### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs O ct obe r 15, 200 8

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . BEN THO MAS DOWL EN, JR.

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Rutherford Coun ty

No. F -60601B Don R. Ash, Jud ge

No. M2008- 00764-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Janu ary 8, 2009

The De fenda

nt, Be n Thomas Dowlen, Jr., pled g uilty to attempted possession of a sc hed u l e I substance, a Class C felony , and ag ree d to a sentenc e of te n y ear s as a Rang e I Ioffe nder. The trial court imposed the a g ree d upon sentenc e, denied alternative sentenc ing, a nd order ed the De fenda

nt to se rve his te n-y ear sentenc e in pr ison. The Def endant appea ls, c ontending the tri al co u rt er red when it denied the Def

endant a n alternative sentenc e. Af ter thoroug hly

reviewing the re cord a

nd ap p l i cab l e a u t h o ri t i es , we co n cl u d e t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n o t err wh en i td en i edal t ern at i v e s en t en ci n g. Acc ording ly , we a ffirm 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

R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH and J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J J ., joined.

Gre g Galloway

(at trial) , Nashville, Tenne ssee, a nd J eff ry S. Grimes (on appe al), Cl arksville, Tenne ssee, f

or the Appe llant, Be n Thomas Dowlen, Jr.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor ne y Ge ne ra l a nd Re po rt e r; Mic ha e l E. Mo or e , Sol ic ito r Gener a l; Matthew B ry ant Haske ll, Assist ant Attorney Gene ral; Will i am C . Whit esell, District Attorney Gene ral; Thomas Parke rson, Assistant District At t o rn ey Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION I. F acts A. Arr est & Sub sequent Charges

Th is c a se a ri se s f

ro m the De fe nd a nt’ s a rr e st on Ap ri l 4, 20 07 , fo r p os se ssi on of a Sc he du le Isubstance a

nd possession of marijuana . The investig ation repor t introduced during the Defe ndant’s

se nte nc inghe a ri ngse t out th e fo llo wi ngve rs ion of his Ap ri l 20 07 a rr e st:

Wil l Holton of the [Rutherfor d County Sheriff’ s Offic e] . . . stopped a vehic le on I -24 for a traff ic violation. [Offic er Holton] made contac t w ith the driver, Michae l Bowe n,2

and the pa sseng er, [the Def endant]. Whi le [Office r Holton] was speaking with Mr. Bow en and [the De fenda

nt] , he dete cted a

n odor of bur

n t m ar i j u ana e mitti ng from inside the vehicle . A proba ble ca use sea rch of the vehicle reve aled a

quantity of ecsta sy and a sma ll bag g ie of mar ijuana. Af fiant then plac ed Mr. B owen a nd [t he De fe nd a nt] und e r a

rr e st fo r f e lony po sse ssi on

of a sc he du le Isu

bs tanc e a nd

sim ple possession of marijuana

.
The De fe n d an t s ubsequently pled g uilty

to attempted possession of a Sche dule I substance a

nd

a g re e d to a

te n- y e a r s e nte nc e a s a Rang e I I of fe nd e r, wi th the mann e r of se rv ic e of his se nte nc e to be dete rmined later

at a se ntencing hear ing.

After the Def endant’ s arr est for the conduct underly ing this c ase, but be fore his guilty plea and sente ncing hear ing, the Def endant wa s char g ed with: possession of ecsta sy for r esale ; unlawful drug para pherna lia; theft of prope rty ; and possession of marijuana

.
B. Se nt e nc ing He ar ing

Atthe s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g , t h e t r i a l c o u rt r e v i e w e d a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o rt p r e p a re d in antici p a ti o n o f

th e D e f e n d a n t’ s s e n te n c in g , a n d it h e a r d te s ti mo n y

f r o m t h e D e f e n d a n t, the De fe nd ant’ s si ste r, a nd

the pr ob a tio n o ff

ic e r w ho pr e pa

re d th e inv e sti g a tio n r e po rt

.
State of Tenne ssee Probation and P ar ole probation officer Erin Stephens explained the contents of the investigation repor t, which she compiled. I n the i nvestig ation repor t, Stephens listed the Def endant’ s previous convic tions that he was able to ver ify : possession of coca ine; possession of marijuana ; criminal impersonation; resisting a s t o p , fr i sk, halt arr est; violation of the driver’ s license la w; and seve ral tra ffic of

fense s. T h e De fe n d an t d id not rece ive a jail sente nce f or any of these c onvictions; rather, he rec eived either a suspended sentence , probation, or a fine. Stephens then listed se vera l of

fense s that appea

red on a “national rec ord chec k” of the Def endant but that he w as
un a b le to v e r if

y : c o n te mp t; r e s is ti n g a r

r e s t; s im p le p o s s e s s io n o f c o c a in e ; s im p le p o s session of marijuana ; and driving on a suspende d license. The national re cord c heck r ev ea l ed that the Def endant r ece ived either

probation or a

fine for all but one of these unverifie d convictions.
Stephens’s re sear ch fur

ther re veale d that the Def endant was charg ed in Aug ust 2007, four months after the conduct underly ing this appea l, for possession of a Schedule I drug , possession of marijuana , possession of drug para phenalia, a

nd theft. Reg ardingthe Def endant’ s employ

ment, the De fe nd ant’ s f

a the r f a xed Ste ph e ns a le tte r co nf

ir min g that the De fe nd a nt wo rk e d with him a t an a uto

re pa ir sh op

. Th e pa

rt ie s st ipu la te d th a t th e De fe nd a nt w or ke d a pp ro xima te ly

fi ft y ho ur s p e r w e e k in the auto re pair shop.

The De fenda

nt testified that the information in the i n vestig ation repor t was ac curate. Howeve r, he state d that the Aug ust 2007 charg es we re still pending , that he ha d never been convicted of

a fe lony , and that only two of hi s prior convic tions were dr ug -re lated. He confirme d he wor ked betwe en fifty

and six ty hours per wee k at an a

uto repa ir shop.3

The De fenda

nt testified that, althoug h he had attended colleg e f or only one seme ster, he planned to re turn to school to study photogr aphy

. The Defenda nt said he hoped for an alternative

se nte nc e , e xpla ini ngthat he re g re tte d h is p a st c on du c t, h a d “ tur ne d o ve r a

ne w l e a f, ” and

wa nte d to

“ be the re fo r [h is] f

a mil y ” :

I have a newborn on the way and I just have lot of g oals Iwant to establish. And the char g es that I ’m fac ing now I don’t want [any thing] else to do with . . . that any more. And I ’ve just g ot a couple of . . . ambitions right now . . . . And I ’m 30. I[am not g e tti nga ny ] y oung e r.

. . . I ’m tr y ingto t ur n o ve r a ne w le a f a nd jus t be the re fo r m y fa mil y . I have a 9 y e a r o ld l itt le da

ug hte r n owa nd

Ihave [one ] on the wa

y no w. So Ijust really

want to turn a ne w leaf

over a nd just be there f

or my family

.
I n r e sp on se to wh e the r he be lie ve d he ha d a dr ugpr ob le m, t

he De fe nd a nt s a id, “ Wel l, I wo uld n’ t c a ll it a pr ob le m, bu t I e xpe ri e nc e d dr ug s. An d I

g ue ss j us t ha

ng ingaro un d th e wr on g pe op le . B a sic a lly j u s th a n g i n g ar o u n d

t h e w ro n g p eo p l e. ” H e t es t i fi edt h at t h e l as tt i m e h e u s edo r p o s s es s eddru gs was the da

y of his Aug ust 2007 arre st.

On cross-e x amination, the Def endant testified that he “[took] responsibil ity ” for his conduct and that he would comply with the sentenc e the trial court imposed. Howeve r, when the trial court

a sk e d wh e the r he wo uld

pa ss a dr ugte st, the De fe nd a nt a dmi tte d th a t he ha d u se d ma ri jua na wi thi n t h i rt y d ays o f

t h e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g , e x p l a i n i n g t h a th e m a d e a “ d u m b m i s t a k e ” o n N e w Y e a r ’ s D a y.

The De fe n d an t’s sister, Talikia Clark, testified that she interac ted with the Def endant fre quently

beca use she lived near him. She echoe d her br other’s te stimony that his drug involvement

wa s a la ps e in j ud g me nt a

nd that he ha d d e c ide d to a

ba nd on dr ug s:

As far as drug s Idon’t see I

g uess y ou’d say

a kingpin drug deale r per se. I see
so me on e that ma de so me mis take s and so me ba d c ho ic e s in wh o[m] h e de a lt w ith

and the thi ng s that he wo uld do in his lif e

. An d no w I se e so me on e that is tur nin g his life ar ound and trying to be there more for his fami l y

. And s ince I ’ve move d back ho me he ’s be e n th e re fo r m e a nd a ssi ste d me wi th my

c hil dr e n. Whe n I

wo uld g o to work at night he nor

mally k ee p s my

kids for me if he ’s able. A nd he’s be en ther e more for his girlf riend a nd her son than he has bee n in the past. He’ s been there more for he r lately

and trying to be supportive and be in the family

. . . . Clark explained that, over the three months leading up to the hear ing, the Def endant ha d spent more time with their family

and less time “pa

rtying,” stating that it had been “ at least a month” since the Def endant stay ed at a

bar until its 3:00 a.m. closing time. She testified that s h e would assist the Def endant in satisfying the conditions of any alternative sentenc e he wer e to r ece ive, saying, “ I f he

was on probation and I saw him messing up, I would phy sically take him t o his probation office r.”

On c ro ss- e xami natio n, Cla

rk sa id s he kn e w that th e De fe nd a nt p os se sse d 7 19 e c sta sy pil lsT he l egi sl at ure di d carve o ut an excep t i o n t o t hi s rul e where i f “ a d ef end ant wi t h at l east t hree (3) f el o ny co nvi ct i o ns 1 i s ot her wi s e e l i gi bl e, s uch a def endan t may s t i l l be cons i dere d a f avor abl e c andi dat e f

or a ny al t er nat i ve s ent enc i ng t hat i s w i t h i n t h e j u r i s di ct i on of a n d de eme d a ppr opr i at e by a dr u g c ou r t

. ” 2007 T en n

. Pub. Act s 512.

4 when he was a

rre sted for the conduct unde rlying t h i s appea l and that he wa s ag ain ar rested a few months later in Aug ust 2007 for possession of ec stasy

.
After revie wing the above evidenc e, the tria l co urt denied the Def endant’ s reque st for an alternative sentenc e. Af

ter e x pressing its apprec iation of the De fe n d an t ’s honesty , the trial cour t explained that the Def

endant’ s rec urre nt involvement with drug s nece ssitated confine me n t. T h e trial court then or dere d the Def endant to ser

ve the a g ree d upon ten-y ear sent en ce i n the Tenne ssee Depa rtment of Corre ction. I t is from this judgment that the De fenda nt now appea ls.

II. Ana lys is

The De fenda

nt contends that the tria l court er red w hen it denied him an a lternative se ntence be c a us e it d id n ot m a ke a de qu a te fi nd ing s of fa c t to su pp or t it s d e nia l of

pr ob a tio n a

nd c omm un ity

corr ections. The State r esponds that the trial court made an aff irmative showing in the re cord that it considered the rele vant factors and principles whe n it denied the De fenda nt an alter native sente nce and that, ther efor e, its denial of a lternative se ntencing was prope r.

Whe n a de fe nd a nt a

pp e a ls the mann e r o f s e rv ic e of a se nte nc e imp os e d b y

a tr ia l c ourt , th is court c onducts a de novo re v i ew o f t h e re co rd wi t h a p re s u mp t i o n o f co rr ec t n es s as t o t h e t ri al co u rt 's deter mination. T.C.A. § 40-35-401(d) ( 2005). Ho we ve r, thi s p re su mpt ion of c or re c tne ss a ri se s o nly if the rec ord aff

irmatively shows that the trial judg e conside red both the se ntencing principles and all rele vant fa cts and c ircumstance s. State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 16 6 , 1 6 9 (Tenn. 1991)

. The appea ling party

car ries the bur den of showingthe sentenc e is improper. T.C.A. § 40-35-401( d), Sentencing Commi ssion Com ments. Even if we pref er a d i ff erent result, we ma

y not disturb the sentenc e if the tria l court followed the statutory sentenc ing pr ocedur e, made findings of fac t adequately

supported in the re cord, and g ave due consideration and proper weight to the factors and principles that ar e re levant to sentenc ing u n d er the 1989 Sentencing Act. State v. Fletc her , 805 S.W .2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991)

.
Th e Te nn e sse e Sup re me Court no te d re c e ntl y that, du e to t he 20 05 se nte nc inga me ndme nts , a d e f e n d an t i s n o lo n g e r

p r e s u me d

to b e a f a v o r a b le c a n d id a te f

o r a lt e r n a ti v e s e n te ncing

. State v. Ca rter , 2 54 S.W .3d 335, 347 (Tenn. 2008) (citing T.C.A.§ 40-35-102( 6) (2006) ). Instead, a defe ndant not within “the par ameter s of subdivision (5) [of T.C.A. § 40-35-102], and who is an espec ially mitigated or standard offende r convic ted of a Class C, D or E felony , should be consider ed as a fav orable candidate for a lternative se ntencing options in t he abse nce of evidenc e to the contra ry .” Id. (footnote omitted). Ge nera lly , defe ndants classified a s Rang e I I or Rang e I I Ioffe nders

are not to be considered as favor able candidates for alternative sentencing

. T.C.A. § 40-35-102( 6); 1 2007 Tenn. Pub. Acts 512. Additionally , we note that a tria l court is “not bound” by the advisory

se nte nc ingg uid e lin e s; r a the r, it “ sh a ll consider ” them. T

. C

. A.§ 40-35-102( 6) (e mphasis added)

.5

I f a de fe nd a nt s e e ks pro bat io n, the n th a t de fe nd a nt b e a rs the burd e n o f “ e sta bli sh ing[his ] suitabilit y .” T.C.A. § 40-35- 303 (b ) (2006). As the SentencingCommi ssion points out, “eve n tho ug h p ro batio n mu st b e a uto ma tic a lly

c on sid e re d a s a se nte nc ing op tio n f or e lig ibl e de fe nd a nts , t h e defe ndant is not automatically entitled to probation as a matter of law .” T.C.A. § 40-35- 303 (2006), Sentenc ing Comm’n Cmts.
When sentencingthe def

endant to conf

inement, a tria l court should consider w hether :
(A) Confinement i s nece ssary to protect socie ty

by restra ining a

defe ndant who has

a lon g his tor

y of c ri min a l c on du c t; (B ) Confinement is nec essar y to a void de prec iating the seriousness of the offe nse or
c on fi ne me nt is pa rt ic ula

rl y su ite d to pro vid e a n ef fe c tiv e de te rr e nc e to oth e rs lik e ly to commit si milar offe nses; or (C) Mea s u re s l ess re strictive than conf inement have fre quently

or re cently

been

a pp lie d uns uc c e ssf

ull y to t he de fe nd a nt.
T.C.A. § 40-35-103 (2006). Also, the trial court may consider the mitigating and enhanc ing f actor s
se t f or th i n T .C. A. § 4 0- 35 -1 13 a nd 11 4. T. C.A . § 40 -3 5- 21 0( b) (5 ); Sta te v. Boston , 938 S.W .2d 435, 438 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996)

. A trial court should a lso consider a defe ndant' s potential or lack of potential for

reha bilitation when determini n g i f an a lternative se ntence would be appr opriate. T. C.A . § 40 -3 5- 10 3( 5) ; Boston , 938 S.W .2d at 438.

I nco n d u ct i n g de novo revie w of a sentenc ing de termination, we must c o nsider (1) the eviden c e , if a n y , r e c e iv e d a t th e tr ia l a n d s e n te n c in g h e a r in g ; ( 2 ) th e p r e s e n te n c e r e p o rt; (3) the principles of se ntencing and ar g uments as to sentenc ing a lternatives; (4) the nature and char acte ristics of the cr iminal conduct; (5) a ny mitigating or statutory enhanc ement fac tors; ( 6) any statement that the defe ndant made on his ow n behalf ; a nd (7) the potential for reha b i l i t at i o n or tr e a tme nt. T. C.A . § 40 -3 5- 10 2, -1 03 , - 21 0 ( 20 07 ); see State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 168 (Tenn. 1991).

I n the ca se under

submissi on, the Def

endant a g ree d to be sentenc ed as a Rang e I I(multiple) of fe nd e r. Th e re fo re , h e c a nn ot a va il h ims e lf

of the Cod e ’s lang ua g e g ra nti ngsta nd a rd and e sp e c ia lly mitigated of

fende rs “f

avo ra b l e consi deration” for a lternative se ntence s. T.C.A. § 40-35-102(6)

. T here fore , the trial cour

t h ad n o re sponsibili ty

to give the Def

endant f avora ble consider ation. As lon g a s th e tr ia l c ourt

c on sid e re d th e se nte nc ingpr inc ipl e s and re le va nt f a c ts an d cir c ums tanc e s in

s e n te n c in g th e D e f

e n d a n t, th e tr ia l c o u rt’ s d e te r mi n a ti o n is p r e s u mp ti v e ly corr ect. F letcher , 805 S.W .2d at 789.

Af te r the tr ia l c ourt c on sid e re d the e vid e nc e pr e se nte d a t the se nte nc ing he a ring, i t f irst focuse d on the Defenda

nt’s potential for r ehabilitation or trea tment. Recalling that the Def endant admitted he used marijuana less than a month bef ore the hear ing, the trial court noted, “ [I ]f I had an ecsta sy char g e and I ’m coming up for a sentenc ing he aring , y ou would think if I was ser ious about6

my rec overy I would not make that [using mar ijuana] as a choic e.” T hus, the trial cour t considere d the Def endant’ s potential for re habilitation and found that the Def endant’ s rec ent druguse indicate d he wa s not likely

to refor m his behavior.

Th e tr ia l c ourt the n c or

re c tly no te d that “ [t]he re a re a nu mbe r of thi ng s that [a tr ia l c ourt is] to consider if [it] decide s to gr ant or de ny an alter native sentence.” After finding the Def endant wa s of sound phy sical and me ntal health, the tria l cour t , as required by Tenne ssee Code A nnotated section 40-35- 103

, thoroug hly explained how both the need to deter like acts and the Def endant’ s
c ri min a l hi sto ry

ind ic a te d c on fi ne me nt w a s n e c e ssa ry :
[N] ext I ’m to consider the fac ts and circ umstances surr ounding the offe nse and the

n at u re an d

ci rc u m s t an ce s o f t h e cr i m i n al co n d u ct

. An d t h i s i s an o u t ra geo u s l y

l ar ge amount of ecsta sy

. Those 719 pills could have g one to 719 individuals and aff ecte d not only 719 individuals, but 719 families. He does have p ri o r co n victions, but as [t he State] pointed out . . . a ll of them were misdemeanors. Except he did pick up a

new c harg e af

ter he was a

rre sted on this charg e.

T h e t ri al co u rt t h en ac kn o wl ed ged t h at i t ap p re ci at ed t h e De fe n d an t ’s ad m i s s i o n t h at h e u s eddru gs and that it was “ impress ed ” b y the testimony

of the De fenda

nt’s sister, but it ex plained that the D e f e n d an t ’ s r e p e a t e d

c r i m i n a l c o n d

u c to u t w e i g h e d

h i s h o n e s t y a n d

h i s s i s t e r ’ s t e s t i m o n y:

Iwi ll s a y thi s, he wa s h on e st a

bo ut a dmi tti ng his dr

ug us e

. . . . So Ia

pp re c ia te tha

t.

. . . I ’m impressed by y our sister and [her] willi ng ness to help y ou and by y our dad and his willingne ss to help give y ou a job. Those are two g ood folks. But y ou’ve not only abused the m, y ou have a bused the c ourt sy stem in conti n u i n g this criminal activity . So I ’m g oing to or der you to serve your sentenc e.

I n s umm ary , th e tr ia l c ourt c a re fu lly we ig he d th e De fe nd a nt’ s h on e sty a n d h o m e e nv i r o nm e nt a g a ins t the nee d to d e te r c o n d u c t s im il a r

to th e D e f

e n d a n t’ s a s w e ll a s th e D e f e n d a n t’ s r e h a

b ilitative potential, health, and c riminal history

.
Her e, the r ecor d aff

irmatively

shows that the trial cour

t g ave due consideration and we ight t o t h e e v i d en ce p re s en t ed at t h e pl ea h ea ri n g, th e i n v es t i gat i o n re p o rt , t h e p ri n ci p l es o f s en t en ci n g, mitigating fac tors, and the Def endant' s potential for reha bilitation. We conclude that the trial cour t’s denial of a

n alternative sentenc e is presumptively corr ect. The Def

endant is not entitled to relief

.
III. Conclusi on

After a thoroug h revie w of the r ecor d and applica ble authorities, we conclude the trial court pr op e rl y de nie d the Defe nd a nt a

n a lte rn a tiv e se nte nc e . We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

.

________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE