FILED

May 4, 1999

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

MARCH SESSION, 1999

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9710-CC-00464

)

Appellee, )

)

) MONTGOM ERY COUNTY

VS. )

) HON. JOHN H. GASAWAY III,

STEVE A. BAGGETT, ) JUDGE

)

Appellant. ) (Misdemeanor Sentencing)

ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE

CRIMINAL COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

PETER M. OLSON JOHN KNOX WALKUP

114 Franklin Street Attorney General and Reporter

Clarksville, TN 37040

CLINTON J. MORGAN

Assistant Attorney General

425 Fifth Avenue North

Nashville, TN 37243

JOHN CARNEY

District Attorney General

WILLIAM CLOUD

Assistant District Attorney General

204 Franklin Street, Suite 200

Clarksville, TN 37040

OPINION FILED ________________________

AFFIRMED

DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
1

 At the time appellate briefs were submitted, the sentencing hearing in this case had

not yet been transcribed. Defendant moved this Court for the right to supplement his brief

following access to the transcript, and he expressed his intention to raise additional issues.

This Court granted Defendant’s motion and informed him upon receipt of the sentencing

hearing transcript. The Court received no supplementation by Defendant.

-2-

OPINION

The Defendant, Steve A. Baggett, appeals his sentence of ten days

incarceration followed by six months probation for reckless driving, a class B

misdemeanor. Defendant entered a plea of guilty to one count of reckless

driving, with the length and manner of service of the sentence left to the

discretion of the trial court. At that time, the State dismissed one count of DUI

and one count of refusal to submit to alcohol testing. Following a sentencing

hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to ten days incarceration and six

months of probation. From this order, Defendant timely appeals.1

Defendant first contends that the trial court erred by failing to require and

consider a presentence report. Presentence reports are not mandatory for

misdemeanor sentencing. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-205(a) (“Upon acceptance

of a guilty plea . . . the court shall, in the case of a felony, and may, in the case

of a misdemeanor, direct the presentence service officer to make a presentence

investigation and report . . . .”). At the sentencing hearing, Defendant was

afforded “the opportunity to be heard and present evidence relevant to the

sentencing”in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-35-209(b). This

issue lacks merit.
-3-

Defendant next argues (1) that he is entitled to the presumptive minimum

sentence allowed by law; and (2) that because the offense of reckless driving has

no minimum sentence prescribed by the legislature, the trial court should have

permitted his entire sentence to be served on probation, with no incarceration.

We disagree, and we affirm the sentence ordered by the trial court. 

Defendant, a misdemeanant, is not entitled to the presumptive minimum

sentence. State v. Baker, 966 S.W.2d 429, 434 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997); State

v. Combs, 945 S.W.2d 770, 774 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996); State v. Boyd, 925

S.W.2d 237, 244 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995); State v. Seaton, 914 S.W.2d 129, 133

(Tenn. Crim. App. 1995); State v. Williams, 914 S.W.2d 940, 949 (Tenn. Crim.

App. 1995); State v. Creasy, 885 S.W.2d 829, 832 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).

In misdemeanor sentencing, the trial court retains the authority to place the

defendant on probation either immediately or after a time of periodic or

continuous confinement. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-302(e). Misdemeanor

sentencing is designed to provide the trial court with continuing jurisdiction and

a great deal of flexibility. Furthermore, our supreme court recently stated in State

v. Troutman, 979 S.W.2d 271 (Tenn. 1998), that the trial court’s findings on the

issue of incarceration need not appear in the record:

[W]hile the better practice is to make findings on the record when

fixing a percentage of a defendant’s sentence to be served in

incarceration, a trial court need only consider the principles of

sentencing and enhancement and mitigating factors in order to

comply with the legislative mandates of the misdemeanor

sentencing statute.

Id. at 274. 
2

 Defendant offered two witnesses who testified (1) that they did not believe Defendant

was intoxicated at the time of the offense, and (2) that they considered his actions of reckless

driving to be justified due to passion.

-4-

Our review of the sentencing hearing transcript reveals that Defendant was

previously convicted of possession of cocaine for resale. No relevant mitigation

was offered by Defendant.2 The prior felony drug conviction supports a sentence

which includes incarceration. Therefore, we find no reversible error in the

sentence mandated by the trial court. 

Defendant’s sentence of ten days incarceration followed by six months

probation for the offense of reckless driving is affirmed.

____________________________________

DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE

CONCUR:

___________________________________

JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE

___________________________________

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE