### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE D e c e m be r 14, 2004 S e s s i on
S T AT E OF T E NN E S S E E v . MI CH AE L E
. J OH NS ON , J R.

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Willi am son Coun ty

No. I-10539-A Russ Heldman, Judge

No. M2004- 01542-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Janu ary 21, 2005

The de fenda nt appea ls the trial court’s de nial of probation. The d ef en d an t pled g uiltyto a
re du c e d c ha

rg e of po sse ssi on of

mari juana fo r r e sa le a nda g re e d to a six- y e ar s e nte nc e a s a Rang e I offe nder. F ollowing a

hearing to de t er m i n e t he manne r of se rvice , the trial court denied probation and or dere d the def enda n t to serve his sente nce in c onfinement. Upon c are ful revie w, we a ffirm the tria l court’s de nial of probation; however, w e re mand the matter for the limited pu rp os e of

e ntry of a c or re c te d ju dg me nt. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed and Re m ande d forEnt r y o f Co r r e c te d Judg m e nt

J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined.

J ohn H. Hende rson, District Public Defe nd er , an d Eug ene H onea, A ssistant P ublic Def ender , for the appe llant, Michael E. Johnson, J r. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Ge n eral and Reporte r; Michae l Markham, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; Ronald L . Davis, District Attorney Gene ra l ; an d De rek K . Smit h, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

Fa cts and Proce dural History

Th e de fe nd a nt, Mic ha e l E. J oh ns on , Jr. , w a s a rr e ste d w he n th e ve hic le in w hic h h e wa s a passeng er w as found to conta in over two hundre d po u n d s o f marijuana . The de fenda nt was indicted, along with the driver of the vehicle (“c o-def

endant” ), on one c ount o f p o s s es s ion of marijuana with t h e i ntent to sell or deliver in a n amount betwee n seventy and thre e hundre d po un ds (a

Cla ss B fe lon y ). P ursua nt t o a ple a a g re e me nt, he re c e ive d a six- y e ar s e nte nc e a s a Rang e I o f f e n d e r o n th e r e d u c e d c h ar g e o f p o s s e s s io n o f

ma r ij u a n a f o r r e s a le

. T h e d e f

e ndant timel y ap p e a ls , a v e rr in g th a t th e tria l c o u r t e rr e d in d e n y in g h im p r o b a ti o n

. U p o n c ar eful
re vie w, we a ff

ir m th e se nte nc e imp os e d b y the tr ia l c ou rt

.-2-

At the sentenc ing he aring , the def endant testified on his own be half. On dire ct
e xa mi n a ti o n , h e a d mi tt e d th a t h e h a d a p r io r c o n v ic ti o n o f d ru g ab u s e in h is h o me s tate of O hio, to which he pled n o l o c on te nd e re
. I n explaining that incident, he ma intained his innocenc e and tes ti fi ed t hat he w as p res ent in a ho me t hat w a s r a i d e d byAl coh ol , T ob acco, and Fire arm s (A TF) ag ents; he stated he was only char g ed bec ause no one admitted to owning the drug s. He f urther
a dmitt ed th at he wa s o n p ro batio n f or a tte mpt e d f

e lon iou s a ssa

ult wh e n h e wa s c ha

rg e d w ith drug ab u s e and that he w ent to prison three times for violations on the attempted fe lonious assault cha

rg e. F inally , he stated t h at h e was a rre sted for c riminal trespass in 1990, but that he
wa s n ot o n p ro batio n o r p aro le a t th e tim e of that arr e st.

The de fenda nt testified that he neither has a dr ug problem nor doe s he use marijuana reg ularly . He a lso testified that h e h as a GED; that he is employ ed by his father

doing landsca ping, p a in ti n g , h a u li n g , a n d c le a n in g w o rk ; an d th a t h e h a s a tw o

- y e ar

- o lds o n w h o h as been dia g nosed with hea

rt problems.

When asked a

bout the incident that is the subject of this appe al, the def endant state d that
a g re e ing to g o o n th e tr ip w a s a “ stu pida c tio n.” He tes ti fi ed tha t he ha d n e ve r b e e n to Me mph is and just wanted to “ g et away a little while.” The defe ndant furthe r ac kno wl edged that he knew the amount of marijuana he and his co-def endant picke d up was a

lot more than forty

pounds, but that he c ou ld n ot t e ll it was tw o h un dr e d f orty po un ds . A s to wh a t he int e nd e d to do wi th h is portion of the marijuana, intended a s pay ment fo r h i s t ra vel, he testified that he planned to “ g ive it away . . . or sell it a little bit.”

He f urther stated that he did not think about the conse quence s of his actions, to whom the dr ug s w e re e ve ntu a lly

g oin g , o r w ho tho se dr

ug s w ou ld a ff

e c t: No. I never , no . . . I

just try to block it o u t b ec au s e i t’s like a nig htmare to me. I j u s t t ry to live day -to-day

while I ’m locked up. I ’m not say ing that I never sat back and I

didn’t drea m about g etti ng caug ht or being succe ssful with the wee d or g e tti ng it b a c k to To le do or ho we ve r y ou wa nt t o p ut i t. He f urther stated: Whe n w e pu t it

in, the fi rs t ba g wa s ju st t wo [sic ] he a vy a ndI kn e w rig ht t hen it was just too, y ou know, just too much. Then he ha d three mo re t h at was just as he a vy . T hat ni g ht I

c ou ldn ’t sle e p b e c a us e I

kn e w i n my

heart th a t I

wa s g oin g to g et caug ht because it just wasn’t setting w i t h me. On the way back to Ohio, I knew we was [sic] go i n g t o get caug ht because it just wasn’t setting w ith me. I ha d b ou g ht a

pa c k o f c ig are tte s. I chai n smo ke d th e wh ole way fr om M e mph is
un til we g ot c a ug ht b e c a us e I ju st ha d a fe e lin g we wa s [si c ] g oin g to g e t c a ug ht. I t was just too much stuff. Finally , he testified that he decide d to tr ansport the drug s back to O hio w ith h i s co -d ef en dant beca use he did not have any

other way

home.

Al th o u g h th e St a te d e c li n e d c r o s s

- e xa mi n a ti o n o f th e d e f e n d a n t, a c lo s in g r emark was made to the c ourt in which the State e mphasized the defe ndant’s re fu s al t o t ake responsibilityfor-3-

his actions. The State noted that the defe ndant attempted to deflect blame for tra nsporting the drug s because “it wa s not his marijuana.”

I n deny ing pr obation, the trial court noted the seriousne ss of the off ense, particular ly

the larg e amount of dr

ug s that the defe ndants wer e car ry ing. T he court further

noted that g ranting probation in this inst ance would depre ciate the seriousness of th e off ense. F inally , the court made pa rticular note of the de fenda nt’s lack of cre dibilit y . Spe ci fi ca l l y , the court stated that the defe ndant at t em p t ed t o show that he wa s “tricke d into believing that [ he wa s] going to car ry an amount less than what [he] origina lly believed and that [he was] some sort o f a v i ct im of the circ umstance. Well, nothing c ould be furthe r fr om the truth.”

The de fenda nt now timely appea ls to t h i s C ourt, cha lleng ing the trial court’ s denial of probation.

An a ly sis

A def endant is elig ible for pr obation if the sentenc e r ec ei v ed b y the def endant is eig ht y ear s or less, subj ec t t o s o m e statutory exclusions. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-303( a) ( 2004). A defe ndant wi tha

to ta l e f f e c ti v e s e n te n c e in e xc e s s o f e ig h t y e ar s is e li g ib le f

o r p r o b a ti o n if

the ind ivi du a l se nte nc e s impo se d f or the c on vi c tio ns fa ll w ith in the pr ob a tio n e lig ibi lit y require ments. State v. L ang ston, 708 S.W .2d 830, 832-33 (Te nn. 1986).

An e sp e c ia lly

mit ig a te d o r s ta nd ardof fender convic te d o f a

Cla ss C , D , o r Efe lon y is presumed to be a fa vorable candidate for a lternative se ntenc i ng in the absenc e of e vidence to the contra ry . T en n

. C o d e An n. § 40-35-102( 6) (2004) . A trial court must presume that a de fenda nt
se nte nc e d to e ig ht y e ars or le ss andfo r w ho m in c arc e ratio n is no t a priority is su bj e c t to
a lte rn a tiv e se nte nc ing . St a te v. B yrd , 8 61 S.W. 2d37 7, 379- 80 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 93 ). I t is further presumed that a sentenc e other than incar cer ation would result in succe ssful
r e h ab i l i t a t i o n u n l e s s r e b u t t e d b y s u f f i c i e n te v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d

. Id

. at 380. Howe ver, althoug h a def

endant may

be pre sumed to be a f

avora ble ca ndidate for

alternative sentenc ing, the defe ndant has the bur den of e stablishing s u i t ab i l i t y for total probation. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 3 5 -3 0 3 (b ) ( 2 0 0 4 ); S t at e v

. Bo ggs , 9 3 2 S

. W

. 2 d 4 6 7 , 4 7 7 (T en n

. C ri m

. Ap p

. 1 9 9 6 ). E v en t h o u gh pr ob a tio n mu st b e a uto ma tic a lly c on sid e re d, “ the de fe nd a nt is no t a uto ma tic a lly e nti tle d to probation as a matter of law.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-303( b), Sentencing C o m m i ssion Comments; S tate v. H ar t l ey , 818 S.W .2d 370, 373 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) . A def endant
se e kin g fu ll p ro batio n b e ars the bu rd e n o n a pp e a l of sh ow ing that the sente nc e imp os e d is imp ro pe r andthat f

ull pr ob a tio n w ill be in the be st i nte re st o f the de fe nd a nt and th e pu bli c . St a te v. Ba ker, 966 S.W.2d 429, 434 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).

I n determining whe ther to g rant or de ny probation, a tria l court sho u l d consider the circ umstances of

the offe nse, the de fenda nt’s criminal re cord, the defe ndan t’s social history and prese nt condition, the need f or dete rre nce, and the best intere st of t h e defenda nt and the public. State v. Gre ar, 568 S.W.2d 2 8 5 , 2 8 6 (Tenn. 1978) ; State v. Boy d, 925 S.W .2d 237, 244 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). The de fenda nt’s lack of cre dibilit y

is also an appropriate conside ration and-4-

ref lects o n a def

endant’ s potential for re habilitation. St ate v. Nunle y , 22 S.W .3d 282, 289 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). Probation may

be denie d based solely

upon the circ umstances surr ounding the offe nse. Sta te v. B ing ha m, 9 10 S.W. 2d44 8, 45 6 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 95 ) overru led on oth e r g ro un ds ; Hartley , 818 S.W .2d at 374. Howe ver, the circ ums t an ce s o f the offe nse as c ommitt ed must be espec i al l y v i olent, horrifying, shoc king, r epre hensible, off ensive, or othe rwise of

an excessive or exagg erat ed deg ree ; and the natur e of the offe nse must outweig h all fac tors favoring pr obation. Hartley , 818 S.W .2d at 374-75.

Th e re is n o mathe ma tic a l e qu a tio n to beuti lize d in de te rm ini ng se nten c ing a lte rn a tiv e s. Not only should the sentence fit the offe nse, but it should fit t he off ender as we ll. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103( 2) (2004) ; State v. Batey , 35 S.W .3d 585, 588-89 (Te nn. Crim. App. 2000). I ndeed, individualized punishment is the essence of alternative sente ncing . State v. Dowdy , 894 S.W .2d 301, 305 (Tenn. Cr i m

. Ap p

. 1 994). I n sum, sentencing must be determined on a case

by -ca se basis, tailoring eac h sentenc e to t h at p articula r def endant ba sed upon the fa cts of that
case and the c ircumstance s of that def endant. State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229, 235 (Tenn. 1986).

I t is c le ar f

ro m th e re c or d th a t th e tr ial co urt c on sid e re d th e se nte nc ing princ ipl e s a nda ll
re le va nt f

a c ts a ndc ir c ums ta nc e s; the re fo re , o ur rev ie w i s de novo with a pre sumption of
corr ectne ss. I nitially , we note that the defe ndant has thre e pre v i o u s co n v i ct i ons and that he ha s show n an i n ab i lityto comply with the terms of probation. W e further note the defe ndant’s lac k of ca ndor b e f

o r e th e c o u r t. A lth o u g h h e p r o c e e d e d o n a th e o r y o f ig n o r a n c e r e g ar d in g the amount of marijuana

being transporte d, he ef fec tively contra dicted thi s theory when he acknow ledg ed, on dire ct examination, that he observed the transfe r of dr ug s into the vehicle a nd knew that much mor e than f orty pounds of marijuana

was be ing tr ansfe rre d to him and his code fe nd a nt. He st ate d th at he too k th e ri de “ [kno wi ng ] we wa s g oin g to g e t c a ug ht b e c a us e it j us t wasn’t se tting with me . . . It wa s j u s t too much stuff.” The ref ore, by his own admission, the defe ndant knew the volume of marijuana being transf

er re d and knowing ly

chose to tra nsport the drug s, with his co-defe ndant, bac k to Ohio.

We also acknow ledg e that the lar g e a m o u nt of marijuana seized from the de fenda nt may
a lon e be su ff

ic ie nt t o o ve rc ome the pr e su mpt io n of a lte rn a tiv e se nte nc ing if it o utw e ig hs a ll other fa ctors. Ha

rtley , 818 S.W .2d at 374-75; see als o State v. Hollingsworth, 647 S.W .2d 937, 939 (Tenn. 1983) (stating that the court may look bey ond the plea a g ree ment to consider the “true nature of the off

ense c ommitt ed”) . We conclude that two hundred fort y -t h re e p o u n ds of marijuana is sufficient to over come the p re s u mption of probation. Finally , we a g ree with the trial court that g ranting probation in this inst ance , especi al l y co nsidering the amount of contra band involved, would ce rtainly d ep re ci at e the seriousness of the of fense . We hold that the trial court a

p p r o p r iate ly

a n a ly ze d th e p ar ti c u la

r f a c ts o f th is c a s e , a n d w e a g r e e th a t th e r e cord supports its finding that the de fenda nt is not an appropriate ca ndidate for probation.-5- Conclusion-6-

Ba sed on the for eg o i n g, we af fi rm the trial court’s denial of pr obation. Howeve r, we no te that th e jud g me nt, wh ic h r e fl e c ts th at th e de fe nd a nt w a s c on vic te d o f a Cla ss D fe lon y , is in confl i ct wit h the transc ript of the plea , the plea a g ree ment, and the se ntencing hearing, w hich indicate that the de fenda nt pled to a Class C felony . As such, we rema nd t h i s m at t er to the Willi a mso n Co un ty

Cir c uit Cou rt fo r the lim ite d p ur

po se of e ntry of a c or re c te d ju dg me nt, consistent with the balanc e of the rec ord.

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