### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jun e 15, 200 4

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. JA MES AL LEN MIC HAE LS

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for K nox Coun ty Nos. 73665, 76423 Ray L. Jenkin s, Jud ge

No. E2003-02336-CC A-R3- CD - July 27, 2004

De fe nd a nt, Jame s A lle n M ic haels, p le d g uil ty to t wo c ou nts of

ro bb e ry , b othCla ss C fe lon ie s. Def endant wa s orig inally

indicted on char g es of ag g ravated robbery

. For his convictions, Defe ndant was sente nced a s a Rang e I I offe nder to e ight y ear s and three y ear s as a Rang e I standard of

fende r, to be serve d consec utively . The leng th of the sentenc es imposed was ag ree d upon in the neg otiated plea a g ree ment. Def

endant a ppeals the tria l court’s de nial of probation. After revie wing the re cord on appea l, we af

firm the judg ments of the trial c ourt. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nts of

the Trial Court Affi rm ed

T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON and J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J J ., joined.

Mark E. Stephens, District Public De fende r; Robert C. Edw ards, Assistant Public De fende r, for the
app e lla nt, Jame s A lle n M ic ha e ls.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral and Reporter ; Mic helle Chapman McIntire, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; Randall E. Nic hols, District Attorney Gene ral; Jo Helm, Assis tant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, the State of Tenne ssee.
OP IN ION The pre sentenc e re port indicates t h at o n J anuary 15, 2001, Def

endant e ntere d the Super 8 Motel on Papermil l R o ad in Knox ville, Tennesse e, armed with a 9 millimeter handg un and demande d money

from the de sk clerk. Def

endant also demande d that the cler k relinquish his wallet and wat ch . The c lerk g ave D efe ndant his watch a nd approximately $250 in cash. Reg arding that incident, Def

endant state d that he wa s “living on the street . . . kicke d out of [hi s] m other’s house .” He a lso stated that the robbery was David L ockhart’s “plan,” and De fenda nt did his “dirty work” for him. He stated that Mr. L ockhart ga ve De fenda nt a gun and told him what to do, and Def endant “followe d along and did it.”-2-

Furthermore , the pre s e n te n c e report indicates that on September 13, 2002, Def

endant e ntere d
a no the r v ic tim ’s ve hic le a nda ttemp te d to take the vic tim ’s pu rs e . D e fe nd a nt andthe vic tim strug g led, and another man enter ed the vehicle from the passeng er side and took the victim’s purse

. De fe nd a nt t oo k a cigarett e c a se fr om the vic tim . D e fe nd a nt andthe oth e r m a n th e n f le d o n f oo t. De fe nd a nt w a s late r l oc a te d, a nd pr op e rt y fr om the vic tim ’s pu rs e wa s re c ov e re d f ro m D e fe nd a nt. Reg arding that incident, Def endant state d that he wa s “kicke d out and living on the stree t” and that he “ne eded mone y .” Hestated that he “g ot dr unk and high” and met a “ g uy [he] think[ s] was named Mike.” The two men wer e wa lking to the store and saw a “nic e S.U.V. and de cide to bre ak in i t not knowing if any one’s in it.” I nside the vehic le, a woma n scre amed a nd the man De fenda nt called “Mike” then g rabbe d her pur se. De fenda nt took a cig are tte case that contained a pproxi mately

75 cents. The presentenc e report also indicates that Def endant was identified by

the Knoxvil le Police Depa rtment as a me mber of the “Trig g er H appy Punks” g ang

.
A sentenc ing he aring wa s conducte d on September 11, 2003, to de termine whe ther Def endant’ s sentence s should be suspe n d e d an d D e f e n d ant placed on pr obation. Def endant, 22 y ear s old at the time of the he aring , testified that he acc epted responsibilit y for the offe nses. Def endant testified, howeve r, that the robbery of the motel w as Mr. L ockhart’s idea. Def endant a dmitted that he had be en convic ted of seve ral misdemea nor o ff en ses and that he was pre viouslyg rante d pr ob a tio n, a ndit w a s r e vo ke d. De fe nd a nt t e sti fi e d th a t he g re w u p in a n a lc oh oli c ho me a nd that hi s pare nts did not c losely

supervise him while he was a teena g er. D efe ndant testified that “the re’ s no s u c h t h i n g ” a s t h e “ T r i g g e r H ap p y P u n k s ” g a n g , a n d h e d e n i e d a n y i n v o l v e m e n t i n g a n g a c t i v i t y. De fe nd a nt e xpla ine d th a t the pr e se nte nc e re po rt ind ic a te s oth e rw ise be c a us e he ha d be e n ridi ng in a vehic le with some people w h o we re af filiated with a g ang , and the ve hicle wa s pulled over. Def endant testified that if the trial court place d him on probation, he would re side at the Salvation Army in the B oo t Str ap p ro g ra m. D efen da nt a lso te sti fi e d th a t if g rante d p ro batio n, he wo uld willingly pay court c osts and restitution a nd submit to drug testing a nd counseling . He testified that his mother and g randmother , who is disabled, could support him while he wa s on probation.

At the conc lusion of t he sentencing hearing, the trial court state d that it had considere d the t e s t i m o n y, th e p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t , D e f e n d a n t ’ s b e h a v i o r a l r e c o r d , e m p l o ym e n t h i s t o r y, s o c i a l h i s t o r

y, prese nt condition, both phy sical and mental, the interest to the public and to Defe ndant, and the ne ed fo r det erren c e . T he tr ia l c ou rt e mph a size d D e fe nd a nt’ s p ri or c ri min a l hi sto ry , h is u se of a de a dly
wea pon in one of the of

fe n s es , h i s failure to make any restitution, and his arre st on other cha rg es since his g uiltyplea in this case . The trial c ourt stated, “[t]hi s man is a menace on the stree ts. I think he’s pr obably

bey ond rede mption.” The trial court denied probation and order ed that De fenda nt’s sentenc es be se rved in c onfinement.

Th is C ou rt

re vie ws the se nte nce im po sed by the tr ia l c ou rt de novo with a pre sumption of
corr ectne ss. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-401(d)

. This presumption is conditioned upon an af firmative sh ow ing in the re c or d that th e tr ia l ju dg e c on sid e re d th e se nte nc ing princ ipl e s a nda ll r e le va nt f a c ts and cir cumstance s. State v. Pe ttus , 98 6 S.W. 2d 54 0, 54 3- 44 (T e nn . 1 99 9) . I f the tr ia l c ou rt fa ils to
c omp ly wi th the statutory

dir e c tiv e s, the re is n o p re su mpt ion of c or re c tne ss andou r r e vie w i s de
novo
. Sta te v . P oo le , 9 45 S.W. 2d 93 , 96 (T e nn . 199 7)

. Th e bu rd e n is upon the app e a lin g pa rt y to-3-

show that the sentenc e is improper. T enn. C ode Ann. § 40- 35-401(d) , Sentencing Commi ssion Comments.

Whil e dete rmining or

revie wing a se n t ence, the courts must consider: (1) the e vidence
rec eived at trial and the sente ncing hearing; ( 2) the pres en t en ce r eport; (3) the principles of sentenc ing and arg uments as to sentenc ing al t ernatives; (4) the nature a nd char acte ristics of the criminal conduct involved; (5) evidence offe red by the parties on the enha nceme nt and mitigating fa ct o rs ; (6 ) a n y

s t at em en tt h e d ef

en d an twi s h es t o m ak e in t h e d ef en d an t ’s b eh al f a b o u ts en t en ci n g; and (7) the potential for r ehabilitation or treatment. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40- 35-10 3 (5 ), -210(b) ; State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 168 (Tenn. 1991) . I f our review refle cts that the t rial court followed the statutory

sentenc ing pr ocedur e, imposed a la wful sentenc e af ter g iving d u e conside ration and p ro p er we i gh t t o t h e fa ct o rs an d p ri n ci p l es s et o u tu n d ers en t en ci n g l aw , an d t h e t ri al co u rt ’s fi n d i n gs o f f a c t ar e a d e q u a te ly s u p p o r te d b y th e r e c o r d , th e n w e may n o t mo d if y th e s e n tence even if

we would have pr efe rre d a diffe rent re sult. State v. Fletc her , 805 S.W .2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).

A def

endant is elig ible for probation if the sentenc e rec eived by the def endant is eig ht y ear s or le ss, su bje c t to so me statut ory e x clusio ns . T e nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 35 -3 03 (a ). A d e fe nd a nt w ith a total ef fec tive sentenc e in excess of e ight y ear s is elig ible for pr obation if the individual sentence s imposed for the convictions fa ll within t he probation eligibility require ments. State v. Langston , 708 S.W .2d 830, 832-33 (Te nn. 1986). A de fenda nt seeking full probation bea rs the burde n on appea l of showing the sentenc e imposed is improper, a nd that full probation wil l be in the best i ntere st of the def endant a nd the public. State v. Baker , 966 S.W .2d 429, 434 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997)

.
I n determin i n g whether

to gr ant or de ny

probation, a tria l court should consider the circ umstances of

the offe nse, the de fenda nt's c riminal rec ord, the de fendan t ’s social history and prese nt condition, the need f or dete rre nce, and the best intere st of the defe ndant and the public. Sta te v. Gre ar , 56 8 S. W.2 d 2 85 , 2 86 (T e nn . 1 97 8) ; State v. Boy d , 925 S.W .2d 237, 244 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1 9 9 5 )

. T h e d e f

e n d a n t' s la c k

o f c r e d ib il it y

is a ls o a n ap p r o p r iate c o n s id e r a ti o n a n d r e f le cts on a defe ndant' s p o t en t i al fo r rehabilitation. State v. Nunley , 22 S.W .3d 282, 289 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).

I n determining if incar cer ation is a ppropriate , a trial court may consider the need to pr otect
so c ie ty by re str a ini ng a

de fe nd a nt h a vin g a

lon g his tory

of c ri min a l c on du c t, the ne e d to a vo id de pr e c ia tin g the se ri ou sn e ss o f the of fe ns e , w he the r c on fi ne me nt i s p art ic ula rl y app ro pria te to eff ectively deter others likely to c ommit similar offe nses, and whe ther less re strictive measur es have often or r ece ntly

been unsuc cessf

ully applied to the def

endant. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103( 1);
se e als o Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169. Additionally , a court should consider the de fenda nt’s potential or lac k of potential for

reha bilitation when determining if an a lternative s en t en ce would be
app ro pria te . Te nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 35 -1 03 (5 ); State v. Boston , 9 38 S.W. 2d43 5, 43 8 ( Te nn . Crim. App. 1996).-4-

De fe nd a nt a

rg ue s th a t he wa s e nti tle d to the statutory pr e su mpt ion that he is a fa vo ra ble candidate for alterna tive sentenc ing. Tennesse e Code Annota ted sec tion 40-35-102(6) pr ovides that “[a] defenda nt who . . . is an espec ially mitigated or standard offe nder convicted of a Class C, D or E felony is presumed to be a

favor able c andidate for alternative sentenc ing options in the a bsence of e vid e nc e to the c on tr ary .” Th e jud g me nt o f c on vic tio n f orms i nd ic a te that De fe nd a nt ple d g uil ty to one Class C f

elony as a Rang e I I multipl e off ender , and he ple d g uiltyto another Class C felony
a s a Ra ng e I sta nd ardof

fe nd e r. Th e re fo re , De fe nd a nt is not en tit le d to the pr e su mpt ion fo r h is e ig hty ear sentenc e. For t he additional rea sons stated below, we conc lude that the trial c ourt’s denia l of probation in Def

endant’ s three- y ear

sentenc e wa s also appropriate.
The pre sentenc e re port sho ws that Def endant ha s a leng thy

rec ord of misdemea nor convictions and a

juvenile re cord. F urthermor e, De fenda nt was g rant e d p r o bation for a

prior off ense, and probation was revoke d. Def endant arg ues t hat the trial c ourt err ed by not considering all of the statutory sentenc ing principles. The tria l court’s finding s, howeve r, establish that it considere d the sent enci ng pr inc ipl e s a ndc on c lud e d th a t c on fi ne me nt w a s n e c e ssa ry to p ro te c t th e pu bli c fr om a defe ndant with a long history of criminal conduct. Furthermore , those finding s are supported by the
rec ord. We conc lude t h at t h e t ri al court properly denied pr obation and orde red a sentenc e of confine ment.

CO NC LU SION The judg ments of the trial c ourt are aff irmed.

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODAL

L , J UDGE