### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON June 5, 200 7 S es sio n

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. JOHN DU PR EE

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty

No. 05-04929 W. Otis Higgs, Jud ge

No. W2006-01645-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Septem ber 24, 2007

The de fenda

nt, J ohn Dupre e, appe als the trial cour t ’s j u d gm ent deny ing a

ny form of a lternative sentenc e. The defe ndant ar g ues that the trial c ourt err ed in fa iling to allow h i m t o call witnesses during the sentenc ing he aringand in deny ing a n alternative senten ce

. Af t er care ful revie w, we conclude that no reve rsible er ror oc curr ed duringthe sentenc ing he aringand that the den i al of

a lte rn a tiv e se nte nc ingwa s p ro pe r. We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt f

ro m th e tr ia l c ourt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which A L AN E. G L EN N and J.C. M C L IN , J J ., joined.

Marty M. McAfe e and V icki M. Carriker , Memphis, Tennesse e, for the appe llant, J ohn Dupre e.

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

ne y Gen eral and

Re po rt e r; J. Ros s D y e r, As sis tant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil liam L . Gibbons, District Attorney Gene ral; and Patience B ranha m, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

Th is c a se inv olv e s the de fe nd ant dr ivi ng un de r t he inf lue nc e of pr e sc ri pti on

dr ug s, name ly Adava nt, Vicodin, and Pax il, a

nd the resulting death of Stanley Masek. These dr ug s were presc ribed beca use the de fenda

nt was suffe ring from depression. They made him “ver y sleepy , mush-mouthed, and inattentive.” As a re sult of driving unde r th e i n fl uence of these me dications, the def endant

a lmo st str uc k a ve hic le a t a re d lig ht and the n pu lle d int o the c ur b lane wh e re he str

uc k th e vic tim
, wh o w a s in

a mot or ize d w he e lc ha ir . T he vic timla te r d ie d a s a re su lt o f h is i nju

ri e s.

The de fenda

nt was cha

rg ed and ple d g uilty

to vehicular

homicide, a Class C felony . As part of the plea

ag ree ment, the defendant ag ree d to be sente nced a s a Rang e I , standard of fende r to a ter

m of thr e e y e ars , w iththe mann e r o f s e rv ic e to b e de te rm ine d b y the tr ia l c ourt

.-2-

The trial c ourt held a sentencing hear ing a fter w hich it determined that the manner of ser vice would be the c ounty

workhouse a

nd denied a

ny alternative sentenc e.

The fir st iss u e ra i s ed by the def endant is that the trial judg e er red in de ny ing him the opportunity

to call wi t n esses at the sentenc ing he aring . A re view of the rec ord re veals that the defe ndant ca lled his wife, Cindy Dupre e, who testified a

nd was c ross-examined. She informed the

c ourt that: s he ha d b e e n ma

rr ie d to the de fend ant f

or thi rt e e n y e ars ; th e y

ha d o ne c hil d f

ro m th is marria g e; she ha d another child at the time of their marria g e; and the def endant wa s a g ood fathe r to b oth c hil dr e n. She te sti fi e d th a t th e de fe nd ant b e c a me de pr e sse d an d took pr e sc ri be d me dic a tio ns

. She a lso sa id t

hat he wo rk e d tw o jo bs and tha t he wa s v e ry

so rr y a bo ut t he vict im ’s deat h. Ms. Du pr e e sa id t

hat th e de fe nd ant h a d p ro ble ms w itha lc oh ol abu se and that , e ve n th ou g h h e sti ll

su ff e re d f ro m de pr e ssi on , h e no w u se d p ra y e r a nd a c hurc h s up po rt

g ro up ins te a d o f m e dic a tio ns

. Th e pa rt ie s d ivo rc e d a ft er the de fe nd ant’ s se c on d in sta nc e of dr ivi ngun de r t

he inf lue nc e of his medications and his arr est. They are now attempting to rec oncile. Ms. Dupre e said that she ha s seen
a c ha ng e in h im.

A t th is p o in t, tr ia l c o u n s e l in f o r me d th e c o u rt h e w is h e d to c a ll a d d it io n a l w itnesses. The following colloquy

occur red: TH E CO UR T: Wel l, I ’m no t g oin g to argue wi th y ou

. Make y our a rgume nt. Idon’t want to hea

r fr om any

body else. CO UN SEL : Yo u d o n ot w ant t o h e ar f ro m my oth e r w itn e sse s? T H E C O U R T : N o , s i r

. Y o uc ant e l l m e w h a tt h e y’ r e g o i n g t o s ay. COUNSEL : Your Honor , Ihave pe ople from his chur ch g roup. T H E C O U R T : T e l l m e w h a tt h e y’ r e g o i n g t o s ay. CO UN SEL : What th e y ’r e g oin g to s ay is th at he h a s tr ie d to a dd re ss t his de pr e ssi on , and trie d to a dd re ss a ll the se pr ob le ms b oth throug h his activ ities in going throug h thera py and dea ling with it, and throug h the ac tiviti es imposed by this court, under the SCRA M Pr og ra

m. I a lso have a

wi tne ss f or the m. T H E C O U R T : T e l l m e w h a th e ’ s g o i n g t o s ay. COUNSEL : I t is she. I t’s a -- THE COURT: Well, j u s t t el l m e. I ’ll take whateve r y ou say as the g ospel

truth. TH E ST AT E: Yo ur Ho no r, he do e s h a ve le tte rs fr om a ll o f t he m. TH E CO UR T: Al l r ig ht. I ’l l take the le tte rs

. COUNS EL : And, I would also say to the court that it ha s been que stioned,

put into is sue, – L et me see if Ican f ind my letters. (Peruse s file.) He re a

re the orig inals, y our Honor. TH E CO UR T: L e t’ s mark the or ig ina ls and the P res ent ence R epo rt , Ms.

Reporter

. COUNSEL : Th e o nly thing that I

would say , Your Honor , is that it has be e n p ut i nto iss ue wh e the r h e ha d r e mor se fo r t his

. THE DEPUTY: Hold on please

.-3-

COUNSEL : Iapolog ize. (Exhibi t A and B wer e mar ked.) THE COURT: All rig ht. Go ahea d. COUNSEL : I t has bee n put into issue whether he had r emorse f

or this, and Ihave thr e e wi tne sse s – (An interr uption was had.) THE COURT: I am sorry , [counsel]
, g o ahea d and make y our argument, sir. COUNSEL : Your Honor , i t ’s b een put into i ssue whethe r he ha d rea l

re mor se fo r t

his . N ow , thi s is a

man w ho liv e s h is l if

e a s a Christian and addre sses this, but the only thing -

- T H E C O U R T : I’ l l c o n c e i v e h e ’ s r e m o r s e f u l

. H e ’ s r e m o r s e f

u l
, h e ’ s s o r

r y. COUNSEL : Isubmit t o the cour t -- THE C OURT: L et’s g ive him the benefit of i t. He’ s sorry that this happene d;

he’s r emorsef

ul; he’ll never

do it ag ain. CO UN SEL : Al l r ig ht, sir . I s th e c ourt no w r uli ng that I ’m

no t a llo we d to put those witnesses on? T H E C O U R T : I’ m t e l l i n g yo uj u s tt e l l m e w h a tt h e y’ r e g o i n g t o s ay. CO UN SEL : Ms. Mil le r wo uld sa y that he ha s c omp lie d w ithe ve ry sin g le require ment of this SC RAM Progr am; that he h as shown

remorse to her, as she has been watching him for, I think, it’s eig ht and-a -half months in this prog ram. Not one alcohol related eve nt. None. No tampe ring events, n o n e, and that I ’ve g ot also peop l e fr o m the – from his g roup, two of them that can sa

y how he’ s g rown in that g roup. And, I submit t o the cour

t respec tfully

that un der B ooker v. Washington that these a

re things t h at y ou should consider b ef o re y o um ak e ad ec i s i o nas t o s en t en ci n g. THE COURT: I didn’t say I wouldn’t consider them. That’s why I ’m asking

y ou to t e ll me; I do n’ t want to h e ar f ro m a ll the se wi tne sse s. Y o ut e l l m e w h a tt h e y’ r e g o i n g t o s ay. COUNSEL : Okay

. One of them has come to court with him every time, Mr . D ou g Ow e ns , an d he wo uld sa y that he h a s g ro wn

in t his g roup; that he has tried to a ddress these problems eve n befor e he knew he could br ing his mar

riag e bac k toge ther a

nd make it reconc iled. Th e oth e r m an is Mr . D a vid Whitmor e , w ho fo un de d th is g ro up , an d he wo uld sa

y that he ha s com

pli e d with e ve ry

bit of that g ro up , a

nd Ido n’ t kn owwh a t e lse he wo uld sa y . I jus t g ot a fe w things f

rom him before Iwould put them on. B ut I fe e l li ke I ’v e ang e re d the Court by takin g iss ue of thi s,
and thi s is a c a se wh e re Iha d to do that.-4-

THE COURT: Sir, Iwill assure y ou that Iam not ang ry . Isimply corr ecte d y our arg ument that even unde r the influenc e of a presc ription drug , y ou cannot ope rate a motor vehic le. CO UN SEL : Yo ur Ho no r, Ia

bs olute ly a g re e wi th t

hat, b ut I

wi ll

re sp e c tf ull y say that th is i s th a t on e in t ho us and s o f c a se s. I ’ve been handling so many DUI ’s – When I saw a PD, they ha d me pic k o ut the bad vid e os and the g oo d v ide os to t

ra in pe op le , a nd thi s is that on e ou t of tho us and s that y ou sh ou ld loo k at a lit tle differ e ntl y . A nd

Iwo uld lik e the c ourt

to understand w hy

Isay that. I don’t think the ma n knew whe n thi s in c ide nt h a

pp e ne d, that th is m e dic a tio n w a s g oin g to aff ect him like it did. THE COURT: I ’m not cutting you off. COUNSEL : All rig ht. Ihave a rg uments to make. Are y ou now ruling that Ic ann ot p ut o n th e wi tne sse s? TH E CO UR T: No sir , I ’v e a lr e a dy ru le d th a t. C O U N S E L : O k ay. T H E CO U RT : So, now, whateve r ar g u me n ts y o uw an t t o ma k e , y o u can make whatever

argum ents y ou want to make a bout the testimony of these w itnesses. Hav e t hem to stand and be int ro du c e d to the c ourt

. COUNSEL : Yes, sir, I will do that. Stand up Ms. Dupree . You’ve alr ea dy hear d from her

. (Replied.) Mr. Owe ns, stand up. (Replied.) Mr. Whitm ore, ple ase stand up. ( Replied.) And Ms. Cindy Miller, probation office r, stand up. (Replied.) THE COURT: Thank y ou very much. We’re delig hted y ou came today

. I t’s

a re al pleasur e havingy ou here

.
We have c are fully

revie wed this rec ord to discer n any point that the trial judge did not take as “g ospel truth” the testimony of the witnesses the defe ndant was preve nted from ca lling, and w e find none. I t is well settled that the propriety , scope, ma nner, a nd control of the examination of the witnesses ar e matter s within the discretion of the trial judge
, which will not be inter fer ed with in the absenc e of a

n abuse the reof

. A wide discretion in this m atter is nec essar ily left to the cour

t. Coffee v. State, 216 S.W .2d 702, 703 (Tenn. 1948) . Trial counsel is unable to point to any portion of the

re c o r d w h e r e t h e t r i a l c o u rt d i s p u t e d an y t h i n g t h e w i t n e s s e s w o u l d t e s t i f y t o

. I t i s a s tho ug h th e ir te sti mony wa s e nte re d a s st ipu la te d te sti mony . T he tr ia l c ourt e xpre ssl y

state d th a t he wo uld consider the testimony

and the written letters submitt ed on the def endant’ s behalf. We c onclude that

no pr e jud ic e oc c ur

re d to thi s d e fe nd ant a

nd , th e re fo re , n o r e ve rs ibl e e rr or e xists

.
Ne xt, w e c on sid e r w he the r th e tr ia l c ourt , in de nyingany

a lte rn a tiv e se nte nc e , f

a ile d to

re vie w a pp ro pr ia te se nte nc ingg uid e lin e s in arr ivi nga t it s ju dg me nt.-5-

I t appea rs, upon this rec ord, t hat, before determining the m anner in which the defenda nt was to serve his three -y ear sentenc e, the tria l court consider ed the f ollowing: the state ments during the plea colloquy ; the presentence repor t; the vi ctim impact s tatement; t he testimony of the de fenda

nt’s wife; the stipulated testim ony of Mrs. Miller, Mr. Owens, and Mr. Whit more; and the letters wr itten in s up po rt

of the de fe nd ant f

ro m va ri ou s c hurc h me mbe rs

.
When there is a cha lleng e to the manne r of se rvice of a se ntence , it is t he duty of this court to conduct a de novo revie w of the record with a presumption that the deter minations made by

the trial cou rt are corr ect. T.C.A. § 40- 35-401(d) (2006). This pre sumption i s conditioned upon the

a ff ir ma tiv e sh ow ingin t

he re c or d th a t th e tr ia l c ourt c on sid e re d th e se nte nc ing prin c ipl e s and a ll rele vant fa cts and c ircumstance s. State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991) . The burde n of sh ow ingthat th e se nte nc e is i mpr op e r i s u po n th e a pp e lla nt. I d. I n th e e ve nt t

he re c or d f

a ils to demonstrate the require d consideration by the t rial court, revie w of the sentenc e is purely de novo. I d. I f appe llate re view, howe ver, r efle cts that the trial cour t properly considere d all rele vant fa ctors and its findings of fac t are adequately supported by

the re cord, this cour

t must affirm the sente nce “eve n if we w ould have pref err ed a differ ent result.” State v. Fletc her, 805 S.W .2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).

The mec hanics of a

rrivin g at an a

ppropriate sentenc e ar e spelled out in the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989. The court is r equire d to c onsider (1) the evidenc e, if a ny , rec eived at trial and the sen t en cing hea ring , (2) the pr esente nce r eport, (3) the principles of sentenc ing a

nd arguments as t o s entenc ing a lternatives, ( 4) the nature a nd char acte ristics of the cr iminal conduct involved, (5) the e vidence and information offer ed by the parties on the enhanceme nt and mitigating fa ct o rs , (6 ) a n y

s t at em en t s t h e de fe n d an t wi s h es t o m ak e in t h e de fe n d an t ’s b eh al f ab o u ts en t en ci n g, and (7) the potential for r ehabilitation or treatment. T.C.A. §§ 40 -3 5 -1 0 2 (6 ), -103( 1), (5) , and - 210(a) , (b) ( 2006).

I n the pre sent ca se, we disag ree with the defe ndant’s contentions and conclude that the trial

c ourt loo ke d at r e le va

nt c o n s i d e r a tio ns in d e te rm ini ngwh e the r t o g ra nt a n a lte rn a tiv e se nte nc e . F ir st, in consideringthe nature and cir cumstance s of t he offense, the trial court noted that the defe ndant kn e w th e dr

u g s h e w a s ta

k in g a f f e c te d h is c e n tr a l n e r

v o u s s y s te m a

n d kn e w th a t h e w a s dr iv ing under the influence of drug s. The trial c ourt consider ed the e x tent of influenc e the dr ug s had upon the de fe nd ant, in that he wa s “ sle e py , mu sh -m ou the d, and inatte nti ve .” B e fo re str iki ngthe vic tim
, the def endant a lmost st ruck a vehicle at a red light. The trial court felt this de fenda nt’s driving was
so ou t of c on tr ol t

hat “ [p]e op le a c ro ss t

his c ountr y are sc a re d to de a th a

bo ut d ri vin g on the hig hw a y s, beca use they might run into this man (the defe ndant) a ll over this country .” The rec ord supports the trial court’ s conclusions that the defendant was driving while under the i nfluenc e of drug s, knowing he had “ no business driving a vehicle.”

Second, this defe ndant has a previous cr i m i n al rec ord of dr iving unde r the influenc e and oth e r a lc oh ol- re la te d o ff

e ns e s.-6-

Third, the def

endant’ s backg round, social history
, and prese nt c ondition, including phy sical and mental c onditions, appear f air. He suffe rs from dep re s s i o n. His family considere d him to be a g ood fathe r and a

hard w orker

.

F ourt h, in t he de te rr e nt e ff

e c t, t he tr ia l co urt foun d th a t “ e ve ry c iti zen in t his c omm un ity should march on this courthouse and ask me for an ex p lanation. Why on God’s ea

rth would y ou g ive this man probation with his history ? ” The trial c ourt was e x pressing the public’s conc ern ove r
re pe at off

e nd e rs e sc a

pin g ja il s e nte nc e s f

or the ir c ri me s. Dr ivi ngun de r t he inf lue nc e is a misdemeanor c rime that often e ndang ers the public at larg e. Most offe nders ga rner littl e attention

un til the re su lt o f t

he ir dr ivi ngwh ile un de r t

he inf lue nc e re su lts in a

de a th. As did

the tr ia l c ourt , we c onclude that pr obation is not proper under these circumstances to deter this defe ndant and others in simil ar situations

. This defe ndant has a prior offe nse for driving w hile under the influence and continued to drive unde r the influenc e af ter killing the victim in thi s case

. Next, the impact was g reat upon the victim’s family . They lost needed f

inancial support p r o v i d e d b y t h e v i c t i m

. A l t h o u g h h an d i c a p p e d
, t h e v i c t i m w a s a

v e r y g o o d p r o v i d e r t o h i s f a m i l y.

F ina lly , th e tr ia l c ourt

c on sid e re d th is d e fe nd ant’ s p ote nti a l f or re ha bil itatio n a

nd tr e a tme nt. Th e fa c t that thi s de fe nd ant c on tin ue d to dr ive un de r t

he inf lue nc e of the se dr ug s a ft e r h e kil le d th is victim weig hs so heavily

ag ainst his potential for re habilitation tha t the trial court’ s denial of a ny form of a lternative se ntence must be aff irmed.

Conclusion

Acc ording ly , the judg ment from the tria l court is aff irmed.

___________________________________ J OHN EV ERETT WI L L I AMS, J UDGE