### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d onBr ie fs F eb ru ar y 27, 200 8

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. LOU IS E. WHITEC OTTON

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Su llivan County

No. S51077 R. Jerr y Beck, Judge

No. E2007-00335-CC A-R3- CD - F iled April 23, 2008

The de fenda

nt, L ouis E. Whi tecotton, was c onvicted of f ailure to ti mely reg ister as a violent sexual of fe nd e r, a Cla ss E fe lony , a

nd se nte nc e d to thr e e y e ars in t he De pa rtme nt o f C or

re c tio n. On

a pp e a l, he argues that the trial court err ed in de nying alternative sentenc ing. Following our revie w, we aff irm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., deli vere d the opinion of the cour t, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.

J oseph F . Har

rison, Assistant Publ ic Def ender , for the a

ppellant, L ouis E. Whi tecotton.

Robert E. C o o p er , J r., Attorney Gene ral a

nd Reporter ; J ennife r L . Ble dsoe, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; H. Gr eele y

Wells, J r., Dis t ri ct At torney Gene ral; and B . Todd Martin, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

F AC TS

F ro m 19 80 to 2 00 4, the de fe nd ant w a s inc arc e ra te d in the Vi rg ini a State Pe nit e nti ary wh ile servingan ef

fec tive forty -six -y ear

sentenc e for

rape , use of a firear

m in the commi ssion of a ra pe, and sodomy

convictions. After

the def endant wa s paroled on O ctober 8, 2004, he re sided at the Salvation Army

in Bristol, Tenne ssee, a

nd reg ister e d

w it h th e B r istol (Te nnessee ) Police De partment
as a v io le n t s e xu a l o f

f e n d e r

. I n D e c e mb e r 2 0 0 4 , h e r e p o rte d to th e B r is to l ( T e n n e s s e e ) Police Depa rtment that h e wa s m o v i n g t o Br istol, Virginia. On Ma y 11, 2005, he applied to attend the National C olleg e of Business and Tec hnology (NCB T) in B ristol, Tennessee , and beg an attending classes the re on June 6, 2005. He did not re g ister as a v i o l en t sex ual offe nder w ith the Bristol (T en n es s ee ) P o l i ce De p ar t m en tu n t i l Au gu s t2 9 , 2 0 0 5

. W i t h i nfo rt y -e i gh th o u rs o f e s t ab l i s h i n g a-2-

residenc e, becoming employ ed, or becoming a st udent i n Tenne ssee, sex ual offender s must reg ister in person with the desig nated law en fo rcement ag ency having jurisdiction over the off ender ’s residenc e, plac e of e mploy m en t , o r educ ational institut ion. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 39-203(a )(1) (Supp. 2005).

Trial

Th e pa rt i e s s t i p u l a t e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d an t w a s a v i o l e n t s e xu a l o f f e n d e r a s d e f

i n e d in Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tio n 40-39-202, the N CBT is an institution of higher lear ning a s define d in section 40-39-202, and the Br istol (Te nnessee ) Police Depa rtment is the law enf

orce ment ag ency having jurisdiction over the NCBT.

Detec tive Aar on Ble vins, a member of the B ristol (Tennesse e) Police D epar tment’s Sex Offe nder Reg istry Team, te stified that the defe ndant reg istered as a violent se x u al o ffender on October 13, 2004. He identifie d a Tennessee Bur eau of I nvestig ation Sex ual Offender I nstruction Sheet, which instructed that off ender s from anothe r jurisdiction who bec ome a student in Tenne ssee must reg ister within forty -eig ht hours with the law enf orce ment ag ency

having jurisdiction over the

e du c a tio na l ins tit

uti on

. Th e do c ume nt wa s date d Oc tob e r 13 , 20 04 , and sig ned by th e def e nd ant. De te c tiv e B le vin s te sti fi e d th at th e de fe nd ant b e g an atte nd ingthe NC B T o n Jun e 6, 20 05 , b ut d id not reg ister as a

sexual offende r until Aug ust 29, 2005, after Ble vins contacte d the def endant’ s Vi rg ini a pa role off ice r and a sk e d to me e t w iththe de fe nd ant. When the defe ndant ar rived at the polic e s tati o n , h e w a s ar

r e s te d

. O n c r o s s
- e xa mi n a ti o n , D e te c ti v e B le v in s te s ti f ie d th a t w h e n the defe ndant was a

rre sted he said he did not know he was r equire d to reg ister.

Br istol (Tennessee ) Police De partment Serg eant Da vid Kirkpatrick testified that he g ave the defe ndant an instruction shee t and notice of his ne x t r eg istration da te when he reg istered on October 13 , 200 4. H e s t a t e d

t h a tt h e d e f

e n d an tn o t i f

i e d h i m i nD e c e mb e r

t h a th e w a s m o v i n g t o B r i s t o l, Vi rg ini a . O n c ro ss- e xami natio n, Se rg e ant K ir kp a tr ic k te sti fi e d th a t once th e de fe nd ant m ov e d to Virg inia in Dece mber 2004, his obliga tion to reg ister in Tenne ssee c ease d.

The de fenda

nt offe red the testimony

of Virg inia parole office r Ga ry Todd, who super

vised the def endant f rom the time he was rele ased from the Virg inia State Penitentiary in October

2004. He sa id the defe ndant initially lived at the Salvation A rmy in B ristol, Tennessee , befor e moving back to Bristol, Virg inia. Todd stated that the de fenda nt worked at two restaur ants afte r his rele ase f rom p ri s o n

. He ex p l ai n ed t h at t h e de fe n d an t ’s co n d i t i o n s o f p ar o l e i n cl u d edn o t i fy i n g h i m o f a n y ch an ge of a dd re ss, me e tin g wi th h im a s in str uc te d, a tte nd ingcou ns eli ng a s r e qu ir e d, and c omp lyingwi th the re quirements of the sexual offende r re g istry . Todd testified that, with the exception of fa i ling to r e g ist e r i n T e nn e sse e whe n h e be g an atte nd ing the NC B T, the de fe nd ant h a d c omp lie d w itha ll of his pa ro le c on dit ion s.

To dd sa id t hat wh e n the de fe nd ant tol d him he int e nd e d to a tte nd the NC B T, he did

no t te ll the def endant that he would be require d to r eg ister as a sexual off ender in Tennesse e bec ause he was
un awa re of thi s r e qu ir e me nt. He te sti fi e d th a t he re c e ive d a c a ll f ro m D e te c tiv e B le vin s o n Augus t-3-

22, 2005, informing him that the defe ndant was require d to r eg ister. He told the de fenda nt about the reg istration require ment on Fr iday , Aug ust 26, 2005, and the def endant r eporte d to the Br istol (Tenne ssee) Police Depa

rtment the following Monday , Aug ust 29, 2005.

Se nt e nc ing He ar ing
The fifty -one- y ear -old defe ndant t estified that if he were gr anted alternative sentencinghe be lie ve d h e c ou ld r e g a in h is f or me r j ob a t L og an’ s Ro a dh ou se , li ve a t th e Sa lvatio n A rmy in B ri sto l, Tenne ssee, a

nd adher e to any

terms and conditions imposed by the cour t. He said he did not have an alc ohol or drugproblem. H e stated that while inca rce rate d in Virg inia he re ceive d counseling wh ic h h e lpe d h im fee l e mpa thy fo r h is v ic tim s and

un de rs tand

ho w h is a c tio ns ha d n e g a tiv e ly imp a c te d th e m. H e tes ti fi ed th at, af te r h is r e le a se fr om p ri so n in 20 04 , h e tim e ly

re g ist e re d a s a sexual off

ender with the Br istol (Te nnessee ) Police Depa rtment and with the Br i s t o l (V i rgi nia) Police Depa

rtment when he moved to Virg inia in Dece mber.

Th e defe nd ant tes tif

ie d th a t, a ft e r m ov ingto V ir g ini a , h e ma int a ine d a job and de c ide d to enroll in colleg e to take computer course s beca use he ha d enjoy ed lea

rning about computer s during his incarc eration. He said he informed his pa role off icer , Gar y Todd, of his plans to attend colleg e, bu t T od d d id n ot te ll h im a bo ut t he se x off

e nd e r r e g ist

ry re qu ir e me nt t

hat r e su lte d f

ro m hi s
e nr oll me nt i n c oll e g e . H e sa id t he re wa s n o c ha

nc e that he wo uld

e ve r a g a in c ommit vi ol ent a c ts
a g a ins t w ome n o r f

a il t o ti me ly re g ist e r a s a

se xua l of fe nd e r. He te sti fi e d th a t he ha d li e d a bo ut h is offe nses for te n y ear s befor e having a chang e of he art duringa par ole interviewin 1989 but had consistently

told the truth and taken r esponsibility for his ac tions since then.

On cr oss-examination, the def endant r elated the circ umstances of his prior convictions for rape and attempted r ape. Re g ardingthe forme r, he te stified that he sawa woman jogg ing as he drove down a r oad. He parke d his car a nd hid in a ravine along the victim’s route, a nd when she jogg ed past he e merg ed and display ed a pe llet gun, told her to ge t down i n t o t h e ra

vine, and r aped he r. R e g ar d i n g t h e a t t e mp t e d

r a p e , h e t e s t i f

i e d t h a t h e d r o v e t o a

h i g h s c h o o l i nW a s h i n g t o nC o u n t y, Vi rg ini a , a

nd saw a fe ma le and

a ma le sittin g in a

c ar i n th e pa

rk inglot . H e fo llo we d th e fe ma le int o the hig h school and told her he was a janitor. She asked him for a broom, a

nd he t o l d h er it wa s up sta ir s. On c e up sta ir s th e de fe nd ant dis pla y e d his pe lle t g un , tol d th e fe ma le to g o to the bathr oo m, followed he r into one of the sta lls, and attempted to rape her.

Ga ry To dd te sti fi e d that f

ro m th e tim e of

his re le a se on

pa ro le un til his arr e st f

or fa ilure to timely reg ister, the def

e n d a nt a tt e n d e d w e e k ly s e x ual offe nder c ounseling in Abingdon, V irg inia, and had complied with all the r equire ments of the par ole prog ram.

Fr ancis B elche r testified that she met the defe ndant when she worke d as a ca seworke r at the Salvation Army

in Bristol, Tenne ssee. She inter acte d with him on a daily basis and found that he was “ very

conscie ntious about doing what he nee ded to do.” She s t at ed that, in her opinion, the de fe nd ant w a s trying to liv e a law- a bid ing lif e and wa s a favo ra

ble c and idate fo r p ro batio n. She sa id-4-

that she no long er w orked at the Salvation Army but would be ava ilable if t h e d efendant nee ded assistance or super

vision.

Pastor Dar

rell Bewley of t he Bristol, Tenne ssee Shelby Street C hurch of God testified that t h e d efendant beg an attendinghis church in 2004. He said he ha d many conver sations with the defe ndant and f

ound him to be very

conscie nti ous. Pastor Be wley stated that he be lieved the d ef en d ant was attempting to live a g ood, law-a biding life and would be a g ood candidate for probation. He said he would be available to help and guide the def endant.

At t h e c o n cl u s i o no f t h e h ea ri n g, t h e t ri al co u rt d en i edal t ern at i v e s en t en ci n g, s t at i n g:

Th e De fe nd ant in thi s c a se wa s or ig ina lly c onvic te d in th e C ommonwe a lth of Vi rg ini a fo r nume ro us of fe ns e s wh ic h are se t ou t in the pr e se nte nc e re po rt in s ome detail, including the manner in which some or a ll of them occur red.

Th e De fe nd ant r e c e ive d a tot a l se nte nc e of

45 y e ars . H e we nt t o th e state penitentiary , serve d 25 y ear s, then he was paroled out of t he Virginia D epar tment of Correc tions. At some point he did c ome to T ennesse e and was reg istered as a se x ual offe nder a

nd repor ted to the B ristol Tennessee Police Depa rtment. . . .

. . . [T he De fe nd ant] l a te r d e te rm ine d to le a ve Tennes see and re tur n to Virg inia. Then this is where he g ot into difficulty , in that when he r eturne d to attend school at a business colleg e he did not report to the Tenne ssee a uthorities that he was g oing to sc hool in the state of Tenne ssee, notwithstanding that he had filed a – that

on e of the e xhibi ts at th e or ig ina l tr ia l in thi s c a se wa s t hat he wa s in str uc te d to

rer eg ister or re g ister if he be came a student in the state of Tenne ssee.

. . . .
But a sidelight to t hat is that previously when – a nd ag ain in the pre sentenc e repor t his prior – some of his prior off enses a re de scribed in some detail. And there seems to be a

pattern that he had – one of the off ense s occur

red a ctually

inside Patrick He nry

Hig h School at Washington County , Virg inia. This school’s on Hillman Highw ay

approx imately

one mile from Emory

and He nry

College , an educational are a.

On an o t her offe nse he was convicted of

. . . sex off ense [si c] involvin g a Virg inia I ntermont Student. Virg inia I ntermont’s l ocate d in Br istol, Virg inia. And also that when he picked the – or ever how he a pproac hed the victim she wa s walking

near Virg inia Hig h School which is – al t h o u g h not close to Virg inia I ntermont Col le g e , i t ’ s c e rt a i n l y w i t h i n w a l k i n g d i s t an c e w i t h o u t a g r e a t d e a l o f s t r a i n to Virg inia Hig h School.-5- I n this c a s e t h e D e f

e n d an tr e tu r

n e d t o t h e s t a t e o f

T e n n e s s e e , o s t e n s i b l y

to
a tte nd c oll e g e , a nd did no t r e po rt

. . . . An d I ’m jus t po int ingou t th e c oin c ide nc e tha t, of a ll thi ng s, he ’s c omi ng to Te nn e sse e a s to a tte nd c oll e g e , bu t in the se oth e r e ve nts he’s be en involved in in v o l v ed – at least two of the m involved ge tting ar ound educational insti tutions, either colleg es or hig h schools.

. . . .
The De fenda

nt has expressed sorr ow that he didn’t repor t. I ndicated he had

ever y intent to report that he w as attending school. Ba sically the strateg y

during the tr ia l be fo re the jur

y wa s the De fe nd ant w a s n ot i nf or me d o ra lly , at le a st, to –

by his probation off

icer in Virg inia, Mr. Todd, of the ne ed to re g ister. Notwithstanding that alleg ation, the State did put forwa rd – Ithink all parties ag ree d he did sig n a pape r indicating if he atte n d ed colleg e – althoug h the pape r itself’s not bee n introduced, that if he attended colleg e or sc hool in the state of Tenne ssee he neede d to reg ister. He say s he didn’t eve n think about it when he sig ned it, or didn’t re ad it. Idon’t know which.

I n any case , the Def

endant – his probation offi ce r h as testified for the De fe nd ant t

hat he did we ll e xce pt f

or thi s e ve nt. Hi s – a c ouns e lor de sc ri bin g he rs e lf

as a s o ci al worker at the Salvation Ar my wher e he lived a

period of time ha s indicated he showed re morse or at least an intent to be tter himself and g et his prior criminal re cord be hind him. His preache r, Rev. B ewley , testified on his behalf.

Nonethele ss, the Def

endant ha d not been r elea sed fr om prison that long. He still had 20 y ear s to se rve on his se ntence . The Virg inia authorities evidently have

a wa rr ant o uts tand ingfo r p aro le vio latio n a s a re su lt o f t

he jur y c on viction

in t his

case

. Considering the Def endant’ s prior rec ord which is not only a ser ious recor d in terms of leng th, it is also a ser ious recor d in terms of violence which the De fenda nt fu lly a dmi ts. An d p ro ba

bly on e of the g re a te st v iol e nc e [sic ] that c an b e inf lic te d in that reg ard.

The Court’s of the opinion that, althoug h he has worke d since being rele ased, he has othe r things in his past, including a court martial for being drunk on duty or dr ink ingwh ile on

du ty mig ht b e a

be tte r w or d as s e t out in

the re po rt . H e – h e ’s jus t g oing to have to serve his sentenc e. I ’m g oing to de ny probation, alter

native

se nte nc ingin a ll f

or ms a nd kin ds , in c lud ing the po te nti a lity of re sid e nti a l c omm

un ity

corr ections. Jus t don’t think it would benef it the Defe ndant or the c ommunity

. . . our community

.-6- AN AL YSI S

T h e d efe ndant ar g ues that the trial c ourt err ed in deny ing him alter

native sente ncing . He
asser ts that the trial court did not proper ly evaluate his susc eptibility to reha bilitation or treatment and plac ed improper

weig ht on his prior criminal re cord. The State responds that the tria l court’s deter mination that the defe ndant serve his sentence in confineme nt is corre ct.

When an ac cused c halleng es the leng th, rang e, or ma nner of service of a sentence , it is t he duty of this co u rt t o co n d u ct a de novo revie w on the re cord w ith a presumption that “the deter minations made by

the cour t from which the a

ppeal is t aken a

re c orre ct.” Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401( d) (2006) . This presumption is “ conditioned upon the af firmative showingin the rec ord that the trial cour

t considere d the sentenc ing pr inciples and a ll releva nt fac ts and circ umst an ce s .” State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991) . The pre sumption does not app l y t o t he leg al conclusions re ache d by

the t rial court in sentenc ing the acc used or to the deter minations made by

the trial court whic h are predic ated upon u n co n troverte d fac ts. St ate v. B utler, 900 S.W.2d 305, 311 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) ; State v. Smi th, 891 S.W .2d 922, 929 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994); State v. Bone stel, 871 S.W .2d 163, 166 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) , overr uled on other g rounds by State v. Hoop er , 29 S.W .3d 1, 9 (Tenn. 2000) . Howeve r, this court is require d to give g reat weig ht to the tr ia l c ourt ’s de te rm inatio n o f c on tr ov e rt e d f a c ts a s t he tr ial court ’s de te rm inatio n o f t he se fa c ts i s p re d i ca t edu

p o nth e w i t n es s es ’ d em ea n o r a n d ap p ea ra n ce wh en t es t i fy i n g.

I n conductinga de novo revie w of a s en t ence, this court must consider (a ) any evidenc e
rec eived at the trial and/or se ntencinghear ing, ( b) the pre sentenc e r ep o rt , (c) the principles of sentenc ing, ( d) the a

rg uments of counse l relative to sente ncing alternati ves, (e ) the nature a nd char acte ristics of t he offense, (f) any mitigating or enhance ment fac tors, (g ) any statements made by the accused in his own beha lf, and (h) the ac cused’ s potential or lack of potential for r ehabilitation

or tr e a tm e n t. T e n n

. Co d e A n n

. § § 4 0

- 3 5

- 1 0 3 , - 2 1 0 ; St a te v

. T ay lo r , 6 3 S. W. 3 d 4 0 0 , 4 11 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001).
The pa rty challeng ing the sentenc e imposed by the trial court has t he burden of esta blishing that the sentenc e is err oneous. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401, Sentencing Commi ssion Cm ts.; Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169. In this case, the de fenda n t h as t h e burden of illustrating the sentenc e imposed by

the trial cour

t is errone ous. I f our r eview r efle cts that t h e t ri al co u rt, following the statutory sentenc ing pr ocedur e, imposed a lawful sentenc e, afte r having g iven due conside ration and proper weig ht to the fac tors and principles set out under the se ntencinglaw and ma de finding s of fa ct that are a de qu a te ly

su pp or te d b y the re c or d, the n w e may

no t mo dif

y the se nte nc e e ve n if

we wo uld have pr efe rre d a diffe rent re sult. S tate v. Fletc her, 805 S.W .2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991)

.
A def endant sha ll be elig ible for pr obation, s u bject to ce rtain exceptions, if the sentenc e imp os e d u

po n th e de fe nd ant is ten y e ars or le ss. Te nn . Co de Ann. § 4 0- 35 -3 03 (a ) ( 20 06 ). Ev e n if elig ible, howeve r, the de fenda nt is not automatically

entitled to probation as a matter of law . See id. § 40-35-303(b) . The burde n is on the appellant to show the denial of probation wa s improper. See S t at e v

. S ummers, 159 S.W.3d 586, 599-600 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004) (c iting Ashby , 823-7-

S.W .2d at 169); see also State v. Ba ker, 966 S.W.2d 429, 434 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) ( stating that “[a] criminal defenda

nt seekingfull probation bea rs the burde n on appea l of showing the sentenc e actua lly imposed is imprope r, and that full probation will be in both the best interest of the defe ndant and the public” ).

There is no bright line rule for determining when a defe ndant should be g rante d probation. State v. Bing ham, 910 S.W.2d 448, 456 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995), overr uled on other g rounds by State v

. Hoo per, 29 S.W. 3d 1 ( Te nn . 2 00 0) . E ve ry

se nte nc ingde c isi on

ne c e ssa ri ly re qu ir e s a
case -by -ca se ana ly sis. I d. Fa ctors to be c onsidered i n cl u d e the circumstance s surroundingthe offe nse, the de fenda

nt's c riminal rec ord, the de fenda nt's soc ial histo r

y a n d p r e s e nt c o n d it ion, the need for de terre nce, a

nd the be s t i n t erest of the def endant a nd the public. State v. Goode, 956 S.W.2d 52 1, 52 7 ( Te nn . Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ). An oth e r a pp ro pr iate fa c tor

fo r a tr ia l c ourt

to c on sid e r i n deter mining whe ther to g rant proba tion is a defenda

nt's c redibility or l ack the reof , as this refle cts on the def endant' s potential for re habilitation. I d.

Se nte nc e s invo lvi ngc on fi ne me nt s ho uld be ba se d o n th e fo llo wi ngc on sid e ra tio ns : (A) Confine ment is nece ssary to protect socie ty

b y restraining a

defe ndant wh o h a s a lon g his tor

y of c ri min a l c on du c t;
(B ) Confinement is necessar y to avoid depre ciating the seriousne ss of the of fe nse or c on fi ne me nt i s p art ic ula rl y su ite d to pr ov ide an e ff

e c tiv e de te rr e nc e to others likely

to commit si milar offe nses; or (C ) Me a sure s le ss re str ic tiv e tha n c on fi ne me nt have fr e qu e ntly or r ece ntl y been a pplied unsucce ssfully

to the defe ndant[.]
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-103(1) (2006).

I n sentenc ing the defe ndant, the trial court applied two enhanc ement fac t o rs : (1 ) t he de fe nd ant h a s a

pr e vio us his tor

y of cri mi nal c on vic tio ns or c ri min a l be havio r i n a dd iti on to t ho se
nece ssary to establish the appropr iate rang e; and (2) the defe ndant was rele ased on pa role whe n the offe nse wa s committed. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114( 1), (13)(B ) (2006). The court found as mit ig a tin g fa c tor s th a t th e de fe nd ant’ s c ri min a l c on du c t ne ith e r c a us e d n or thr e a te ne d s e ri ou s b od ily inj ur y ; su bs tanti a l g ro un ds e xist te nd ing to e xcu se or jus tif y the c on du c t, t

ho ug h f a ili ngto e sta

bli sh a def e n s e ; an d th a t th e d e f

e n d an t, a lt

h o u g h g u il ty o f th e c r im e , c o mm itte d th e o f f e n s e u n der suc h unusual circ umstances that it is unlikely that a sustain ed i n t en t t o violate the law motivated the criminal conduc t. See id. § 40-35-113( 1), (3) , (1 1 ). T h e court we ighe d the enha nceme nt and mitigating fac tors, acc ording slight w ei gh t t o t he latter two mitigating fac tors, and sente nced the defe ndant to three y ear s in the Depa rtment of Corre ction.
We note initially

that the defe ndant was sentenc ed as a Rang e I I , multipl e off ender and wa s there fore ineligible for the statutory presumption favor ing alternative sentenc ing. See Te nn. CodeT en n es s ee Code Ann ot at ed s ec t i on 40- 39- 208 was amen ded ef f ec t i v e Aug u s t 1, 2005, t o r equ i r e a per i od of 1

m and at o ry co nf

i nem ent be f

o re al t ernat i ve sent enci ng m a y b e im p o se d

. 20 0 5 T enn. P ub

. A ct s ch. 31 6 , § 4

. T he d e fen d a n t wa s ind ic te d fo r failing to r e g ister a s a s e x u a l o ff e n d e r fro m J u n e 6 , 2 0 0 5 to A u g u st 9 , 2 0 0 5

. F a ilure to ti m e ly regi st er as a s exual off end er i s a co nt i nui ng off ense. Stat e v. Flat t , 22 7 S.W

. 3 d 61 5 , 62 1 (T enn. C ri m

. A p p

. 20 0 6 ). B eca us e t he cont i nu i ng o f f ens e was ongoi ng wh en t he amendment t o s ect i on 40- 39

- 20 8 t oo k e f f ect , t he def

endan t was
s u bj ec t t o pu n i s h men t u n der t h e ame n ded ac t

. Se e Age e v

. St at e, 1 1 1 S

. W

. 3 d 5 71, 576- 77 ( T en n

. Cr i m. App. 2003) ( cont i nu i ng of

f ens es , s uch as cons pi r acy , wh i ch cont i nu e b ey ond t he ef f ect i ve dat e of

an amendi ng l aw may be puni s hed

u n d e r th e a m e n d e d law ).
-8- Ann. § 40-35-102( 6)(A) (2006). F urthermor e, the de fenda nt was inelig ible for pr obation or

a lte rn a tiv e se nte nc ingun til he se rv e d n ine ty da y s in con fi ne me nt, the min imum se nte nc e fo r f ir st offe nse fa ilure to timely

reg ister. See id. § 40-39- 208(b), ( c). 1

The de fe n d ant ar g ues that the judg ment of the trial c ourt should be re verse d beca use the

rec ord does not re flec t t h at the cour t considere d the def

endant’ s amena

bility to reha bilitation or treatment. He conte nds that “the re cord in this c ase demonstrated that the [defendant] was be nefiting [si c] not only

himself but also society

by h i s eff

orts to become a

productive la

w abiding citizen.” We disag ree that the trial cour t failed t o co n s i d er the def endant’ s potential for re habilitation and treatment. A lthough the court did not expli citly addre ss this particula r fac tor, the re cord r efle cts that the c ourt e va luate d th e te sti mony of the de fe nd ant, his pro bat ion of fi c e r, his Sa lvatio n A rmy
case worke r, and his pastor, a s well as the de fenda nt’s prior cr iminal r ec ord, in deter mining that alternative sentenc ing w as i n ap propriate . The c ourt ac corde d weig ht to three mitigating f actor s proposed by

defe nse counse l and declined to use seve ral minor misdemea nor convic tions to enhance the def endant’ s sentence . Howeve r, t h e co urt also noted that the incide nts leading to two of the de fe nd ant’ s p ri or

se xua l offense c on vic tio ns too k p la c e ne ar e du c a tio na l in sti tut ion s and that hi s
curr ent conviction was for failing to timely repor t that he had begun attending an ed u ca tional ins tit uti on . O ur

re vie w o f t

he sent encin g he ari ngtr ans c ri pt r e ve a ls that th e tr ia l c ourt pr op e rl y considere d the def

endant’ s amena

bility to reha bilitation and treatment.

The de fenda

nt also asserts that he “would not denig rate t h e s er i ous nature of his criminal

re c or d, bu t wou ld sub mit that the [tr ia l c ourt ] imp ro pe rl y we ig he d th is f

a c tor c on sid e ri ngthat mo st of the of fe ns e s o c c ur

re d f a ir ly c los e in t ime and

that all the se c on vic tio ns are qu ite re mot e g ive n h is twenty -five year s incarc eration since they wer e entered.” He c ontends that he “ does not have a long history of cr iminal conduct” a

nd that the re moteness of his convictions limit s their probative value.

The de fenda

nt’s prior criminal rec ord i ncludes convictions for sodomy , rape , use of a firea rm i nt h e c o m m i s s i o no f

a r a p e , f i r s t d e g r e e c r i m i n a l s e x u a l c o n d u c t , a b d u c t i o n , an d

a s s a u l tan d b a t t e r y. Fr om the evidenc e pre sented at the sentenc ing he aring , the trial cour t could have f

ound that

c on fi ne me nt w a s n e c e ssa

ry to p ro te c t so c ie ty

g ive n th e de fe nd ant’ s long his tor y of c ri min a l c on du c t. See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103( 1)(A)

. The defe ndant has not c arr ied his bur den of showing that the trial cour

t’s denial of a lternative se ntencingwas e rrone ous and is not entitled to relief.-9- CO NC LU SION

B a se d u po n th e fo re g oin g a

uth or iti e s and

re a so nin g , th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ourt is aff irmed.

___________________________________ AL AN E. GL ENN, JUDGE