### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs a t K

noxv ill e A pr il 25, 200 7

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. KEITH D . WILL IAM S

Appeal f rom the Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty Nos. 2005-C- 1660 and 2005-C-2147 Cheryl Blackbu rn, Judge

No. M2006- 01830-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Jun e 11, 2007

Th e de fe nd ant, Ke ith D. Willi a ms, e nte re d g uil ty ple a s in the Cr imi na l Co ur t of Da vid so n Co un ty to sale of c ocaine in an amount less that .5 g rams in case number 2005-C-1660 and to sale of coc aine in a n amou nt l e ss tha

n .5 g ra ms in c a se numbe r 20 05 -C -2 14 7. He wa s se nte nc e d to s ix y e ars a s a Rang e I I , multipl e off

ender for e ach c ount, to be serve d consec utively
, for a total effe ctive sente nce of twelve y ear s. The trial court order ed spl it confine ment with the bulk of the def endant’ s sentence s to b e se rv e d in

the c omm

un ity c or re c tio ns pr og ra

m. T he de fe nd ant se rv e d a me re e le ve n d ay s o f h is

c omm un ity c or re c tio ns se nte nc e wh e n h e wa s c ha rg e d w ithvio la tin g the te rm s o f h is c omm un ity

corr ections sentenc e. Af

ter a full hear ing, the trial court f ound that the def

endant ha d violated the terms of his community

corr ections sentenc e, re voked the se ntence and rese ntence d the def endant to a term of e ighte en y ear s as a Rang e I I , multipl e off ender to be serve d in the custody of the Depa rtment of Corre ctions. The def endant now appea ls the re vocation and r esente ncing . Following

our re view, we aff

irm the judg ments of the trial c ourt.

Te nn. R . A pp. 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt s o f the Cr im ina l C our t a r e Affir m e d

D. K EL L Y T HOMAS , J R ., J
., delivere d the opinion of the court, in w hich J ER R Y L. S MI TH , and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined.

Ry an C. Ca ldw e ll, Na sh vil le , T e nn e sse e , atto rn e y fo r a pp e lla nt, Ke ithD. Willi a ms.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; Pr e sto n Sh ipp , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; Victor S. (Torr

y ) Jo h nson, I I I , District Attorney Gene ral; and Rob McG uire, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

appellee , State of Tenne ssee.T h e j u dg men t s r ef l ec t t h at t h e def

en dan t w as t o be re l ea s ed t o commun i t y c or r ec t i on s on M ar ch 16, 2006. 1

H o wever, he act ual l y was not rel eased unt i l A p ri l 2 7
, 2 0 0 6

. E l even d ays l at er he was arres t ed agai n, l ead i ng t o t he f i l i ng

o f t h e re v o c a tio n w a rr a n t at issu e in this a p p e a l.

-2- OP IN ION

The de fenda

nt was indicted for

two counts of selling less than .5 g rams of c ocaine on separ ate oc casions in May 2005. He enter ed g uilty pleas to both indictments on October 27, 2005, and, a ft er t h e s er v i ce of

almost one y ear

in custody , was re lease d April 27, 2006 to serve the

rema inder of his sente nce in the community corr ections prog ram. On May 8, 2006, the def

endant 1

was c harged wi t h p ossession of coc aine with intent to sell. The trial c ourt issued a re vocation

war rant o n M ay 1 9
, 2 006, based upon this alleg ed violation. At the re vocation hea ring , the trial court found that a violation had occ urre d, revoke d the community corr ections sentences, a nd incre ased e ach se ntence to nine y ear s to be serve d consec utively in the custody of the Depa rtment of Correc tions. On appea l, the defe ndant alleg es that the trial court abused its discre tion in revoking his community corr ections sentenc e beca use the evidenc e prese nted at the revoc ation hear ing w as insufficient to support the re vocation, the trial court consider ed inadmissible hear say evidenc e and the trial cour

t should not have incre ased the leng th of the sentences. The state conte nds that the trial
court a ppropriate ly

revoke d and re sentenc ed the de fenda nt.

The trial co u rt held an e videntiary hear ing on Aug ust 11, 2006, and hea rd proof reg arding the def endant’ s arr est for possession of coca ine with the intent to sell. Offic er D avid L ane w ith the Metropolitan Nashville Police De partment testified that he was taking pa rt in an undercover inv e sti g a tio n wi th a c on fi de nti a l inf or mant on Ma

y 8, 20 06
, wh e n he e nc ounte re d the defend ant. He state d that the conf

idential informant w as sea rche d and found to be fre e of a ny money or contra band, wire d for surve illance a nd transporte d to a well known dr ug location. He te stified that the conf idential informant appr oache d an individual about purc hasing drug s who took her to a ma n, later identified as t he defenda nt. Offic er L ane the n observe d the conf idential informant conduc ting a hand- to-hand tra

nsaction with the defendant. The defenda nt’s arr est followed immediately afte r the c on fi de nti a l in fo rm ant s ig na le d th e c omp le tio n o f t he tr ans a c tio n. Th e de fe nd ant w a s f ound in
po sse ssi on of the mark e d “ buy mon e y ” and the c on fi de nti a l inf or mant wa s in po sse ssi on of a sma ll

a mou nt o f c oc a ine . B a se d u

po n th is e vid e nc e , the tr ia l c ourt fo un d th a t th e de fe nd ant v iol a te d h is community

corr ections sentenc e and r evoked his c ommunity corr ections sentenc e.
Upon finding sufficie nt proof that a violation occ urre d, the trial court beg an a resente ncing hear ing. T he state offer ed the prese ntence repor t as i ts only evidenc e at rese ntencing

. The de fenda nt testified that he was release d from conf inement on April 27, 2006, and a dmitted that he was a rre sted on May 8. He ex plained that he “was j ust at t he wrong place at the wr ong time doing the sa me thing that I ’ve be en doing .” The thirty -one- y ear -old defe ndant repor ted that he beg an using cra ck coc aine at the ag e of nine teen a

nd worke d for dr

ug deale rs in exchang e for drugs to support his appare nt addiction. He a dmitted that he had a long history of convic tions, including convic tions for offe nses involving coca ine. He stated that he had violated probation in the past and had also esca ped fr omW e n ot e t h at t h e def en dan t ex ec u t ed a wa i v er of h i s r i g h t t o h av e a j u r y de t er mi n e en h an ce men t f ac t or s f or 2

s en t en ci n g pu r pos es w h en h e en t er ed h i s g u i l t y pl ea s on O ct ober 27, 2006.

-3- custody while on work r elea se. The defe ndant’s mother, Susan Wil liams, te stified that the def endant has lived with her a ll of his life. She stated t hat he had never underg one drugtreatment but felt that was what he nee ded. She told the trial cour t that her son is a g ood person who ne eds help.

At t h e c o n cl u s i o no f t h e h ea ri n g, t h e tr i al co u rt fo u n d t h at t h e de fe n d an t qu al i fi ed as a R an ge I I , multipl e off

ender base d upon his history

of twenty -nine misdemea nor convic tions and three felony convictions prior to the commission of the two felonies that broug ht him befor e the c ourt for

rese ntencing . I n arri v i n g at t h e l eng th of sentenc e, the tria l court found that the de fenda nt had a history o f cr i m i n al convictions i n addition to those nece ssary to establish his sentencing rang e, stating that enhanc ement fa ctor (1) “is the s trong major factor in this case .” Tenn. Code. Ann. § 40- 35-114(1) . The trial c ourt also found a pplicable that the defe ndant was the leade r in the commission of the of fe ns e s. Te nn

. Cod e Ann. § 40 -3 5- 11 4( 2) . B a se d u po n h is f a ile d atte mpt s at pr ob a tio n in the late 1990' s, the trial cour t found applica

ble that the def

endant f ailed to comply

with conditions of re le a se . T e nn . Co de Ann. § 40- 35 -1 14 (8 ). Re la tiv e to t he pr e se nt o ff

e ns e s, the tr ia l c ourt

a lso found applica

ble that the def

endant c ommitt ed the second offe nse while on bond for the first off ense. Tenn. Code. Ann. § 40-35-114( 13). As mitigation, the trial court found that the defe ndant’s conduc t

ne ith e r ca us e d nor thr e a te ne d s e ri ou s b od ily inj ur y . T he tr ia l c ourt

imp os e d n ine y e ar s e nte nc e s in

eac h case an d o rdered them to be se rved c onsecutively in the custody

of the De partment of Correc tions. I n deny

ing a lternative se ntencing , the trial cour t stated “[w]e tried that. He’ s been 2 a misera ble fa ilure on eve ry

form of r elea se.”

A N A LY S IS

The decision to revoke a community corr ections sentenc e re sts within t he sound discre tion of the trial c ourt and will not be disturbed on appea l unle ss there is no substantial evidenc e to support the trial cour

t’s conclusion that a violation oc curr ed. State v. Har kins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82-83 (Tenn. 19 91 ). Pur su ant t o T e nn e sse e Cod e Anno ta te d s e c tio n 4 0- 35 -3 11 (e ), the tr ia l c ourt is r e qu ir e d o nly to find that the violation of a community corr ections sentenc e occur red by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. In revie wing a trial c ourt’s finding s, this court must ex amine the r ecor d and dete rmine whether the trial cour

t has exercised a

conscie ntious judgment rather than a n arbitra ry one. State v. Mitchell, 810 S.W .2d 733, 735 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991)

.

Relative t o the t rial court’s revoc ation of t he defenda nt’s community corr ections sentenc e, the def endant a rg ues that the trial c ourt relied upon ina dmissibl e hea rsay evidenc e to establish that the de fe nd ant ha d so ld or po sse sse d c oc a ine be c a us e Of fi c e r L ane te sti fi e d re g ard in g sta tem e nts made by the conf idential informa n t and another office r who found the “buy money ” on the defe ndant. We d i s agr ee

. Offic er L ane te stified reg ardinghis own observation of the defe ndant’s involv e me nt i n

a hand-to-ha

nd transac tion with the confidential informa nt leading to his arre st where he wa s f ound to be in pos se ssi on of the “ buy mon e y ,” and the c on fi de nti a l inf or mant wa s f

ound to be in pos session of a small quantity of coc aine. Althoug h Offic er L ane r efe renc ed stateme nts made-4-

by the nont estifying confidential informant and the other officer
, Offic er L ane, himself, w itnessed the re cover

y of the c ocaine and “buy

money ” fr om the confide ntial informant and de fenda nt when

arr esting the defendant and testified t o these facts. Fur thermore
, we note that the rules of e vidence do no t a pp ly a s st ri c tly a t se nte nc ing pr oc e e din g s and that re lia ble he ars ay

is g e ne ra lly

a dmi ssi ble as long as the de fenda

nt is given a

n opportunity

to rebut the e vidence . See Tenn. Code. Ann. § 40- 35 -2 09 (b ). Th e de fe nd ant d id n ot atte mpt to r e bu t th e e vid e nc e , b ut i ns te a d a dmi tte d to t he of fe ns e

and of fe re d h is a dd ic tio n a s e xplanatio n f or his a c tio ns , s ta tin g that:

Idid n’ t ha ve my min d r ig ht. I c an’ t sug ar co a t noth ing , I jus t didn ’t have my min d r ig ht. Idid

n’ t ha ve the me nta lity

to g o out the re and do the ri g ht t hin g . I jus t

wa nte d to g o o ut t

he re and us e dr ug s a g a in, I

g ue ss.

Th e re fo re , w e c on c lud e that e vid e nc e do e s n ot p re po nd e ra te a g a ins t the tr ia l c ourt ’s fi nd ingthat a vio la tio n o c c ur

re d. Th e re c or d c le arl y e sta bli sh e s tha

t the de fe nd ant v iol a te d th e c on dit ion s o f h is

r e l e a s e w h e nh e g ar

n e r e d t h e a d d i t i o n a l c h ar g e o f

p o s s e s s i o no f

c o c a i n e w i t h i n t e n tt o s e l l j u s td a ys afte r beingrele ased into the c ommunity corr ections prog ra m

. W e conclude that the tria l court exercised c onscientious and intellige nt judgmen t and did not abuse its discre tion in revoking the community

corr ections sentenc e.

Once there is sufficie nt e v id e n c e to e s ta b li s h a violation of a c ommunity corr ections sentenc e, the trial cour

t has the authority

to revoke the communi ty corr ections sentenc e and or der the orig inal

se nte nc e to b e se rv e d in

c on fi ne me nt o r t

he tr ia l c ourt may re se nte nc e a de fe nd ant to a ny a pp ro pr ia te sentenc ing a lternative, inc luding inca rce ration, for any

period of time up to the maximum provided for the of fense committed w ith c redit for time served w hile on community corr ections. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106( e)( 4). Howe ver, when t he trial court chooses to rese ntence a defenda nt to a more

sever e sente nce, it may only do so after

conductinga new

sentenc ing he aringin acc ordanc e with the SentencingAct of 1989. State v. Crook, 2 S

. W

. 3 d 238, 240 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) . The trial court may not arbitrar ily

incre ase the leng th of the sentenc e and must state on the rec ord the re asons for the ne w sentenc e. State v. Ervin, 939 S.W.2d 581, 583 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).

When r eviewing the leng th a nd manner of ser

vice of a sente nce, it is the duty

of this court to conduct a de novo revie w wit h a presumption that trial court’s deter minations are c orre ct. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401( d). This presumption is “conditioned upon an a ffirmative showing in the

rec o rd t h at t he trial c ourt consider ed the se ntencingprinciples and a ll releva nt fac ts and circ umstances.” State v. Ash b y , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991) . I n conductinga de novo revie w, this court must consider (a ) any evidenc e rece ived at the trial and/or sentenc ing he aring , (b) the pr e se nte nc e re po rt , ( c ) t he pr inc ipl e s o f s e nte nc ing, (d) the a rgume nts of

c ouns e l r e la tiv e to sentenc ing a lternatives, ( e) the nat u re and cha rac teristics of the of

fense , (f) any

mitigating or enhanc ement fa ctors, (g) any statements made by

the ac cused on his own be half, a nd (h) the

acc used’s potential or lack of potential for r ehabilitation or trea tment. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40- 35- 103, -210. The party challeng ing the imposit ion of sentence has the burden to show that the sentenc e imposed was er

roneous. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 401.-5-

Pursuant to our standar ds of de novo revie w, we conclude that the trial cour t’s deter mination will be aff

orded a presumption of cor

rec tness based upon the trial cou rt’s deta iled finding s and considerations re g arding the leng th of sentenc e. We ag ree that the def endant’ s history

of cr iminal convictions should be g iven substantial weig ht in arr iving at the appropriate leng th of his sentence

. The repeated failed attempts at rehabilitation as evidenced by the commi ssion of additional off enses wh ile on a lte rn a tiv e sent e nc ingor bo nd a lso su pp or t th e imp os iti on

of nin e y e ar s e nte nc e s in

thi s

case . There fore , we c onclude that the r ecor d fully supports the trial c ourt’s imposition of

consec utive nine y ear

sentenc es for

the convicte d offe nses.

CO NC LU SION

I n acc ordanc e with the for eg oing, w e conc lude that t he trial court did not abuse its discretion in r e vo kin g the de fe nd ant’ s c omm un ity c or rectio ns sen te nc e s and

inc re a sin g the le ng th o f h is
sentenc es t o nine y ear s eac h to be serve d consec utively in the custody

of the De partment of Correc tions, for a total effe ctive sente nce of eig hteen y ear s. There fore , the judg ments of the trial
court a re a ffirme d.

___________________________________ D. KEL L Y THOMAS, JR ., J UDGE