### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jun e 27, 200 6

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. SHRO NE M. HILL

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Ham ilton Coun ty Nos. 252217, 252399, 252569, 252570, & 252571 Stephen M. Bevil, Judge

No. E2005-02109-CC A-R3- CD - F iled Augu st 11, 2006

The Defenda nt, Shrone M. Hill, pled g uiltyto five counts of a g g ravated burg lary , and the tria l court

se nte nc e d h im, a s a

Ra ng e I of fe nd e r, to a n e ff

e c tiv e se nte nc e of e ig hte e n y e ars in p ri so n. On app e a l, the De fe nd a nt c on te nd s th a t: ( 1) the tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d w he n it

se nte nc e d him to th e ma ximum of six
y ear s for e ach count; and (2) the trial court e rre d when it orde red two of the five se ntence s to run

consec utively

to eac h other a nd consec utively to the three concur

rent sente nces. F inding that ther e

e xists no re ve rs ibl e e rr or , w e a ff ir m th e jud g me nts of

the tr ia l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nts of

the Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J O SE PH M. T I PTON and J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J J ., joined.

Ste ph e n M . G old ste in, Chatta no og a , T e nn e sse e fo r the app e lla nt, Shr on e M. Hi ll.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ral and Repo rt e r; Sop hia S. L e e , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil li a m H

. Co x I I I
, D is tric t A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l; a n d N e a l P in k s to n , A s s is ta n t D is tric t A ttorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

. Opin ion I. F acts

The Ha milton C ounty

Gra nd J ury

indicted the De fe n dant on five c ounts of ag g ravated bu rg lary a nd fi ve c ou nts of the ft of pr op e rt y

. Pur su a nt to a ple a a g re e me nt, the De fe nd a nt p le d g uil ty to the five c ounts of ag g ravated b u rgl ar y , and the f ive counts of thef

t of property

wer e dismissed. T h e S t at e a n d t h e D ef

en d an td i d n o tre ac h an agr ee m en t as t o s en t en ci n g. At t h e s en t en ci n g h ea ri n g, J im Oste rh o u t, th e D e f

e n d a n t’ s p r o b a ti o n o f

f ic e r , te s ti f

ie d th a t h e is e mp lo y e d w ith th e B o ard of Probation and Parole a nd that he pre pare d the Def endant’ s prese ntence report. He testified tha t the Def endant ha d previous criminal convi ct i o ns as both an adult and a juvenile. Osterhout testified that, as an a dult, the Defe ndant was c onvict ed
, i n t h e Hamilton CountyCriminal Court, of ag g ravated burg lary and theft of property

. For those crimes, the D efe ndant was g iven an e ffe ctive2

three -y ear suspended se ntence and was place d on supervised pr obation. This sentence was to run

concur rently with a suspended se ntence of ele ven months twenty -n i n e d ay s for a misdemeanor conviction o f u n au t h o rized use of a vehicle. T he sente nces f or ag g ravated burg lary , theft, and unauthorized use o f a vehicle wer e later revoke d, and he w as orde red to ser ve the ba lance of the
sentenc e. Oster

hout te stified that the Def endant was on probation for the ag g ravated burg lary and theft convic tion when he wa s arr ested for t h e ch arg es in this case. O sterhout testified that the Def endant a lso had a thef

t conviction in the Hamilton County Gene ral Sessions Court in 2003, for wh ic h he recei ve d a

se nte nc e of

e le ve n mo nth s, tw e nty -n ine da y s th a t w a s su sp e nd e d a ft e r s ix months. On October 6, 2004, the Def endant’ s probation for

the theft c onviction was also re voked.

Osterhout testified that the D efe ndant h ad a pre vious criminal rec ord as a juvenile. Specifica lly , Osterhout noted that the D efe ndant was a rre sted for a g g ravated assault and r emoved fr om h is h ome for tr uan c y a nd“ no t g e tti ng a lon g wi th h is m oth e r. ” Th e De fe nd a nt a pp e are d in juvenile court thirteen times a s a runaw ay , althoug h all of these case s wer e dismissed, and he w as char g ed with ag g ravated burg lary and thef t of property , althoug h these c ases we re dismissed. Osterhout testified that the Def endant was unemploy ed. He testified that the Defenda nt beg an using alcohol at the a g e of twe lve and that the D efe ndant informed him that he was not under the influenc e of alc ohol or drug s at the time of the burg laries. Osterhout testified that, based on his investigation, he found the following three enhanc eme n t fa ctors for sentenc ing, w hich he include d in the prese ntence report: (1) the De fenda nt has a pre vious historyof criminal convicti o n s o r criminal be ha vio r i n a dd iti on to tho se ne c e ssa ry to e sta bli sh the app ro pr ia te ra ng e ; ( 2) the De fe nd a nt h a s a pr e vio us his tory

of un wi lli ng ne ss t o c omp ly wi th the c on dit ion s of a se nte nc e inv olv ing re le a se in the community ; and ( 3 ) the fe lony was c ommitt ed while the D efe ndant was unde r super vised probation by

the State from a

prior fe lony

conviction. Osterhout testified tha t his inve s t i gati on

re ve a le d n o mi tig a tin g fa c tor s.

On cr oss-examination, Osterhout testified t hat, althoug h he knew the Def endant wa s char g ed with ag g ravated a s s au l t as a juvenile, he c ould not determine fr om the rec ord if the c harg e wa s dismiss ed. He said nothing in the re cord indicated that the De fenda nt had any mental illness other tha n h ype ra c tiv ity . He sa id tha t he wa s u na wa re of wh e the r the De fe nd a nt w a s in a n auto mob ile

a c c ide nt a ro un d th e a g e of

tw e lve t hat left th e De fe nd a nt i n a c oma a ndpo ssi bly

re su lte d in br a in damag e. Oster

hout testified that he did not g o throu gh al l o f t h e De fenda nt’s reports and did not believe it necessary to do so beca use: the Defenda nt was not under any medication; the De fenda nt did not tell him that he was involved in a n automobile acc ident; a nd neither the Def endant nor

the Def endant’ s aunt told him t hat he mig ht have br ain damag e.

T h e D ef en d an td i d n o tt es t i fyat t h e s en t en ci n g h ea ri n g.

Acc ording to the prese ntence report, the five burg laries in t his case took plac e on five differ ent nig hts in S eptember of 2004. All five victims wer e aske d to su b m i t v i ctim impact statements, but only

one victim filed a state ment. The stateme nt outlined the impact on the victim’s f a m i l y, e s p e c i a l l y h e r s i x t e e n ye ar

- o l d s o n w h o w a s i n s i d e t h e h o u s e a tt h e t i m e o f t h e b u r g l ar y, loc ke d in his be dr oo m. S he state d th a t he r s on c ou ld not c a ll the po lic e be c a us e the bu rg lars c ut the ir3

phone lines. She said that her so n wa s n o t u n d er psy cholog ical tre atment, but he and the rest of family wer e all “pr etty

[shaken] up” by

the incident.

Th e tr ia l c ou rt , in se nte nc ing the De fe nd a nt, state d:

I ’v e loo ke d ov e r the inv e sti g a tiv e re po rt a ndc on sid e re d th e c ir c ums ta nc e s in the c a se

a nd t h e p u rp o s e s f

o r s e n t e n c i n g u n d e r t h e l a w i n t h e S t a t e o f T e n n e s s e e , b oth enhanc ement fact o rs an d mitigating fac tors. I don’t find that there are mitigating fac to r s

. I d o f

in d
, a s w a s li s te d in th e [p r e s e n te n c e r e p o r t]
, th a t u n d e r [Tennessee Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n] 40 -3 5- 11 4,

. . . I do fi nd the fo llo wi ng e nh a nc e me nt f a c tor s:

[Enh a n c e me n t f

a c to r ] [t ]w o , th e [D ]e f

e n d a n t h a s a p r e v io u s h is tor y of

c ri min a l c on vic tio ns or

c ri min a l be ha vio r in ad dit ion to tho se ne c e ssa ry to e sta bli sh the appr opriate r ang e.

[Enhancement f

actor ] . . . ni ne, the [ D] efe ndant has a previous history

of unwillingness to comply with the conditions of [a] sentenc e involving rele ase in the

c omm un ity , a s in dic a te d b y the fa c t th a t on a t lea st tw o d if fe re nt o c c a sio ns in [Genera l] Sessions Court he was place d on probation and he violated the conditions of probation, and then he was place d on probation in c riminal court a nd he violated the co n ditions of probation. So thi s shows an unwillingne ss to comply with the

c o n d i t i o n s o f

r e l e a s e i n t h e c o m m u n i t y.

And then [enhance ment fac tor] .

. . fourtee n, that the fe lony was c ommitt ed while the [D]efendant wa s under supe rvised probation from a p rio r f e lo n y c o n viction, which wa s ag g ravated burg lary

.

I find that eve n though the re a re a number of fe lony

convictions now, prior to the day he pled to these ch ar ges , I t h ink I have to look at them a s basically one conviction, althoug h they ’re separ ate convictions, but one convic tion as far as the

ra ng e of se nte nc e is c on c e rn e d, that he on ly ha s o ne pr ior

fe lon y c on vic tio n, up un til the day he pled. So I

do find that he’s a

Rang e I offe nder.

As far as sentenc ing, I

do fi n d t h at l ess re strictive means othe r than incar cer ation or some other alternative sentenc e has been a pplied in the past without

su c c e ss, so I

fe e l li ke that in c arc e ratio n is ne c e ssa ry in the se c a se s.

I do find that there are n’t any mitigating fac tors, and I

do find that there are

en h a n c e me n t f

a c to r s , s o I a m g o in g to s e n te n c e th e [D ]e f e n d a n t– a n d b a s e d o n the fac ts, too, it’s hard to imag ine what was going throug h this y oung man’s mind when he was basica lly

trappe d upstairs in his own home while people a re dow nstairs, or at least one pe rson in particula r, this [ D]efenda nt, is downstairs bur g larizing his home. I t’s just hard to imag ine what must have been going throug h that y oung man’s mind4

at that time and it’s one of those things he should never ha ve had to gone throug h.

The fact [ the Defenda nt] has bee n committing burg laries a nd thefts since he

was a juvenile, he wa s p u n i s h ed as a juvenile, and whe n he bec ame a n adult he continued committing bur g laries a nd thefts and he was plac ed on probation, and then afte r that he c ontinues committi ng burg laries a nd thef t , t h ere are five a g g ravated burg lary case s befor e the Court, se ntence the [D] efe ndant to six y ear s in eac h case
, which is the m axim um sentenc e. I think based on all the fa cts I have be fore me and all the information, I

think that is t he appr opriate se ntence in these ca ses.

Also, I do find t h at t he [D]efendant, for purposes of [Tenne ssee Code An no ta te d s e c tio n] 40 -3 5- 11 5, the [D] e f e n d an t w a s o n p ro ba tio n f

or a sim ila r o ff e ns e

a t th e tim e of

c omm iss ion of

the se of fe ns e s.

I ’m g oing to or der tha t sentence s n u m b er 2 5 2 5 69, 252570, 252217 . . . run

concur rent[ly ]. I ’ll order that sentenc e number 252571 run consecutive[ly ] t o those. And 252399 run c onsecutive[ly ] t o 252571, which basic ally is a tot al of an 18-y ear sentenc e at 30 pe rce nt, and orde r he se rve those se ntence s. . . .

I t is fr om this or de r tha t th e De fe nd a nt n ow app e a ls.

II. Ana lys is

On appe al, the De fenda nt contends: (1) the trial court erre d by sentenc ing the Def

endant to six y ear s for eac h count, the maxi mum for a Rang e I offe nder; a nd (2) the tr ial court e rre d by ordering tha t two of the five se ntence s run co n s ecutively to eac h other a nd consec utively to the three concur

rent sente nces f

or a n eff ective se ntence of eig hteen y ear s. When a defe ndant

c ha lle ng e s th e le ng th, ra ng e , o r m a nn e r of ser vi ce o f a se nte nc e , it

is the du ty

of thi s Co urt to conduct a de novo re view on the r ecor d with a presumption that “the de terminations made by the

c ou rt fr om wh ic h the app e a l is take n a re c or re c t.” Te nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 35 -4 01 (d ) ( 20 03 ). Th is presumption is “‘conditioned upon the a ffirma tive showing in the rec ord that t h e t ri al court considere d the sentenc ing principles and all re levant fa cts and c ircumstance s.’” State v. Ross, 49 S.W. 3d83 3, 84 7 ( Te nn . 2 00 1) (q uo tin g Sta te v. Pe ttu s, 98 6 S. W.2 d 5 40 , 543 (T e nn . 1 99 9) ); Sta te v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991) . The pre sumption does not apply to the leg al conclusions re ache d by

the trial court in sentencing a def endant or to the determinations made by the trial court which ar e pre dicated upon unc ontroverte d fac ts. St ate v. De an, 76 S.W.3d 352, 377 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 20 01 ); Sta te v. B utl e r, 90 0 S. W .2 d 305, 31 1 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 94 ); Sta te v. Smit h, 891 S.W .2d 922, 929 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1 9 9 4 ). I n conducting a de novo r eview of a sentenc e, we must consider: (a) any evidenc e rece ived at the t rial and/or sentenc ing he aring ; (b) the pr e se nte nc e re po rt ; ( c ) the pr incipl es of se nte nc ing ; ( d) the arg ume nts of c ou ns e l r e la tiv e to sentenc ing a lternatives ; (e) the nature and cha rac teristics of the of

fense ; (f) a ny

mitigating or enhanc ement fa ctors; (g ) any statements m ade by the defendant on his or her ow n behalf ; and (h)5

the def endant’ s potential or lack of potential for reha bilitation or trea tment. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 4 0- 35 -2 10 (2 00 3) ; Sta

te v. Ta y lor , 6 3 S. W.3 d 400
, 411 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 20 01 ). Th e pa rt y challeng ing a sentenc e imposed by the trial court has the burde n of establishing that the sentenc e is e rr on e ou s. Te nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 35 -4 01 , Se nte nc ing Com m’ n Cm ts.

I n the ca se under

submissi on, we conclude that there is ample evidenc e that the tria l court considere d the sentenc ing principles and a ll releva n t fa ct s and cir cumstance s. There fore , we revie w its decision de novo with a pr esumption of corr ectne ss. Acc ording ly , so long a s the trial court complied with the purposes a nd proce dures of the 1989 Sentencing Act and its finding s are supported by

the fa ctual re cord, this Court may not disturb this sentenc e even i f we would have pref err ed a dif fer ent re sult. S ee T enn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-210 (2003) , Sentencing Comm’n Cm ts.; State v. Fletc her, 805 S.W.2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). We note that the de fenda nt bear s the burde n of showing that the sentenc e is improper. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 401, Sentencing Comm’n Cm ts.; Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169.

A. Length of

Sentence

On appe al, the De fenda nt contends that the trial c ourt err ed by sentenc ing the Def

endant
to s ix y e ars fo r e a c h c ou nt, the ma ximum fo r a Ra ng e I of fe nd e r. He c on te sts bo th the app lic abil ity of the enhanc ement fac tors and the weig ht affor ded them by the trial court. The De fenda nt further

co n t en d s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n o tgi v e a d eq u at e c o n s i d er at i o n t o al t er n at i v e s en t en ci n g.

The sente nce r ang e for a Rang e I offe nder for a Class C felony is not less than three y ear s or more tha n six y ea rs

. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-112(a )(3) (2003). A de fenda nt is eligible for probation if the se ntence actua lly imposed is eight y ear s or less. Tenn. Code A nn. § 40-35-303( a) (2 00 3) . A de fe nd a nt w ho is a n e sp e c ia lly mit ig a te d o r s ta nd ardof

fe nd e r c on vic te d o f a

Cla ss C
, D, or E f elony should be considered a favor able candidate for alternative sentencing options in t he

abs e nc e of e vid e nc e to the c on tr ary

. Te nn

. Cod e An n. § 40 -3 5- 10 2( 6) (2 00 3)

. Ho we ve r, e ve n if a def endant is consider ed to be a favorab l e ca n didate for

alternative sentenc ing, a sentenc e of

c on fi ne me nt m a y

be app ro pr ia te if

a c ou rt fi nd s th a t, a mon g oth e r thin g s, “ [m]ea su re s le ss restric tive t h an co nfinement ha ve fr equently or re cently

been a pplied unsucce ssfully

to the defe ndant.” Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 103(1)( c) ( 2003).

I n the case under submissi on, the evidenc e does not pre ponderate ag ainst the finding s of the tria l c o u r t. T h e r e c o r d in th is c a s e e s ta b li s h e s th a t: th e D e f

e n d a n t h a d o n e prior f

elony conviction, an a g g ravated burg l ar y , an d t wo previous mis demea nors in addition to a history of offe nses as a

juvenile. The D efe ndant had a previous history of unwillingness to comply with the conditions of a sente nce involving rele ase in the community as indicated by his mult iple probation vio la tio ns . T he De fe nd a nt wa s on pr ob a tio n fo r a n a g g ra va te d bu rg lary of fe ns e a t the tim e of

thi s of fe ns e . T he De fe nd a nt d oe s n ot c la im tha t th e tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d b y no t app ly ing mit ig a tin g fa c tor s. The trial c ourt did not abuse its d i s cre tion by apply ing e nhance ment fac tors to sentence the De fe nd a nt t o s ix y e ars fo r e a c h c ou nt.6

The trial c ourt g ave a dequate consideration to alternative sente ncing and found tha t Tenne ssee Code Annotated section 40-35-103( 1)(c ) applied. I n sentenc ing the Def endant, the tr ial court stated, “ As far

as sentenc ing, I

do find that less restric tive means other than incar cer ation or some other a lternative se ntence has bee n applied in the past without succe ss, so I fe el like . . . incar cer ation is nece ssary in these ca ses.” The Def endant is not entitled to relief on this iss ue.

F urthe r, the De fe nd a nt c la ims th at th e t ri a l c ou rt ina pp ro pr ia te ly

app lie d th e “ se ri ou s b od ily injury ” enha nceme nt fac tor. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 114(12). How ever , the Def endant doe s

no t s p e c if y w h a t th e tria l c o u r t d id to in d ic a te th a t it w a s ap p lyin g s u c h a f a c to r, and w e do not believe the rec ord shows such an application. There fore
, the Def endant is not e ntitled to relief on this iss ue.

B. Consecutive Sentences

The De fenda nt claims that the trial court err ed by ordering two of the five se ntence s to run

cons e c u ti v e ly

to e a c h o th e r

a n d c o n s e c u ti v e ly

to th e th r e e c o n c u rr e n t s e n te n c e s f o r a n e f f ective
sentenc e of e ighte en y ear s. Pursuant to T ennesse e Code Annotated se ction 40-35-115( a) ( 2003), if a de fenda nt is convicted of more than one criminal off ense, the court shall orde r the sente nces to ru n e ith e r c o n s e c u ti v e ly o r c o n c u rr e n tl y

. T h e tria l c o u r t may o r d e r s e n te nces to run

consec utively

if the trial court finds by a prep o n d er an ce o f the evidenc e that one or more of the criteri a e n u m er at ed i n T en n es s ee C o d e A n n o t at ed s ec t i o n 4 0 -3 5 -1 1 5 (b ) applies. State v. Robinson, 146 S.W .3d 469, 524 (Tenn. 2004)

. One of those criteria is tha t a def endant is sentenc ed for

an of f e n s e c o mm it te d w h il e o n p r o b a ti o n

. T e n n

. Co d e A n n

. § 4 0

- 3 5

- 1 1 5 ( b ) ( 6 )

. I n a ddition to t he criteria in Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40-35-115(b), consec utive sentenc ing is g uided by th e g e ne ra l se nte nc ing pr inc ipl e s p ro vid ing that th e le ng th o f a se nte nc e be “

jus tly de se rv e d in

re la tio n to the ser io us nes s of th e of fe ns e ” a nd“ no g re a te r tha n th a t de se rv e d f or the of fe ns e committed.” Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-102( 1) and -103(2) (2003); State v. I mfeld, 70 S.W.3d 698, 708 (Tenn. 2002)

.

Af te r r e vie wi ng the re c or d, we c on c lud e that th e e vid e nc e do e s n ot p re po nd e rate a g a ins t the trial court’s finding that two of the De fenda nt’s five sente nces should run c onsecutively to eac h other a nd consec u t i v el y t o the three concur rent sente nces f

or an e ffe ctive sente nce of eig hteen
y ear s. The trial court corr ectly found that the Def endant committed the se offe nses while he w as on probation. The D efe ndant’s pre -sentenc e re port and the t es t i mony at the De fenda nt’s
sentenc ing he aring indicated that the Def endant wa s on probation for a g g ravated burg lary and thef t of prope rty

at the time of the bur g laries. The Def endant is not entitled to relief on this iss ue.

III. Conclusi on

I n acc ordanc e with the for eg oing r easoning and authorities, we affirm the judg ments of the trial court.7 ________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE