# FILED
June 12, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE APRIL SESSION, 1998

STATE OF TE NNE SSE E, ) C.C.A.NO. 01C01-9706-CR-00211 ) Appellee, ) ) DAVIDSON COUNTY V. ) ) ) HON.THOMAS H.SHRIV ER, J UDGE TILLI E RUTH STEEPLES, ) ) Appe llant. ) (DELIVER Y OF S CHED ULE II DR UG)

FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : PETER J. STRI ANSE JOHN KNOX WALKUP TUNE, ENTREKI N & WHITE, P. C. Attorney General& Reporter 2100 First Ameri can Center Nashvill e, TN 37238 ELIZABETH B.MARNEY Assistant Attorney General MARY A. PARKER 2nd Floor, Cordel l Hull Bui lding STEPHEN C. CROFFORD 425 Fifth Avenue North Suite 511, Cummins Stat ion Nashvill e, TN 37243 209 T enth Av enue S outh Nashvill e, TN 37203 VICTO R S. JO HNS ON, III Distri ct Attorney General TOM THURMAN Assistant Distri ct Attorney General Washington Square, Suite 500 222 Second Avenue North Nashvill e, TN 37201-1649

OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED THOMAS T. WOODALL, J UDGE-2- 

# OPINION

The Defen dant, Tillie R uth Steeples, appeals as of ri ght the six-year sentence imposed by theDavidson County Cri minal Court following her sentenci ng hearing. After a ca reful review of the reco rd, we affirm the judgm ent of the tria l court.

Defendant was indicted on four counts of cocai ne-related charges perta ining to incid ents o ccurrin g on J uly 26, 1994 and August 10, 1994. Count One charged Defendant with delivery of . 5 grams or more of cocai ne, and Count Two charged her with causing a Schedu le II dr ug t o be taken o r sent into a deten tion facility where prisoners are quarter

ed. Count Three charge d Defendant wit h taking or sending a Sche dule II drug i nto a detenti on facil ity on August 10, 1994, an d Count Four charged Defen dant with th e death of her incarcerated husband, Thomas Steeples, resulti ng fr om the unlawful di stribut ion of cocai ne. On November 14, 1996, Defendant entered a nolo conten dere plea to Coun ts One and T wo. Co nsistent w ith the plea agreement, Counts Three and Fourdealing wi th the August 10, 1994, event
were dismissed. Nonet heless, Defendant denied guilt as to al l four Counts against her at the se nte ncing heari ng. Followi ng the two-day sentencing hearing, the t rial court sentenced Defendantto serve the agreed -upon s ix-year sen tence re lating to Coun ts One and Two, and denied Defendant’s request that she begiven some type of alternative senten cing.

It is first necessary t o describe t he nature of t he circumstances s urrounding all fourCoun ts aga inst De fenda nt sinc e the fa cts pe rtaining to all four Counts w ere broughtout at the s entenc ing hea ring. Despite the fact that Counts Three an d Four were dismissed, the tri al court all owed the State to o ffer eviden ce on tho se cou nts-3-

as that evi dence pertain ed to Defendant’ s character. Counts One and Two re late to the Jul y 26, 1994 inc identin which Defendan t purchased cocaine f rom a known drug dealer, pla ced it i n an envelope where it was then taped to business papers, and had th e pap ers an d coc aine d elivere d to he r husb and in jail by he r husb and’s lawyer. The St ate’ s the ory r elat ing to Counts Thre e and Fo ur i nvol ves De fen dant directi ng her employee, Donna Esst man, to purchase a sweat suit and other

clothi ng it ems for Defen dant’s hu sband
. Defenda nt then placed cocaine inside part of a latex glove and put that latex pi ece inside a mended pl ace in the wai st band of t he sweatpants. On August 10, 1994, shesent the cl othing packageto Michael Evans,
an inmate in t he same jail wher e Defendant’s hus band was incarcera ted. As a re sult of this last del ivery of

cocaine, Defend ant’s husband overdosed on the cocai ne and died. The State’s t heory involved showing that Defend ant had us ed a sewing machine to restitch the sweat pants contai ning the cocaine and conspired to destroy or cover up tha t and other evide nce of crimina l activity.

On Novem ber 14, 1 996, at a hearing on Defendant’s plea of nolo conten dere to Counts One and Two, the fol lowing facts were establi shed by the State. Somet ime prior to May 19, 1994, Defendant’ s husband was arrested and charged with three co unts of fi rs t-degree murder , especial ly aggravated rape, and various drug charges. Pri or to July 26, 1994, Defendant told employees of her company that her husb and w ould n ever g o to trial. She to ld Dr. K ellum , her so n’s sch ool prin cipal, thather husband was going t o commit suici de and that she woul d receive alarge insurance settlement. On July 26, 1994, there was a $580,000 life i nsurance policy in effect for Mr. Steeples.-4- Also prior to July 26, 1 994, Defendant asked an employee, Don Vanloon, how much cocaine it would tak e to killa person. On July 25, 1994, Defendant

cashed a $1,000 chec k and met w it h Fre d Ross , a k nown d rug d eal er, at alocal mo tel . On July 26, 19 94, M r. Van loon w as wo rking a t Defe ndan t’s pla ce of b usin ess when Defendant left t

o meet with her lawyer, Mark McDougal. Defendant ’s husband c a lled the place of bus iness and to ld Mr. Vanlo on to te ll Defen dant n ot to lea ve a ce rtain package alone wit h Mark McDou gal. On July 26, 1 994, Defen dant drove M r. McDougal to the ja il where Defe ndan t’s husband was incarcer ated. Defendant

gave Mr. McDougal a package containing some business papers to take to her husband. Even though Mr. McDougal had taken busines s papers to t he jail by himself before,
on this occa sion De fendan t insisted tha t she acco mpa ny Mr. M cDou gal to th e jail. Mr. McDougal went in thejail and deliver ed the package to Mr. Steeples. N ormally, Mr. Steeples wouldhave had a conversat ion with Mr. McDo ugal, but this time M r. Steeples took the package, got a cold drink, and returned to hi s cell. Upon returni ng to his cell , Mr. Steepl es was stopped and searched by two guards who di scovered cigarettes taped in an envelope. Mr. Steeples grabbed the envelopefrom one ofthe guards and star ted to eat th e envelo pe that co ntained white powder. After he had consumed some of the white powderin the envel ope, Mr. Steepl es was taken to a hospital for tr

eatment. The white powder in the envelope was coca ine. De fenda nt’s fingerprints were lif

ted from ins ide a piece of tape used to attach t he envelope containin g coca ine to the b usiness papers .

Based on the foregoi ng facts, Defendant pled no contest to Counts One and Two in exchange for a senten ce of three years on each count, to be served consecutively for

a total of six years. Counts Three and Four were dismis sed.-5- Defe ndan t’s sentencing hearing wa s conducte d over two days in January, 1997. Twice during the s entencing hear ing, the t rial cour t asked defense co unsel if Defendant would l ike to wi thdraw her pl ea. Both ti mes, defense counsel talked private ly with Defendant, and both ti mes defense counsel st ated that Defendant wanted to proceed wi th her plea. The trialcourt warn ed Defendant that any u ntruthf ul ness at the heari ng would affec t her sentence. Defendant and ei ghteen other witn esses te stified rega rding the July and A ugust 1 994 eve nts.

Evide nce at Defen dant’s sente ncing hearin g reve aled th at after h er hus band ’s arrest on the murder, r ape and drug charges, Defendant wrote a le tter date d Apr il 29, 1994, to Dr. Da nny Ke llum, the p rincipal of a p rivate school that had expelled her son, stati ng t hat

“ha lf theti me w e don’t even know where he [Mr. Steeples] i s” but then praised her h usband as “a wonderf ul man” who “deserves the respect of the faculty, staff, student body, and community. ” She origi nally i ncluded a check for $75,000 in the le tter for th e sch ool’s n ew li b rary an d wan ted to n ame the libra ry in honorof her husband. However, she tore up the check when t he school expel led her son.

On May 1 9, 199 4, while Mr. Stee ples was incar cerated, Defendant testified at her husband’s bond hearing , wh ich was hel d bef orethesamejudge who presi ded
overDefendant’s sen tencing heari ng. From the recor d, it appe ars that

Defe ndan t’s testimony

at the bond hear ing focused on her unwaveri ng supp ort of he r husb and’s release on bo nd to ge t treat ment for cocai ne use, that she was not consi dering divorce, and that she al leged tha t he abused her in a prior div orce fili ng because “angry wives do a lot of things .” She testified at the bon d hearing that, exc ept for-6-

one occasion, she had always known her husband’s whereabouts when he was not at hom e.

Defendant testified at thesentencing hearing that sh e did n ot reca ll a meeting with the drug dealer F red Ro ss. D efendant testifi ed that she knew a “ Fred” who owed her husband a lot of money and that she contacted t his “Fred” to raise money forher husband’s l awyers. Defendant testified that

she did n ot recall wh y she wro te
a $1000 check for cas h on July 25, 19 94, the day before Defendan t’s husband ingested c ocain e the firs t time. D efend ant tes tified tha t she d id not re call a conversati on on April 6, 1995 with DonnaEsstman in which she st ated s he ha d told investi gating authorit ies she did not know Fr ed Ross. The State’ s attorney read the followi ng from a re cording of a n Ap ril 6, 1995 conversati on between Ms. Esstman and D efenda nt: (Defenda nt): “When they showed me this p icture of Fred, I j ust flat out tol d them that I had never seen thi s person before in my life. I don ’t recogniz e him a t all.” (Esstman ): “Do they know who he i s?” (Defenda nt): “The y know who he is; but , they can’t get any evidenc e on him .” Defendant testifi ed at her se nt encing heari ng that she di d not recal l that conversati on.

When questioned about a recording of a conversat ion that she had with Ms. Esstman on Apr il 3, 19 95, Defendant denied that the recordi ng revealed t hat she
was encouraging Ms. Esstman “to deny ever ything” to the auth oriti es. Defendant testif ied that wh at s he wa s en cour agi ng Ms . Es stma n to deny wa s “a whole l ot of stuff that she’s got built up in her hea d. . . She has a lot o f emotion al problem s.”-7-

Defendant testified that t he sewing machine that they disc ussed on t he tape had b elonged to an ex-employee and was taken from the of fice by Ms. Esstman. Defendant testified that s he did not know anything about

sewing done on the sweat pants that were del ivered in August 1994 to her husband i n jail . She furt her denied using the sewing m achine “for any criminal intent. ” Defendant testifi ed that the sweats uit, socks and underwear she sent Ms. Esstman to purchase were for her son and not for her

husband.

Defendant testifie d that her f ingerpri nts were on the tape attachi ng the envelope containi ng cocaine to t he business papers because she had wrapped the tape arou nd a p encil so that her husband could repai r his broken glasses. Defendant testifi ed that she did not know who put drugs in that packa ge deliver

ed to her husband on July 26, 1994. She testifi ed that she d rove Mr. M cDou gal to the jail because it was r

aining hard that day . She furt her testified that t he only reason her husband left

hera message not to l eave the package wi th Mr. McDougal was out of concern tha t he might no t deliver it immediately.

The trialcourt quest ioned Defendant about her statement

in the pre-sentence report charging that Detect ives Pri demore and Postigli one, who were inv estigati ng the charges a gainst her husband, had t hreatened her wi th destruct ion of her business. Specifical ly, she stated i n the pre-sentence report as fol lows:

I pl ed ‘n o contest. ’ My greatest c rime was being marri ed to Tom Steeple s. When he died before going to t rial, the system wanted blood and could fi nd it by pursuing me and the busines s. The 2 detecti ves vowed they would destroy both me an d my bu siness. They have! They stood in f ront o f my business and swore I would be the nex t notch o n their be lt. I was! They said no one would do business wit h s omeone accused of murder whether convicted or not. They were right ! They bragged ab out bringi ng down-8- a larg e BP S tat ion a nd sai d I wo uld b e next . I was! My husband was not searched bef ore he came do wn. He broughta large9 x 12 wh ite e nvelope down w ith him. It cont ain ed t he drugs I wa s ac cus ed of sen din g in to h im.

At the sentenci ng hearing, Defendant state d that thi s was her“scenario” of the charges against h er. Defen dant testified further tha t the officers h ad, in fact, threatened to destroy her busi ness.

Detective Post iglio ne testi fied that after Defe ndant’s husband beca me a suspe ct, thathe and Detective Pridemore went to Defendant’s pl ace of business to try to speak to her

because her husband had disapp eared and officers were unab le to locate hi m. When the detecti ves attempted t o speak with Defen dant in fr ont of her place of business, she was host ile and refused to s peak to Detective Postigl ione. She eventu ally bec ame verba lly abusive to both office rs. Acco rding to Postigli one, neither he no r Prid emore thr eatened Defendant wi th destroy ing eith er her or her business.

Micha el E vans, a fel low inmate of Mr. Steeples , testified that on August 10, 1994, he received a package containi ng underwear, sock s, and a sweatsuit

thatwas deliver ed to the jail after h e had s poken to Defen dant on the pho ne. After Mr. Evans received the packag e, he told Mr. Steeples wh ere the package was and left to take
a shower. About t

wo and a h alf hours later, Mr. Ste epl es was fo und d ead f rom a cocaine overdos e.-9- Ms. E sstman testi fied that Defendant stated repeatedly that her hus band would never go to trial . Prior to Mr. Steeples’ death, Defendant asked Ms. Esstman to purchase a white two-piece sweatsu it, some w hite tube socks and some mens underwe ar. Defendant tol d Ms. Esstman that t hese items were to be sentto Mr. Steeples as a car

e package.

Before Mr. Stee ples’ dea th, Ms. Es stman went with Defen dant to meet an indivi dual named Fred at the Days I nn on Tr in ity Lane. Prior to this meeti ng, Defendant and Ms. Esstman had gone to a Nat ionsBank where Defendant cashed
a check. Around t he time that these events were taking pl ace, Ms. Esstman
e stimated tha t De fen dant received mo re t han a doz en ph one call s at wor k fr om a person named Fred.

Ms. Esstm an furthe r testified that o n the da y of Mr. Ste eples’ deat h, Defendant received a pho ne ca ll from h er hus band that m orning . After th e pho ne ca ll, Defendant seemed distraught and emotional. After Defendant was notif ied ofhe r husb and’s death, she told Ms. Esstman that i t was over and t hat she had done what her husband had wanted her to do.

Shor tly after he r husb and’s death, D efenda nt delivered a sewing mach ine to Ms. Esstman and asked her to keep it in the trunk of her car. Eventuall y Ms. Esstman c alled th e police and turned the sewing machine over to t hem. Ms. E sstman testified that sh e soo n beg an co opera ting with the au thorities in thei r attem pt to gettapes to cor roborate t he meetings wit h Fred, the pur chase of the clothes, and the matter of the sewi ng machine.-10- John Lower y, a pressman who had work ed for Defendant , testified that on April 6, 1995, Defe ndan t aske d him and a nothe r emp loyee to go to M s. Ess tman ’s house to get

a sewi ng machi ne. At that t ime Mr. Lowery was aware that the poli ce already had the sewing machine and that Ms. Esstman was c ooper ating wit h the pol ice. Mr. Lowe ry told the au thorities tha t Defend ant was planning to destr oy o r hide evidenc e. Defen dant testified that sh e did not recall tel ling Mr. Lowery to get the sew ing ma chine from Ms. Ess tman.

Detective Postiglion e testified tha t a pair of co tton swe atp ants , some mens underwe ar, and w hite tub e soc ks we re foun d in Mr. Steeples’ jail cell af ter his death. He testified that n o coc aine resi due was found on the cl othes but t hat the sweatp ants had a rip in the area where t he string woul d normally be t ied and tha t a piece of la tex glove w as foun d close to Mr. Stee ples’ bod y.

D efendantoffered pr oof that s he has no prior arrest r

ecord or pri or convictions. She also test ified t hat she has worked her entir e adult l ife. She has owned herown business for twenty year

s. Defendant r

esides wit h her two chi ldren in Mt. Juli et, Tennes see. Defendant offered proof t hat she parti cipates i n school activi ties with her sixte en yea r old son, incl uding footba ll games and fundr aisers fo r the scho ol and the foo tball tea m. De fenda nt serv ed on com mittee s at he r daug hter’s school as well. A former teacher of her son testi fied that Defendant never acted inapp ropria tely or con trary to t he best interest of the children. The teacher al so testified that it w ould be devasta ting if the son lost anoth er paren t.

Defendant testified atlength about the physi cal abuse she suf fered fr om her husband. She testified t hat her husband had broken many of her bones in the past-11-

and that many of t he beatings occur red in f r ont of her ch ildren. She said that her children had to callthe poli ce on several occasi ons. Defendant testifi ed that her husband told her if she didn’t s tay with him th at he w ould killthe chil dren in fr ont of her, and that he woul d then kill her. After her husband was incarcer ated, Defendant said that he cont inued to cal l her and thr eaten the childre n if she did not ac cept h is phone calls.

Dr. Scott F airchild , a licen sed c linical ps ycholo gi st, test ified on behalf of the defense. After pl eading nolo conten dere , Defendant sought counseling from him on three occasions. D r. Fairchil d testified that peopl e who get into abusive rel ationshi ps tend to repeat them and t hat he was not surprised that D efend ant ha d tried to help her abusive husband get out of j ail on bond. He went on to say t hat he believes that if the Defendant i s not allowed t reatment then sh e could again beinvolved in cri minal activity.

Her son, Joh n Steep les, testified tha t he had seen h is father ab use De fendan t. He recalledone incident when he stepped in bet ween his mom and dad to break up the fight. He sai d that he had called t he police to prevent t he abuse on other occasions.

The pastor of Defendant’s chur ch testi fied that

a strong bond exists

between Defendant and he r children. H e said tha t Defend ant was devote d to her chil dren and that he ha d seen no evide nce th at D efendant would be a threat t o other
mem bers of society. The church administrative assistant also testified and said that Defendant did atten d church and that she had never seen Defendant engaged in any criminal b ehavior.-12- A longtime friend o f Defendan t, Ellis Gre en , test ifi ed that he had known Defendant since 1974. He sai d that he had neve r seen Defendant t ry to hurt anyone either physic ally or em otiona lly. He fu rther sa id that th e pub lic wou ld be s afe if Defendant was put on pr obation.

Defe ndan t’s b ankruptcy at torney testifi ed that Defendant’s company was viable as of 1994. However , after her hu sband was incarcer ated in 1994, the company began to falter. Defen dant p ut in $500,000 to try and save the c ompan y, but it still failed. Defen dant us ed her h usban d’s life insura nce pro ceeds to try and save the bus iness, but she e ventually had to file for ban kruptcy.

Because the State and Defenda n t agreed upo n the length an d consecu tive nature of the sentenc es, Defend ant’s only i ssue in thi s appeal is t he manner of
ser vice of the si x-year sentence. A defendant who “is an especi ally mit igated o r standard offender convicte d of a Class C , D or E felo ny is presumed to be a favora ble candidate for alternative senten cing optio ns in the a bsenc e of evide nce to the contrary.” Tenn. C ode Ann . § 40-35-102 (6). Our sentencing l aw also provi des that“convicted fe lo ns committing t he most severe off enses, possessi ng criminal histori es evincin g a cle ar disre gard fo r the law s and mora ls of societ y, and evi ncing failure of past effo rts at r ehabili tation shall be given fir st priority regarding sentencing involv ing incarcerat ion.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-102(5) . Thus, a defendant sentenced to eight

years o r less w ho is n ot an o ffende r for wh om in carce ration is a priority is presumed eligible for alternati ve sentencing unless suffi cient evidence rebuts thepresumption. However, theAct does not pr ovide that

all of fenders who meet the crite ria are entit led to such rel ief; r ather, i t requir

es that sentencing issues-13-

be determined by

the facts and circu mstan ces pre sented in each c ase. See State v. Taylor , 744 S.W .2d 919, 922 (Tenn. Crim . App. 1987 ).
Additionally, the principles of sentencing reflect

thatthe sentence shoul d be
no greater than that deserved for the offense committed and should be the l east
severe measure necessary to achieve t he pu rpose s for wh ich the sente nce is imposed. Tenn . Cod e Ann . § 40-3 5-103 (3)-(4). The c ourt sh ould also consider the potentialfor rehabi litat ion or tr eatment of thedefendant i n determining the sentence alternative. Tenn . Code An n. § 40-35-10 3(5).

When impo sing a sente nce o f total co nfinem ent, ou r Crim inal S ent encing Reform Act requires t he trialcourt to bas e its deci sion on the consi derations s et forth in Ten nessee Code Annotated sect ion 40-3 5-103. The se consid erati ons wh ic h militate against al ternati ve sentencin g include: the n eed to protect society by restrai ning a defen dant ha ving a long history of cri mi nal conduct, whether confinementis particularly a ppropria te to effect ively deter others like ly to com mit a similar offense, the need to avoi d depreciati ng the seri ousness of the of fense, and the need to order confinement in cases in which less rest rictive measures have often or recently

been unsuccessful ly appli ed to the defendant. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 103(1).

In determining whetherto grant pr obation, t he judge mu st consider the n ature and circumstances of the offens e, the defenda nt’s cri minal record, her background and soc ial history, he r presen t condition , including h er physic al and m enta l conditi on , the deterrent effect on other crimin al activity, and th e likeliho od tha t proba tion is in the best interests o f both the p ublic and the defen dant. Stiller v. State , 516 S.W.2d-14-

617, 620 (19 74). The b urden is on t he Defendant to show t hat the sentence she received is improper and that she i s entitl ed to probatio n. S tate v. Ashby , 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991). Grants or deni als for probation and othertypes of alternative sentencing ar e reviewed de novo with a presu mpt ion of c orrectness. Tenn. Code Ann. § 4 0-35-40 1(d); State v. Byrd , 861 S.W.2d 377 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). This presumption i s “condit ioned upon the af firmative showing in the record thatthe trial cour t conside red the s entenc ing princip les and a ll relevant fa c ts and circumstan ces.” Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169
.

In the in stant c ase, th e trial co urt dete rmine d that re gardle ss of D efend ant’s persistent

denial of guilt, there was a factual basis for findingguilt. Further, the tri al court recited numerous incidences where Defendant’s sw o rn testi mony was not truthfu l. Finally, the trial co urt obse rved th a t, in l ight of t he severit y of the char

ges against her, Defendant was given co ns iderable le nience in the plea agreem ent. After cons idering all of the forego ing, the trial cou rt conc luded that D efend ant sh ould
s pend her s ix-year

sentence incar

cerated in order to deter others f rom smuggling drugs into prisons, to avoi d depreciating the seri ousness of the o ffense , and to avoid inequiti es in sentenci ng. After a careful review of

the record, we find that the trial court properly

considered the sen tencin g princ iples, a nd the refore , our rev iew will be de novo with a presumption of correct ness.

The Defendant’s two convicti ons are Class C felonie s. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-11-403; 39-16-201(b). She was sentenced as a Range I Standard Off ender to three years for each count. There is a statutory presumption t hat the Defendant is eli gible for pro bation as to these c onvictions
. See Tenn . Code Ann. § 40-35 - 102(6). However, the trial court denied her r equest for probation on these counts.-15- We agree with the trial cou rt that Defendant should not be gr

anted probati on forher convictions o n Counts O ne and T wo. Defend ant does ha ve an excell ent work hi story and social history. Sh e has neve r been con victed of another c ri me . Howeve r, we must emphasize the seriousness of this crime. Defendant

ill egally sent cocaine to her husband i n prison, a pparently with the i ntentions of allow ing her husband to overdose on the drug so he would not have t o stand tri al. Also, since her husb and’s insura nce policy apparently

did not have a “suici de clause,” Defendant
was able to collect m ore tha n a ha lf million doll ars as a re sult of h er hus band ’s death. The circumstances of an offense may be an appr opriate f actor for the denial of probatio n. State v. W iseman , 643 S .W.2 d 354 (T enn. C rim. App . 1982). W e conclude that

the circumsta nces of this offens e alone are likely enough to su pport the den ial of proba tion.

Untruthfulness or lackof cando r may als o be an approp riate cons ideration to deny probation because it reflects poor ly upon a de fendant’s potentialfor
r ehab ilit ation. State v. Bunch , 646 S.W.2d 158 (Tenn. 1993). Defendant did not accept blame for any of her action s, even in t he face of overwhel ming evidence t hat she did in fact commit theoffenses
. For example, Defen dant’s deni al that s he knew her husb and w as pla nning to com mit su icid e was not credi ble based on the eviden ce. The re cord sh owed th at Defen dant ha d told seve ral peop le that he r husband would never go to trialand that when she l earned of his death, she stated “I’m free.” Defenda nt’s testimony reg arding her helples sness in the f ace of her husb and’s abuse was also uncon vincing to the tri al court. As the tri al judgepointed out, Defendantwas extrem ely supportive of her husband at his bond heari ng and her demeanor at that

hearing was “imperious, be lligerent, defensive and hostil e.” The court determined that the ho stility Defendant exhibited at the bond hear ing and the-16-

statem ents praisingher husband in her letter to Dr. Kell um undermined and belied her insisten ce at th e sen tencin g hearing that she was a hel pless vi ctim of her husb and’s abuse. Defend ant even wanted to give m oney to her son’s sch ool for a new librar

y, and wished t

o name it in honor

of her husband.

Defe ndan t’s testimony that she d id not reca ll the mee ting with the drug dea ler, Fred Ross, was also unconv incing. The testimon y of Donna Esstman and the transcri pt of the A pril 6, 19 95 co nvers ation c omp letely contradict Defe ndant’s story. The court con cluded that the evid ence s howed that t he m eetin g did in fact take place, and as a result of that meet ing, Defendant purchased cocaine that was later sent to her hu sband in prison. Also, Defendant’ s explanation of her advi ce to Ms. Esstman that “you ca n . . . stri ctly deny everythi ng if you want to” meant that

she was urgi ng Mrs. Esstman to conf ront her psychologicalproblems is l ikew is e unconvinci ng. Furthe rmor e, De fenda nt’s insistence thatshe knew nothing about the sewing machine or any at tempt to hi de it fr

om authoriti es is contr adicted by the testimony

of Ms. Esstman and John Lowery whos e testimony r egarding Defe ndan t’s efforts to hide e vidence was absol utely consi stent wit h one another. Al l of the foregoing facts point to Defendant’s l ack of candor wi th the trial court as well as her untruthfulness.

Defendant claims that the State i n troduced no evi dence at her sentencing hearing regard ing the July 26, 199 4 inciden t. In fact, the testi mony focusing on t he cocaine purchase from Fred Ross, the deli very of cocaine to t he jail by herlawyer, the discovery of coca ine in the envelop e, and the disco very o f Defe ndan t’s fingerprints on the tap e all dealt w ith the July 2 6, 1994 incident.-17- We disagree also with D efenda nt’s conte ntion that o nly an alte rnativ e sentence “with cont inued t reatment and therapy” can benefit her . The record just does not supp ort Defen dant’s cla im th at s he is actively or g enuinely see king treatment

or reha bili tation since she did not visit a psychol ogist unt il after she had entered he r nolo contender e plea.
Likewise, we a lso disag ree with Defen dant’s conten tion that the trial court denied her

pro bat ion by i mpos ingan e xt ra- statutory req uir eme nt for grant ing probation. Specifically, Defendantargues that the t rial cour t, in es sence, made a defendantwho enters a nolo conten dere plea presum ptively ineligible for alternative sentencing. However, the r ecord does not sup port De fendan t’sassert ion. As previo usly disc ussed, Defendant was consi stently evasive and unt ruthfulin her tes timony. Defenda nt was also un repentant an d showed contemp t for th e proceeding in which she testifi ed. These are all ample reasons for determining that Defendant was unsuitabl e for alternative sentencing. See State v. Dykes , 803 S.W .2d 250 (Te nn. Crim. Ap p. 1990).

Defendant also reque sts tha t her ca se be rema nded to perm it her to wit hdraw her nolo conten dere plea and allow h er a jury trial . However, t he trialcourt asked the Defe ndan t two tim es du ring the sente ncing hearin g if she would like to withdraw her plea. After discussi on with her counsel both t imes, she expres sed her decisi on to proce ed with the se ntenc ing he arin g and with her plea of nolo contende re . Obviously, Defendant did not seek the relief whi ch she is now a sking at the trial court and we are prec luded fro m ente rtaining tha t reques t absen t plain error. See State
v. McClintock , 7 32 S .W.2d 268 (Tenn. 1987). Defendant’s at tempt to seek r

elief beyond the issue presented in her noti ce of appeal, the denialof probati on or other-18-

form of alternative sentence, canno t now be entertaine d. See id .; see also Tenn. R. Crim. P . 37(b).

In sum mary , Defe ndan t’s overa ll dem eano r, inclu ding h er insistence on blaming other

people and her lack o f cando r and truth fulness to the cour t, all militate agains t any type o f alternative s entenc e.

Accord ingly, we affirm the judgm ent of the tria l court.

____________________________________ THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge

CONCUR:

___________________________________ GARY R. WA DE, Presiding J udge

___________________________________ L. T. LAFFERTY, Special Judge