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

15, 200 7

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. KELL OM T IMBS

Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for F ranklin County No. 15345 J. Curtis Sm ith, Jud ge

No. M2006- 01908-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Jul y 18, 2007

Th e de fe nd ant, Ke llo m T imb s, a pp e a ls a s o f ri ght his c on vic tio n f or re c kle ss a g g ra

vate d a ssa

ult

c a us ingse ri ou s b od ily

inj ur y , a Cla ss D fe lony , im

po se d a s a r esult o f h is j ur y tr ia l in F ra nk lin County Circuit Court. He re ceive d a sente nce of two y ea rs as a Rang e I , standard of fende r to be

serve d on probation upon the c ompletion of eleve n months and twenty -nine da y s in jail. He argues that there is insuff

icient proof to support his convic tion, that the trial court er red in de ny ing judicia l diversion and that the tr ial court e rre d in not g ranting him full probation. Upon a full consider ation of the re cord, w e af

firm the judg ment of the trial c ourt as modified.

Tenn. R. App . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court is Aff irm ed as Modif

ied

D. K EL L Y T HOMAS , J R

. J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.

Rob e rt S. Pe te rs , Win c he ste r, Te nn e sse e , f or a pp e lla nt, Ke llo m T imb s.

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

ne y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; Pr e sto n S hi pp , Assis tant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; J ames Micha el Tay

lor, District Attorney

Gene ral; and William Copelan d
, A s s is ta nt D is tric t Attorney Gene ral, for

appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

The de fenda

nt was initially indicted for a g g ravated assault ca using se rious bodily

injury , a Class C felony , afte r he w as involved in an a ltercation at a roc k quarr y wi t h t h e victim , Ty ler M o rr i s o n

. T h e re co rd re v ea l s t h at o n J u n e 8, 2 0 0 3
, t h e de fe n d an tan d s o m e f ri en d s we re “m u d d i n g” and swimming at the Cowan Rock Qua rry in Fra nklin County
, Tenne ssee. The victim was a lso there with some of his friends. The victim testified that his first contac t with the defe ndant came when

e ve ryon e wa s swim mi ng. At that ti me , e ve ryon e se e me d f ri e nd ly and the re we re no pr ob le ms betwee n either g roup of f

riends. The victim r eca lled that the defe ndant offe red to he lp them if they g ot their truck stuck w hile mudding. When the victim and his fri en d s b ec am e s tuck later that-2-

afte rnoon, the de fenda

nt and his friends c ame to their assistance and attempted to pull the truck out of the mud. Howeve r, in doing so, one friend’ s truck wa s damag ed. Soon there afte r, anothe r fr iend pu lle d th e tr

uc k o ut. Th e vic timof

fe re d th e de fe nd ant a

nd his fr ie nd , Ch ri s Co lst on , a ri de ba c k to

ano the r v e hic le . H e a lso of fe re d to wr ite a

c he c k f or the re pa ir s.

On their wa

y back t o an o t h er vehicle, the victim asked Colston not t o smoke in his truck. An e xch ang e too k p la c e that e ve ntu a lly c ulm inate d with Col sto n “b a c kh and ing ” the vic tima c ro ss the fa ce, le ading to both indivi duals g etting out of the vehicle

. The victim, who wa s much smaller tha n both the de fe nd ant an d Cols ton , re mov e d a n o ld b at f

ro m hi s tr uc k to pr ote c t hi mse lf

. A t th is point, the defe ndant stepped be tween the two men and, a s descr ibed by the vict i m , the def

endant “fr om the side took a crow hop to me and just totally rang my bells” by hitting t he victim on the side of the he ad with his fist. The victim rec all ed that he hit the g round har d and that the de fenda nt

a tte mpt e d to take the bat awa y fr om h im a s he lay on the g ro un d. Th e de fe nd ant p ull e d th e vic tim fr om t he g ro un d and he a d- bu tte d him tw ic e and the n punc he d him in the he a d a g a in. At thi s p oin t, the victim relea sed the bat as he fe ll to the gr ound a sec ond time. Now armed with the bat, the defe ndant broke the bat over the victim’s head w hile the vi ct i m wa s still kneelingon the g round. The victim cra

wled to his truck, and one of his friends dr ove him to the hospital. As they left the

sc e ne , th e defe nd ant a

nd his fr ie nd s c on tin

ue d to be a t on

the vic tim ’s tr

uc k a nd thr owthi ng s.

On the wa

y to the e me rg e nc y ro om, the vic tim wa s ble e din g pr of us e ly and be g an to vo mit

. He wa s unable to wa lk on arriva l. Soon after be ing a dmitted, the victim sl ipped into a coma f or

a pp ro xima te ly

on e and ha lf da y s. Th e vic tim ide nti fi e d ph oto g ra ph s d e pic tin g br

uis e s to his wr ist s,

arm s, ba c k a

nd sh ou lde rs . H is e y e s w e re sw oll e n s hu t a s a re su lt of the be a tin g

. Th e vic timha d to be air lifted to Vande rbilt H ospital f or emer g ency surg ery to tr eat an epidura l hematoma to the rig ht side of his brain. He suffe red a sever e skull fra cture from the a ssault with the bat that require d the place ment of three titanium plates in his head and over one hundred staples t o close the w ounds. The victim suffere d perma

nent impairment of his cognitive functioning and motor skills as a re sult of the injuries inflicted by

the def endant.

On cr oss-examination, the victim denied ever swing ing the bat. The vic ti m als o denied defe nse counse l’s char acte rization of the defe ndant’s actions as “try ing to avoid a fig ht betwee n [t he victim] and Colston.” T h e v i ct im reiterated that he wa s try ing to c alm Colston down when the de fe nd ant i nte rv e ne d b y hittin g him in the he a d. He state d tha t he ha d the bat in th e ve hic le be c a us e he is smaller than most other men and he is not a fig hter. He wanted the bat only for pr otection and

no t f or any a g g re ssi ve a c tio n o n h is o wn pa rt

.
Sarah Tuc ker, a

friend of the victim, testified reg ard i n g the eve nts of J une 8, 2003. She stated that the victim neve r hit either the de fenda nt or Colston. She said that the def endant hit the victim with h is f

is t an d w it

h th e b a t. T h e d e f

e n d an t s tr u c k th e v ic ti m in th e le g s an d to r s o , but

mos tly in the he a d. She re c a lle d th a t th e de fe nd ant a nd his fr ie nd s c ha se d th e ir

tr uc k a nd be a t on it

un til the y re a c he d the sto p sig n lea vin g the qu arr

y

. An dr e a Simm on s, ano the r fr ie nd of the vic tim
, corr oborate d the victim’s acc ount of the incident in a ll r espec ts e x cept to add that the def endant a nd Colston gra

bbed the victim from his truck.-3-

Da na Ab le s, a no the r f ri e nd pr e se nt in the ve hic le , te sti fi e d th a t Co lst on a tte mpt e d to lig ht a cig are tte on their wa

y back to the qua

rry when the vic tim asked him not to sm oke because he had

a sth ma

. Ab le s state d that Col sto n pe rs ist e d in lig hti ng the c ig are tte , a nd wh e n s he too k it

fr om h im, he to ld th e v ic ti m n o t to le t h e r ta lk to h im th a t w ay

. T h e v ic ti m g a v e Co ls to nthe cig are tte and Colston proceede d to b l o w s moke in the victim’s fac e. She re iterate d that the victim never acte d

a g g re ssi ve ly

tow ard anyon e and

sim ila rl y de sc ri be d th e a ssa

ult inf lic te d b y the de fe nd ant.

Dr. The resa

Morrison, the victim’s mother a nd a medical doctor, testified that she c alled the victim’ s ce l l ular phone when he had not ar rived home on time. When a ma le voice a nswere d the ph on e , s he a ssume d it

wa s th e vic timand

a sk e d w he re he wa s. Th e vo ic e ans we re d ,“ [H]e c an’ t ta lk on the f[***] ing phone , he’s lay ing the re ble eding wher e I beat his f[***]i ng head in.” She immediately

hung up the phone a

nd called 911. S h e arr ived at the e merg ency room befor e the victim. She took one look at his face and knew that the emer g ency room doctor neede d to order a CA T s c an. S he ob ser ved the C AT sc an b e ingru n a nd state d th a t th e vic timha d s uf fe re d a sk ull fra cture with some bleeding in his brain. She knew that he needed a neurosur g eon so he w as flown by L ife F light to Vande rbilt U niversity Hospital. By their arr ival at Vande rbilt, an additional CAT

sc an r e ve a le d th a t a

blo od c lot on the vic tim ’s b rai n had

g ro wn ov e r t hir ty pe rc e nt, so the vic tim went straig ht to surge ry . Dr. Morr ison stated that the victim had s u ff ered perma

nent ef fec ts from the assault in t he form of short term m emory loss and som e los s of coordination. She also rec alled that the victim weig hed only one hundre d and twelve pounds when he was a ssaulted.

Dr. Richar d Norscov, the admittin g emer g ency room phy sician at L incoln Medica l Center i nFa y et t ev i l l e, t es t i fi ed t h at t h e vi ct i m h ad t o b e he l p ed i n t o t h e em er gen cy ro o m an d t h at , al t h o u gh he could a

nswer que stions approp ri at ely , “see med a little bit dazed at the time.” The victim was vomiting which indicated a head injury so a CAT scan was perf ormed that reve aled an ep idural hematoma a

nd another

small clot at the dura of

the bra in. H e descr ibed the epidura l hematoma as life-thre atening

.

J oshua Gre en testified f

or the de fense that he pulled the victim’s tr uck out of the mud afte r the brake line broke on another friend’ s car with the ir first attempt to rescue the victim’s truck fr om the mud. He wa ited at the quar ry for the defe ndant and Colston to return w hen a young er boy on a bicy cle r eporte d the fig ht. Gree n never witnessed any of the fig ht a nd denied that the def

endant or any of their f riends cha sed the victim ’s t ruck as it left t he quarry

. He reca lled later that eveningthat Colston answered a

cellular phone and sounde d like he wa s g etting into a dispute with someone

w h e nt h e d e f

e n d a n tg r a b b e d t h e p h o n e f

r o m C o l s t o nan d

t h r e w i ti nt h e qu ar

r y.

Andre w Smith t estified for the def ense that he was riding his bic y cle with G len Mitchell at the qu ar r y o nJun e 8
, 2 0 0 3

. H e r e c a l l e d s e e i n g t h e d e f

e n d an tan d

h i s f r i e n d s l e a v e t o h e l p pu ll someone out of the mud. H e obser ved the a ltercation between the victim and Colston and reca lled that the victim had a woode n rod in his h an d

. Smit h opined that the victim was wa nting to fig ht Colston when the defe ndant stepped be tween the m. He reca lled that the vi ctim swung the wooden rod towar d the def

endant. At that point, the victim and the defe ndant strug g led over the rod a nd the de fe nd ant h it the vic timre pe a te dly duri ngthe c ours e of

the str ug g le

. Smith c la ime d th a t th e vic tim-4-

said something derog atory to the def endant a s the defe ndant was w alking awa y with the rod, ca

using the de fe nd ant t o tu

rn ba c k a nd str ike the vi cti m on th e he a d, wh ic h b ro ke the ro d. Smith tr ie d to explain that the defenda

nt was trying to pro t ec t Colston, but , when c onfronted by the fa ct of Colston’s larg e stature in comparison to the one hundr ed and twe lve pound victim, Smi th conce ded that th e de fe nd ant j us t w ante d to g e t in vo lve d in the fi g ht.

The de fenda

nt testified that he wa s twenty -one y ear s old at the time of t rial. He stated that he wa s a full-time student and wor ked par t-time pouring concr ete. He stated that he and his fr iends had helpe d pull the victim’s truck from the mud and, at that time, there w as no animosity betwee n any one. He denied star

ting a fi gh t with the victim but claimed that he wa s try ing to pr otect the victim from Colston. He testified that the victim pe rsisted in strugg ling ove r the stick bec ause he

wa nte d to g e t a t Co lst on

so he hit the vic timse ve ra l ti me s in an atte mp t to di sa

rm him . H e a lso apolog ized to the victim and his family . On cr oss- ex ami nation, the def endant a cknowledg ed that a fig ht betwee n the victim and Colston had not y et beg un when he interce ded. Howe ver, he stated that if Colston and the victim ha d started to fig ht that “Colston would have more tha n likely killed the bo y .” Th e de fe nd ant f ur the r t e sti fi e d th a t he we ig hed appro xima te ly on e hund

re d a nd fi ft y pounds at the time of the a ssault and is six fee t two inches tall.

B a se d u po n th is e vid e nc e , th e jur

y c on vic te d th e de fe nd ant o f t he le sse r o ff

e ns e of re c kle ss ag g ravated assault. At the se ntencinghear ing, the trial court he ard f urther te s t i m o n y fr o m Dr. Morrison, the victim’s mother, a nd the def endant. The trial court denied the de fenda nt’s reque st for judicial diversion. I n arr iving at the s entenc e, the court found no enhanc ement or mitig ating fac tors applicable and sente nced the defe ndant to two y ear s as a Rang e I , standard offende r t o be ser ved on pr ob a tio n a ft e r t

he c omp le tio n o f e le ve n mo nth s a nd tw e nty -n ine da

y s se rv ic e in t

he loc a l ja il.

A N A LY S IS

Sufficiency of the E

videnc e

I n his first alleg ation of er

ror, the defe ndant argues that the evidenc e is insuff icient to support his conviction for re ckless ag g ravated assault, basica lly contending that the defendant acted in selfdefe nse or the defe nse of others. The state conte nds that the evidenc e is leg ally sufficie nt to support

a c on vic tio n f

or re c kle ss a g g ra

vate d a ssa

ult

. An appe llate cour

t’s standard of

revie w when the defe ndant questions the suffic iency of the evidenc e on appe al is “whe ther, af t er v i ewing the e vidence in the light most favor able to the prosec ution, anyrational trier of fa ct could have found the e ssential elements of the crime be y ond

a re asonable doubt.” J ackson v. V irg inia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)

. T h e c o u r t d o es n o tre we i gh the evidenc e; rather, it pr esumes that the jury has resolved all conflicts in the testimony and dra wn all rea sonable infere nces from the evidenc e in favor of the state. See S tate v. S heff ield, 676 S.W .2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984); State v. Cabbag e, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978)

. Questions reg arding witness cre dibilit y , conflicts in testimony , and the we igh t an d value to be g iven to evidenc e we re

r e s o lv e d b y th e ju

r y . See State v. Bla

nd, 958 S.W .2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997) . A g uilty verdic t-5-

remove s the presumption of innoce nce a nd repla ces it with a pre sumption of guilt, and on appe al the de fe nd ant h a s th e burd e n of ill us tr a tin g wh y the e vid e nc e is ins uf fi c ie nt to su

pp or t th e jur y ’s ve rd ic t. I d. ; State v. Tug g le, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982).

A per son commits ag g ravated assault who “[ r]ecklessly commits an assault as defined in § 39-13-101( a)( 1), and . . . [c]auses ser ious bodily injury to another[.]” Tenn. Code Ann. 39-13- 10 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A )

. A

p e r s o n c omm its a ssa

ult wh o “ [i]nte nti on a lly , k

no wi ng ly or re c kle ssl y

c a us e s b od ily inj ur y to ano th er[ .]” Te nn . Co de Ann. § 3 9- 13 -1 01 (a )( 1) . “ ‘S e ri ou s b od ily inj ur y ’ m e ans bo dil y injury which involves: a sub s t an t i al ri s k o f d ea t h ; p ro t ra ct edu n co n s ci o u s n es s ; ex t re m e p h y s i ca l pain; protrac ted or obvious disfigur ement; or protracte d loss or substantial impairment of a func tion of a bodily member, or g an or me ntal fac ulty .” Te nn. Code Ann. § 39-11- 106(a) (34).

We conclude that there is overw helming evidence to support the defendant’s c onviction of

rec kless ag g ravated assault. The defenda nt in this case repe atedly beat the victim, a y oung man of much s maller stature than t he defenda nt, weig hing only

one hundre d and twelve pounds. He struc k the vic timin t

he he a d w ithhis fi st a

nd his ow n h e a d a

nd
, up on brin g ingthe vic timto h is k ne e s, broke a wooden bat over the vic tim’s head. The re is no question that the victim suffe red se rious bodily injury as a r esult of the def

endant’ s actions. Afte r slippi n g i n t o a co m a at the eme rg ency
ro om, he ha d to be a ir lif

te d to Va nd e rb ilt Ho sp ita l fo r e me rg e nc y surg e ry to tr e a t the inj ur ie s to his brain. Dr. Norscov c hara cter ized the victim’s injuries as life-thre atening , and the victim’s mother testified that the defe ndant suffe red perma nent short-term memor

y loss and a loss of coor dination. As to the defe ndant’s cla im of self-de fense , it w as t h e j ury ’s pre rog ative to re ject that def

ense. There fore , we c onclude that the defe ndant’s issue re g ardingsufficie ncy of the e vidence to support his conviction for re ckless ag g ravated assault is without merit.

Denial of Judicial Dive rsion

Next, the defenda

nt contends that the trial c ourt err ed in deny ing judicia l diversion. The state arg ues t hat t he trial court appropriate ly exercised its discre tion in deny ing dive rsion based upon the “ a tr oc iou s c ir c ums tanc e s o f t he of fe ns e ” c omm itt e d b y

the de fe nd ant.

Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. section 40-35-313(a) (1)( B)
, a defenda nt is eligible for

judicial diversion when c onvicted of a Class C
, D o r E fe lony

and has not be en pre viously convicted of

a felony or a Class A misdemeanor. The decision to g rant judicial diver sion lies within t he discre tion of the tr ia l c ourt

and wi ll n ot be dis tur

be d on a pp e a l un le ss it is sh ow n tha t th e tr ia l c ourt

a bu se d it s discretion. State v. Parke r, 932 S.W.2d 945, 958 (T enn. Crim. App. 1996). A de nial of judicial diversion will not be overturne d if the record c ontains any substantial evidence to support the trial court’s a ction. I d.

When making a determination reg ardingjudicial diversion, the trial c ourt must consider the following fac tors: (1) the de fenda nt’s amena

bility to corre ction, (2) the c ircumstance s of the off ense, (3) the defe ndant’s criminal rec ord, (4) the defe ndant’s social history , (5) the de fenda nt’s mental and phy sical hea lth and (6) the deter rent effe ct of the s entenc ing decision to both the defe ndant and other-6-

simil arly situated defe ndants. State v. L ewis, 978 S.W.2d 558, 566 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). The decision should be base d on whether the gra nt of diversion will serve the ends of justice for both the pu bli c and the de fe nd ant. I d. Th e re c or d mus t r e fl e c t th a t th e tr ia l c ourt c on sid e re d a

nd we ig he d a ll these fa ctors in ar

riving at its d ec i s i o n

. State v. Electroplating, Inc., 990 S.W.2d 211, 229 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998).

I nd en y i n g d i v er s i o n , t h e t ri al co u rt s t at edth at n o n e o f t h e f ac t o rs c o n s i d er edi nm ak i n g a judicial diversion deter

minatio n we i ghed in favor or a g ainst the g rant of dive rsion “except the circ umstances of

the offe nse, which w eighs heavily ag ainst g ranting judicial diversion.” Specifica lly , the cour

t found that the defe ndant intervene d into the a rg ument “for

no just cause.” The trial court f

urther f ound that the def

endant wa s “p h y s i ca l ly

superior to the vic tim and cannot be

e xcu se d o n th e ba sis of

pr ovocat io n, la c k o f j ud g me nt, [or ] any e xcu se or

jus tif ic a tio n f or his actions.” We a g ree and conc lude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying judicia l diversion.

Denial of Alternative Sente ncing

As a fi na l a lle g a tio n o f e rr or , th e de fe nd ant a rgue s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d in de nyinghim full probation. The tria l court denie d full probation base d upon the circ umstances of the offe nse and a finding t hat full probation would “depr eciate t he seriousness of t he offense.” The state c ontends that the trial cour

t appropriately

denied f ull probation based upon “ the horrible c ircumstance s of the offe nse.”

A d ef en d an twh o d o es n o t p o s s es s a cr i m i n al h i s t o ry s h o wi n g a c l ea r d i s re gar d fo r s o ci et y 's laws and morals, who has not fa iled past reha bilitation efforts, and who “ is an espec ially mitigated

or sta nd ard of fe nd e r c on vic te d o f a

Cla ss C , D , o r E fe lony

is p re sume d to be a

fa vo ra ble c and idate for a lternative se ntencingoptions in t he abse nce of evidenc e to the contrary .” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-102( 6); see a lso St ate v. F ields, 40 S.W .3d 435, 440 (Te n n

. 2 0 0 1 ). The following

c on sid e ratio ns pr ov ide g uid anc e re g ard ingwh a t c on sti tut e s “ e vid e nc e to t he c on tr ary” that w ou ld

re b u tt h e p re s u mp t i o no f a l t ern at i v e s en t en ci n g:
(A) Confine ment is nece ssary to protect socie ty

by restra ining a

defe ndant who has

a lon g his tor

y of c ri min a l c on du c t; (B ) Confinement is nec essar y to a void de prec iating the seriousness of the offe nse or
c on fi ne me nt i s p art ic ula

rl y su ite d to pr ov ide an e ff

e c tiv e de te rr e nc e to o the rs lik e ly to commit si milar offe nses; or (C) Mea sures less re strictive than conf inement have fre quently

or re cently

b een

a pp lie d uns uc c e ssf

ull y to t he de fe nd ant.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-103(1) ; see a lso St ate v. Ho o p er , 2 9 S.W .3d 1, 5 (Tenn. 2000)

. Additionally , the principles of sentenc ing r efle ct that the sente nce should be no g reater than that deser ved for the offe nse committed and should be the le ast sever e measure necessa ry to achieve the purposes for

which the se ntence is imposed. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103( 2), (4) . The c ourt-7-

should also consider the de fenda nt 's potential for re habilitation or treatment in dete rmining the appropr iate sente nce. See id. at (5).

Be cause the defendant was convicted of a C lass D felony
, he is entitled to the presumption th a t h e is a

f a v o r a b le c an d id a te f

o r a lt e r n a ti v e s e n te n c in g

. Se e T e n n

. Co d e A n n

. § 4 0

- 3 5

- 1 0 2 ( 6 )

. We note, howeve r, that “the deter mination of whether the appellant is entitl ed to an a lternative se ntence and whe ther the appellant is e ntitled to full probation ar e diffe rent inquiries.” State v. Bog g s, 932 S.W .2d 46 7
, 477 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) . Where a defe ndant is entitled to the statutory pr e su mpt ion of a lte rn a tiv e se nte nc ing , th e state ha s th e burd e n o f o ve rc omi ngthe pr e su mpt ion wi th evidenc e to the contr ary . State v. Bing ham, 910 S.W.2d 448, 455 (Tenn. Crim. App.1995),

overr uled on other g rounds by

Hooper , 29 S.W .3d at 9. Conversely , the def endant ha s the burden of establishing his or her suitability for full probation, eve n if the def endant is entitled to the statutory presumption of alter

native sente ncing . I d.; see B og g s, 932 S.W .2d at 477. No cr iminal defenda nt is automatically

entitled to probation as a matter of law . State v. Davis, 940 S.W .2d 558, 559 (Tenn. 1997). Rather , the def

endant must demonstrate that probation would serve the ends of justice and the best interests of both the public and the de fenda nt. See State v. Souder, 105 S.W.3d 602, 607 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002)

.

I n deter mining whe t her to g rant probation, the court must consider the nature a nd circ umstances of

the of fe n s e; t he def

endant' s criminal re cord; his or he r bac kg round and soc ial his tor y ; hi s o r h e r p re se nt c on dit ion , b oth ph y sic a l and

me nta l; the de te rr e nt e ff

e c t on the de fe nd a nt;

an d t h e d e f e n d an t ' s p o t e n t i a l f

o r r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o r t r e a t m e n t

. S e e T e n n

. C o d e A n n

. § 4 0

- 3 5

- 1 0 3

. If the cour t determines that a

period of pr obation is appropriate, it shall sentence the def endant to a speci fi c sente nce but then suspe nd that sentenc e and pla ce the defe ndant on supervise d or unsupervised pr obation either immediately or afte r the service of a pe riod of conf inement. See Te nn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35- 303(c) ,-306(a ).

Dr . Mor ri so n tes tif

ie d at the se nte nc ing he ari ng re g ard ing the inj ur ie s su ff e re d b y the vic tim

as we ll as the long -term e ffe cts of thos e inj uries. She rec ounted that the victim stopped breathing during his CAT scan and ha d to be intubated for his flight to Vande rbilt. She also rec alled that the victim was in a coma

and wa s “unre sponsiv e fo r q u i t e s o me time.” Dur ing his re cuper ation, the victim had to learn to wa lk a g ain and had de al with considera ble balanc e issues. Duringhis senior
y ea r o f h i gh s ch o o l
, t ea ch er s as k edt o p l ac e h i m i ns p ec i al edu ca t i o nd u e t o d i ff i cu l t i es wi t h re ad i n g. The victim cannot drive due to the thre at of seizures. He was not allowe d to wrestle his senior y ear

. Although he had been awa rded a n ROTC scholarship to Tenne ssee Te ch, his neurosur g eon told the victim that he would never be able to attend colle ge. At the time of sentenc ing, the victim was

w o r k i n g o nana s s e mb l y l i n e i na F aye t t e v i l l e f

a c t o r y.

The de fenda

nt testified that, at the time of sentenc ing, he was a full-time student at Motlow State Com mun ity

Col le g e wi th pla

ns to tr ans fe r to She lby

vil le Te c h or

Te nn e sse e Te c h to c omp le te computer pr og ramming cer tification classe s.-8-

I n arr iving at the sentenc e, the tria l court dete rmined that full probation would deprec iate the seriousness of the offe nse committed by the def endant a nd imposed a sentenc e of two y ea rs t o be

serve d on probation afte r the completion of eleve n months a nd twenty -nine day s in ja il. To deny probation or a

nother a lternative se ntence based on the s eriousness of the offe nse, “the circ umstances of the off

ense a s co mmitt ed must be espe cially violent, horrifying, shoc king, r epre hensible, of fe ns ive , or oth e rw ise of an exce ssi ve or e xag g e ra te d de g re e ,” and

the natur e of

the of fe ns e mus t outweig h all fac tors favor ing a n alternative sentenc e. S tate v. Ha rtley , 818 S.W .2d 370, 375 (Tenn. Cr im

. A p p

. 1 9 9 1 ) ; s e e a ls o State v. Bla ck h u r s t, 7 0 S. W. 3 d

8 8
, 9 8 ( T e n n

. Cr im

. A p p

. 2 0 0 1 )

. We conclude that the re cord f ully supports the denial of f

ull pr o b at i o n i n t h i s case . The de fenda nt’s

co n d u ct i nt h i s ca s e c am e d an ger o u s l y cl o s e t o re s u l t i n g i n a h o m i ci d e a n d l ef tt h e v i ct i m wi t h l o n gterm and pe rmane nt effe cts. The br utal beating suffe red by the vi ctim has profoundly chang ed the

course of this y oung victim’s life. The f acts of this off

ense a re so v i o l ent and offensive that they outweig h any fac tors in favor of full probation, such a s the defe ndant’s lac k of cr iminal recor d. The defe ndant has not established his suitability for f ull probation. There fore , we c onclude that the tr ial

c ourt ’s de nia l of

fu ll p ro batio n w a s c or

re c t.
Although not r aised by

either pa rty , we c onclude tha t the judg ment in this case must be modified due to the trial co u rt ’s imposit ion of an e leven month and twe nty -nine da y term of confine ment prior to probation. Th i s court has previously held that a se ntence of conf inement pu rsuan t t o T enn ess ee C od e An no tat ed s ect io n 4 0-3 5-3 06 (a)(3 ) m ay no t ex c e e d th e re le a se e lig ibi lit y date of an off ender as def ined by Tenne ssee Code A nnotated section 40-35- 501(a) (3). State v. John W. Hil l, N o

. 0 1 C0 1

- 9 8 0 2

- CC

- 0 0 0 7 2
, 1 9 9 9 WL 9 2 9 4 8
, s li p o p

. a t * 1 ( T e n n

. Cr im

. A p p

. Fe b. 25, 19 99 ). B e c a

us e the de fe nd ant wa s sen te nc e d to two y e ars a s a Ran g e I , stand ard of fe nd e r, his re le a se elig ibilit y date would oc cur a fter the service of thirty perc ent of his s en t en ce , less any sentenc ing

cre dits. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 501(c) . There fore , we modify the judgme nt to require the service of two hundre d and ninetee n day s in ja il, less any applicable sentenc ing cre dits, with the rema inder of the sente nce to be serve d on probation.

CONCL USI ON

We conclude that there is suff icient evidenc e to s u p p o rt the def endant’ s conviction for

rec kless ag g ravated assault. F urthermor e, the tria l court’s de nia l of judicial diversion and imposition of a tw o y e ar se nte nc e of sp lit c on fi ne me nt wa s app ro pr ia te , exce pt that the te rm of c on fi ne me nt i n the lo c a l ja il s h a ll b e mo d if ie d to tw o h u n dr e d an d n in e te e n d ay s

. T h e r e f o r e , th e ju d g me n t of the trial court is af

firmed a s modified.

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