FILED

March 11, 1999

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

JANUARY SESSION, 1999

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9804-CC-00176

)

Appellee, )

)

) MARSHALL COUNTY

VS. )

) HON. CHARLES LEE

CHARLES HAYES, ) JUDGE

)

Appellant. ) (Sentencing)

ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE

CIRCUIT COURT OF MARSHALL COUNTY

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

CLIFFORD K. McGOWN, JR. JOHN KNOX WALKUP

113 North Court Square Attorney General and Reporter

Waverly, TN 37185

DARYL J. BRAND

Assistant Attorney General

425 Fifth Avenue North

Nashville, TN 37243

MIKE McCOWEN

District Attorney General

P.O. Box 45

Fayetteville, TN 37334

OPINION FILED ________________________

AFFIRMED IN ACCORDANCE W ITH RULE 20

DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
-2-

OPINION

The Defendant pleaded guilty to and was convicted of two counts of

aggravated burglary, two counts of theft, and one count of evading arrest.

Sentencing was left to the discretion of the trial judge. On appeal, the Defendant

argues that his sentence is excessive. We disagree and affirm the judgment of

the trial court.

For the aggravated burglary convictions (Class C felonies) the Defendant

was sentenced as a Range III persistent offender to consecutive terms of

fourteen years, six months and thirteen years, six months. One of his theft

convictions was a Class D felony for which he was sentenced as a career

offender to twelve years to be served concurrently with his burglary sentences.

His other theft conviction was a Class E felony, for which he was sentenced to

six years as a career offender to be served consecutive to his aggravated

burglary sentences. For his misdemeanor evading arrest conviction, he was

sentenced to a concurrent term of eleven months and twenty-nine days. His

effective sentence for these crimes was thirty-four years. All sentences were

ordered served consecutively to the sentence he was serving on parole at the

time he comm itted these offenses. 

The trial judge ordered the sentences served consecutively because he

found that the Defendant is an offender whose record of crim inal activity is

extensive. The Defendant does not challenge this finding. It appears from the

record that he has over thirty felony convictions, including at least ten burglaries,
-3-

six thefts, numerous other property offenses and two felony escape convictions.

He had been released on parole just six months prior to committing the offenses

in the case sub judice. The trial court found the sentences were reasonably

related to the severity of the offenses and were necessary to protect society from

the Defendant’s further criminal activity. The record supports these findings. The

record also reflects that the trial court considered the sentencing principals and

all relevant facts and circumstances. 

We conclude that no error of law requiring a reversal of the judgment is

apparent on the record. Based upon a thorough reading of the record, the briefs

of the parties, and the law governing the issues presented for review, the

judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 20 of the Court of

Criminal Appeals of Tennessee.

____________________________________

DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE

CONCUR:

___________________________________

JOHN H. PEAY, JUDGE

___________________________________

JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE