IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs January 21, 2016

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHARLES L. HARTLEY

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Sullivan County

No. S63043 R. Jerry Beck, Judge

No. E2015-01493-CCA-R3-CD – Filed April 20, 2016

_____________________________

Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant, Charles L. Hartley, pleaded guilty to nine 

drug-related offenses for a total effective sentence of eight years with the trial court to 

determine the manner of service of the sentence. After a hearing, the trial court ordered 

that the Defendant serve one year in confinement and the remaining seven years on 

probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends the trial court erred when it denied him an 

alternative sentence. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we 

affirm the trial court‟s judgments.

Tenn. R. App. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Criminal Court Affirmed

ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which NORMA 

MCGEE OGLE and CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, JJ., joined.

Jonathan E. Roberts, Bristol, Tennessee, for the appellant, Charles L. Hartley.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Zachary T. Hinkle, Assistant 

Attorney General; Barry Staubus, District Attorney General; and Josh D. Parsons, 

Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

A Sullivan County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant for one count of initiation of 

a process intended to result in the manufacture of methamphetamine, one count of 

conspiracy to manufacture .5 gram or more of a substance containing methamphetamine, 

one count of aggravated burglary, three counts of possession of drug paraphernalia, one 

count of possession of marijuana, and two counts of possession of methamphetamine. 
2

Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant pleaded guilty to all the indicted 

counts in exchange for a total effective sentence of eight years, with the trial court to 

determine the manner of service. At the guilty plea hearing, the parties stipulated to the 

following factual basis for the trial court‟s acceptance of the guilty plea:

On November the 22nd, 2013, Donald and Billie Littrell returned to 

their home [ ] in Bluff City, a location in Sullivan county, Tennessee. They 

had been gone on vacation for approximately a week, and when they 

returned home they observed vehicles parked in their driveway. Law 

enforcement was called, and there at the home three subjects were located 

on the front porch. [The Defendant], Melissa Timbs, and Wesley Odell. 

Recovered from inside the home, with the assistance of a K9 officer, were 

David Jones and Erica Moore. All five of these individuals are charged 

equally in this case under the accomplice theory of liability, and have all 

been charged in all counts, with a couple of – of exceptions.

A search was ultimately done of this particular residence, and during 

the course of the search of this residence in multiple rooms in the house 

were found coffee -- coffee filters; empty pseudoephedrine blister packs; 

drain cleaner; cut lithium batteries and ammonium nitrate; digital scales; 

used pipes; a baggie containing a white powder; a small baggie that was 

believed by the officers at the time to be marijuana; two cook bottles; 13 

gasser bottles; other empty blister packs; and a receipt from a scrap metal 

location for -- for [the Defendant]; and mail in the name of [the Defendant] 

found in the basement area. On the back deck of the home there were 

found two used cook bottles.

A search – a consent search of [the Defendant‟s] vehicle also 

recovered wet coffee filters, used syringes, two spoons, and a receipt from 

Food City for Morton salt which the State would submit is necessary in 

some cases for the manufacture of methamphetamine.

While [the Defendant] initially told law enforcement that he had 

purchased pseudoephedrine in the past for people he assumed were going to 

cook methamphetamine, [the Defendant] on that day denied having any

knowledge that a cook was going on, only that there was a 

methamphetamine cook going on at the scene when he got there. However, 

recovered from [the Defendant‟s] person was a substance that was sent to 

the TBI and tested positive to be methamphetamine.

. . . .
3

[A]ll the substances that were recovered from [the Defendant] and from the 

home that were believed to be methamphetamine, did indeed test positive 

for methamphetamine according to the TBI lab, and the substance believed 

to be marijuana also . . . tested positive . . . to be marijuana.

The trial court held a sentencing hearing on July 7, 2015, to determine the manner 

of service of the Defendant‟s eight-year sentence. The trial court reviewed the presentence report, noting that the Defendant had a minor criminal record, had graduated 

from high school, and was currently employed. The trial court read the Defendant‟s 

statement to Sullivan County Sheriff, dated November 23, 2013, as follows:

Wes Odell called me earlier today for a ride but I wasn‟t in the area. 

Wes Odell then called me and my girlfriend, Melissa Timbs, to come over 

and hang out at his house.

When we arrived, Wes Odell and David Jones were already cooking 

meth. When I saw them cooking meth, I went to leave but the cops had 

already there [sic].

I use meth socially and used some earlier today. I have purchased 

pseudoephedrine . . . for people in the past that I assume was to be used to 

cook meth. I purchase about two pseudo boxes per month.

The trial court also read a portion of the victim‟s statement, stating, “The fact that my 

wife‟s grandson would break into our house and, with four others set up a meth lab has 

upset our entire family. Trust does not exist in it now.” 

The trial court noted that the victim‟s statement also detailed the cost to the victim 

for the methamphetamine cleanup. The damage was $40,000, that insurance covered, 

and the victim paid a $500 deductible. The victim and his wife were displaced from their 

home for two months due to the damage. The victim‟s wife‟s credit card was also stolen 

and used in Bristol, Tennessee. The credit card company credited the victim‟s account 

for the amount fraudulently charged. 

The Defendant testified that his last “significant violation” was for public 

intoxication in 2004, approximately ten years ago. The Defendant stated that he worked 

five or six days a week at Bristol Caverns earning nine dollars an hour. He admitted that 

he had supplied methamphetamine “cooks” with pseudoephedrine but said that he no 

longer engaged in “that trade” anymore. 
4

The Defendant testified that he was unaware that he was not to be on the victims‟ 

property. He admitted that he was on the victims‟ property but explained that he was 

invited. The Defendant said he was unaware that methamphetamine was being cooked at 

the property and denied any involvement. He stated that when he saw the 

methamphetamine, he said, “It‟s time to go. We need to leave.” The police, however, 

had already arrived when he stepped out on the front porch of the victims‟ residence. 

The Defendant confirmed that, if given a probation sentence, he would continue to 

work and “pass drug tests.” The Defendant expressed sympathy for the victims stating, 

“That should have never taken place that night.” 

The trial court considered, as a mitigating factor, that the crime was not a crime 

involving violence. The trial court noted that although the Defendant told the preparer of 

the presentence report that he did not use illegal drugs, he told sheriff‟s deputies that he 

smoked methamphetamine socially.

The trial court made the following findings in ordering the Defendant to serve a 

sentence involving split confinement:

I am concerned about the gravity of the offense to the victim. . . 

[T]hese victims suffered terribly financially. The insurance company – of 

course, they could afford it, I guess . . . .

. . . . 

[I]n this case the victim and his wife are elderly folks. Believe he‟s 80 

according to the report. He is – had his house destroyed by the – in effect, 

by the activities of the various defendants. He had to live in a hotel. He 

had cancer. He was displaced for two months, him and his wife.

. . . 

And quite frankly I‟m not basing this on his prior record . . . . I‟m

going to require him to serve some time, a split confinement sentence. I‟m 

going to grant probation on condition he serve one year in the county jail. 

It is from this judgment that the Defendant appeals.

II. Analysis
5

The Defendant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied the 

Defendant‟s request for a probation sentence or an alternative sentence because it relied 

on the victim impact statement. The State responds that the trial court imposed the split 

confinement sentence due to the seriousness of the offense and properly considered the 

victim impact statement. We agree with the State. 

The standard of review for questions related to probation or any other alternative 

sentence is an abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Caudle, 

388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012). With regard to alternative sentencing, Tennessee 

Code Annotated section 40-35-102(5) provides as follows:

In recognition that state prison capacities and the funds to build and 

maintain them are limited, convicted felons committing the most severe 

offenses, possessing criminal histories evincing a clear disregard for the 

laws and morals of society, and evincing failure of past efforts at 

rehabilitation shall be given first priority regarding sentencing involving 

incarceration.

A defendant shall be eligible for probation, subject to certain exceptions, if the sentence 

imposed on the defendant is ten years or less. T.C.A. § 40-35-303(a)(2014). A defendant 

is not, however, automatically entitled to probation as a matter of law. The burden is 

upon the defendant to show that he or she is a suitable candidate for probation. T.C.A. § 

40-3-303(b); State v. Goode, 956 S.W.2d 521, 527 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997); State v. 

Boggs, 932 S.W.2d 467, 477 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). In order to meet this burden, the 

defendant “must demonstrate that probation will „subserve the ends of justice and the best 

interest of both the public and the defendant.‟” State v. Bingham, 910 S.W.2d 448, 456 

(Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (quoting State v. Dykes, 803 S.W.2d 250, 259 (Tenn. Crim. 

App. 1990)).

There is no bright line rule for determining when a defendant should be granted 

probation. Bingham, 910 S.W.2d at 456. Every sentencing decision necessarily requires 

a case-by-case analysis considering “the nature of the offense and the totality of the 

circumstances . . . including a defendant‟s background.” State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 

166, 168 (Tenn. 1991) (quoting State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229, 235 (Tenn. 1986)). In 

determining if incarceration is appropriate in a given case, a trial court should consider 

whether:

(A) Confinement is necessary to protect society by restraining a 

defendant who has a long history of criminal conduct;
6

(B) Confinement is necessary to avoid depreciating the seriousness 

of the offense or confinement is particularly suited to provide an 

effective deterrence to others likely to commit similar offenses; or

(C) Measures less restrictive than confinement have frequently or 

recently been applied unsuccessfully to the defendant.

T.C.A. § 40-35-103(1). The trial court must also consider the potential or lack of 

potential for rehabilitation or treatment of the defendant in determining the sentence 

alternative or length of a term to be imposed. T.C.A. § 40-35-103 (2014).

The trial court found that confinement was necessary to avoid depreciating the 

seriousness of the offense. The trial court considered the evidence, the circumstances of 

the offense, the Defendant‟s criminal history, education, health, substance abuse, and 

employment history. The trial court found the circumstances of these offenses to be 

“extraordinary.” The trial court specifically noted the gravity of an offense where an 

eighty-year old victim, who while ill with cancer, was forced to relocate to a hotel for two 

months because his home was effectively destroyed due to the defendants‟ conduct. 

Although the Defendant complains that he was denied an alternative sentence, we 

note that the split confinement sentence is in fact an “alternative sentence.” In our view, 

the basis of the Defendant‟s appeal is that he was wrongfully denied full probation or a 

sentence to Community Corrections. 

The trial court followed the statutory sentencing procedure, properly weighing the 

appropriate factors and sentencing principles in denying a sentence of full probation or a 

Community Corrections sentence. Accordingly, the Defendant has failed to establish an 

abuse of discretion or otherwise overcome the presumption of reasonableness afforded to 

the trial court‟s decision to order the Defendant to serve a sentence involving split 

confinement. 

The Defendant also argues that the trial court erred when it considered the victim 

impact statement because it is “written hearsay testimony.” This argument is 

unpersuasive. A victim impact statement is unique in that it is prepared by the 

Department of Correction pursuant to statute. T.C.A. § 40-38-204(a) (2014). Tennessee 

Code Annotated section 40-38-202 requires the trial judge to “solicit and consider a 

victim impact statement prior to sentencing a convicted offender who has caused 

physical, emotional or financial harm to a victim[.]” Further, this Court has held that trial 

courts should determine “whether the victim‟s impact testimony contain[s] any relevant 

and reliable evidence relating to enhancing or mitigating factors and/or any other 

sentencing consideration, and then decid[ed] what weight, if any, should be given to that 
7

evidence in fashioning an appropriate sentence.” State v. Blackhurst, 70 S.W.3d 88, 95 

(Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). In our view, this is what the trial court did during the 

sentencing hearing with regard to the victim impact statement contained in the 

presentence report. The Defendant is not entitled to relief as to this issue.

III. Conclusion

After a review of the record and applicable law, we conclude that the trial court 

properly sentenced the Defendant. In accordance with the foregoing reasoning and 

authorities, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

_________________________________

ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JUDGE