### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs O ct obe r 5, 200 4

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. PR ESTON WILLIAM S

Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty Nos. 02-08555, 03-02490, 03- 02937, 03-02938 and 03-04121

Carolyn Wade Blackett, Judge

No. W2004-00072-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Fe bruary 14, 2005

Preston W i l l i am s p l eaded g uiltyto six crimes, f or which he was sente nced a s a Rang e I , standard of fe nd e r andre c e ive d a n e ff e c tiv e e ig ht- y e ar s e nte nc e . A g g ri eved of th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s re fu sa l to suspend his sentence , the def endant now appea ls his sentenc e. After a thoroug h revie w of the re cord

a ndapp lic able la w, we a ff ir m th e de c isi on of

the low e r c ou rt

.

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

J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON and D AVI D G. H AYES , J J ., joined.

B re tt B . St e in, Me mph is, Te nn e sse e , f or the Ap pe llant, Pr e sto n Wil lia ms.

Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt er; Ra chel E. Wi lli s, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil liam L . Gibbons, District Attorney Gene ral; and Thoma s Hende rson, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

The de fen d an t, Preston Wi lliams, pleaded g uiltyin Shelby CountyCriminal Court to six crimes, na mely

three counts of ag g ravated burg lary
, one count of theft of prope rty over $1,000,

one count of theft of property over $500, and one count of vandalism over $500. The de fenda nt enter ed into a plea

ag ree ment with the state specifying the ag ree d leng th of service for e ach c harg e, with the manner

of ser vice lef

t to the determination of the trial court. At the defe ndant’s sente ncing he ari ng , th e de fe nd a nt t e sti fi e d o n hi s o wn be ha lf, a ndde fe ns e c ou ns e l qu e sti on e d h im a bo ut h is motivation for committing the instant c rimes and his amenability to reha bilitation. The defendant responde d that he committed the burg laries a nd theft s at i ssue in order to fuel his expensive drug habit. The de fenda nt also reported t h at while he ha d not completed hig h school, he did re ceive a G.E.D. a nd that the eleve n months that he spent incar cer ated prior to his sentencing hearing ha d

cause d him to rethink his past decision-making and to consider the c onsequenc es of his dec isions-2-

befor e he made them. The defe ndant was twenty y ear s old at the time of his he aring and ninetee n y e ars oldwh e n h e c omm itt e d th e ins ta nt c ri me s.

O n c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n , t h e s t a t e q u e s t i o n e d t h e d e f e n d a n t ab o u t h i s c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y, including his juvenile criminal activity

. The defe ndant had committed severa l crimes as a juvenile, inclu d i n g possession of marijuana , ag g ravated burg lary , possession of burg lary tools, unlawful
po sse ssion of a we apo n, c ri min a l tr e sp a ss, a ndra pe of a c hil d, fo r w hic h h e re c e ive d w arn ing s, probation, and pla ceme nt in a training cente r. The defe ndant testified that he committed the instant crimes to support his expensive marijuana and powde r coc aine ha

bit and further

testified that he ha d la st u se d d ru g s o n th e da y that he wa s in c arc e rate d. Th e de fe nd a nt u se d d ru g s o n tha t date de sp ite having appea

red in c ourt that morning for a bond arr aig nment.

At the conc lusion of the proof a nd counsel’s a rg umen t s , t h e court denied the defe ndant’s request for probation, i nstead sentencing him to serve an ef fec tive eig ht-y ear

sentenc e. Th e de fe nd a nt re c e ive d thr e e -y e ar se nte nc e s for e a c h o f h is thr e e a g g ra vate d b ur g lary c on vic tio ns , a two-y ear

sentenc e for

his the ft of property over $1,000 conviction, a one- y ear sentenc e for

his theft of prope rty over $500 c onviction, and a one -y ear sentenc e for

his vandalism conviction. The c ourt order ed two of his thre e-y ear ag g ravated burg l ar y

sentenc es to run conc urre ntly , rende ring an eff ective thr ee- y ear

sentenc e for those convictions, and ordered his remaining three -y ear ag g ravated b u r g l a r y s e n t e n c e a n d h i s t w o

- ye ar t h e f to f p r o p e r t y o v e r

$ 1 0 0 0 s e n t e n c e t o ru n c o n c u rr e n t l y, rende ring an ef

fec tive three -y ea r s en t ence for those two convictions, as we ll. Finally , the court

or de re d th os e tw o e ff

e c tiv e thr e e -y e a

r s e nte nc e s to ru n c on se c uti ve ly to e a c h o the r andc on se c uti ve ly to the defe ndant’s one-y ear theft of pr operty

over $500 se ntence and one- y ear vandalism sentenc e, rende ring an ef

fec tive ag g reg ate e ight- y ear sentenc e.
When deny ing the defe ndant’s re quest for pr obation, the court ba sed its decision on the seve rity

of the de fenda nt’s crimes, the numbe r of c rimes he committ ed, his criminal history , and the court’s perc eption that the defe ndant was not a menable to r ehabilitation based on his testimony at the sente ncing hearing. The defenda nt now appea ls his sentence, a rg uing that the trial court e rre d by ref using to g rant his re quest for pr obation. We disag ree and affirm t he judgments of the lowe r

c ou rt

.

Whe n th e re is a c ha lle ng e to the ma nn e r o f s e rv ic e of a se nte nc e , it is the du ty

of thi s court to conduc t a de novo revie w of the r ecor d with a pre sumption t hat the dete rminations made by the tri al court a

re c orre ct. See Te nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 35 -4 01 (d ) ( 20 03 ). Th is p re su mpt ion is “conditioned upon t

he af firmative showing in the rec ord that the trial c ourt consider ed the se ntencing principles and al l re levant fa cts and c ircumstance s.” State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991). “The burden of

showing that t h e s en t ence is improper is upon the appe llant.” Id. I n the event the r e c o r d f

a il s to d e mo n s tr a te th e r e q u ir e d c o n s id e r a ti o n b y th e tria l c o u r t, r e v ie w o f the

s e n t e n c e i s p u r e l y de novo

. See id. I f ap pe llate re vie w, ho we ve r, re fl e c ts that th e tr ia l c ou rt pr op e rl y

c on sid e re d a ll r e le va nt f

a c tor s a ndits fi nd ing s o f f a c t ar e a de qu a te ly

su pp orte d b y

the re c or d, thi s court must aff

irm the sentenc e, “e ven if we would have p re fe rr ed a differ ent re sult.” State v. Fletche r , 805 S.W .2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991)

.-3- The mec hanics of a

rriving at an appropriate sentenc e ar e spelled out in the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989. I n the pre sent ca se, the trial c ourt ac cepte d the ra ng e cla ssification and leng th o f s en t ence neg otiated by the parties, and the c ourt mere ly determined the manner

of service of the e ight- y ear sentenc e. I n making this determination, the court is require d to consider: (1 ) the e vid e nc e , if an y , re c e ive d at the tr ia l a ndthe se nte nc ing he ari ng ; ( 2) the pr e se nte nc e re po rt ; (3) the principles of sente ncing and ar g uments as to sentenc i n g alternatives; (4) the nature a nd char acte ristics of the criminal conduct involved; ( 5) evidenc e and inf ormation offe red by

the parties on the enha nceme nt and mitigating fac tors; ( 6) any statements the defe ndant wishes to make in the defe ndant’s behalf about sentenc ing; a nd (7) the pote ntial for re habilitation or treatment. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35- 210(a) , (b); -35- 103(5) ( 2003).

The de fenda nt was cla ssified as a Rang e I standard offe nder and stands convic ted of Class C, D, and E feloni es

. As s uch, he is pre sumed to be a f avora ble ca ndidate for

alternative
sentenc ing options in the abse nce of evidenc e to the contr ary

. See id. § 4 0- 35 -1 02 (6 ). Ho we ve r, thi s pre s u mption does not entitl e all off ender s to an alternative sentenc e; rather, it requir es that
sentenc ing issues be determined by the facts and circumstance s prese nted in eac h case

. See State v

. Taylor , 744 S.W .2d 919, 922 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987) . T h e presumption of fa vorable candida cy for a lternative sentencing may be re butted, for instanc e, by a showing that confine ment may be

ne c e ssa ry to “ pr ote c t so c ie ty

by re str a ini ng a

de fe nd a nt w ho ha s a

lon g his tory

of c ri min a l c on du c t” or that “me asure s less restrictive tha n co nfinement ha ve fr equently or re cently

been a pplied

unsucce ssfully

to the defe ndant.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-103(1) (A), ( C) (2003).

I n th e pr e se nt c a se , th e de fe nd a nt c la ims that he sh ou ld h a ve be e n g rante d f ull
pr ob a tio n. Ho we ve r, the de te rm inatio n o f e nti tle me nt t o f ull pro bation ne c e ssa

ri ly re qu ir e s a separ ate inquiry

from that of de termining whether a def endant is entitled to a less be n ef i cent alternative sentenc e. See State v . Bingham , 910 S.W .2d 448, 4 5 5 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995), overruled on other grounds by State v. Hoope r , 29 S.W .3d 1 (Tenn. 2000) . A def endant is re quired to establish his “suitabilit y for f ull probation as distinguished f rom his favora

ble ca ndidacy

for alternative sentenc ing in g ener al.” State v. Mounge r , 7 S.W. 3d 70
, 78 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 99 ); see Te nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 35 -3 03 (b ) ( 20 03 ); Bingham , 9 10 S.W. 2da t 45 5- 56 . A de fe nd a nt s e e kin g fu ll
pr ob a tio n b e ars the bu rd e n of sh ow ing that pr ob a tio n wi ll “ su bs e rv e the e nd s o f j us tic e a ndthe be st interest of both the public and the de fenda nt.” State v. Dy kes , 8 03 S.W. 2d25 0, 25 9 ( Te nn . Crim. App. 1990), overruled on othe r grounds by State v. Hoope r , 29 S.W .3d 1 (Tenn. 2000)

.

We first note that there is sufficient af fi rm ative evide nce in the r ecor d to conclude “that the tria l court considere d the sentenc ing principles and a ll releva nt fac ts and circ umstances” ; thus, we will conduct our de novo revie w with a presumption that the trial court’ s determinations ar e

corr ect. See State v . Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991)

.

As outlined su

pr a , th e tr ia l c ou rt

c on c lud e d th a t th e de fe nd a nt w a s n ot a su it able candidate for pr obation based upon the s everity of t he defenda nt’s crimes, the number of crimes he

c omm itt e d, his c ri min a l his tory , a nd the c ou rt ’s pe rc e pti on that the de fe nd a nt wa s n ot ame na ble to reha bilitation based on his testimony at t he sentencing hearing. I ndeed, the rec ord re flec ts that the-4-

defe ndant “ha s a long h i story of criminal conduct” a nd that “mea sures less re strictive than confine ment have freque ntly or recently been applied uns ucce ssfully to the defe ndant.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103( 1)(A) , (C) (2003) . Thus, the state ha s overc ome the pre sumption t hat the d ef en d an ti s a f

av o ra b l e c an d i d at e f

o r a l t er n at i v e s en t en ci n g.

We conclude that the defe ndant has failed t o meet his burden of demonstrating that probation will “subserve the ends of justice and th e b es t i n tere st of both the public and the defe ndant.” Dykes , 803 S.W .2d at 259. On appe al, the def endant merely

arg ues that the trial c ourt’s failu re to p ro bate his se nte nc e is e rr on eou s becau se th e c ou rt faile d to c on sid e r c e rt a in a pp lic able fac tors, such as his y oung ag e, his apolog etic and r em o rs ef u l statements made in his pre sentenc e report, and his “g ener al positive attitude toward reha bilitation as ref

lected in his pre sentenc e re port and his testimonyat trial.” The se alleg ations do not amount to an eff ective de monstration that the defe ndant is indeed a

suitable ca ndidate for p ro b ati on, nor ar e they sufficie nt to rebut the presumption of cor

rec tness applied to the tria l co u rt ’s finding s. Acc ording ly , we hold that the de fe nd a nt’ s a

pp e a l la c ks me ri t a ndthe re fo re a ff irm th e se nte nc e imp os e d b y the low e r c ou rt

.

___________________________________ J AMES CURW OOD WI TT, J R., J UDGE