### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs N ove m be r 6, 200 7
ST A TE OF TE N N ES SE E v
. TR OY S OL LI S
Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Croc kett County No. 3844 Clayburn Pe eples, Judge

No. W2007-00688-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled May 2, 2008

The de fenda

nt, Troy Solli s, was convic ted of two c o u n t s o f possession of more than .5 g rams of methamphetamine w ith intent to s ell or deliver , two counts of poss ession of drug pa raphe rnalia, one count o f fe l o n y ev ading arr est, and two c ounts of misdemeanor e vading arr est. The tria l court imposed an ef

fec tive sentenc e of 20 y ear s, 11 months, and 29 day s to be serve d in the Depa rtment of Corre ction. I n this appea l, the defendant asserts that the trial cour t’s comments during a pre trial confe renc e esta

blished bias and that the s entenc e is excessive. Discer ning no error , we a ffirm the jud g me nts of

the tr ia l c ourt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nts of the Circ uit Court Aff

irm ed

J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J ., delivere d the opi nion of the c ourt, in which T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL and J.C. M C L IN , J J ., joined.

Ha ro ld R . G un n, Humbo ldt , T e nn e sse e , f or the a pp e lla nt, Tr oy Sol lis

. Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney Gene ral and Reporter ; L acy Wil bur, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; and L arr y Har dister, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

. OP IN ION

The de fenda

nt’s convictions relate to three separ ate incide nts. On October 17, 2005, authorities re ceive d information that the def endant a nd an individual named Dr ap er L ee wer e “cooking ” methamphe tamine “in a shop on H en r y Jo hn s o n Ro ad.” West Tenne ssee Dr ug Task F orce ag ent Eric U selton arr ang ed per imeter surve illance at the shop where the def endant a nd Mr. L ee w ere ins ide “ g e tti ng hig h” on

me tha mph e tamin e . A ft e r a

sh or t ti me , Cr oc ke tt Co un ty

She ri ff ’s De pu ty Ray J ones observed t wo i ndividuals leave the s hop building and pla ce se vera l items int o the trunk of a w hite Oldsmobile. The def endant then le ft driving the white Oldsm obile while Draper L ee w as driving a brow n vehicle. A fter D eputy J ones appr ised other of

fice rs of the situation, Ag ent Uselton stopped and a

rre sted Dra

per L ee. Croc kett County Sheriff Tr oy

Kly ce obse rved the defe ndant driving the white Oldsmobile on L ondon Road and attempted to sto p t h e v eh icle. The defe ndant-2-

drove a way at a high rate of speed, and a chase ensued dur ing w hich the def endant’ s vehicle r eac hed speeds of mor e t h an 9 0 m iles per hour . Offic ers br iefly lost sight of the de fenda

nt’s vehicle a fter She ri ff Kl y c e ra

n o ff the ro a d in to a

fi e ld. Th e off

ice rs dis c ov e re d th e de fe nd ant’ s v e hic le abandone d in a cornfield a quarte r of a mi le down the roa d. The off icer s followed footprints into a swamp, whe re the y

lost track of the defe ndant. When the offic ers a pproac hed t h e vehic le, they noticed the odor o f anhydrous ammonia, an ing redie nt used to manufac ture methamphetamine. Upon openingthe trunk, off icer s discovere d a m et h am p hetamine manuf actur ing ope ration and methamphetamine in various stag es of c ompletion, including some that ne eded only to be dried befor e ing estion.

Ba sed upon t h e foreg oing e vents, the def endant wa s char g ed with manufa cturing
mor e tha n .5 g ra ms o f m e tha

mph e tamin e , p os se ssi on

wi th i nte nt t o s e ll o r d e liv e r m or e tha n . 5 g ra ms of me tha mph e tamin e , a

nd fe lony e va din g arr e st.

On Dec ember

10, 2005, Crockett County Deputy Sheriff Jimm y

I rvin saw the defe ndant trave ling in a pic k-up truck being driven by Charles Elmore . Upon see ing the vehicle, the of fi c e r t ur ne d a ro un d a nd fe ll i n b e hin d th e ve hic le . B y the tim e he wa s a

ble to e ff e c tuate a tr a ff ic sto p, ho we ve r, the de fe nd ant h a d le ft the ve hic le . A ft e r p la c ingMr . E lmo re un de r a rr e st, De pu ty I rvin discover ed a me thamphetamine manuf actur ing ope ration behind the se at o f t he truc k. The defe ndant had pur chase d the vehicle on the morning of the tra ffic stop.

Ba sed on the De cembe r 10 stop, the defe ndant was char g ed with manufac turing more than .5 g rams of methamphetamine, possession w ith intent to se ll or deliver more than .5 g rams of
me tha mph e tamin e , p os se ssi on

of dr ugpa ra ph e rn a lia , a

nd mis de me ano r e va din g arr e st.

On Dec ember

26, 2005, office rs receive d information t hat t he def endant wa s at the residenc e of B onnie Weather holt in Alamo, Tenne ssee. W hen the of fice rs appr oache d the re sidence , the def endant r an fr om the residenc e. The defe ndant ref used to stop unti l Deputy J ones “shuc ked
a r o u n d in to th e c h a mb e r ” o f h is s h o tgu n

. A t th a t p o in t, th e o f f ic e r s p la c e d th e d e f

e n d an t on the g round and ha

ndcuff ed him. Deputy

J ones found a

small plastic bagcontaining methamphetamine l yi n g o nt h e g r o u n d

u n d e r t h e d e f e n d an t ’ s b o dy.
As a re sult of the Dec ember 26 ar re s t , the def

endant wa s char g ed with possession wi th i nte nt t o s e ll o r d e liv e r l e ss t ha n . 5 g ra ms of me tha

mph e tamin e , mis de me ano r e va din g arr e st, and possession of drugpara pherna lia. At the conc lusion of the trial, the jury convicted the def endant of two counts of posse ssion with int ent of more than .5 g rams of me thamphetamine, one count of felony evadingarr est, two counts of m isdemeanor evading arr est, and two counts of possession of drug para pherna lia.

I. Trial Court’s Remark s during Pretrial Conferenc e

I n his f irst two issues, the defe ndant complains that the rema rks made by

t h e t rial court duringthe pre trial confe renc e amounted to its improper participation i n plea ne g otiations and-3-

interfe red w ith its ability

to exercise impartially

its role as thirteenth juror . The State contends that th e d e f e n d an t h a s w a iv e d

th e s e tw o is s u e s b y f

a il in g to in c lu d e th e m in a mo ti o n f o r n e w tr ia l. We ag ree

.
T h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a tt h e d e f e n d an td i d

n o tf i l e a m o t i o nf

o r n e w t r i a l

. In conseque nce, the issues reg ardingthe trial cour t’s pretria l re m ar k s have not be en pre serve d for appellate revie w. See Tenn. R. App. P. 3(e) (s t at i n g that “in all ca ses tried by a jury , no issue prese nted for r eview sha ll be predicate d upon err or in the admission or exclusion of evidence , jury ins tr uc tio ns g ra

nte d o r r e fu se d,

. . . o r o the r g ro un d u po n w hic h a

ne w tri a l is so ug ht, un le ss the same was spec ifically

stated in a motion for a new trial; otherwise suc h issues will be treate d as wa ived”) ; Sta te v . M ar tin , 940 S.W .2d 567, 569 (Tenn. 1997) (holding that a defenda nt relinquishes t he rig ht to a rgue on a pp e a l any iss ue s th a t sh ou ld h a ve bee n p re se nte d in a mot ion fo r n e w tri a l) ; State v. Dodson , 780 S.W .2d 778, 780 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1989)

. II. Se ntencing

T h e def endant a sserts that “the se ntence is ex cessive unde r the sente ncing considerations” for re asons t hat are not entirely clea r. The de fenda

nt makes re fer ence to the fac t that prior to trial, the State had offe red a plea a g ree ment that included an e ffe ctive Rang e I sentenc e of 10 y e ars and

a sse rt s th a t th e e ff

e c tiv e 20 -y e ar, 11 -m on th, and 29 da y se nte nc e imp os e d p os t- tr ia l “ is inconsistent with the purpose of se ntencing .” He also c o nte n d s th at the “e nhance ment and mitigating fac tors wer e not weig hed proper ly and the sentenc e is e x cessive under the sentenc ing c onsiderations
se t out in Te nn e sse e Cod e Anno ta te d 40 -3 5- 10 3. ” F ina lly , he c omp la ins that th e tr ia l c ourt sh ou ld
no t ha ve imp os e d c on se c uti ve se nte nc ing . T he State c on te nd s t hat the de fe nd ant h a s w a ive d h is sentenc ing c omplaints by failing to cite to the re cord a nd to appropriate authorities. I n the alternative, the State submits that the sentence is appropriate g iven the seve rity of t he offenses a

nd the def endant’ s leng thy

criminal re cord.

Whe n a de fe nd ant c ha lle ng e s th e le ng th and man ne r o f s e rv ic e of a se nte nc e , th is court g ener ally

conducts a

de novo revie w of the r ecor d with a pre sumption t hat the dete rminations
ma de by the tr ia l c ourt are c or

re c t. T. C.A

. § 40 -3 5- 40 1( d) (2 00 6) . T his pr e su mpt ion , h ow e ve r, is conditioned upon the af

firmative showingin the rec ord that the trial court consider ed the se ntencing principles and a ll releva

nt fac ts and circ umstances. State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2 d 1 6 6 , 169 (Tenn. 1991). The burden of showing that the s entenc e is improper is upon the de fenda nt. Id

. I f the re view
re fl e c ts t he tr ia l c ourt

pr op e rl y c on sid e re d a ll r e le va

nt f a c tor s and its fi nd ing s of fa c t are a de qu a te ly supported by

the re cord, this cour

t must affirm t h e s entenc e, “e ven if we would have pr efe rre d a differ ent re sult.” State v. Fletc her , 805 S.W .2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). I n the eve nt the
rec ord fa ils to demonstrate the re quired c onsideration by the trial cour

t, ap p el l ate review of

the sentenc e is purely

de novo. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169.-4- I n making its sentencing deter mination in the prese n t ca s e, the trial cour t, at the conclusion of the se ntencinghear ing, w as oblig ed to deter mine the proprie ty

of sentenc ing alternatives by

considering(1) the e vidence , if any , rec eived at the sentenc ing he aring s, (2) the prese ntence repor

t, (3) the pr inciples of sentencing and arg uments as t o sentenc ing a lternatives, ( 4) the nature and cha

rac teristics of the c riminal conduct involved, (5) evidence and information offer ed by the pa rt ie s o n th e e nh anc e me nt a nd mit ig a tin g fa c tor s, (6 ) any state me nts the de fe nd ant m a de in his behalf a

bout sentencing , and (7) the potential fo r re h ab i litation or treatment. T.C.A. § 40 -3 5- 21 0( b) ;- 10 3( 5) (2 00 6) ; State v. Holland , 860 S.W .2d 53, 60 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993)

. A. Length of Sentence

The defe ndant does not c ontest the application of any enhanc ement fa ctor a nd argues on ly that th e tr ia l c ourt

a ssi g ne d im

pr op e r w e ig ht to the fa c tor s. As the State c or re c tly po int s o ut, the 2005 amendme nts to the Sentencing Ac t re moved the statutory provision that permitted a defe ndant to contest the we ight attributed to the enhanc ement and mitig ating fa ctors. Prior to the 2005 amendment, Te nnessee Code Annotated section 40-35- 401 allowed a n appea l on gr ounds that “[t] he enha

nceme nt and mitigatingfac tors wer e not weighe d proper ly , and the sentence is ex cessive under the sentenc ing considera tions set out in § 40-35-103.” T.C.A. § 40-35-401( b)(2) (2003). The 2005 amendment r emoved this provision

. I n addit ion, the 2005 amendment to Te nnessee Code Annotated section 40-35-114 provides that the t rial court “shall consider, but is not bound by ” the enhanc ement fa ctors, rende ring them advisory in nature. Give n these statutory provisions, this court is not free to consider on a ppeal the de fenda

nt’s clai m t h at the enha

nceme nt fac tors wer e not
w e i g h e d p r o p e r l y.
B. Consecutive Sentenc ing

When a def

endant is convic ted o f m ultiple crimes, the trial c ourt, in its dis cre tion,
may or de r t he se nte nc e s to ru

n c on se c uti ve ly

if it f ind s b y a pr e po nd e ranc e of

the e vid e nc e that a defe ndant fa lls int o one of se ven categ ories listed in Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40-35-115. They are : (1 ) T he de fe nd ant i s a pr of e ssi on a l cri mina l w ho ha s k no wi ng ly devote d th e d e f

e n d an t’ s li f

e to c r im in a l a c ts a s a ma jo r s o u rce of livelihood; (2) The de fenda nt is an offe nder w hose re cord of cr iminal
a c tiv ity is e xten sive ; ( 3) Th e de fe nd ant i s a da ng e ro us me nta lly abnormal p erson so de clar ed by a compe tent psy chiatrist who conclude s as a r esult of an investig ation prior to sen t encingthat the defe ndant’s cr iminal conduct has be en char acte rized by a patter n of
re pe tit ive or

c om pu lsive be havio r w ithhe e dle ss i nd if fe re nc e to
c on se qu e nc e s; ( 4) Th e de fe nd ant is a da ng e ro us of

fe nd e r w ho se behavior indicates little or no reg ard f or human life, a

nd no hesitation about committing a c rime i n which the risk to human l ife is hi g h; (5) The defenda

nt is convicted of two ( 2) or more statutory offe nses-5- involvi n g s ex ual abuse of a minor with conside ration of the ag g ravating c ircumstance s arising from the r elationship betwee n the de f e n d an t a n d v ic ti m o r

v ic ti ms , th e ti me s p ano f d e f e n d ant’s undetec ted sexual activity , the nature and scope of the sexual acts a nd the e xten t of the re sid

ua l, p hy sic a l and

me nta l da

ma g e to t he vic tim or victims; (6) The de fenda nt is sente nced f

or an of fense committed while on probation; or (7) The defe ndant is sentence d for c riminal
c on te mpt

. T.C.A. § 40-35-115( b) (2006) . The e x istence of a sing le categ ory

is sufficient to war

rant the imposit ion of consec utive sentenc es, see State v . Adams , 973 S.W .2d 224, 231 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997), and inde ed, “[e]x tensive cr iminal history alone will support conse cutive sente ncing ,” id

. In State v. W

ilkerson , 905 S.W .2d 933 (Tenn. 1 9 9 5 ), t he supre me cour t imposed two additional require ments for c onsecutive se ntencingwhen the “ dang erous of fende r” c ateg ory is use d; the court must find consecutive se ntence s are rea sonably related to the sever ity of the off enses c ommitt ed and
are nece ssary to protec t the public from f urther c riminal conduct. Id. a t 93 7- 39 ; se e Sta te v . I mf e ld , 70 S.W .3d 698, 707-08 (Te nn. 2002).

I n the pr e se nt ca se , the tr ia l court c on c lud e d tha t the de fe nd ant’ s cr imi na l re c or d is “suff iciently eg reg ious” to w arr ant partially consec utive sentenc ing. The court order ed that ea ch 16- y ear sentenc e for possession of methamphetamine be serve d concur rently to one another , that the 4- y ear sentenc e for

felony evadingarr est be ser

ved conse cutively

to the 16-y ear

sentenc e, and that the 11-month and 29-da

y s en t en ce s for e ach of

the misdemeanor

evadingarr est cha

rg es be se rved
concur rently to eac h other but consec utively to the felony evadingarr est, for a

n eff ective se ntence of 20 y e ars , 1 1 mo nth s, and 29 da y s.
The re cord e stablishes that the 42-y ear -old defe ndant has a criminal re cord that spans two deca des and inc ludes a total of 26 pr ior convictions. The defe ndant’s extensive criminal history supports the impositi on of conse cutive sente ncing in this case.

Acc ording ly , the judg ments of the trial c ourt are aff irmed.

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