### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ja nua ry 25, 200 5

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . STEVE B RIAN HANNAH

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Blou nt County Nos. C-14637, 14638, 14639 D. K elly Thomas, Jr ., Judge

No. E2004-00583-CC A-R3- CD - F iled May 16, 2005

The a ppellant, Steve Brian Hannah, pled g uilty in the Blount County Circuit Court to one count of theft of pr operty

over $10,000, thre e count s o f t h ef t o f prope rty

over $1,000, a nd one count of possession of marijuana

with intent to resell. Pursuant to the plea a g ree ment, the appe llant rec eived an ef fec tive five-y ear

sentenc e with the manne r of se rvice to be determined by the trial court. Af ter a sente ncing hearing, the trial court or dere d the appe llant to serve one y ear in confineme nt and the

rema inder of his sentenc e on community corr ections. On a

ppeal, the a

ppellant claims the trial c ourt

e rr e d b y re fu sin g to g ra nt his re qu e st fo r fu ll pr ob a tio n. Up on re vie w o f the re c or d a ndthe pa rt ie s’ br ie fs , we a ff

ir m the jud g me nts of the tr ia l cou rt bu t r e ma ndfo r e ntry

of c or re c te d ju dg me nts a s to the thefts.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt s o f the Ci r c uit Co ur t a r e Affir m e d and Re m ande d.

N O R MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J ., joined.

Ste ve Mc Ew e n ( on app e a l) , Mou nta in City , Te nn e sse e , andMa c k G arn e r ( a t tr ia l) , D ist ri c t Pu bli c Def ender , Mary ville, Tennesse e, for the appe llant, Steve Brian Hanna h.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; a ndJohn H. B le ds oe , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Michae l L . Fly nn, District Attorney Gene ral; and Robert C. S aw y er , Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

I. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound

On Janu ary

12 , 2 00 4, the app e lla nt ple d g uil ty to the ft of pr op e rt y ov e r $1 0, 00 0; thr e e c ou nts of the ft of pr op e rt y ov e r $ 1, 00 0; a ndon e c ou nt o f p os se ssi on of mar ijua na wi th i nte nt t o r e se ll. Pursuant to the plea a gre em en t , the appe llant rec eived a n eff ective f ive-y ear sentenc e with theT he ap p ell an t st i p ulated t ha t t he S t ate’s ev i d en ce wo uld estab l i sh the facts s et o ut i n the ind i ctm en t s. 1

-2- ma nn e r o f s e rv ic e to b e de te rm ine d by the tr ia l cou rt

. Th e state did no t pr e se nt a ny fa c ts at th e g uil ty plea he aring

. Howeve r, acc ording to the appellant’ s prese ntence repor t, on April 26, 2002, a police 1 office r saw a

black pickup truck driven by the appellant veer from the r ight lane to the left lane on Alcoa H ighw ay . The off icer stopped the appe llant and arr ested him f or driving without a license. Whil e sea

rching the ap p el lant’s truck, the office r found a plastic bag containing marijuana

. Acc ording to the appella nt’s indictments for theft, in Aug ust 2002, he stole a motor vehic le and a tow dolly from U- Haul and thr ee motor ve hicles fr om individuals.

At the sentenc ing he aring , the then twenty -five- y ear -old appe llant testified that he wa s separ ated f

rom his wife a nd lived with his girlfriend and their y oung child. T he appe llant was working in construction and had alway s held a job. When the appellant wa s fourtee n y ear s old, he was diag nosed as bipolar and manic de pressive. Al t h o u gh medication had be en pre scribed, he stopped taking the medica tion because of its side eff ects. The appellant testified that his mother died when he was in the e leventh gra de and that he dropped out of school in order to g et a job and support his br oth e r an d sist e r. At

the tim e of

the se nte nc ing he ari ng , th e app e lla nt w a s se e ing a ps y c hiatr ist

a t Pe nin su la

Ho sp ita l a ndwa s b e ing tr e a te d f or a nxie ty a tta c ks a nda ng e r p ro ble ms.

The a ppellant testified that he w as g uiltyof most of the cha rg es ag ainst him but denied stealing any

property . He maintaine d that his friend Da vid Mahan stole the prope rty and that Maha n asked the appellant if he knew any one who wanted to buy the stolen items. The appe llant introduced his father to Mahan in Mar ch 2002, and his father boug h t s o m e o f t h e stolen prope rty . The appellant’ s fathe r l ived i n Missouri, and the appellant wa s in the proce ss of transporting three fourwhee lers, a dirt bike, and a w elder to his father wh en he wa s stopped by the Missouri police for “suspicious ac tivity .” He stated that he was driving a U-Haul, t hat he knew the items in the U-Ha ul

wer e s to le n , a n d th a t h e g a v e th e M is s o u r i p o li c e h is b r o th e r ’ s n a me b e c a u s e h e d id not have a driver’ s license. The appellant pled g uiltyto forg ery in Missouri and returne d to Tennesse e to fa ce the ft c ha rg e s.

The a ppell an t testified that he no long er ha d contac t with his father or Mahan and tha t he would testify

ag ainst Mahan if Mahan wer e char g ed with a c rime. He rela ted that he ha d smoked

mari jua na sin c e he wa s a

te e na g e r a ndthat he wa s u sin g mari jua na da ily a t th e tim e of

the the ft s. He sa id that he had stopped using the drug beca use of his c hildren, that he had not use d marijuana in at le a st e ig ht m on ths , a nd that he co uld pa ss a d ru g te st. He a lso tol d th e tr ia l c ou rt that he c ou ld stay out of trouble, that he would not c ommit any more thefts, and that he was sorry for what he had done. On c ross-examination, the appellant testified that he had tried other dr ug s such as e cstac y

and

c oc a ine bu t th a t he didno t drink a lc oh ol.

Acc ording to the appellant’ s prese ntence report, the appellant ha s five childre n and has ne ver obtained his GED. The report shows that the appellant wa s working full time for Moss Br others Construction Company

and part time for DC Plumbi ng . The re port reve als that the appe llant has-3-

three prior convic tions for forg ery in Missouri and prior convictions for thef t of property

less than $500, possession of drug para pherna lia, driving without a license, a nd a tra ffic of fense

.

I n deny ing the appellant’ s reque st for full probation and ordering split confine ment, the trial

c ou rt state d th a t it

ha d c on sid e re d th e app e lla nt’ s te sti mon y , h is p re se nte nc e re po rt , an d a vic tim impact statement. It noted t hat t he appellant had a long history of criminal activity , including illeg al dr ug us e . A lth ou g h th e tr ia l c ou rt no te d th a t th e app e lla nt w a s e mpl oy e d a ndwa s ma kin g so me eff ort to support his children, it held t hat a lack of c onfinement would de prec iate the se riousness of the offe nses.

II. Ana lys is

The a ppellant contends tha t the trial court er re d by deny ing his re quest for f ull probation. He arg ue s th a t he sh ou ld h a ve re c e ive d f ull pr ob a tio n b e c a us e he ha s ma int a ine d s te a d y e mpl oy me nt, quit school in orde r to support his brother and sister, and suff ers f rom bipolar disorder

and manicdepre s s iv e il ln e s s

. I n a d d it io n , h e c la im s th a t th e tria l c o u r t f a il e d to c o n s id e r e n h a n c e me n t and mitigating fac tors and that the following mitigating fac tors support his request for full probation: (1) that h i s “criminal conduct neither cause d nor threatened se rious bodily injury ”; (2) tha t he g ave information to the police a bout the thefts; and (3) that he expressed r emorse f or the cri m es. S ee Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113( 1), (10), (13). The State arg ues that the trial court properly sentenc ed the appe llant. We ag ree with the State.

Appellate r eview of

t h e l en gt h
, rang e, or ma nner of service of a se ntence is de novo. See Tenn. C o d e An n

. § 40-35-401( d). I n conducting its de novo review , this court considers the following fac tors: (1) the e vidence , if any , rec ei v ed at the tr ial and the se ntencing hearing; ( 2) the
prese ntence report; (3) the princ iples of sentenc ing a nd arg uments as to sentenc ing a lternatives; (4) the nature and cha

rac teristics of the criminal conduct involved; (5) evidenc e and inf ormation offe red by the pa rt ie s o n e nh a nc e me nt a ndmit ig a tin g fa c tor s; ( 6) a ny state me nt by the a

pp e lla nts in the ir own beha lf; and (7) the potential for reha bilitation or trea tment. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-102, -103, -210; see also Stat e v

. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 168 (Tenn. 1991) . The burde n is on the appellant to demonstra te the impropriety of his sent en ce s . See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 401, Se nte nc ing Com mis sio n Co mme nts . M or e ov e r, if the re c or d r e ve a ls tha t th e tr ia l cou rt a de qu a te ly considere d sentenc ing principles and all rele vant fa cts and c ircumstance s, this court will accor d the trial court’ s determinations a pr esumption of corr ectne ss. I d. at (d); Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169.

An appe llant is eligible for alt ernative sentenc ing if

the sentenc e ac tually

imposed is eight
y e ars or le ss. Se e Te nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 35 -3 03 (a ). Mo re ov e r, a n a pp e ll ant w ho is a n e sp e c ia lly mit ig a te d o r s ta nd a

rdof fe nd e r co nv ic te d of a Cla ss C, D , o r E fe lon y is p re su me d to be a

fa vo ra ble candida te for alterna tive sentenc ing. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-102(6) . I n the instant case , the appellant is a Rang e I , standard of fende r convic ted of a

Class C felony

(theft of property over $10,000), three Class D felonies (the ft of prope rty over $1,000) ; and a Class E felony (possession of marijuana ). Ther efor e, he is pre sumed to be a f avora ble ca ndidate for

alternative sentenc ing. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39- 13-102(a )(2) and (d) (1), -213(a )(1) and (b). How ever , this presumption may-4-

be re butted by “‘e vidence to the contra ry .’” State v. Z eolia, 928 S.W.2d 457, 461 (Tenn. Crim. App. 19 96 ) ( qu oti ng Te nn . Co de A n n

. § 4 0

- 3 5

- 1 0 2 ( 6 ) )

. T he fo llo wi ng se nte nc ing c on sid e ratio ns , s e t f orth in Tennesse e Code Annota ted sec tion 40-35-103(1), ma y constitute “evide nce to the c ontrary ”:

(A ) C o n fi n em en ti s n ec es s ar y t o p ro t ec ts o ci et y

b y re s t ra i n i n g a de fe nd a nt w ho ha s a

lon g his tory

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

(B ) Confinement is nec essary to avoid depre ciating the seriousne ss of the o ff ense or confine ment is particular ly suited to provide an eff ective de terre nce to other s likely to commit si milar offe nses; or

( C) M e a s u r e s le s s r e s tric ti v e th a n c o n f in e me n t h a v e f

r e q u ently or

re c e ntl y be e n a pp lie d u ns uc c e ssf

ull y to the de fe nd a nt.

Z eolia, 928 S.W.2d at 461.

We c on c lud e that th e tr ia l c ou rt didno t e rr

by re qu ir in g t he appel la nt t o s e rv e on e y e ar i n confine ment. The a

ppellant has a

signific ant history

of illeg al drug use and ha s many prior mis de me a no r c on vic tio ns . Se e Te nn . Co de An n. § 40- 35 -1 03 (1 )( A)

. We d o n ot a g re e that th e fa c ts of thi s ca se wa

rr a nte d a fin din g that con fi ne me nt wa s n e e de d to a vo id d e pr e c ia tin g the se ri ou sn e ss of the off ens es. S ee Z e oli a , 9 28 S.W. 2da t 46 2 ( statin g that in de ny ing fu ll p ro ba tio n to a vo id d ep re ci at i n g t h e s er i o u s n es s o f t h e of fe n s e, t h e cr i m i n al ac t s h o u l d b e es p ec i al l y v i o l en t , h o rr i fy i n g, shocking , repr ehensible, offensive, or otherwise of

an excessive or

exagg erated deg ree ). Nevert h eless, based upon our de novo r eview, w e conc lude that the appe llant’s seven prior convictions and illeg al drug use justified the trial court’s denial of f ull probation.

Finding no reve rsible er

ror, we aff

irm the judg ments of t he trial court. However , we r emand the ca se for

entry of cor rec ted judg ments as to the theft c onvi ctions to refle ct that upon the appellant’ s serving his se ntence s in c onfinement, he is to serve the rema inder of his se nten ce s on community

corr ections, not probation.

___________________________________ NORMA McGEE OGLE, J UDGE