In var i o us p l ead i ngs t he d efend ant ’ s nam e al so ap p ears as “Li sa D arl ene E vans” and “Li sa M y ers
. ” D uri ng 1
t he s ent enc i ng he ar i ng , t he defendan t s t at ed he r name w as “ Li s a M y er s
. ” Pur s uan t t o our po l i cy , we us e t he name l i s t ed in th e ind ic tm e n t. 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT KNOXVI LLE A s s i gne d on B r i e f s M a y 18, 2004
S T AT E OF T E NN E S S E E v . L I S A D AR L E NE HE CK
Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Sulli van Coun ty

No. S45,518 R. Jerr y Beck, Judge

No. E2003-02221-CC A-R3- CD - F iled Jul y 9, 2004

The de fenda nt, L isa Dar lene He ck, pled g uilty to six c ounts of forg ery and two counts of thef t over 1 $1,000. The Sullivan County trial court im posed a four-y ear sentenc e of inc arc eration on one of the the ft c a se s f oll ow e d b y a n e ff

e c tiv e se nte nc e of

fo ur y e ars of pr ob a tio n o n th e re ma ini ng c on vic tio ns
. On appe al, the def

endant c ontends the trial court erre d in imposi ng confine ment on the theft c harg e. We affirm the judgme nts of the trial court; howeve r, we r emand f or entry of an a mended judg ment as to one of the forg ery

convictions based upon a clerical er

ror. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt s o f the Cr im ina l C our t A ffirm e d;

Re m ande d forEnt r y o f Am e nde d Judg m e nt
J OE G. R I L EY , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J O S E P H M. T I PTON and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J ., joined.
Ste ph e n M . Wa lla c e , D ist ri c t Pu bli c De fe nd e r; andJose ph F . H arriso n, As sis ta nt D ist ri c t Pu bli c Def ender , for the a

ppellant, L isa Dar lene He ck. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; Thomas E. Wil liams, I I I , Assistant Attorney Gene ral; H. Gre eley Wells, Jr., District Attorney Gene ral; and Rebec ca H. Dave npo rt , As s istant District Attorney

Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.

OP IN ION
Th e de fe nd a nt p le d g uil ty to t wo c ou nts of

the ft ov e r $1 ,0 00 , Cla ss D fe lon ie s; fi ve c ou nts of for g ery over $500, Class E fe lonies; and one c ount of forg ery over $1,000, a

Class D felony

. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-14-103 (theft of prope rty ), -105 ( g rading ), -114 ( forg ery ). The c onvictions re s u l t ed from the defe ndant’s ac tions between D ece mber 1997 a nd Fe bruary 1998 for thef

ts and-2-

i s s u i n g ch ec k s t o n u m er o u s v i ct i m s wh i l e r ep re s e n t i n g h e r s el f a s “C h ri s t y L

. R i ch er ” a n d u s i n g a false photog raphic identification ca rd.
Pursuant to the plea a g ree ment, the def endant r ece ived a two- y ear sentenc e for

eac h of the Cla ss E fo rg e ry c on vic tio ns a nd a fo ur -y e ar se nte nc e fo r ea c h o f the the ft c on vic tio ns a ndthe Cla ss D forg ery conviction. The se ntence s for the f org ery convictions and one theft conviction wer e to run concur rently with eac h other but conse cutively to the other thef

t conviction, for a n eff

ective se ntence of eig ht y ear s. The state a g ree d to permit the defe ndant to serve four y ear s of her s entenc e on pr ob a tio n w ith the ma nn e r o f s e rv ic e of the re ma ini ng fo ur

y e ars to b e de te rm ine d b y the tr ia l c ou rt

. I. SENT ENCING HEARING
The de fenda nt testified her pa rents abandoned her when she was y oung
. She g raduated from high sc hool, obtained an a ssociates de g ree in H ospitality Manag ement, and is c ontinuing her educa tion to become a

para leg al. The de fenda nt stated she has tw o children, but doe s not have c ustody of either. The defe ndant’s criminal history resulted in the t ermination of her par ental rig hts of one of her c hildren.
The de fenda nt testified she has never committed a violent offense and ser ved a total of four y e ar s in c o n f

in e me n t f o r p r io r c o n v ic ti o n s
. T h e d e f e n d a n t s tate d s h e v io late d th e terms of prior sentenc e s o f p r o b a ti o n o n th r e e o c c a s io n s
. Sh e f u r th e r s tate d s h e h a s e s s e n ti a ll y li v e d h e r life by ste a lin g mon e y

a nda ssu min g the ide nti tie s o f o the rs . T he de fe nd a nt a po log ize d f

or he r a c tio ns
. Ang ela Moody , the def

endant’ s sister, testified she maintains re g ular co ntact with the defe ndant and has obser ved a c hang e in the def endant since her pr evious term of inc arc eration. Mo od y state d th e de fe nd a nt i s n ow e mpl oy e d a ndwi sh e s to be a mothe r t o h er chi ld ren . B oth Mo od y andChrist op he r F le min g state d th e y be lie ve d th e de fe nd a nt w a s a n a pp ro pria te c a nd idate for pr obation, and they

would aid the def

endant in comply ing w ith the terms of probation.
At the conc lusion of the sentenc ing hea ri n g, t he trial c ourt noted the de fenda nt’s employ ment, her e x pression of r emorse, and her sister’s support as posi tive aspec ts. Howeve r, the trial court f

urther note d the def

endant’ s prese ntence report was “almost entirely neg ative” and that her prior rec ord included te rms of probation wh i ch were re voked. The trial court or dere d the defe ndant to serve the four- y ear sentenc e for

one of the thefts in co n fi n ement followe d by an e ff e c tiv e te rm

of fo ur y e ars pr ob a tio n f

or the re ma ini ng of

fe ns e s. II. STA ND AR D O F RE VI EW
A def endant who c halleng es his or her sentenc e has the b u rd en of proving the sentenc e imposed by

the trial court is im proper . Tenn. C o d e Ann. § 40- 35-401, Sentenc ing Commission Com me nts ; State v. As hb y , 8 23 S.W. 2d16 6, 16 9 (T e nn
. 19 91 ). I t is thi s c ou rt ’s du ty to c on du c t a de novo revie w of the rec ord with a presumption the trial court’s determinations a re corr ect w hen a def endant a ppeals the le ng th, rang e, or ma nner of service of his or her

sentenc e. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401( d). The pr esumption of corr ectne ss is conditioned upon theaff irmative showing in the-3-

rec ord that the trial co u rt considere d the sentenc ing principles and a ll releva nt fac ts and circ umstances. State v. Pettus, 986 S.W .2d 540, 543-44 (Te nn. 1999).
III. ALTE RNATIVE SENTE NCING
The de fenda nt contends the trial c ourt err ed in imposing inca rce ration. We disag ree
. Under the 1989 Sentencing Act, sentences which involve confine ment are to be based on the following considerations contained in Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40-35-103(1): (A) [c]onfinement is nece ssary to protec t society by restra ining a

defe ndant who has a lon g his tory

of c ri min a l c on du c t; (B ) [c ]onf ine me nt i s ne c e ssa

ry to a vo id d e pr e c ia tin g the se ri ou sn e ss o f the of fe ns e or conf i n em en t is particular ly

suited to provide an e ffe ctive dete rre nce to other s likely to commit si milar offe nses; or (C) [m] eas u res less restrictive than c onfinement ha ve fr equently or re cently

been app lie d u ns uc c e ssf

ull y to the de fe nd a nt. State v. Grig sby , 957 S.W .2d 541, 545 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997); State v. Millsaps, 920 S.W.2d 267, 270 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995)

. Th e de fe nd a nt’ s p re se nte nc e re po rt re ve a ls sh e ha s mor e than on e hu nd re d p ri or c on vic tio ns , including ma ny

of the s am e o ff

en s es involved in the case at bar . Furthermore , the def endant ha s violated the terms of prior sentenc es of probation on threeocca sions. W e conc lude the trial c ourt proper ly denied a lternative se ntencing based upon the defe ndant’s long history of criminal conduct and the unsuc cessf

ul applicati o n o f m ea s ures less r estrictive than c onfinement. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103( 1)(A) , (C).
IV . C LER IC AL ER RO R
The tra nscript of the g uiltyplea he aring ref lects that the defe ndant pled g uilty to forg ery over $1,000, a Class D fe lony , under c ount seven of the ind i ctm ent. Howe ver, the judgme nt list s the offe nse as a

Class E felony . There fore , we r emand f or entry of an a mended j u d gm en t as to count seven r efle cting the forg ery conviction as a Class D fe lony . The judg ments are otherwise a ffirme d.

____________________________________ J OE G. RILEY, JUDGE