IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs January 19, 2012

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. LARRY THOMAS JOHNSON

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Bedford County

No. 17064 Robert Crigler, Judge

No. M2010-00212-CCA-R3-CD - Filed February 8, 2012

The defendant, Larry Thomas Johnson, appeals his Bedford County Circuit Court guiltypleaded convictions of the sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine and possession with the intent

to sell .5 grams or more of cocaine, claiming that the trial court erred by imposing a Range

II sentence in the absence of any notice from the State that it would seek enhanced

punishment. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

JAMES CURWOOD WITT,JR.,J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which JERRY L. SMITH

and CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, JJ., joined.

James O. Martin, III, Nashville, Tennessee (on appeal); and Andrew Jackson Dearing, III,

District Public Defender; and MichaelJ. Collins, Assistant District Public Defender (at trial),

for the appellant, Larry Thomas Johnson.

Robert E. Cooper,Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Clark B. Thornton, Assistant Attorney

General; Charles Frank Crawford, Jr., District Attorney General; and Michael D. Randles,

Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

On October 18, 2010, the defendant pleaded guilty as charged to one count of

the sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine, one count of the delivery of .5 grams or more of

cocaine, one count of the possession with intent to sell .5 grams or more of cocaine, and one

count of the possession with intent to deliver .5 grams or more of cocaine. The trial court

merged the conviction of the delivery of cocaine with the conviction of the sale of cocaine

and the conviction of possession with intent to sell cocaine with the conviction of possession
with intent to deliver cocaine. According to the stipulation of facts provided by the State

during the plea colloquy, the defendant’s convictions for sale and delivery of cocaine

involved the October 28, 2009 controlled purchase of .7 grams of cocaine by a confidential

informant from the defendant. His convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to sell

or deliver were the result of officers’ finding 14.4 grams of cocaine at the defendant’s

residence during the execution of a search warrant. Following his arrest, the defendant

admitted that he had been selling cocaine from his residence.

The trial court advised the defendant that the Class B felony convictions

exposed him to a sentence ranging between eight and 30 years and that his “actual sentence

. . . would depend upon the number of prior felony convictions” on his record. No mention

was made of the defendant’s appropriate sentencing range.

At the January 10, 2011 sentencing hearing, the prosecutor moved to amend

the presentence report to reflect that, contrary to information in the report, the defendant’s

three prior felony convictions did not have the same offense date. The defendant refused to

agree to the amendment “considering that it changes the range.” The State then presented

the testimony of the preparer of the presentence report, Laura Prosser, who stated that upon

the State’s request, she confirmed via the Rutherford County Circuit Court Clerk that the

three convictions at issue did not share the same offense date. The defendant presented no

proof at the sentencing hearing. The trial court imposed Range II sentences of 17 years for

each of the merged convictions and ordered them to be served concurrently, for a total

effective sentence of 17 years’ incarceration.

In this appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by imposing a

Range II sentence because the State failed to file notice that it intended to seek enhanced

punishment as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-202. The defendant

does not contend that he does not have the requisite number of prior convictions to qualify

as a Range II offender or that the sentence imposed is otherwise infirm. The State asserts

that the defendant waived the filing of notice.

When considering challenges to the length and manner of service of a sentence

this court conducts a de novo review with a presumption that the determinations of the trial

court are correct. T.C.A. § 40-35-401(d) (2006). This presumption, however, “is

conditioned upon the affirmative showing in the record that the trial court considered the

sentencing principles and all relevant facts and circumstances.” State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d

166, 169 (Tenn. 1991). The appealing party, in this case the defendant, bears the burden of

establishing impropriety in the sentence. T.C.A. § 40-35-401, Sentencing Comm’n

Comments; see also Ashby, 823 S.W.2d at 169. If our review of the sentence establishes that

the trial court gave “due consideration and proper weight to the factors and principles which

-2-
are relevant to sentencing under the Act, and that the trial court’s findings of fact . . . are

adequately supported in the record, then we may not disturb the sentence even if we would

have preferred a different result.” State v. Fletcher, 805 S.W.2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App.

1991). In the event the record fails to demonstrate the required consideration by the trial

court, appellate review of the sentence is purely de novo. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d at 169.

In making its sentencing decision, the trial court was required to consider:

(1) The evidence, if any, received at the trial and the sentencing

hearing;

(2) The presentence report;

(3) The principles of sentencing and arguments as to sentencing

alternatives;

(4) The nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct

involved;

(5) Evidence and information offered by the parties on the

mitigating and enhancement factors set out in §§ 40-35-113 and

40-35-114;

(6) Any statistical information provided by the administrative

office of the courts as to sentencing practices for similar

offenses in Tennessee; and

(7) Any statement the defendant wishes to make in the

defendant’s own behalf about sentencing.

T.C.A. § 40-35-210(b). The trial court should also consider “[t]he potential or lack of

potential for the rehabilitation or treatment of the defendant . . . in determining the sentence

alternative or length of a term to be imposed.” Id. § 40-35-103(5).

Code section 40-35-202 provides:

If the district attorney general believes that a defendant should

be sentenced as a multiple, persistent or career offender, the

district attorney general shall file a statement thereof with the

court and defense counsel not less than ten (10) days before trial

or acceptance of a guilty plea; provided, that notice may be

waived by the defendant in writing with the consent of the

district attorney general and the court accepting the plea. The

statement, which shall not be made known to the jury

determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant on the

primary offense, must set forth the nature of the prior felony

convictions, the dates of the convictions and the identity of the

-3-
courts of the convictions. The original or certified copy of the

court record of any prior felony conviction, bearing the same

name as that by which the defendant is charged in the primary

offense, is prima facie evidence that the defendant named in the

record is the same as the defendant before the court, and is

prima facie evidence of the facts set out in the record.

T.C.A. § 40-35-202(a). “The purpose of the requirement is to provide the defendant with

‘fair notice’ that he is exposed to something other than standard sentencing. It is intended

to facilitate plea-bargaining, to inform plea decisions, and to assist with trial strategy.” State

v. Benham, 113 S.W.3d 702, 705 (Tenn. 2003) (quoting State v. Adams, 788 S.W.2d 557, 559

(Tenn. 1990)). “[T]he notice provision of Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-202(a) requires, at a

minimum, that the State file: (1) written notice, (2) clearly expressing the State’s intention

to seek sentencing outside of the standard offender range, (3) setting forth the nature of the

prior felony conviction, the dates of the convictions, and the identity of the courts of the

convictions.” State v. Livingston, 197 S.W.3d 710, 713-14 (Tenn. 2006) (footnote omitted).

“Failure to file any notice to seek enhanced sentencing pursuant to Tennessee Code

Annotated section 40-35-202(a) is grounds for re-sentencing as a Range I offender.” State

v. Cooper, 321 S.W.3d 501, 507 (Tenn. 2010) (citing State v. Pender, 687 S.W.2d 714,

719-20 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984)).

The statute provides, however, that the defendant may waive the filing of

written notice in writing with the consent of the State and the trial court. In this case, the

written petition to enter a plea of guilty signed by the defendant prior to the entry of his guilty

plea contains the following provision:

12. My attorney has explained enhanced sentencing to

me, and I understand that if I am presently eligible for enhanced

sentencing, I have a statutory right to a delay of ten (10) days

after the State files a notice of intent to seek enhanced

punishment before the Court accepts my plea of “GUILTY”. I

hereby acknowledge that I am subject to enhanced sentencing as

a multiple, persistent and/or career criminal, and give up my

right to the filing of such notice and/or some or all of the ten

(10) day waiting period before conviction.

Despite the generic language of the provision, it is in writing, signed by the defendant, and,

in our view, sufficient to waive the filing of notice seeking enhanced punishment.

Consequently, the State’s failure to file notice seeking enhanced punishment in this case did

not prevent the trial court from imposing a valid Range II sentence.

-4-
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

_________________________________

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE

-5-