### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A pr il 13, 200 4
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. RA ND Y A ND ERS ON

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Henry County

No. 13191 Julian P . Guinn, Ju dge

No. W2003-01472-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Jun e 24, 2004

The a ppellant, Randy

Ander son, pled g uiltyin the Henry CountyCircuit Court to man ufac turing methamphetamine and was sente nced to thre e y ear s, with 180 day s to be serve d in confineme nt and the balanc e to be se rved in the c ommunitycorr ections progr am. The trial court ordere d the sentenc e to b e se rv e d c on c ur

re ntl y wi th a pr e vio us se nte nc e in M a dis on Cou nty . T he tr ia l c ou rt su bs e qu e ntl y revoke d the appe llant’s community corr ections sentenc e and r esente nced the appellant to four y ear s in the Te nn e sse e De pa

rt men t of Co rr e c tio n, to b e se rv e d c on se c uti ve ly to s e nte nc e s impo se d in Weakley and Dy er Counties. On a ppeal, the a

ppel l ant challeng es the imposition of consecutive sentenc ing. U pon revie w o f t h e record and the parties’ brief s, we a ffirm the judg ment of the trial
c ou rt

. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Ci r c uit

Co ur t i s A ffirm e d.

N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and J AM ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J J ., joined.

W. J eff ery Fa g an, Assistant District Public De fende r, Camden, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Randy Ander son.
Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; B re nt C . Ch e rry , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Robert “Gus” Radford, D istrict Attorney Gene ral; and St even L . Gar rett, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
. OP IN ION

I. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound

On J uly 2, 2001, the Henry

CountyGra nd J ury issued a three -count indictment c harg ing the appellant a nd four c o-def

endants with one count of manufa cturing methamphetamine, one count of possession of anhy drous ammonia, and one count of possession of dr ug para pherna lia. The a

p p e ll ant subsequently

pled g uiltyto manufac turing m et h am p h etamine a nd the re maining c ounts wereT he ap p ell an t rec eive d 6 6 9 d ays cre d i t fo r t i m e se rve d i n ja i l an d o n c o m m un i t y co rrec t i o ns. 1

-2- dis mis se d a s to the app e lla nt. On Janu ary 16 , 2 00 2, the tr ia l c ou rt

imp os e d a

se nte nc e of thr e e y e ars , with 180 day s to be serve d in confineme nt and the bala nce to be serve d in the community corr ections pr og ram. T he tr ia l cou rt or de re d the se nte nc e to be se rv e d c on c ur re ntl y wi th a pr e vio us se nte nc e in Madison County . On J anuary 15, 2003, a violation report was filed in the t rial court, alleg ing that t h e appellant had absconde d from the supe rvision of the community corr ections prog ram a nd had be e n c ha rg e d w ith va

ri ou s d ru g -r e la te d o ff

e ns e s in Wea

kle y a ndDy e r C ou nti e s. On April 14, 2003, the trial c ourt found the a ppell an t t o be in violation of the prog ram’s behavior al ag ree ment and re voked his community corr ections sentenc e. The trial court sc heduled
a re sentenc ing hearing for May 19, 2003. Prior to rese ntencing , the appellant enter ed g uiltypleas to the charg es i n Weakley and Dy er Counties. On April 8, 2003, the appellant pled g uiltyin the Dy er CountyCircuit Court to possession wit h intent to sell methamphetamine and w as sentenc ed to three y ear s incarc eration. On May 15, 2003, the appe llant pled g uiltyin the Weakley CountyCircuit Court to m a nu fa c turing me thamph e ta min e a ndpo sse ssi on of a nh y dr ou s a mmo nia

and was se nte nc e d to three y ear s incarc eration, to be served c oncurr ently to sentence s in Dy er a nd Madison Counties.

A t th e r e s e n te n c in g h e ar in g , n e ith e r th e ap p e ll a n t n o r th e St a te p r e s e n te d th e te s ti mo n y of witnesses. I nstead, the parties r elied upon the pr esente nce r eport. The appellant a sked the trial c ourt to a l l o w h i mt o s e r v e t h e r e m a i n d e r o f h i s t h r e e y e ar

s e n t e n c e c o n c u rr e n t l y

t o h i s s e n t e n c e s in Weakley a ndDy e r C ou nti e s. Th e app e lla nt a lso a dmi tte d th a t he ha d a n “ e xten siv e ” dr ug abu se problem and a sked the trial c ourt to order drug treatment. The State did not object to the trial court ordering dr

ug treatment, but recomme n d e d th at t h ea p p e ll ant be sentenc ed to five y ear s incarc eration. Following the hea

ring , the trial court se ntence d the appellant to f our y ear s incar cer ation, to be serve d
consec utively

to the Weakley

and Dy er County

sentenc es. The a

ppellant appe als the imposition of 1
co n s ec u t i v e s en t en ci n g.
II. Ana lys is When an appe llant challeng es the leng th, rang e, or ma nner of service of a se ntence , it is t he duty of this court to conduc t a de novo revie w with a pre sumption t hat the dete rminations made by the trial court a

re corr ect. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401( d) (2003) . Howeve r, this presumption of
corr ectne ss is “conditioned upon the af firmative showing in the record that the trial court conside red the sentenc ing principles and all rele vant fac ts a nd circ umstances.” State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991) . I f the re cord de monstrates that the trial c ourt failed to c onsider the sentencing principles and the rele vant fa cts and c ircumstance s, review of the sente nce w ill be purely de novo. I d.

I n conducting our review, thi s court must consider ( 1) the e vidence , if any , rec eived at trial and at the se ntencing hearing; ( 2) th e p re s en tence report; (3) the princ iples of sentenc ing and the arg uments of counse l r elative to the sentenc ing a lternatives; (4) the nature and cha rac teristics of the of fe ns e s; ( 5) a ny mit ig a tin g or e nh a nc e me nt fa c tor s; (6 ) an y state me nts ma de by the app e lla nt on h isT h e W e a k le y C o u n ty o ff e n se s w e re c o m m itt e d o n O c to b e r 1 1 a n d N o v e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 0 2 , an d the D ye r C o u n ty 2

o f fense was co m m i t t ed on Ja nuary 4, 20 0 3

. A cco rdingl y , t hese o f fenses were co m m i t t ed whi l e t he ap p el l ant was s ervi ng h is c o m m u n ity c o rr e c tio n s se n te n c e in the insta n t ca se
. -3- own beha lf; and (7) the appe llant’s potential for r ehabilitation or trea tment. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40- 35 -1 02 , - 10 3, -2 10 (2 00 3) ; se e a lso As hb y , 8 23 S.W. 2da t 16 8. Th e burden is o n th e app e lla nt t o show that the sentenc e is improper. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401, Sentenc ing Commission Com me nts

. Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d sec tio n 4 0- 36 -1 06 (e )( 4) (2 00 3) g rants a tr ia l c ou rt

the a uth ority to re se nte nc e a de fe nd a nt fo llo wi ng re vo c a tio n of a c ommun ity

c or re c tio ns se nte nc e . Se e a lso Sta te v. Sa m u el s , 4 4 S.W .3d 489, 493 (Tenn. 2001) . The statute pr ovides that the trial court “may
rese ntence the def

endant to any

appropriate sentenc ing a lternative, inc luding inca rce ration, for

any pe ri odof tim e up to the ma ximum se nte nc e pr ov ide d f

or the of fe ns e c omm itt e d, le ss an y tim e actual ly serve d in any

community -base d alternative to incarc eration.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 36- 106(e) (4). In rese ntencing a def endant, the trial court may impose a sentence of

incar cer ation g reater t h an t h e s en t en ce o ri gi n al l y i m p o s ed

. S am u el s , 4 4 S

. W

. 3 d at 4 9 3

. Ho we v er , p ri o r t o re s en t en ci n g, the t rial court must conduct a sentenc ing hearing in accor dance with the principles of the Criminal Sentencing Reform Ac t. I d. at 494.

At the re sentenc ing he aring , the t rial court noted that the appe llant was being sentenc ed as
a Ra ng e I sta nd ard of

fe nd e r fo r wh ic h the pr e su mpt ive se nte nc e fo r a Cla ss C f e lon y wa s th re e y e ars
. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40- 35-112(a )(3) , -2 1 0 (c ) (2 003). The trial court incr ease d the appe llant’s sentenc e to four y ear s, finding the following enhanc ement fa ctors to be a pplicable: (2) The defe ndant has a

previous history

of criminal convictions or crimin al behavior in addition to those necessa ry to establish the appropriate ra ng e; [and] (9 ) T he de fe nd a nt h a s a

pr e vio us his tory of un wi lli ng ne ss to c omp ly
w i t h t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f

a s e n t e n c e i n v o l v i n g r e l e a s e i n t h e c o m m u n i t y. Tenn. Code Ann. § 4 0-35-114( 2) and ( 9) (2003) . The trial c ourt found “no g rounds to mitigate.” Th e tr i a l c o u r t t h e n o r d e r e d t h e s e n t e n c e t o b e s e r v e d c o n s e c u t i v e l y t o t h e s e n t e n c e s imp os e d in Wea kle y a ndDy e r C ou nti e s. The appellant contends that beca use t he W eakle y and Dy er County offe nses wer e committed subsequent to the i nstant offe nse, the trial c ourt was not authorized to order the se ntence to be serve d
consec utively

to the sentenc es in thos e co u nties. I n support of his contention, the appe llant cites 2 Th omp so n v . St a te , 5 65 S.W. 2d 88 9, 88 9- 90 (T e nn . Crim . App . 197 7) , in w hic h th e Cof fe e Cou nty Circuit Court had entered an order requiring a defenda nt to serve his sente nce c onsecutively to “any
se nte nc e wh ic h th e de fe nd a nt m a y re c e ive in M oo re Cou nty fo r crimi na l con du c t pri or to the date of thi s o rd e r. ” On app e a l, this c ou rt or de re d th e mod if

ic a tio n of the c ir c uit c ou rt ’s or de r to d e le te any ref ere nce to c harg es pending in Moore County . I d. at 890. This court c oncluded that “ under the-4-

terms of the statute a

sentenc e may

only be run c onsecutively t o a pre v iou sly imposed sentenc e
. Ther e is n o s tatu to r y

a u th o r it y f o r th e in f u tu r o o r d e r

e n te r e d in th is c a s e
. ” I d

. ( e mp h a s is a d d e d ). We conclude that the instant case is re adily distinguishable f

rom Thompson.

The statute ref

err ed to in Thompson, 565 S.W .2d at 890, was Te nnessee Code Annotated section 40-2711, whic h is presently desig nated se ction 40-20-1 1 1 (a ). This statute provides that “[w]hen any person ha s been c onvicted of two ( 2) or more offe nses, judg ment shall be re ndere d on
e a c h c on vic tio n a ft e r the fi rs t, pr ov idi ng that the te rm s of imp ri so nme nt to wh ic h su ch p ers on is sentenc ed shall run c oncurr ently or cumulatively

in the discre tion of the trial court.” Tenn. Code An n. § 40- 20 -1 11 (a ). Pur su a nt t o th is s ta tut e , th e “ imp os iti on of jud g me nts , in c lud ing se nte nc e s, for e x isting convic tions shall occur in a pr og ressi v e fa shion with the successive se ntence s being determined to be serve d concur rently or conse cutively

to those previously

imposed. ” State v. Arnold, 824 S.W.2d 176, 178 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).

Unlike the def

endant in Thompson, the appe llant’s sentenc es in Weakley and Dy er Counties
wer e imposed prior to re sentencing in the instant ca se. As we have note d, the appe llant was sentenc ed in Dy er County on April 8, 2003, prior t o t h e re v o cation of his communit y corr ections sentenc e on April 14, 2003. The appellant was sentenc ed in Weakley Countyon May

15, 2003, prior to resente ncing o n M ay

19, 2003. The Weakle y

and Dy er County

offe nses serve d as g rounds for revoking the appe llant’s community corr ections sentenc e. W e conc lude that the trial c ourt was authorized to order

the appe l l an t ’s s entenc e in the instant ca se to be served conse cutively to the “pre viouslyimposed sentence s” in Weakley and Dy er Counties. See State v. Charity H. Keith, No. M2002-02386-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 22888920 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Dec . 5, 2003).

Ha vin g a dd re sse d th e a uth ority of the tr ia l c ou rt to i mpo se c on se c uti ve se nte nc ing , w e wi ll
no w a dd re ss the pr op ri etyof the imp os iti on of

c on se c uti ve se nte nc ing . A tr ia l c ou rt ma y imp os e consec utive sentenc es if the c ourt finds by a pre pondera nce of

the evidenc e that
(1 ) [t]he de fe nd a nt is a pr of e ssi on a l c ri min a l wh o ha s kno wi ng ly devoted suc h defe ndant’s l i fe to c riminal acts as a major sourc e of livelihood; (2 ) [t ]he de fe nd a nt is a n of fe nd e r wh os e re c or d of

c ri min a l a c tiv ity

is extensive; (3 ) [t ]he de fe nd a nt i s a

da ng e ro us me nta lly abn orma l pe rs on so decla red by a compe tent psy chiatrist . . . ; (4) [t] he defenda nt is a dange rous offender whose be havior indicates littl e or no r eg ard f

or human life, and no he sitation about committ ing
a crime in which the risk to human life is hig h; (5) [t] he def

endant is convicted of

two (2) or

more statutory

offe nses involving sexual abuse of a minor . . . ; (6) [t] he d ef

en d ant is sentence d for an offe nse committed while on probation; or (7 ) [t ]he de fe nd a nt i s se nte nc e d f or c ri min a l c on te mpt

.-5-

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-115(a ) and ( b) (2003)

. I n imposing conse cutive sente ncing , the trial court stated,

I t is myunderstanding that it probably oug ht to be consec utive under [Tennessee Code Annotated se ction] 40-35-115.

This man is a d o pe dea ler. He can play whateve r g ames he wants to play . The long and the short of it is this whini ng cry that he wants treatment never

arises until t h e ax falls and then w hen the a x fa ll s th e man wa nts to w a ve his ha nd s a ndsa y , L oo k, I ne e d s ome treatment, but up until then he ha s no problem; he just wants to deal in dope. . . . [I ]t is myopinion that the man has the criminal recor ds in the do pe fi e ld. I

thi nk that I ’v e g ot t o g e t hi m of f the str e e ts.
The trial c ourt’s imposit i o n o f conse cutive sente ncing appea rs to be base d upon the appe llant’s extensive criminal history

. Our revie w of the rec ord ref lects that the appellant’ s criminal re cord w as extensive and supports consec utive sentenc ing. T enn. Code Ann. § 40- 35 -1 1 5 (b )( 2). I n addition to the drug -re lated convic tions in Weakley and Dy er Counties, the prese ntence report r efle cts that the appe llant had numerous prior convictions, including additional drug convictions, possession of contra band in a penal facility , felony failure to appea r, and theft. Moreove r, at the t ime the appe llant committed the instant offense , he wa s on probation in Madison County . Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 115(b)( 6). Thus, we co n clude the trial court c ommitt ed no er ror by imposing conse cutive
s en t en ci n g.
III. Conclusi on
F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , w e a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

.

___________________________________ NORMA McGEEOGLE, J UDGE