### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A ugus t 9, 200 5 ST A TE OF TE N N ES SE E v . JA SO N D . N OR R IS

Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 2004-A- 721; 2004-A- 722 Cheryl Blackbu rn, Judge

No. M2004- 02813-CCA -R3-C D - F iled October 31, 2005

The Appe llant, J ason D. Nor ris, appea ls the sentenc ing de cision of the Da vidson CountyCriminal C o u rt

. P u r s u a n t t o a

p l e a a g r e e m e n t , N o rr i s p l e d g u i l t y t o f i v e c o u n t s o f

a g g r a v a t e d r o b b e r y, stemming fr om two separate indictments, with the manner and serviceof the sente nces to be determined by

the trial court. F ollowing a sentenc ing hearing, Norris was sentenc ed to e ight y ear s for e ach c onviction, with two of the sentenc es to be serve d consec utively , for an eff ective se ntence of six teen y ear s. On appea l, he arg ues that his se ntence s are excessive and that the trial court e rre d b y o r d e r i n g t o t a l c o n f

i n e m e n ta s o p p o s e d t o s e n t e n c e s o f c o m m u n i t y c o rr e c t i o n s
. A d d i t i o n a l l y, No rris a rg ue s th a t th e impos it io n of c on se c uti ve se nte nc e s v iol a te s Blakely v. W ashington . After revie w, we a ffirm.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed
D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court , i n wh ich J ER R Y L. S MI TH and J AM ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J J ., joined. Glenn R. Funk, N ashville, Tenne ssee, f or the Appe llant, J ason D. Nor ris.
Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a nd Re po rt e r; Re ne e W. Tu rn e r, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Victor S. J ohnson I I I , Di strict Attorney Gene ral; and D avid Vorhaus, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee. OP IN ION
P roce dural Hi story
I n N ov e mbe r andDe c e mbe r o f 2 00 3, theAp pe llant c omm itt e d a s eri es of ro bb e ri e s in Davidson County , choosing business locations wher e only a single y oung fema le was pr esent. The Appellant ente red e ach business wea ring a long coat drape d over his shoulders in order to c oncea l a rifle , which he later c laimed was not loade d

. Af t er ea ch ro bbery , the Appellant f led in a silver-2-

Chevrolet Monte Carlo. On Dec ember 9, 2003, a dete ctive spotted a c ar matching the desc ription of the vehicle used in the robberies. After stopping the ve hicle, the de tective obse rved, in plain view i n t h e l ef tre arfl o o rb o ar d , a r i fl e a n d a l o n g b l ac k co at

. An i n v en t o ry o f th e ve h i cl e re v ea l ed a l ar ge amount of ca sh as well as pe rsonal che cks that had be en take n during one of the robberies.
I n Ja n u ar y

2 0 0 4 , a D a v id s o n Co u n ty

g r a n d ju r y

r e tu r n e d tw o in d ic tm e n ts a g a in s t the Appellant char g ing him with seven counts of ag g ravated robbery
. I n case number 2004-A-721, the Appellant wa s char g ed with two counts of ag g ravated robbe ry , and in ca se number 2004- A-722, he was c harg ed with five c ounts of ag g ravated robbe ry . On September 16, 2004, p u rs u an t to a plea a g re e me nt, the Ap pe llant e nte re d g uil ty ple a s to c ou nt 2 in c a se nu mbe r 2 00 4- A- 72 1 a ndto c ou nts 1, 2, 4, a nd5 in c a se nu mbe r 20 04 -A -7 22

. Th e re ma ini ng c ou nts we re to be dis mis se d. Th e le ng th an d man n e r o f s e r v ic e o f th e s e n te n c e s w e r e to b e d e te r mi n e d b y th e tria l c o u rt; howeve r, the ag ree ment provided the a g g reg ate se ntence would not exceed twenty y ear s. Ad d i t ionally , the Appellant waived his rig ht to have a jury determine the application of enhanc ement fa ctors.
On Octobe r 27, 2004, a se ntencing hearing w as held at which the Appe llant , his wife, and his mother testified. Testimony established that the twe nty -eig ht-y ear -old Appellant wa s diag nosed as manic de pressive as a juvenile. It w as also established that the Appellant had a horseba ck riding acc ident in 1997 which re sulted in a fractur ed back. Acc ording to the Appellant, he be came addicted t o p ai n m ed i ca t i o n an d co m m i t t ed t h e ro b b er i es o n l y t o o b t ai n m o n ey fo r t h e p u rc h as e o f i l l i ci td ru gs afte r his insurance was canc elled. The Appellant’s criminal history included a prior conviction for misdemeanor possession of marijuana when he was eig hteen y ear s old and a misdemeanor theft conviction.
After hearing the evidenc e pre sented, the trial court imposed the minimum sentenceof eig ht y e ars fo r e a c h o f the a g g ra vate d r ob be ri e s. Th e c ou rt fu rthe r or de re d th a t th e fo ur c on vic tio ns in c a se nu mbe r 2 00 4- A- 72 2 b e se rv e d c on c ur re ntly , b ut c on se c uti ve ly

to the e ig ht- y e ar s e nte nc e in c a se number 2004-A -721, for

an ef fec tive sentenc e of sixteen y ear s i n t h e De p artment of Correc tion. Mo re o v e r , t h e c o u rtf

o u n d t h a tt h e A p p e l l a n tw a s n o te l i g i b l e f o r p l a c e m e n ti n t h e c o m m u n i ty corr ections prog ram. The Appellant now a ppeals the se ntencing decision.
Ana lys is
I. Excessive Sentence s On appe al, the Appe llant arg ues that “[t] he cour t erre d in imposi ng an excessive se ntence .” We find this arg ument misplaced. The Appellant’s a g g reg ate sixt een- y ear sentenc e did not exceed the“ c ap o f 2 0 y e ars ” a s p ro vid e d intheple a a g re e me nt. Th e pl ea agree me nt p ro c e du re s o f R ule 11(e) , Tenne ssee Rules of Criminal Proce dure, d o not contemplate that a defe ndant may

bind the State to its agr eeme nt, while at the same time, permit the defe ndant t o challeng e, on appeal, an a spect of these nte nc e wh ic h w a s a g re e d u po n. Ac c or din g ly , th is i ssu e is w ith ou t me ri t.W e n ot e t h at T en n es s ee Code An n ot at ed s ec t i on 40- 35- 303( a) wa s r ec en t l y ame n ded t o pe r mi t e l i g i bi l i t y for 1 p ro b a tio n if

the im p o se d se n te n c e is t e n ye a rs o r le ss. See 2005 ALS 353.

T h e fac t t h a t th e A p p e llan t’s to ta l se n te n c e stru c tur e e x c e e d e d e igh t yea rs w o u ld no t ha v e m a d e him ine ligib le for pr ob at i on cons i dera t i on, as i t i s t he i ndi vi dual sen t enc e whi ch mus t b e ei gh t ye ar s or l es s , not t he agg r ega t e s ent enc e. See T en n. C o d e A nn
. § 4 0

- 3 5

- 3 0 3 , S en t en cing C o m m i ssi o n C o m m en t s. -3- II. De nia l of C om m unit y C or r e c ti ons The Appe llant a

rg ues “that it was err or for the court to deny

him communitycorr ections.” He c on te nd s th a t th e sp e c ia l ne e ds pr ov isi on of the co mm un it yc or

re c tio ns statut e wa

rr a nts his pla c e me nt i n c ommun ity

c or re c tio ns du e to his dia g no sis a s a juve nil e a s manic de pr e ssi ve , a s w e ll as his curr ent addiction to pain medication.
Th e Com mun ity Cor

re c tio ns Ac t e sta

bli sh e s a pr og ram of c ommun ity -b a se d a lte rn a tiv e s to incar cer ation for certa in elig ible offe nders. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36- 103 (2003). A de fendant is eligible f

or participation in a community corr ections p ro gra m i f he satisfies the minimum e l i g i b i l i t y c r i t e r i a s e t o u t i n T e n n e s s e e C o d e A n n o t a t e d s e c t i o n 4 0

- 3 6

- 1 0 6 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A )

- ( F ) ( 2 0 0 3 )

. In this case, the A ppellant was ine ligible f or plac ement in a c ommunitycorr ections prog ram unde r subsection (a ) bec ause he was c onvicted of a g g ravated robbe ry , which is “a c rime ag ainst the person” and which involved the use of a wea pon. Id . at (a ), (b) , (c) , and (d)

. Nonet h e le s s , ano f

f e n d e r w h o d o e s n o t m e e t the minimum criteria under section 40-36- 106(a) a ndis c on sid e re d u nf

it f or pr ob a tio n d ue to s ub stanc e abu se or me nta l pro ble ms ma y sti ll b e e lig ibl e for c o mm u n it y c orre ctions under Te nnessee Code Annotated se ction 40-36-106( c). State v. Grigsby , 957 S. W. 2 d 5 4 1 , 5 4 6 ( T e n n
. Crim

. A p p
. 1 9 9 7 )

. H o w e v e r , b e f o r e a d e f e n d a n t m a y

b e s e n te n c ed pursuant to subsection (c ), he or she m ust be found e ligible f or probation. Id .; State v. Staten , 787 S.W .2d 934, 936 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1989)

. Tenne ssee Code A nnotated section 40-35-303( a) (2003) provides that a “de fendant shall be elig ible for pr obation

. . . if the sentenc e ac tually imposed . . . is eight ( 8) y ear s or less; provided, 1 that a def endant sha ll not be eligible for probation

. . . if the defe ndant is convicted of a violation of . . . § 39-13-402 .

. . .” Thus, in this case , beca use t he Appellant was convic ted of five counts of Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 39-13-402, ag g ravated robbe ry , he is statutorily prec luded from elig ibilit y for pr o b at i o n . As such, the Appe llant was inelig ible for c ommunitycorr ections under subsection (a ) or ( c). See State v . Cowan , 40 S.W .3d 85, 86 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000)

. III . C ons e c ut iveSe nt e nc ing
L ast, the Appe llant challeng es t h e trial court’s impositi on of conse cutive sente nces contending (a) conse cu t i v e s entenc es we re not wa rranted; and (b) the impositi on of conse cutive se nte nc e s v iol a te s Blakely v. W ashington . We find these ar g uments unfounded.
A. Im pos it ion of C ons e c ut iveSe nt e nc e sA t t h e ti m e o f t h e se n te n c ing he a rin g , t h e A p p e llan t also ha d a p e n d in g c h a r g e fo r a g g ra v a te d ro b b e ry in 2 S u m n e r C o u n ty. -4- First, with re g ard to h i s arg ument that consec utive sentenc es we re not wa rranted, the Appellant fails to provide any specific arg ument or citation to any law for this propositi on. I ssues which ar e not supported by arg ument, citation to authorities, or appr opriate r efe renc es to the re cord may be tr e a te d a s w a ive d inthi s c ou rt . T e nn . R. Ct. Cr im. Ap p. 10 (b ). No ne the le ss, we e le c t to revie w the Appe llant’s contention.
When an ac cused c halleng es the leng th, rang e, or manner of service of

a sente nce, this court has a duty to conduct a de novo revie w of the s entenc e with a presumption that the determinations ma de by thetria l c ou rt

arec orrect. Ten n. Co deAn n. § 4 0- 35 -4 01 (d ) ( 20 03 ); State v. Ashby , 823 S.W. 2d16 6, 16 9 (T e nn . 199 1) . T his pr e su mpt ionis “ c on dit ion e d u po n th e a ff irmativ e sh ow ing in the re co rd t h at t he trial c ourt consider ed the se ntencing principles and a ll releva nt fac ts and circ umstances.” Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169. The pre sumption of corre ctness is aff orded in this case

.. Th e tria l c ou rt

fo un d th e Ap pe llant t o b e a da ng e ro us of

fe nd e r, c on c lud ing : That he’ s a dang erous of fende r whose be havior indicates littl e o r n o re gard f or human life a nd no hesitation about committing a c rime in which the risk to human life is high. [Trial c ounsel] makes much of t he fact t hat he say s this was not a loaded we apo n. B ut h e ha s b e en con vi cted o f a g g ra vate d r ob be ry a ndthat onmul tip le occa sions he g oes i nto a busi ness wit h a st rang er, points a rifle - - sometimes ther e’s a per son by

themselves, sometimes there ’s not - - at least alleg ations in Sum ner Countyis that he m ade somebody lay on the floor. These a

re pr etty eg reg ious 2
s itu a ti o n s
. I a m g o in g to f in d th a t h e is a d a n g e r o u s o f f e n d e r
. T h e a g g r eg ate ter m rea sonably

relates to the severity

of the off

enses, and it’s nece ssary

to protect the public from further c riminal conduct by the def endant. . . . We ag ree with these finding s , as t h eyare supported by the re cord. Thecirc umstances surrounding the commission of the offe nses indicate that the Appellant had littl e reg ard f or human life and ha d no hesitancy about committing a c rime whe re the ri s k t o human life wa s high. Additionally , the potential for violenc e involved in these of fense s supports a finding that confine me n t i s n e c e s s ar y to p r o te c t s o c ie ty

f r o m th e A p p e ll a n t’ s c o n d u c t an d th a t c o n s e c u ti ve sentenc ing r easona

bly relates to the severity

of the off

enses. The Appellant c ommitt ed numer ous crimes of robbery ag ainst unarmed y oung women in orde r to support his drug habit. The sente nce is “no g reater than that deserve d for the of fense co m m itted.” Acc ording ly , this iss ue is without me ri t.-5-

B. Bla ke ly violation
T h e Appellant arg ues that “none of the e nhance ment fac tors used by the trial court to find h i m a d a n g e r o u s o f

f e n d e r w e r e f o u n d b y a j u r y o r a d m i t t e d b y t h e d e f

e n d a n t , ” a s r e q u i r e d b y Bl ake ly v. W ashington , 542 U. S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). The Appellant’s arg ument is render ed moot by our supre me court’s decision in State v. Go mez , 1 63 S.W. 3d63 (T e nn . 2 00 5) . T he c ou rt in Gomez hel d that Bl ake ly had no application to Tennessee ’s 1989 Sentencing Reform Ac t, which go v er n s t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f c o n s ec u t i v e s en t en ci n g. CO NC LU SION
Ba sed upon the fore g oing, the sentenc ing decision of the Davidson County Criminal Court is affirme d.

___________________________________ DAVID G. HAY ES, J UDGE