p e p p e r

s p r a y a n yw a y.

The trial c ourt found that bec ause the d ef endant ha d a leng thy

criminal history , maxi mum sentenc es for

eac h of hi s convictions wer e appr opriate. See Tenn. Code Ann. 40- 35-114(2) (2003). Be cause of his extensive recor d of criminal activity , the def endant wa s order ed to serve the two burg lary convictions co n secutively . I n this appeal, the de fendant arg ues that all of the se ntence s
s h o u l d b e s e r v e d c o n c u rr e n t l y.

When there is a c halleng e to the leng th, rang e, or manner of service of a se ntence , it is t he duty of this court to conduct a de novo re view with a pr esumption that the determinations made by the tr ia l c ou rt

are c or re c t. T e nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 35 -4 01 (d ) ( 20 03 ). Th is pres um pti on is “conditioned upon the a ffirmative sho wing in the rec ord that the trial c ourt consider ed the se ntencing principles and all rele vant fac ts a nd circ umstances.” State v. Ashby
, 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 19 91 ); se e State v. Jone s, 88 3 S.W. 2d 59 7, 60 0 ( Te nn . 1 99 4) . “ I f the tr ia l c ou rt app lie s in app ro pria te fac tors or otherwise fails to follow the 1989 Sentenc ing A ct, the pre sumption of corre ctness fa lls.” State v. Shelton, 854 S.W .2d 116, 1 2 3 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992) . The Sentenc ing Commission Comments provide that the burden is on the defe ndant to show the impropriety o f t h e s en t ence. Te nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 35 -4 01 (2 00 3) , Se nte nc ing Com mis sio n Co mme nts

.
Our re view re quires an analy sis of (1) the evidenc e, if any , rec eived at the trial and sente ncing hearing; ( 2) the pre sentenc e re port; (3) the princi p l es o f s en tencing and the a rg uments of counse l relative to se ntencing alternatives; ( 4) the nature and char acte ristics of the off ense; (5) any

mitigating or enhancing fac tors; (6) any statements made by

the def endant in his own beha lf; and (7) the defe ndant' s p o t en t i al for r ehabilitation or treatment. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40- 35-102, -103, - 210 (2003); State v. Smith, 735 S .W.2d 859, 863 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987).

Prior to the enac tment of the Criminal Sentencing R ef o rm Ac t of 1989, the limited classifications for the imposition of consecutive se ntence s were set out in Gra y v. State, 538 S.W .2d 39 1, 39 3 ( Te nn . 1 97 6)

. I n tha t ca se , our su pr e me c ou rt ru le d th a t a g g ra vatin g c ir c ums ta nc e s mu st be pre sent befor e place ment in any one of the classifications. L ater , in State v. Tay lor, 739 S.W .2d 227 (Tenn. 1987), our hi g h court e stablished an additional categ ory for those de fendants convicted of t wo or more statutory offe nses involving se x ual abuse of minors. Ther e we re, how ever , additional words of c aution:

[C]ons e c uti ve se nte nc e s sh ou ld n ot r ou tin e ly be imp os e d .

. . a nd

. . . the a g g re g a te maxi mum of consec utive terms must be reasonably related to the seve rity

of the offe nses involved.T he f i rs t fo ur cr i t eri a are fo und in G ray

. A fi f t h c at ego ry in G ray , ba sed o n a s p eci f i c num b er of

pri o r f el o ny 1

con v i ct i on s , ma y e n h an ce t h e s en t en ce r an g e bu t i s n o l on g er a l i s t ed cr i t er i on

. Se e T en n

. Code An n

. § 40- 35

- 1 1 5, S en t en cing C o m m i ssi o n C o m m en t s.
-3- Tay lor, 739 S.W .2d at 230. The Sentenc ing Commission Com ments adopted the c autionary lang uag e. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 115 (2005), Sentenc ing Comm ission Comments. The 1989 Ac t is, in essence , the codific ation of the holding s in Gray and Ta y lor; consec u t i v e s entences may be imposed in the discretion of the trial court only u p o n a determination that one or more of the fo llo wi ng c ri te ri a e xist: 1

(1) The defe ndant is a prof es s i o n al criminal who has knowing ly devoted suc h defe ndant' s life to criminal ac ts as a major sour ce of livelihood; (2) The defe ndant is an off ender whose re cord of

criminal ac tivityis ex tensive; ( 3 ) T h e d e f

e n d a n ti s a

d a n g e r o u s m e n t a l l y ab n o r m a l p e r s o n s o d e c l ar e d b y a
c ompete nt p sy c hiatr ist

wh o c on c lud e s a s a

re su lt o f an in ve sti g a tio n p ri or to sentenc ing that the defe ndant' s criminal conduc t has bee n char acte rized by a pattern of re pe tit ive or

c omp uls ive be ha vio r w ith he e dle ss i nd if fe re nc e to c on se qu e nc e s; (4) The defe ndant is a dang er o u s o ff en der w hose beha vior indicates little or no

re g ard fo r hum a n lif

e , an d no he sit a tio n ab ou t com mit tin g a c ri me in wh ic h th e ri sk to human life is high; (5) The defe ndant i s convicted of two (2) or more statutory

offe nses involving se x ual abuse of a minor with consider ation o f t he ag g ravating c ircumstance s arising from the re lationship between the defe ndant and victim or v i ct i m s , the time span of defe ndant' s undetec ted sexual a ctivity
, the nature and scope of the sexual acts a nd the

e xten t of the re sid ua l, p hy sic a l a ndme nta l dama g e to the vic tim or vic tim s; (6) The defe ndant is sentence d for a n offe nse committed while on probation; or (7 ) T he de fe nd a nt i s se nte nc e d f or c ri min a l c on te mpt

. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-115(b) (2003).
The leng th of the sentenc e, whe n consec utive in nature, must be “ justlydeserved in re lation to the seriousness o f t h e off ense,” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-102(1) , and “no g reater than that deserved” unde r the c ircumstance s, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103( 2); State v. L ane, 3 S.W.3d 456, 460 (Tenn. 1999)

.
Th e tr ia l c ou rt

or de re d c on se c uti ve se nte nc e s o n th e fo llo wi ng g ro un ds :
[F]rom t he statute . . . on discr etionary consec utive sentenc ing, o n e [ fi nding] that allows the [c]ourt to orde r consec utive sentenc ing is that the defe ndant is an off ender whose re cord of criminal activity is extensive. I find that [t he defenda nt's] rec ord of criminal ac tivityis ex tensive.-4-

The re cord c onfirms that the forty -eig ht-y ear -old defe ndant had been previously convicted of theft of a ve hicle, two counts of burglary , driving under the influence
, robbery , ag g ravated robbe ry , and

c on sp ir a c y

to s e ll c oc a ine . H is p re -s e nte nc e re po rt a lso ind ic a te s th a t he vio la te d th e te rm s o f p aro le on a pre vious sentenc e and failed to comply with the t erms of probation for prior st ate and fede ral

se nte nc e s. Un de r the se c ir c ums ta nc e s, the tr ia l c ou rt did no t e rr by or de ri ng c on se c uti ve se nte nc e s.

Acc ording ly , the judg ments of the trial c ourt areaff irmed.

___________________________________ GARY R. WADE, PRES I DING JUDGE