### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Marc h 29 , 200 6
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. RITA KA Y V INES
Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Washington Cou nty Nos. 30447B, 30463A Robert E. Cup p, Jud ge

No. E2005-01240-CC A-R3- CD - F iled May 18, 2006

The de fenda nt, Rit a Kay

Vines, pled g uiltyto acc essory afte r the fact, agg ravated burglary , theft over $500, theft under $500, vandalism under $500, and three counts of for g ery in exchang e for

a total eff ective se ntence of eig ht y ea rs as a Rang e I , standard of fende r, with the manne r of se rvice to be determined by

the trial court. On appeal, s he arg ues t hat t he trial court err ed in denying a lternative
se nte nc ing . B a se d u po n o ur re vie w, we a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed
A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH a ndJ.C. M C L IN , J J ., joined.
Ge ne Sc ott , Joh ns on City , T e nn e sse e , f or the app e lla nt, Rita

Kay Vi ne s.
Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; Jenn if e r L . B le ds oe , A ssi stant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; J oe C. Crumley , J r., District Att orney Gene ral; and Dennis D. B rooks, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
. OP IN ION
F AC TS
On S eptember 8, 2004, the Washington County Gra nd J ury

returne d a one- count indictment in Case No. 30447B char g ing the defe ndant with espec ially ag g ravated robbery and a seven-c ount indictment in Case No. 30463A charg ing he r with ag g ravated burg lary , theft of pr operty over $500, vandalism under $500, thr ee c ounts of forg ery under $1000, and theft of pr operty under $500. O n Mar c h 7 , 2 00 5, the de fe nd a nt e nte re d g uil ty ple a s to a c c e sso ry

a ft e r the fa c t in Ca se No . 3 04 47 B, with an ag ree d sentenc e of two y ear s, and to ag g ravated burg lary , theft over $500, vandalism under $500, three counts of forg ery , and theft under $500 in Ca se No. 30463A, with an agr ee d t otal sentenc e of six y ear s to be serve d consec utively to the two-y ear

sentenc e in Case No. 30447B

.-2-

The fa cts surrounding the de fendant’s offe nse in Case No. 30447B , as set forth in the Af fi da vit of Complaint , w e re a s f

oll ow s: On 6/6/04 at aprox [ sic] 11:30 AM the above named de fendant fac ilitated the espec ially ag g ravated robbe ry

and ag g ravated burg lary

of (victim) Way ne Story

317 Depot S t. A p t. # 1 b y

s ta k in g M r
. St o r y ’ s r e s id e n c e o u t w ith th e c o
- d e f e n d a n ts and t h en s t an d i n g b y wi t h a get -a wa y v eh i cl e ab l o ckd o wn t h e s tre et atDe i h l T ru ck i n g. When the co-de fenda nt s returne d[,] the above named de fendant fled the a rea . The above named def

endant ha d complete knowle dg e of the above de scribed c rime.
The fa cts surrounding the def endant’ s offe nses in Case No. 30463A, as s et fo rt h in the Affida vits of Compl aint, wer e:

On [Marc h 21 , 20 04 ] at app ro x. 10 :00 p. m. the de fe nd a nt andc od e fe nd a nts went to the vi cti m’s residenc e located at 687 Oa k Grove Rd. in W ashing ton Co. [The defe ndant] and h er s o n J o s h knocked on the front and rear doors. Afte r rec eiving no answe r, they broke a window t o the front door and ma de entry . A DVD play er, pla y

station, CDs and DVDs wer e taken. Total value including damag e to the door totals $1320.00.
O n M a y 2 8 , 2 0 0 4 t h e d e f e n d a n tf o r g e d a c h e c k u n d e r t h e n a m e o f

T a n ya Adams at Moody ’s Discount Pharmac y in J ohnson City . The a mount of the che ck was for $44.28. On the same dat e t h e defe ndant forg ed a se cond che ck at White’s Fr esh F oods Groce ry

on N. Roan St. in J ohnson City . The a mount of that chec k was $96.07. On May

29, she for g ed a c heck f

or $20 at F ood Cityin Boone s Creek. At the April 29, 2005, sentenc ing he aring , the thirty -eig ht-y ear -old defe ndant testified that she had no prior convictions and wa s curr ently employ ed. She acknow ledg ed that her son, Joshua Saly ers, wa s a code fenda nt, and that her d aughter was in foster

car e. She said she ha d last used
cocaine in November

2004 and marijuana about two months prior to the he aring

. Re g ard ing Ca se No . 3 04 47 B, th e de fe nd a nt s a id that sh e wa s li vin g wi th a c od e fe nd a nt, Go rd on Ha ws , at th e tim e of the ro bbery

a ndthat sh e ha d b e e n “ pr e tty muc h ma de to” pa

rt ic ipate in the robbery . She described Haw s as “psy chotic” and said he had put a g un to her he ad on pre vious
occa sions and had thre atene d her a nd her c h i l d

. S he denie d knowing that her son, Saly ers, ha d broug ht a g un with him on the day of the robbery
. Haws told her that he wa nted to “g o rob people ” and she w ent along beca

use she wa s afr aid of him. Saly ers a nd Haws told her that Ha ws had pushed the vic ti m’ s d o o r

o p e n a n d d e man d e d th e v ic ti m’ s w a ll e t. Wh e n th e v ic ti m t r ie d to g r ab th e g un, Saly ers hit him in the head with it. The defe ndant acknow ledg ed that she “dr ove the c ar a way ” af ter the robbe ry . The de fenda nt said that the victim, “an old man, a littl e man,” wa s a former ne ighbor and that it was her son’s idea to r ob him. She said Haws and Saly ers split the $40 they took from t h e v i c t i ma n d d e n i e d t h a ts h e h a d r e c e i v e d a n y o f t h e m o n e y.-3-

Reg arding the forg erie s in Ca se No. 30463A, the defe ndant testified that her da ug hter’s boy friend ha d g iven her his mother ’s chec kbook and that she had forg ed three chec ks from it to buy medication for

her daug hter. Conce rning the ag g ravated burg l ary , the def endant testified that she went with her

codef endants, Jenilee Christie and J oshua S aly ers, to the home of Christie’s boy friend wher e Christie and S aly ers used a baseball bat t o brea k out the window in the front door and then sto le a Pla y Sta tio n, CD s, a ndmov ie s. Th e de fe nd a nt a dmi tte d th at sh e “ he lpe d” ste a l th e ite ms, say ing she had done so be cause she “w as just rea l upset over [h er ] husband, and [she] just wasn’t thinking straig ht.”
I nvest i g ator Mike L ewis of the Jonesboroug h Police Depa rtment testified that whe n he
arrived at the sc ene of

the robbe ry , the victim, Way ne Story , was being treated by emer g ency medical pe rs on ne l. L e wi s loc a te d a wi tne ss wh o ide nti fi e d Sa ly e rs a s o ne of the ro bb e rs . H e la te r s po ke to the def endant who told him that Saly ers c ould not have been involved in the robbery beca use a friend had spent the nig ht with him and they had left the next m orning for his uncle ’s house in B ristol. The defe ndant ultimately

disclosed S aly ers’ wher eabouts and he wa s arr ested. Ha ws later g ave the police a stateme nt, say ing that he, the def endant, a nd Saly ers had planned the robbery and that the def endant had drive n them to the victim’s r esidenc e. L ewis said that the victim re ceive d stitches to his head
a s a re su lt o f b e ing hit

wi th the pis tol

. At the conc lusion of the hearing, the trial c o urt order ed that the de fendant serve he r eig ht-y ear se nte nc e in c on fi ne me nt. Th e re a ft e r, the de fe nd a nt f ile d a tim e ly no tic e of app e a l to thi s c ou rt

. AN AL YSI S
The de fenda nt's sole issue on a ppeal is whe ther the tria l court er red in de ny ing a lternative sentenc ing. When a n acc used cha lleng es the leng th and manner of ser vice of a sente nce, it is the du t yof this court to conduc t a de novo revie w on the re cord w ith a presumption that "the determinations made by

the court from which the appeal i s taken a re c orre ct." Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401( d) (2003) . This presumption is "conditioned upon the affirmative showing in the rec ord th at t he t ri al c ou rtcon si dere d t he s ent enci ng pri nci pl es an d al l relev ant fact s and ci rcum st ances ." State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1 9 9 1 ). The presumption does not apply to the leg al conclusions re ache d by

the trial court in sentencing the acc used or to the determinations made by the trial court whic h are predic at ed upon uncontrove rted fa cts. State v. Butler , 900 S.W .2d 305, 311 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) ; State v. Smit h, 891 S.W .2d 922, 929 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) ; State v. Bone st el, 871 S.W.2d 163, 166 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993), overr uled on other g rounds by State v. Hooper , 29 S.W .3d 1, 9 (Tenn. 2000) . Howeve r, this court is require d to give g reat weig ht t o the tr ia l c ou rt ' s d e te rm inatio n o f c on tr ove rt e d f a c ts a s th e tr ia l c ou rt ' s d e te rm inatio n o f the se fa c ts i s p re d i ca t ed u p o n th 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 conducting a de novo revie w of a sentenc e, this court must consid er (a ) an y evidenc e rec eived at the trial and/or se ntencin g h earing , (b) the pr esente nce r eport, (c ) the princ iples of sentenc ing, ( d) the a

rg uments of counse l relative to sente ncing alternatives, (e) the nature and char acte ristics of the off

ense, ( f) a ny

mitigating or enhanc ement fac tors, (g ) any statements made by-4-

the ac cused in his own beha lf, and (h) the ac cused' s potential or l ack of potential for r ehabilitation or treatment. Tenn

. C o de Ann. §§ 40- 35-103, -210 ( 2003); State v. Tay lor, 63 S.W .3d 400, 411 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001)

. The pa rty challeng ing the sentenc e imposed by the trial court has the burden of establishing that the sentenc e is err oneous. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401, Sente ncing Commi ssion C mts.; Ashby , 823 S .W .2d at 169. I n this case, the de fendant has the burde n of illustrating the sentenc e imp os e d b y

the tr ia l c ou rt

is e rr on e ou s.
The Te nnessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Ac t o f 1 9 8 9 , e n a c te d

to " promote justice," Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 102 (2003), pr ovides that the s entenc e im posed upon an offender should be the "le ast sever e mea sure ne cessa ry to achieve the purposes for which the s entenc e is imposed." Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 103(4). Thus, trial judge s are "e ncoura g ed" to use " alternatives to incarc eration that incl u d e re q uirements of r epar ation, victim compensation and/or c ommunityservice ." T enn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103( 6). An espec ially mitigated or standard offe nder convicted of a Class C, D, or E fe lony

is presumed to be a

favor able c andidate f

or alternative sente ncing in the abse nce of evidenc e to the contr ary . Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-102(6)

. I f an offende r m eets the criteria under Tenne ssee Code Annotated section 40-35-102(6) , the trial court "must presume that he is subject to alternative sente ncing ." A shby , 823 S.W .2d at 169. Ho we ve r, if

the c ou rt is p re se nte d w ith " e vid e nc e su ff ic ie nt t o o ve rc ome the pr e su mpt ion , th e n it may s e n te n c e th e d e f

e n d a n t to c o n f

in e me n t a c c o r d in g to th e s tatu to r y p r o v is io n
. " I d. The presumption in favor of alternative sente ncing may be over come by

fac ts contained in the pr e se nte nc e re po rt , e vid e nc e pr e se nte d b y the State , th e te sti mo ny of the a c c us e d o r a

de fe ns e witness, or any

other sourc e, provide d it is m ade pa rt of the r ecor d. State v. Parker , 932 S.W .2d 945, 958 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996)

. Evidence sufficie nt to overcome the pre sumption i n favor of alternative sente ncing includes evidenc e showing that "[c]onfinement is nece ssary to protect socie ty

by restraining a

defe ndant who has a long histor y o f cr iminal conduct," "[c]onfinement is nece ssary to avoid depre ciating the
se ri ou sn e ss o f the of

fe ns e or c on fi ne me nt is pa rt ic ula rl y su ite d to pr ov ide a n e ff e c tiv e de te rr e nc e to others likely

to commit si milar offe nses," or " [m ]easures l es s restric tive than conf inement have fre quently

or re cently

been a pplied unsucce ssfully

to t h e defenda nt." Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103( 1)(A) -(C); see Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169.
I n deny ing a lternative se ntencing , the trial court stated: Well, I

. . . had som e opti ons, but

. . . [t he defenda nt] takes them away from
me wh e n s heg e ts up he re a nd wo n’ t a c c e pt a ny re sp on sib ili ty fo r a ny of he r c on du c t. She fi na lly

didbe c a us e sh e wa s p inn e d to the wal l on it. De nie s a ny inv olv e me nt. You know , p ar t of re habilitation is t o be able to ge t up here and tell the truth on something, a nd she simply will not do it . . . . She’s a dr ug addict, that’s, y ou know, drug addict, an d h e r

c h il d r e n ar e d ru g a d d ic ts

. . . . Sh e ’ s g o t a L PNn u r s ing-5-

certificate, a nd just blew it – just closed, I mean – had nurse burn out. So, y ou g ive up nursing and g o to sticking up people, a nd taking y our kids down to rob them, and all that stuff. Woodridge , chec ked my self in to g et off of drug s. I t didn’ t w ork. She went rig ht back to whe re she wa s
. T h ey j u s t keep y ou up seven day s to clean out y ou r s y ste m. T hat’ s h e r c op e -o ut [s ic ] for no t do ing a nythi ng abo ut the pr ob le m. She g ot [ sic] anx iety

and depr ession. She takes Xa n ax , s omething a ll the time. Sta rt e d d ri nking a t 14 a

c ou ple of beer s, a

g la ss o f w ine e ve ry

c ou ple of

mon ths , mari juana a ndc oc a ine . M ari

juana , o f co ur se , she do [es ]n’ t like the way it m a de me fee l but, y et, she a dmits t hat she smoked it as much a s two months ago. . . .

. . . . . . . Whether or not the de fendant might re asonably be expected to be reha bilitated, and the defe ndant’s potential, or lack of potential for re h ab i litation including the risk during the period of probation the defe ndant will commit another
c rime. Whe n y ou ’r e no t c a nd id w ith the c ou rt , a ndy ou c a n’ t a c c e pt r e sp on sib ili ty that ta ke s a way the po te nti a l f

or re ha bil itatio n. Th e c ou rt

fi nd s th a t sh e ha s n on e in
e ith e r ca se
. Whe the r or no t a re a so n ap pe ars the de fe nd a nt wil l a bid e by the te rm s of pr ob a tio n. I f s he ’l l li e to y ou un de r oa th, a nd no t ac c e pt re sp on sib ili ty un de r o a th the re is n o w a y

that sh e wo uld ab ide by the te rm s o f p ro batio n o nc e sh e le ft thi s fa c ili ty

. W het he r o [r] n ot the int e re st o f s oc ie ty is b e ing pr ote c te d f

ro m po ssi ble fu tur e condu c t f

ro m he r. An d I

ha ve a re sp on sib ili ty

to this c ommun ity

to d o th a t, and she’ s a nuisance to this community

. Whether or not a sentenc e of f ull probation wo uldun du ly

de pr e c ia te the se ri ou sn e ss o f the se of fe ns e s, a nd it wo uldin b othc a se s. And whethe r or not conf inement is parti cularly

suited to provide an e ffe ctive deter rent to others. N othing pr ovides an e ffe ctive dete rre nt to any body . She’s presumed to be a . . . favorable candidate for alternative sentenc ing, but, if y ou look
a t – u nle ss the re ’s e vid e nc e to the c on tr ary fo un d in 40 -3 5- 10 3. Con fi ne me nt i s nece ssary to protect socie ty

by restrai n i n g a defe ndant who has a long history

of
c ri min a l c on du c t. S he do e sn ’t fi t th a t c a te g ory
. Con fi ne me nt is ne c e ssa ry to [a ]voi d depre ciating the seriousne ss of the off ense is applica

ble to her, and not only

that, that la c k o f t ru thf uln e ss on thi s w itn e ss s ta ndjus t g ive s th is c ou rt a ll the a mmu nit ionin t h e w o rl d i t n ee d s t o s ay s h e’ s n o tan ap p ro p ri at e c an d i d at e f o r a l t er n at i v e s en t en ci n g. The sente nces a

re or dere d serve d.
Th e de fe nd a nt arg ue s th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt didno t c on sid e r “ the fa c tor of wh e the r o r n ot l e ss restric tive measure s have of ten or rec ently been unsucce ssfully applied” to the de fendant. Howeve r, the transc ript of the sente ncing hearing show s that the trial court wa s well awa re of the fa ct that the d ef en d an th ad n o tb ee n i n ca rc er at ed b ef o re an d , t h u s , h ad n o t b ee n s u b j ec tt o al t er n at i v e s en t en ci n g. Further, she a

rg ues on appe al that the evide nce doe s not support the trial court’ s statement that she was a leade r in the offe nses. The r ecor d shows that the trial court made this observation in finding that the def

endant f ailed to ac cept r esponsibilityfor he r role in the offe n s es , as we l l as not being-6-

truthful at the sente ncing hearing. W e conclude that the r ecor d amply supports the trial court’s de nia l of a lte rn a tiv e se nte nc ing fo r the de fe nd a nt.
CO NC LU SION
B a se d u po n th e fo re g oin g a uth oriti e s a ndre a so nin g , w e a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

.

___________________________________ ALAN E. GL

ENN, JUDGE