### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d onBr ie fs D ec em be r 18, 200 7
STATE OF TENNESS EE v . RANDALL McCLURE
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Lin coln County No. S0700044 Robert C rigler, Judge

No. M2007- 01613-CCA -R3-C D - F iled October 16, 2008

Def endant, Randa ll Mc Clure, pled g uilty to one count of the sale of less than .5 g rams of coc aine a nd one count of

the deliver

y of less than .5 g rams of c oca i n e. The convictions wer e mer g ed. The manner of ser vice of the ag ree d upon five y ear sentenc e wa s to be deter

mined by the trial cour

t at a sente ncinghear ing. D efe ndant re quested a lternative se ntencingand af ter c onducting the sentenc ing he aringthe trial cour t denied the r equest a

nd sentenc ed De fenda

nt to serve the f

ive-y ear se nte nc e inc arc e rate d. On a pp e a l, D e fe nd ant a

rgue s th e tr ia l c ourt

e rr on e ou sly

de nie d h is r e qu e st for a lternative se ntencing . After a thoroug h revie w of the record, we affirm the j udg ment of the trial court. Tenn. R. App . P . 3, Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed
T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which J OHN E V E R E TT W I L L I AMS , an d J. C. M C L IN , J J ., joined.
Do nn a Or r H argro ve, Di stric t Pu

bli c De fe nd e r; and

A. Jac ks on

De ari ng , I I I , A ssi sta

nt P ub lic Def ender , Shelby

ville, Tennesse e, for

the appe llant, Randall McClure. Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attorney Gen eral an d Re po rt e r; L a c y Wilb ur , A ssi sta

nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; Charles F rank C ra wf

o rd, J r., District Attorney Gene ral; and H olly

n Hewg ly , Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, the State of Tenne ssee. OP IN ION I. Bac kgr ound At the g uilty

plea he aring , the Stat e provided a summary of the e vidence that would have be e n p re se nte d at tr ia l. T he e vid e nc e wa s summa ri zed a s f oll ow s: On Fe bruar

y 17, 2005, Ag ent B illy

Osterman a

nd As s i s t an t Direc tor Tim Mill er, ag ents assig ned to the 17 J udicial District DrugTask F orce , al ong with Detec tive th Richard Tuc ker of

the Fa y etteville Police Depart m ent, met with a conf idential-2-

inf or mant ( CI ) at a pre arr ang e d loc a tio n he re in F ay e tte vil le , Te nn e sse e , in L inc oln C o u n t y. Duringthis meeting the CI ag ree d to assist them in eff orts ag ainst individuals selli ng c ra c k c oc a ine wi thi n th e F ay e tte vil le c ity lim its and

se lli ngit o n th e str e e ts. They sear ched the CI ’s person and vehicle t o make sure the CIwas not in possession of any c on tr a ba nd . T he se arc h met

wi th n e g a tiv e re su lts . T he CI wa s is su e d $ 60 in confide ntial funds to use in the purcha se of c rac k coca ine should that occur

. The CI ’s vehicle was installed with a hidden camer a so that the transa ction could be caught on videotape if at all possible. Also the CIwas e quip p ed with a r ecor ding de vice f or purpose s of re cordingany tr ans a c tio n a

nd mon ito ri ngthe CI ’s a c tio ns
. On that af ternoon, the CIenter ed the ve hicle and pr esente d to the Bottoms are a and the Wes t E nd

are a of F ay e tte vil le thr ou g h th e ob se rv anc e of the se pe rs onne l.

. . . On c e wi thi n the B ott oms the CI dr ov e aro un d to se e if it wa s po ssi ble to p urc ha se cra ck coc aine.
T h e CI d id ma k e c o n ta c t w it

ha b la c k ma le , w h o w a s late r

id e n ti f ie d a s [D e f e n d an t] , a t th e c or ne r o f R ob ins on

Str e e t and

B e lle vie w St

re e t. He ha d propositioned [Defenda nt] for the cra ck cocaine and [ Def endant] was willing to go g et for him the c rac k coca ine.
Th e CI , o ve r h is r e c or din g e qu ipm e nt, wh ic h w a s tr ans mittin g , g ave a de sc ri pti on

to the offic ers who w ere surveilling this, of [ Def endant]. Desc ribing the clothing and the fa ct that he wa s riding a bicy cle. Tw o of these of fice rs who we re surveilling observe d the CIturn left i nto Be lleview S tree t from Maple Street and the y observe d [Defenda nt] riding his bicy cle on Bellevie w S tree t approa chingMaple Stree t toward the CI ’s ve hic le a s it cir cle d ar ound . T he y ne xt obs e rv e d th e CI ’s ve hic le c ome to a stop on Be l leview Stree t, watche d [Defenda nt] approa ch the CI ’s driver side window, saw a

n exchang e of items betwe en the CI and [ De fendant]. The CIthen drove a way from [Defe ndant] to R obinson St ree t . . . [T] he CIwas followe d back to the sta gi n g location; sear ched a nd three piece s of suspected c rac k coca ine that he had purcha sed fr om [ Def endant] were remove d from him

.-3-

At the se nte nc inghe ari ng , p ro of wa s adm itt e d of D e fe nd ant’ s f oll ow ingpr ior

c on vic tio ns : (1 ) A Cla ss B fe lony

c on vic tio n in

19 95 fo r d e liv e ry

of c oc a ine ; ( 2) tw o mi sd e me ano r c on vic tio ns , one in 2002 and the othe r in 2005, for posse ssion of marijuana; ( 3) three separ ate c onvictions for driving on a suspended license, one in 2005 and two in 1998; (4) a 2002 misdemeanor c onviction for possession of a Schedule I I I controlled substance; (5) a misdemeanor theft conviction in 2005; (6 ) a mis de me ano r c ri min a l tr e sp a ssi ng con vi c tio n in 20 05 ; and

(7 ) a mis de me ano r a ssa

ult conviction in 2006. I n addition, the evidenc e showed that Def endant had his probation for various convictions revoke d on four separ ate occa sions, a nd his parole on the f

elony offe nse wa s revoke d twice.
Th e State c a lle d D e puty B ill y Os te rm ann of the Ma dis on County Dr ugTa sk F or c e . D e puty Ostermann de scribed how the Confidential I nformant ( CI ) ca me to purcha se the c rac k coca ine from Def endant. He testified that the CIwas to g o to c erta in ne ighbor hood in a n attempt to purcha se cr ack c o c a i n e an d

t h a tn o o n e c a l l e d

D e f e n d an t

. H e a l s o t e s t i f

i e d th a tD e f e n d an ta p p r o a c h e d

th e C I. Def endant did not ca ll any witnesses in his behalf , but did prese nt a letter of suppor t to the tr ia l c ourt

. Although the trial court noted that Def endant was a candidate for alternative sentencing , the t r i a l c o u rt d e t e r

m i n e d t h a t t h e p r e s u mp t i o n w a s o v e r c o m e b e c a u s e o f D e f e n d an t ’ s c r i m i n a l h i s t o r

y. The trial c ourt stated:
I f y ou look at pag e 11 of the prese ntence repor t, it actually

mentions that he attende d Spencer Youth Center which the Court is familiar with. Required commitment from juvenile cour

t. T he hig hest g rade he complete d was 10 g rade . The Court ca n look th at s o ci al h i s t o ry

an d d o es as p arto f t h e r ea s o nfo r d en yi n g al t ern at i v e s en t en ci n g. Also it mentions two parole violations at t he top of page 11. Parole re voked 8-8- 97. Fa i l u re t o repor

t and four positive drugscre ens. And pa role re voked 10-21- 99. F a ilure to r e po rt

and thr e e po sit ive dr

ugsc re e ns
. The Court take s that to b e n o t ed as par ole violations that those in addition to t he evidenc e of the probation violations the State pre sented a s proof by way of ce rtified c op ie s and

a s a pp e ars in t

he pr e se nte nc e re po rt

. I t app e ar s E xh ib it

3 is a p r o b a ti o nv io lati o n , Ib e li e v e
. E xh ib it 9 is a p r o b a tion violation. Ex hibit 10 is a probation violation. . . . Ex hibit 15 is a probation violation. Th a t w ou ld b e fo ur

pr ob a tio n v iol a tio ns in a dd iti on to t he tw o p aro le vio latio ns
. Th e sig nif

ic anc e of tha t is that a lte rn a tiv e sent enci ng ha s b e e n tr ie d in the pa st fre quently and rec ently

without success. That in and of itself would be a sufficie nt re as o nt o d en y

al t ern at i v e s en t en ci n g.-4-

Ialso find that co n fi n em en t is neede d to avoid depre ciatingthe seriousne ss of the of fe ns e . It is pa

rt ic ula rl y su ite d to p ro vid e an e ff e c tiv e de te rr e nt t o p e op le lik e ly to commit sim ilar off

enses. [H]is potential for r ehabilitation is poor, g iven the number of tim e s h e ha s b e e n o n p ro batio n in the pa st.
T h e t ri al co u rt t h en d en i edal t ern at i v e s en t en ci n g. II. Ana lys is We note that the leg islature has r ece ntly amende d sever al provisions of the Sentenc ing Reform Ac t o f 1 9 8 9 , wh ich bec ame e ffe ctive June 7, 2005. Howeve r, althoug h Def endant wa s sentenc ed af

ter the e ffe ctive date of the amended Act, Def endant’ s crime in this case oc curr ed prior to J une 7, 2005, and the re is nothing in the rec ord to indicate that the Def endant did not elec t to be se nte nc e d und e r t

he pr ov isi on s o f t

he ame nd e d A c t by

e xec uti nga

wa iver of hi s e x pos t f

a c to protec tions. See2005 Tenn. Pub. Acts ch. 353 § 18. There fore , this c ase is not aff ecte d by the 2005 amendments, a

nd the statutes cited in this opi nion are those that wer e in ef fec t at the time the instant crimes we re c ommitt ed.
Th is c ourt ’s re vie w o f t

he se nte nc e imp os e d by the tr ia l court is de novo with a pre sumption of cor rec tness. T.C.A. § 40-35-401( d). This presumption is conditioned upon an af firmative sh ow ingin t

he re c or d th a t th e tr ia l ju dg e c on sid e re d th e se nte nc ing pr inc ipl e s and a ll r e le va nt f a c ts and c ir c ums tanc e s. State v. Pe ttu s, 98 6 S. W.2 d 5 40 , 5 43 (T e nn . 1 99 9) . I f t he tr ia l c ourt

fa ils to c omp ly wi th the statut or

y dir e c tiv e s, the re is n o p re sumpt ion of c or re c tne ss a nd our r e vie w i s de novo . State v. Poole, 945 S.W .2d 93, 96 (Tenn. 1997)

. The burde n is upon the appea ling pa rty to show that the sentenc e is imprope r. T.C.A. § 40- 35-401(d) SentencingCommi ssion Com ments. I n conducting our revie w, we a re r equire d, pursuant t o T

. C

. A. § 4 0 -3 5 -2 1 0 (2 0 0 3 ), t o co n s i d er th e f o l l o wi n g fa ct o rs i ns en t en ci n g: (1) [t] he evide nce, i f an y , rec eived at the trial and the se ntencinghear ing; ( 2) [t] he prese ntence repor

t; (3) [t] he princ iples of sentenc ing a nd arguments as to sentenc ing alternatives; (4) [t] he natur e and c hara cter istics of the criminal conduc t involved; (5) [e] vidence and information offer ed by the par ties on the enha

nceme nt and mitigating fac tors in §§ 40-35-113 and 40-35-114; and ( 6) [a]ny statement the de fenda

nt wishes t o m ak e i nt h e d ef

en d an t ’s o wn b eh al f ab o u ts en t en ci n g. Un de r t h e C r i m i n a l S e n t e n c i n g R e f o r mA c to f 1 9 8 9 , tr i a l j u d g e s ar e e n c o ur a g e d t o u se a lte rn a tiv e s to inc arc e ratio n. An e sp e c ia lly

mit ig a te d o r s tand ard

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

Cla ss C , D or E f elony is presumed to be a

favor able c andidate f

or alter native sente ncing options in the absenc e of e vidence to the contra ry . T.C.A. § 40-35-102( 6).
I n deter mining if incar cer ation is a ppropriate , a trial court may consider the need to pr otect so c ie ty by re str a ini nga

de fe nd ant h avin g a

lon g his tor

y of c ri min a l c on du c t, the ne e d to avo id-5-

de pr e c iatin g the se ri ou sn e ss o f t he of fe ns e , w he the r c on fi nement is pa rt ic ula rl y a pp ro pr iate to eff ectively deter others likely

to commit si milar offe nses, and whether less restric tive measure s have o f t e no r r e c e n t l y b e e nu n s u c c e s s f u l l y a p p l i e d t o th e d e f

e n d an t

. T

. C

. A

. § 4 0

- 3 5

- 1 0 3 ( 1 ) ; s e e A s hb y, 823 S.W .2d at 169.
A c our t m a y al s o co ns i de r t he m i t i g a t i ng a nd e nha nc i ng f a c t or s s e t f

or t h i n T

. C. A. §§ 40

- 35- 113 and 114 as the y

are rele vant to the § 40-35-103 c onsiderations. T.C.A. § 40-35- 210(b)( 5); State v. Boston, 938 S.W .2d 435, 438 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). Additionally , a court should consider the defe ndant’s potential or la ck of pote ntial for re habilitation when deter mining if a

n alternative sentenc e would be a

ppropriate . T.C.A. § 40-35-103( 5); Boston, 938 S.W.2d at 438. There is no mathematica l e quation to be utiliz ed in de termining sentenc ing a lternatives. Not only should the sentence fit the offe nse, but it should f it the offe nder a s well. T.C.A. § 40-35-103( 2); State v. Batey , 35 S.W .3d 585, 588-89 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). Indeed, individualized punishment is the essenc e of a lternative sentencing

. State v. Dowdy , 894 S.W .2d 301, 305 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). In summary , sentenc ing must be de termined on a case -by -ca se basis, tailoringeac h sentenc e to t hat pa rt ic ula r d e fe nd ant b a se d u

po n th e fa c ts o f that ca se and the c ir c ums tanc e s o f t

hat de fe nd ant. State v. Moss, 727 S.W .2d 229, 235 (Tenn. 1986)

. I n the instant c ase, the trial court clea rly delineate d its re asons for deny i n g al t er n ative sentenc ing. Followingthe guidelines set forth in Te nnessee Code Annotated se ction 40-35-103( 1), the trial cour

t denied alter

native sente ncingbased on D efe ndant’s past fa ilures on p ro b at ion and pa ro le , th a t D e fe nd ant’ s p ote nti a l f or re ha bil itatio n w a s p oo r, th at con fine me nt w a s n e c e ssa ry to avoid depre ciating the seriousness of the offe nse, and that confineme nt was nec essar y to provide an eff ective de terre nt. Def endant a lso argues that the trial court should ha ve place d him on Com munity Correc tions and re lie s o n St a te v. Cummin g s, 86 8 S. W .2 d 66 1 (T e nn . Cr im. Ap p. 19 92 ) t o s up po rt thi s contention. In Cummi ng s, the defe n d ant was charg ed with eig ht counts of fra udulently obtaining a contr olled substance. T he def endant wa s denied Community Correc tions in t he Circuit Court but that decision wa s reve rsed by this Court. Cummi ng s, 868 S.W .2d at 669. Cummi ng s and the instant case , howeve r, ar e distinguishable . Mr. Cummings had no c rim i n al rec ord, and D efe ndant in the c a se sub juce has a le ng thy one. I d. at 662. Mr. Cummings had ne ver be en on any other ty pe of alternative sentenc ing a

nd this Court dete rmined that he wa s a “pa radig matic ty

pe of of fende r who deser ves community corr ections.” I d. at 668. Def endant’ s relianc e on Cummi n gs i s m isplaced due to his leng thy

criminal history

and fa ilures in the past on probation a n d p ar o l e. See State v. Dw ig ht Mo rt on Spe nc e , No

. M2 00 6- 00 13 3- CCA -R 3- CD , 20 06 WL 34 98 14 1, a t *4 (T e nn . Crim

. App., at Na shville, Nov. 22, 2006) per m. app. denied (Tenn. F eb. 6, 2007) ( Def endant’ s prior c on vic tio ns , p ri or

re vo c a tio n of a lte rn a tiv e se nte nc e s, e xten siv e his tor y of mari jua na us e , f a ilure to s e e k t r e a t m e n t , an d

t h e f a c t s o f t h e c a s e s u

p p o rt e d th e d e n i a l o f

a l t e r n a t i v e s e n t e n c i n g )

. A c c o r d i n g l y, Def endant is not entitled to relief as to this issue.-6- CO NC LU SION
For the fore g oing r easons, the judg ment of the c ircuit court is af firmed.

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODAL L , J UDGE