T he i nd i ct m ent i n t hi s case read s, “Cri st y M echell e T ho m p son. ” H o wever, t he p l ea agreem ent s i gned by t he 1 d e fen d a n t re a d s, “K risty T h o m p so n .” 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT KNOXVI LLE O ct obe r 27, 200 4 S es sio n STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. CH RIST Y M ECH ELLE THOM PS ON

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Cocke County No. 9238 Ben W. Hooper, II, Jud ge

No. E2004-00761-CC A-R3- CD - F iled Fe bruary 7, 2005

The de fenda nt, Christy M ec h el l e Thompson, broke into a private re sidence and stole per sonal 1 property worth more tha n $500.00. The Cocke Coun t y Gr and Jury indicted her

for one count of ag g ravated burg lary

and one c ount of theft over $500.00. The de fendant pled g uilty . As part of her plea a g ree ment, the trial court sentence d the def endant to thre e (3) y ear s as Rang e I offe nder f

or the ag g ravated burg lary

and one ( 1) y ear

for the the ft over $500.00. She also ag ree d to pay restitution in the amount of $1,016.85. Unde r the plea ag ree ment, the trial court was to determine the method and manne r of sentenc e. The trial court sente nced the defe ndant to incar cer ation with the Tenne ssee Depa rt m en t o f Corre ctions. The def endant a ppeals he r sentenc e, ar g uing that: (1) the trial c ourt improperly

weig hed the e nhancing and mitigating f actor s; and (2) the trial court e rre d in de ny ing the de fe nd a nt p ro batio n. We a ff ir m th e jud g me nts of

the tr ia l c ou rt

.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt s o f the Tr ial Co ur t a r e Affir m e d.
J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which A L AN E. G L EN N a n d J. C. M C L IN , J J ., joined.
Keith E. Ha as, Ne wport, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Christy

Meche lle Thompson.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & R eporte r; Michelle Chapman McI ntire, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; Al Schmutz er, J r., District Attorney Gene ral, and J ames B. Dunn, Assistant Di strict Attorney , for the a

ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.-2- OP IN ION
Fa ctual B ackg round

On J uly 5, 2003, the def

endant, Chri s ty

Meche lle Thompson, broke into the re sidence of Kenne th Wi lburn, the victim. The victim lived in Cocke County

. The defe ndant stole over $500.00 worth of pr operty , i n cl uding a black onyx ring , a we dding ring, a rod and r eel, a

cooler , a pair

of pr un ing sh e ars a ndma ny

c oll e c tor c oin s. Th e vic tim

me nti on e d th e de fe nd ant to po lic e a s a potential suspect. Upon be ing que stioned by the police, she admitted h er i n v o l vement in the b u r g l ar y.

AN AL YSI S
Thed efe ndant ar g ues two issues in her a ppeal: (1) whether

the trial court improperly

weig hed the enha ncing and mitigating f actor s; and (2) w hether the t rial court erre d in deny ing the defe ndant probation.
Enh ancem ent and Mitigating Fac tors
“When re viewing sentenc ing issues . . . , the appellate court shall conduc t a de novo r eview on the re cord of

such issues. Such re view shall be c onducted with a pr esumption that the determinations made by

the court from which the a ppeal is t aken a

re c orre ct.” Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401( d). “Howeve r, the pre sumption of corre ctness which a ccompa nies the trial court’s action is conditioned upon the aff irmative showing in the rec ord that the t ri al co u rt consider ed the sentenc ing principles and a ll releva nt fac ts and circ umstances.” State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991) . I n conducting our re view, we must consider the de fendant’s potential for reha bilitation, t he trial a nd sentenc ing he aring evidenc e, the pr e-se ntenc e re port, the sentenc ing principles, sente ncing alternative arg uments, the nature and char acte r of the of fense , the enha ncing and mitigating f

actor s, and the def

endant’ s statements. Tenn. Code A nn. §§ 40-35-103( 5), -210( b); Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169. W e ar e to also recog nize that the defe ndant bea rs “the bur den of demonstrating that the sentenc e is improper.” Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169.
The de fenda nt arg ues that there was no proof to a pply enhanc ement fac tors, as enume rate d in Tennesse e Code Annotated sec tion 40-35-114 and that ther e we re ma n y m i t i g ating fac tors that should have a

pplied. The de fenda nt arg ues that the trial court’s application of these enhanceme nt and mitigating f

actor s were incorre ct. The defenda nt cites Blakely v. Washington, 524 U.S . __, 124 S. Ct . 2 53 1 ( 20 04 ), to s up po rt thi s a rg ume nt.In Ap p rendi v. N ew Jersey , 53 0 U

. S. 46 6 (20 0 0 ), t he U ni t ed Stat es Sup rem e C o urt hel d t hat , “ [o]t her t han t he 2 f ac t o f a p rior co nv i cti o n, any f at t ha t i nc rea ses the p en alt y f o r a c rime b eyo nd t he p resc ribe d st atuto ry m ax i m um m ust be s u bmi t t ed t o a j u r y , a n d p r ov ed bey on d a r ea s on abl e dou bt

. ” I d. a t 490. I n Ri n g v
. Ar i zon a, 536 U

. S. 584, 587 (20 0 2 ), t he C o urt ap p l i ed A p p rendi t o hold t hat be cause A ri zo na co nd i t i o ned el i gi b i l i t y fo r t he d eat h p enal t y up o n t he p res en ce of an ag g r av at i n g f ac t t h at wa s n ot an el eme n t of f i r s t deg r ee mu r der , t h e Si x t h Amen dmen t g u ar an t eed t he d e fen d a n t a r igh t t o a ju ry d e te rm ina tio n o f t h a t fa c t. -3- The de fenda nt ag ree d i n h er p lea a g ree ment to be sentenc ed to three (3) y ear s for he r ag g ravated burg lary

conviction to be serve d as a Rang e I offe nder at thirty perc ent (30%) , with the trial court to de termine the method and manner of sentenc e, to a one ( 1) y ear sentenc e for

her the ft of more tha n $500.00 to run conc urre nt with her three (3) y ear sentenc e and r estitution for $1,016.85. Af te r h old ing a

se nte nc ing he ari ng , th e tr ia l c ou rt se nte nc e d th e de fe nd a nt t o s e rv e he r s e nte nc e in the Tenne ssee De partment of Corr ection. The trial court did not enumer ate a ny enhanc ement fa ctors up on wh ic h it

re lie d in the se nte nc ing he ari ng wh e n s e nte nc ing the de fe nd a nt.
The de fenda nt ag ree d to the m i n i m u m sentenc e for eac h of her

convictions. Ag g ravated bu rg lary is a Cla ss C fe lon y . T e nn . Co de An n. § 3 9- 14 -4 03 . T he rang e of se nte nc e fo r a

Cla ss C felony for a Rang e I offe nder is three (3) to six (6) y ear s. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-112(a )(3) . Theft of prope rty

more than $500.00 but less than $1,000.00 i s a Class E felony . Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 14 -1 05 . T he rang e of se nte nc e fo r a Cla ss E fe lon y a s a Ra ng e I of fe nd e r is on e (1 ) t o tw o ( 2) y e ars
. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-112(a )(5) . The trial court approve d this ag ree ment and sente nced the defe ndant to the minimum s entenc e for eac h conviction.
Prior to the rele ase of

Blakely , in order to de termine a d ef endant’s sentence , a trial c ourt s ta r te d at t h ep r e sumptive sentence , enhanc ed the se ntencewithin the rang e for exis ting e nhance ment fac tors, and then reduc ed the sentence within the rang e for exis ting mitigating fac tors in acc ordanc e wi th T e nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 4 0- 35-21 0(e) . N o p art ic ula r w e ig ht f

or e a c h f a c tor is presc ribed by

the statute; the weight given to eac h fac tor is left to the discre tion of the trial court as lon g a s it c omport s wi th the se nte nc ing princ ipl e s a ndpu rp os e s o f o ur Cod e a nda s lo ng a s it s finding s are supported by

the re cord. See S tate v. Santiag o, 914 S.W .2d 116, 125 (Tenn. Crim. App. 19 95 ). Th is C ou rt

ha s r e c e ntl y

re c og nize d that B lake ly “ c a lls int o qu e sti on the c on tin uin g va lid ity of our c urre nt sentencing scheme .” State v. J ulius E. Smit h, No. E2003-01059- CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 1606998, at *4 (Te nn. Crim. App. at Knoxvi lle, J uly 19, 2004); see a lso St ate v. Micha el Way ne Poe , N o. E2 00 3- 00 41 7- CCA -R 3- CD , 2 00 4 WL 16 07 00 2, a t *9 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. a t K no xvill e , J u ly 19, 2004).
I n Blakely , the Supreme Court de termined that t h e “s t atutory maxi mum” sentenc e for Ap pr e nd i pu rp os e s is “ the ma ximum se nte nc e a jud g e ma y imp os e so le ly

on the ba sis of

the fa c ts 2
r e f l e c t e d i n t h e j u r y v e r d i c t o r a d m i t t e d b y t h e d e f e n d a n t

. ” 5 4 2 U

. S

. a t

___ , 1 2 4 S

. C t

. a t 2 5 3 7

. In oth e r w or ds : [T] he re levant “statutory maxi mum” is not the max imum sente n ce a judge may impose after

finding additional fac ts, but the maxim um he may impose without any additional finding s. When a judg e inflicts punishment that the jury ’s ver dict alone-4-

do e s n ot a llo w, the jury ha s not fo un d all the fa c ts “ wh ic h th e la w m ake s e sse nti a l to t h e p u n i s h m e n t , ” a n d t h e j u d g e e x c e e d s h i s p r o p e r a u t h o r i t y.
I d.
This Court has acknow ledg ed that B lakely “extended Appr endi’s holding that, under the Six th Amendment, a jury must fi n d all fac ts used to increa se a de fendant’s sentenc e bey ond the s tatu to r y ma ximu m. ” See S ta te v
. Ch ar le s B e n s o n , N o
. M 2 0 0 3

- 0 2 1 2 7

- CC A

- R3

- CD , 2 0 0 4 WL 22 66 80 1, a t *8 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. a t N a sh vil le , O c t. 8 , 2 00 4) . In s o d oin g , th is C ou rt we nt o n to state that: [N]othing in Ap pr e nd i su g g e ste d th a t th e ph ra se “ statut ory ma ximum ” e qu a te d to anything other t h an the max imum in t he rang e. To the c ontrary , the United States Supreme Court stated the issue in Appr endi as “ whether t h e 1 2 -y ear sentenc e imposed . . . was permissibl e, g iven that it wa s above the 10-y ear maxi mum for the offe nse cha

rg ed in that count.” 530 U .S. at 474, 120 S.C t. at 2354. We also note that t h e S u p reme Court has considere d the re troac tive eff ect of the holding in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 592-93, 122 S.Ct . 2428, 2435 n.1, 153 L .Ed. 2d 556 (2002), as a ne w rule f

or ca pital case s even though it wa s based on Appre ndi. See Schriro,

___ U.S. at ___, 124 S.Ct

. at 2525-27.

. . . We c onclude that Bl ak el yalt ers Tenne ssee c ourts’ interpr etation of the phrase “statutory maxi mum” and esta

blishes a new rule in this state. . . .
I d. at *9.
I n th e c a se su b ju dic e , th e tr ia l cou rt se nte nc e d the de fe nd a nt to the min imu m sen te nc e wi thi n the sentenc ing r ang e for her convictions. As stated above, Blakely applies in situations where a trial court ha s used an e nhance ment fac tor to increa se a de fendant’s sentenc e, but that enha nceme nt fac tor ha s n ot b e e n d e c ide d b y

a jury . Cl e arly , th e tr ial cou rt didno t us e a ny

e nh a nc e me nt f

a c tor to incre ase he r sentenc e. The ref ore, B lakely

does not apply

to the defe ndant’s sente ncing

. The de fenda nt also complains that the t rial court did not apply the many mitigating fac tors that also applied to the de fenda nt’s sentenc e. The defe ndant was se ntence d to the minimum sentenc es in the ran ge. T h e application of any mitigating fac tors could not have le ssened he r sentenc e any

further . There woul d be no bene fit to the defe ndant in apply ing f urther mitig ating fac tors when he r sentenc e is alre ady the minimum allowed by statute.
F or the se re a so ns , th is i ssu e is w ith ou t me ri t.
P robation
A d e f e n d a n t“ w h o i s a n e s p e c i a l l y mitigated offender or standard offender

convicted of

a Class C, D, or E fe l o n y i s presumed to be a fa vorable candidate for a lternative se ntencing in the-5-

ab s e n c e o f

e v i d e n c e t o t h e c o n tr ar y
. ” T e n n
. C o d e A n n
. § 4 0

- 3 5

- 1 0 2 ( 6 ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d )

. In choosing among possible sentencing alternatives, the trial court should consider Ten n essee Code Annotated se ction 40-35-103( 5), which state s, in pertinent part, “The pote ntial or lack of potential for the reha

bilitation or t reatment of a defe ndant s hould be considered in dete rmining the sentenc e a l t e r n a t i v e o r

l e n g t h o f a t e r m t o b e i m p o s e d

. ” T e n n
. C o d e A n n
. § 4 0

- 3 5

- 1 0 3 ( 5 ) ; S t a t e v
. D o w d y, 8 9 4 S

. W

. 2 d 3 0 1 , 3 0 5 (T en n
. C ri m
. Ap p
. 1 9 9 4 )

. T h e t ri al co u rt m ayco n s i d era d ef en d an t 's untruthfulness and lac k o f candor as the y relate to the potential for r ehabilitation. See State v. Nunley , 22 S.W .3d 282, 289 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) ; se e also State v.Bunc h, 646 S.W .2d 158, 160- 61 (Tenn. 1983) ; State v. Z eolia, 928 S.W.2d 457, 463 (Tenn. Cri m
. Ap p
. 1 9 9 6 ); State v. Wil liamson, 919 S.W .2d 69, 84 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) ; Dowdy , 894 S.W .2d at 305-06.
Whe n s e e kin g fu ll p ro batio n, the bu rd e n r e sts wi th the de fe nd a nt t o p ro ve his su ita bil ity to that manner of sentence. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 303(b); State v. B og g s, 932 S.W .2d 467, 477 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) . “Probation is a privileg e or a ct of g rac e which may be g rante d to a defe ndant who is elig ible and worthy of this larg esse of

law.” State v. Dykes, 803 S.W .2d 250, 259 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). I n determining whether to g rant probation, the court must c onsi d er the nature and cir cumstance s of the offe nse; the defe ndant’s criminal rec ord; his or her ba ckg round and s o cial his tory ; his or her pre sent condition, including phy sical and me ntal condition; the deterr ent e ff e c t on the de fe nd a nt; a nd the lik e lih oo d tha t pro batio n is in the be st i nte re sts of bo th the pu bli c and the de fenda nt. See Still er v. State, 516 S

. W

. 2 d 6 1 7 , 620 (Tenn. 1974) ; State v. Kendric k, 10 S.W .3d 650, 656 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999)

. The trial c ourt stated: Try ing to summarize what it appear s that the Court has bef ore it . . . .
Th e re c or d in dic a te s, of

c ou rs e [the de fe nd a nt] app are ntl y ha d a re la tio ns hip with Mr. Wil burn, had know ledg e of his home, I ’m sure, a nd what wa s in it. S he’s thirty -five soon to be thirty -six y ear s of ag e. She’s wor ked. . . .

. . . . So she appar ently has substantial a bility to f unction well in society . She’s not in good he alth. I f all of t his can be s upported she’s in terrible he alth. But a s we see time and time ag ain, what is the re al problem, a l o n g h i s t ory of alc ohol use and abuse. She state s she’s not mentally disabled but in fac t phy sically disabled. How much did she drink, she drinks as much as she could g et on a daily basis. Said during a period of time, and I ’m not sure e x actly what the pe riod of time that w as, that she could neve r re member be ing sobe r. She’s used marijuana in the past and I think probably rea lly from the 1980’ s jus t up un til re c e ntl y . So y ou ’v e g ot a y ou ng la dy

that app are ntl y

is n ot a s me nta lly dy sf un c tio na l a s o ne mig ht b e le d to be lie ve . A lc oh ol anddr ug s h a ve take n c on tr ol. She’s had thre e childre n. Two adopte d and one in f oster car e. Had plenty of work.-6- And we f ind ourselves he re in the Circ uit Court of Cocke County , Tenne ssee on the c ha

rg e of bu rg lary a ndthe ft . H e r s ist e r s e e ms t o b e a fi ne pe rs on
. Pr ob ably a kin d pe rs on , a pas sio nate pe rs on fo r he r y ou ng e r sis te r. An d I do n’ t ne e d to fail t o m e n t i o n t h a t b u r g l ar i e s h a v e b e c o m e l i t e r a l l y, o n e o f t h e n i g h t m ar e s o f

t h i s c o u n t y. You know, it’s j ust, somebody ’s breaking into something twenty -four hours a day , seven day s a week seems like. I t’s a ter rible problem. And w e’r e standing at the c ro ssr oa ds ri g ht n ow , a ndthi s Co urt is g oin g to f indthat it

is b e tte r, Ms. Thompson, for y ou to be require d to build this three y ear sentenc e, along with the one y ear sentenc e which runs concur rently with it. Bec ause hope fully that will take away y our ability

to make any

of the big decisions that nee d to be made. People g et into trouble, the fa milysupports them in e very way that they can. Th e y g o to c hu rc h a ndthe y

sto p d ri nking a nddr

ug g in g an d it

do e sn ’t la st b e c a us e that env ir on me nt is not str uc tur e d. I re a lly thi nk that I wo uld be do ing y ou a te rribl e disservice to put y ou on probation. That’ s the rea son I ’m not putting y ou on probation.
I think if y ou can g et y ours el f i nvolved in the prog rams off ere d by the Tenne ssee Department of C orre ctions, related t o g etting y our GED, c ompleting y our education, not to overlook the fac t that y ou’ve g one to Walters State.
Th a t’ s in thi s r e po rt . Sh e ha d th e abil ity to. . [si c ] She ma de the de c isi on to quit going over the re. I t didn’ t appea r that they

told her she didn’t ha ve the menta l ab i l i t y t o co m p l et e a n y

p ro gra mt h at t h eywe re o ff er i n g. But ther e ar e drug and alc ohol prog rams that if y ou are willing to put forth an e ff ort, I thi nk y ou wi ll c ome ou t a

muc h b e tte r p ers on
. You’ll sti ll b e un de r s ome supervision, obviously , but to leave that in a posture where y ou make the decision as to whether

y ou want to stay with y our sister and f ollow her rule s and re g ulations, or do y ou want to g o back to w here y ou’ve been for a number of y ear s, the odds are that y ou ’l l be ba c k w he re y ou ha ve be e n f or a nu mbe r o f y e ars
. I ’m g oing to do what I

can to ke ep that fr om happening . So I ’m g oing to let y ou build the three y ear sentenc e for those rea sons that I ’ve stated. And y ou know I ’ve e ven had pe ople come back and t ell me, t hank y ou, for saving my life. I ’ve ha d mothe rs c ome ba c k a nd sa y , thank y ou , fo r sa vin g my c hil d’ s li fe . T he y a ll w e nt t o the Te nn e sse e De pa

rt me nt o f C or

re c tio ns
. There a re those that can g o and will come ba ck in worse shape may be than wh en t h eywe n t

. Bu t i f y o u ’v e got an y m o t i v at i o n at al l ab o u t y o u , t ak e a d v an t age of the situatio n an d see if y ou c a n’ t impr ov e y ou r q ua lit y of lif e . A ndthat’ ll b e a ll.-7- I sentenc e y ou to three y ear s to the Tennesse e De partment of Correc tions, one y ear , that’s on the burg lary char g e, one y ear on the cha

rg e of the ft over $500.00, the y will run concurre ntly and restituti on of $1016.85, plus the cost of this cause will have t o b e p a i d

. N o w t h a td o e s c o n c l u d e t h e m a t t e r a n d s h e ’ l l b e t ak e n i n t o c u s t o d y.

As stated above , when r eviewing sentenc ing issues, this court conduc t s a re view with the presumption that the determinations made by the trial court are correct so long as the trial c ourt followed the se ntencing proce dures. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 401(d). The rec ord supports that the trial court a naly zed the rele vant fac tors for denying the defe ndant’s reque st for probation. Theref ore, there is a presumption that the trial court’s judgme nts are c orre ct. It is clear in this case that the trial c ou rt be lie ve d th a t th e de fe nd a nt w a s n ot a g oo d c a nd idate fo r pr ob a tio n pri mari ly fo r h e r l if

e tim e of drug and alc ohol abuse. The trial court state d that the def endant ne eded a m o re structured environment to complete her G ED. The trial court a lso stated that the def endant c ould benef

it from a drug and alcohol treatment prog ram, but she shoul d not be able to choose whe ther to live with her s i s t e r o r r e t u r n t o h e r p r e v i o u s w a y o f l i f e
. W e a g r e e w i t h t h e s e a s s e s s m e n t s b y t h e tr i a l c o u r t

. In a d d i t i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r ts t a t e d t h a tb u r g l ar y h a s b e c o m e a n i n c r e a s i n g p r o b l e mi n C o c k e C o u n t y. Obviously , the trial court also denied the de fendant probation bec ause it wa s in the best interest of the community

to demonstrate a

low toleranc e for

burg lary . We cannot say

the re cord pr eponder ates ag ainst the trial court’s decision to deny probation. There fore , this iss ue is also without merit.
CO NC LU SION
F or the re a so ns state d a

bo ve , w e a ff

ir m th e jud g me nts of

the tr ia l c ou rt

.

___________________________________ J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE