# FILED
November 20, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JA CKSON OCTOBER SESSION, 1997

STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) No. 02C01-9706-CC-00216 Appellee ) ) HENRY COUNTY vs. ) ) Hon. JULIAN P. GUINN, Judge RONALD D. TYLER, ) ) (Agg. assault; poss. of cocaine Appellant ) over .5 grams with inten t to sell; ) two counts possession of a ) schedule IV controlled s ubstance; ) possession of marijuana; and ) possession of drug paraphernalia) For the Appellant : For the Appellee : Terry J. Leonard John Knox Walkup Attorney at Law Attorney General and Repor ter 9 North Court Square P. O. Box 957 Kenneth W. Rucker Camden, TN 38320 Assistant Attorney Gener al Criminal Justice Div

ision 450 James Robertson Parkwa y Nashville, TN 37243-0493
Robert "Gus" Radf

ord District Attorney General 24th Judicial District P. O. Box 686 Huntingdon, TN 38344

OPINION FILED: AFFIRMED
David G. Hay

es Judge2 OPINION
The appellant, Ronald D. Tyler, appeals the sentencing decision o f the Henry County Circuit Cour

t following entry of guilty pleas to tw o felony offenses and four class A misdemeanor offenses. These offenses inc lude possession of cocaine ov er .5 grams wit h intent to sell, a c lass B fe lony, aggra vated ass ault, a cl ass C felo ny, and the misdemeanor offenses of possession of mari juana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and two count s of possession of a schedule IV controlled substance. Pursuant to a negotiated plea ag reement, the appellant receiv ed a sentence of eight years for the possession of co caine conviction, three

years for the aggrav

ated assault conviction, and eleven months and twenty -nine days for each of the misdemeanor convictions. The plea agreement provided th at all sentences were t o run concurrently for an effecti ve eight year sente nce. The issue of the manner of service of the sentences w as submitted to the trial cour t for its determination. At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a sent ence of split confinement, with six months of continuous confinement in the jail followed by supervised probation for th e balance of the eight year t erm. The appellant now appeals this decision contendi ng that the sentence imposed by the trial court is not in accordance with the pr inciples of the Sentencing Ac t of 1989. Specifically, he argues for full probation or a sentence of Comm unity Corrections.
The proof

at the se ntencin g heari ng established that, fol lowing

execution of a search warrant at the appellant’s residence, he w as found to be in possession of 42.2 grams of cocaine. The agg ravated assault stems from the appellant’s aiming of a nine millimeter pistol “ at the team leader or the first [ officer] in the door,” during the execu tion of t he warrant . At the ti me of th e offen ses, the a ppellan t was thirtyfour years old, recently divorced, and the father of two minor children. Prior to his arrest, he was employ

ed at the local Farmer’s C o-Op. However, at the time of the sentencing hearing, the appellant had been working on his family’s farm. He has no3

prior criminal histor

y.
The record reflects that, at the sentencing hearing, the trial court prope rly considered appropriate sentenc ing principles and all

relevant facts and circumstances. State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Ten n. 1991) . Thus, we afford the trial court’s sentenc ing determination a presumption of correctness. Tenn. Code An n. § 40-35-401 (d) (1990). Aft er performing a de novo review, applying the presumption of correctness, we concl ude that the record fully su pports the trial court’s deter

mination.

The trial court found that “there is a decided and obvious lack of credibility in the [appellant’s] testimony.” See, e.g. , State v. Chrisman , 885 S.W.2d 834, 840 (Tenn. C rim. App. 1994) (la ck of can dor suff icient to justify de nial of a lternati ve sentence). Moreover, the court remarked that the circumstances leading to the se convictions had “a ll of the prof essional earma rks of a drug opera tion, the packa ging, the money, and the weapons. . ..” Accordingly, the trial court conclu ded that total suspension would not be in the best interest of the pub lic, . . . this defendant, [and]. . .certainly [not] in the best intere st of justice. I again have considered the deterr ent effect of someone who willing ly and knowingly involves themselves in drug trafficking and consider that in rejecting it in its entirety. I am of the opinion that confinement is necessary to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offen ses in this case. Moreover, the court correctly noted that, in view of the appellant’s conviction for a class B fe lony, he was not entit led to the presump tion favo ring alter native sentencing. SeeTenn. Code An n. § 40-35-102 (6) (1996 Supp. ). Notwithstandin g, this determination, the tri al court nevertheless imposed an alternative sente nce of split confinement.

After consideration of the entire record and the controlling law, we conclude that the sentence imposed was t empered with leniency and was clearly j ustified. Accordingly, the j udgment of the trial court is affirmed.4 ____________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, Jud ge

CONCUR:

_______________________________ JOHN H. PEAY, Judge

_______________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, Ju dge