# FIL ED M arch 26 , 200 8 Cec il Crow son , Jr . A ppell ate Court Clerk IN T HE C OU RTOFC RI MI NA L A PPEA LS OF T EN NE SSEE A T JACKSON A UG US T SESSI ON , 199 6 STA TE OF T EN NE SSEE, ) C. C. A . N O. 02C 01-9509- CC -0 0267 ) Appel lee , ) ) ) OBION COUNTY VS . ) ) H O N . W . M I C H AE LM AL O AN KEETA BUR DEN, ) JUD GE ) Appel lan t. ) (Re-Sentencing)

FO R THE A PPELLA NT: FO R THE A PPELLE E: JAM ES H . BRAD BER RY CH AR LES W . BU RS ON Branber ry , C rowe & Ma cLeod Atto rn ey Gene ra l and Repor

ter P. O . Box

765 Dresden , TN 382 25 CY RI L V. F RASER Ass is tant Atto rn ey

Gene ra l 450 J ames Rober

tso n Par kway Nas hv il le, TN 37243 THOM AS A . TH OM AS Di strict Attor ney

Gene ra l JAM ES T. CA NN ON Ass is tant Di strict Attor ney 414 So uth F our

th S treet Uni on C ity , TN 382 61- 0218
OPIN ION F ILED ______ _________

_________ AFF IR ME D PU RS UA NT TO R ULE 20 JER RY L. SM ITH, JU DG E-2- 

## ORDER T hi s i s a n appea l as of r i ghtf rom t he j udgm ent of t he C i r cui t C ourtof O bi on C o u n ty , g ra n tin g A p p e lla n t’s m o tio n to m o d ifyh e r s e n te n c e , b u t d e n y in g h e r fu ll pr obat i on. See, T enn. R
. C r i m . P. 35. Appel l ant was c onv i ct ed upon a pl ea of g u i l ty o f the o ffe n s e o f the ft o f p ro p e rt y i n e xc e s s o f $ 6 0 ,00 0 , a C la s s B fe l o n y. H eror i gi nal se nt ence, i m posed A pr i l 17, 1995, w as t o a t er m of ei ghty ear s i n t he D epa rt m e n t o f Cor r e c t i o n a s a Ran g e I s t a n d a r d o f fe n d e r . The s e n t e n c e was sus pen d e d e xce p tforone y earwhi ch Appel l antwas or der ed t o s erv e i n t he O bi on Cou n t y Ja i l
. A pr obat i onaryper i od was i m posed fort he bal ance of t he te rm a n d re s ti tu ti o n o rd e re d a s a c o n d it io n th e re o f.
O n August7, 1995, A ppel l antf i l ed a M ot i on F orC or r ect i on orR educt i on o f S e n te n c e . T h e s e n te n c e w a s m o d ifie d to re q u ire th a t A p p e lla n t s e rv e o n ly s ixt yd a y s in th e c o u n tyja il. T h e tria l ju d g e d e c lin e d to p la c e A p p e lla n t o n fu ll pr obat i on. I ti s f r om t he deni al of out r i ghtpr obat i on fort h e ful l ei ghty ear sent ence t h a tA p p e l l antse eks r el i ef i n t hi s Court
. Aft era c ar ef ul r ev i ew of t he r ecord and br i efs i n t hi s m at t er we ar e of t he opi ni on t hat t he j udgm ent of t he t r i al courtsh oul d be af

f i r m ed pursuantt o R ul e 20, R ul es of t he Courtof

C r i m i nal A ppe al s.
W e not e i ni t i al l y t h a tthi s i s a n appea l f r om a de ci si on wi t h r egar d t o a m ot i on t o m odi fyorr educe a pr ev i ousl yi m posed se nt ence. Tenn. R
. C r i m . P. 35. In c o n tr a s t t o t h e d e n o v o s ta n d a rd o f re v ie w a p p lic a b le to s e n te n c in g a p p e a ls perfect ed unde rT enn. C ode Ann. Sec. 40- 35- 401( d) , appeal s o f R ul e 35 deci si ons ar e r ev i ewed si m pl y t o d e t e r m i ne i f t her e has been an abus e of-3-

di sc r et i on on t h e p a rtof t he t r i al j udge. St at e v . I r i ck , 861 S. W
. 2d 375 ( T enn. C r i m . App. 1993)
. W e a l so n o t e t hat , as a Cl ass B fel on, Appel l antdoes not enj oyt he pr esum pt i on t hatsh e i s e nt i t l ed t o a non- i ncar cer at i v e s ent ence. See, T e n n . C o d e A n n . S e c . 4 0 -3 5 -1 0 2 (6 ).
T her e i s e v i dence i n t hi s re cord whi ch woul d hav e j ust i f i ed pl aci ng Appel l anto n f ul l pr obat i on. How ev er , t he r ecord al so r ef l ect s t hatdes pi t e her cl ai m s t hatt he t heftf r om herem pl oy e r was m ot i v at ed byt he des i r e t o prov i de b a re n e c e s s i ti e s f ro h e r fa m i l y, A p p e l l a n t s tole a p p ro xi m a tely $ 1 3 9 ,00 0 o ve r a t hr ee y ear per i od. Som e of t hi s m oney was used t o pay for a v an, col l ect i bl es suc h as “ D i ck ens Vi l l ages” , and gy m nast i cs cl a ss e s forAppel l ant ’ s c hi l dr en. Appel l ant ’ s e m pl oy er s suf fer ed r at her sev er e busi ness di f f i cul t i es as a r esul tof Appel l ant ’ s a ct i ons i ncl udi ng m ount i ng debt , i m pai r ed c r edi t , and i m pendi ng l ayof fs of ot her em pl oyees.
G ive n t h e circu m s tan c e s i t i s n o t d i ff i c u l t to s e e h o w f u l l p ro b a ti o n co u ld depr eci at e t he s er i ousne ss of t he of fense. Ev en wer e t hi s Courti ncl i ned t o gr ant f ul l pr obat i on, t he reco rd i s s uf f i ci entt o s ust ai n t he t r i al co urt ’ s e x er ci se of di sc r et i on i n dec l i ni ng s am e. Under t hese ci r cum st ances , we wi l l notdi st ur b t he deci si on of

t he t r i al j udge an d we t her efor e af f i r m pur suantt o R ul e 20, R ul es of t he C ourtof

C r i m i nal A ppe al s.

____________________________________

J E RR Y L
. S MI TH , J UD GE

CONCUR:-4-

___________________________________ GA RY R
. W A DE , J UD GE

___________________________________ W I L L I A M M. B A RK E R, J UD GE