### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ma y 11, 200 4
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. F RA NKL IN D . B ROO KS

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 2001-D- 2445 Cheryl Blackbu rn, Judge

No. M2003- 00896-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Septem ber 23, 2004

De fe nd a nt, F ra nk lin D. B ro ok s, wa s in dic te d b y the Da vid so n Co un ty

Gr a ndJury

fo r b ur g lary , th e ft , a n d v a n d a l i s m
. F o l l o w i n g a j u r y t r i a l , D e f

e n d a n tw a s c o n v i c t e d o f

b u r g l a r y, a C l a s s D f

e l o n y. Following a sente ncing hearing, Def endant was sentenc ed as a Rang e I I offe nder to serve seve n y ear s on community corr ections. As a condition of his sentence , Def

endant wa s order ed to complete the L ifelines prog ram while incarc erated. Def endant appeals his sentenc e. We conclude that the trial court erre d by sentenc ing Defe ndant t o serve more than one y ear of his sentenc e of split confine ment in c on tin uo us c on fi ne me nt. We a lso c on c lud e that De fe nd a nt is e nti tle d to re c e ive c re dit fo r t ime
se rv e d in c on fi ne me nt. Ac c or din g ly , w e re ma ndthi s c a se for e ntry of a n A me nd e d Jud g me nt t o allow cr edit for time ser ved in confine ment, and we modify the sentenc e, and or der tha t Defe ndant be re le a se d f

ro m c us to dy

a ndpla c e d o n c ommun ity c or re c tio ns to s e rv e the re ma ind e r o f h is sentenc e. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Re verse d, Rem anded, an d Modif ied

T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J J ., joined.
Ross E. Alerman, District Public Def ender ; Wi lliam J

. Steed (on appea l), Assistant Public De fende r; a ndPa ul S e us y

(at tria l) , A ssi sta nt P ub lic De fe nd e r, fo r the Ap pe lla nt, F rank lin D. B ro ok s.
Pa ul G . Su mme rs , Atto rn e y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; Jenn if e r L . B le ds oe , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Vi cto r S . J oh ns on , I I I , Di st ri ct A tt orn ey Gen eral ; an d Bret Gun n, As si st ant Di st ri c t A tto rn e y Ge nera l, for the A ppellee, the State of Tenne ssee.-2- OP IN ION
Trial

Michae l Keels testified at trial that on September 22, 2001, he was pa rked at a B urg er K ing dr ive -thr u w ind ow wh e n h e ob ser vedDe fe nd a nt i n th e pa rking lot of the Chi na

B e ll r e staur a nt, adjac ent to the B urg er King. D efe ndant was standing six to eig ht fee t awa y from Mr. Ke els’ vehic le. Def endant wa s wea

ring a white t- s h i rt

. Mr. Kee ls testified that he saw D efe ndant throw a brick t h ro u gh t h e fr o n t wi n d o w o f t h e re s t au ra n tan d t h en go i n s i d e. M r. Ke el s ca l l ed t h e p o l i ce u s i n g a pay phone in the B urg er K ing pa rking lot. W hen the police arrived, Mr. Ke els g ave a statement a nd l e f t

. M r
. K e e l s w a s l a t e r c o n t a c t e d b y t h e p o l i c e a n d a s k e d t o r e t u r n t o t h e r e s t a u r a n tt o i d e n t i f y a suspect. When Mr. Kee ls arrive d at the re staurant, he identified De fenda nt as the per son whom he had see n brea

k into the restaur ant. Def endant wa s seated in the ba ckseat of a police car
. On the date of the offe nse, J oe Rohelier was street- swee ping in the parking lot of the China Be ll restaura nt. Mr. Rohelier saw a man inside the restaur ant, which was closed at that time, and the g lass door wa s broken out. Mr. Rohelier pulled his truc k around to the f ront of the building , and he
s aw De fe n d an t ex i t t h e re s t au ra n t

. M r. R o h el i er d i d n o t n o t i ce i f De fe n d an twa s ca rr y i n g an y t h i n g. Mr. Rohlier testified that De fenda nt was we aring a t-shirt and kha ki pants. He did not n o t i ce any ta tto os on De fe nd a nt. He te sti fi e d that De fe nd a nt wo re his ha ir in a po nyta il. Mr . Ro hli e r s a id t o Def endant, “ there is no need to run. I know who y ou are .” De fenda nt w ent in the direc tion of the Bur g er K ing. Mr . Rohlier called the police using his cell phone. W hen the police arrived, Mr. Rohlier g ave a

statement. Setkeong Yau’ s family

owned the China B ell restaur ant. When M r. Yau arrived at the restaur ant af

ter the of fense occur

red, he observe d that the glass door was broke n and the bowl on the counter that contained cash ti ps was empty

. Mr. Yau testified that the re staurant ha d closed a t 10:30 p.m. and that Def

endant ha d enter ed the restaur ant earlier that day and asked for free food. Mr. Yau g ave D efe ndant some rice . Def endant r eturne d later that day and aske d for more rice , and Mr. Ya u ref used to g ive him any . Def endant looked ang ry . Mr. Yau te s t i fi ed that appr ox imately $24 was taken f rom the tip jar, but he ha d not counted the money in the tip jar that night befor e lea ving the restaur ant.
The de position t estimony of Off icer Michae l MacL ellan, of the Met ro Na shville Pol ice Depa rtment, was r ead into evide nce. O ffice r Mac L ellan testified that on Septembe r 2 2 , 2001, he responde d to a burg lary in pr ocess at the China B ell restaur ant. When Offic er Ma cL ellan ar rived a t the re staur a nt, he sa w tha t th e fr on t do or wa s “ bu ste d o ut. ” A w itn e ss t o th e inc ide nt, Mic ha e l K e e ls, g ave a description of t h e per son who committed the offe nse, which matched the de scription of a homeless man with whom Off icer MacL ellan had prior “dea lings.” Offic er MacL ellan sear ched the
are a within walking distance of the re sta u ra n t

. P olice off icer s discovere d Def

endant be hind the Piz za Hut, which is located a pproxi m at el y 2 0 0 y ards f rom the China B ell restaur ant. Off icer MacL ellan tra nsported De fenda nt to the restaur ant and presented him to Mr. Keels to identify . Mr. Kee ls had left the sc ene, and another office r transporte d him f rom his house back to the sc ene. When-3-

Mr. Kee ls arrive d, office rs direc ted Def endant to step out of t he patrol car , and Mr. Keels identified him as the person he saw bre ak into the re stauran t

. The time wa s around midnig ht. Office r MacL ellan testified that ther e we re lig hts in the parking lot and lights fr om other ar ea busine sses that
we re op e n a t th e tim e . O ff ic e r M acL ell an a

rr e ste d D e fe nd a nt andpe rf orme d a se arc h in c ide nt t o arr est. He discovere d $15 in Def endant’ s pocket, and a larg e portion of it was in cha ng e. Of fice r Ma c L e lla n te sti fi e d th a t D e fe nd a nt w a s w e ari ng blu e je a ns a nde ith e r a wh ite or blu e sh irt a t th e tim e of his arr est.
Def endant testified that he was homele ss at the time of his arr est. Def endant a dmitted that he had se vera l prior misdemeanor and felony convictions, including theft and bur g lary of a motor vehicle. D efe ndant testified that he ha d enter ed g uilty pleas in all of those c ases. De fenda nt testified that on the date of

the offe nse, he ha d been panhandling in the B urg er King pa rking lot. He had $15 to $1 7 d o ll ar s , mo s tl y in c h a n g e , o n h im

. D e f e n d a n t te s ti f

ie d th a t h e h a d a s k e d M r
. Y a u f o r food
on c e that day . D e fe nd a nt t e sti fi e d th a t he ha d be e n sle e pin g a t the KF C, w hic h is abo ut o ne -f ou rth of a mil e fr om w he re the bu rg lary oc c ur re d. De fe nd a nt h a d tatto os c ov e ri ng his fo re arm s. Def endant ha d been drinking a lcohol ear lier that day , but he testified that he w as not intox icated when the police picked him up. De fe n d an t wa s aslee p when the police found him. Defe ndant testified that he had seen Mr . Rohelier on two prior oc casions. On one occa sion, Defe ndant hande d Mr. Rohelier a

set of key s that he had f

ound in the parking lot, and on another occa sion, Defe ndant had thrown a

hamburg er w rappe r on the g round, and he and Mr. Rohelier “had w ords.”
Se nt e nc ing He ar ing

Def endant wa s 39 y ear s old at the time of sentenci n g. Def endant testified that he did not
reme mber c ommitt ing the offe nse in this case. H e testified that he had been homele ss for four y ear s prior to his arr est in this c ase. He testified that he was a n alcoholic. De fenda nt admitted that he had prior convic tions and that he had pr eviously violated proba tion. Defe ndant had attended Alcoholics Anony mous meeting s while he wa s incarc erated and a waiting trial an d s entenc ing in this ca se. Def endant testified that he did not have a ny family support and that he would be willing to abide by the rules of

the N eely

Halfw ay House if or dere d by

the trial court to reside ther e as a condition of his se nte nc e . D e fe nd a nt t e sti fi e d a s f oll ow s: Well, I ’m sorry for the things that I ’ve done in the past, committing crimes. But the main thing is I need help for the alcoholism. Be cause if I don’t g et no help for it, then it’s going to continue. You know, I know this. I ’ve done thing s and not
rea liz ed that I ’ve ev en d o ne it. I just need help for

the drinking . You know, say ing it and me aning it is t wo diffe rent thing s. I need he lp for my

drinking

. On Janu ary 31 , 200 3, the tr ia l c ou rt se nte nc e d D e fe nd a nt a s a Ra ng e I I mul tip le of

fe nd e r t o se ve n y e ars to b e se rv e d o n c omm un ity c or re c tio ns . A s a

c on dit ion of

De fend ant ’s com mun ity
corr ections sentenc e, the tria l court orde red Defe ndant t o rema in in custody until he completed the

“ L if e lin e s” pr og ra m. T he tr ia l c ou rt state d a s f

oll ow s:-4-

I ha ve to loo k a t a lte rn a tiv e – he is no t pr e su me d e lig ibl e fo r a lte rn a tiv e se nte nc e s. Howeve r, looking at the Sentencing Act and Community Correc tions, I ’m struck by thi s: An d, that is, do I wa nt to se ndso me on e to p ri so n a ndus e up on e of tho se prison beds fo r som eone w ho is clear ly an alc oholic, homeless, and c reates g ener al havoc in the are a wher e he is? I s that what I want to spend a

prison bed on, or do I wa n t t o t ry

to cra ft something that would be may be possible to do
so me thi ng abo ut i t?

I do n’ t ha ve a

wh ole lot

of ho pe fo r i t, b ut this is w hat I ’m g oin g to d o: T hat is , Mr. B rooks, I ’m g oing to put y ou on Communi ty Correc tions a s of today . But a s a condition of that Com m u n i t y Correc tions, y ou’re g oing to ha ve to be in the L ifelines prog ram. Tha t m ean s you ’re no t go ing to g e t ou t of c us tod y , y ou ’re going to be at the Lifelines program. Y ou’ll be on Community Corrections as of today, but you’ll just not get out of custody . I f y ou succe ssfully complete that a nd have no w rite-ups, then w e’ll put y ou out. But I want y ou first to g o to a

halfway house when y ou g et out be cause we’ re g oing to try to do every thing we can to g et y ou over this problem a nd g ive y ou some skills to deal with it. You ca n either do that or not. I ’ll say

this much, Mr. Br ooks: I f y ou have any write-ups or

y ou drop out of that L ifelines prog ram like y ou did in the past, that’s an automatic violation of y our Communi ty Correc tions prog ram. They ’ll notify me, and then we’ll have a hearing to r

e voke your Community Corrections program ev en though you didn’t get out of c ustody

. So I g uess i t’s kind of up to y ou. I f y ou want to g et some help, we’ ll give y ou some help. And then w hen y o u get out, we’ll put it back on the docket just as a sa fety

measure , J anuary

the 30 of 2004.

th (Emphasis adde d).

Ana lys is

Th is C ou rt ’s re vie w o f the se nte nc e imp os e d b y the tr ia l c ou rt

is de novo with a pre sumption of cor rec tness. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-401(d) . This presumption is conditioned upon an
a ffi rm a tiv e sh ow ing in the re c or d th a t th e tr ia l ju dg e c on sid e re d th e se nte nc ing princ ipl e s a nda ll rele vant fac ts a nd circ umstances. State v. Pe ttus , 986 S.W .2d 540, 543-44 (Tenn. 1999). The burden is on the appea ling party to show that the sentenc e is imprope r. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-401(d) , Sentencing Commi ssion Com ments.
Whil e dete r mi n in g o r

r e v ie w in g a

s e n te n c e , th e c o u r ts mu s t c o n s id e r :( 1 ) th e e v id e n ce rec eived at trial and the sente ncing hearing; ( 2) the pres en t ence re port; (3) the principles of sentenc ing and arg uments as to sentenc ing a lternatives; ( 4 ) the nature and cha rac teristics of the criminal conduc t involved; (5) evidenc e off ere d by the parties on the enhanceme nt and mitigating fa ct o rs ; (6 ) a n y

s t at em en tt h e d ef

en d an twi s h es t o m ak e in t h e de fe n d an t ’s b eh al f a b o u ts en t en ci n g; and (7) the potential for r ehabilitation or treatment. T en n
. Code Ann. §§ 40-35- 103(5), - 210(b); State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991)

.-5-

Def endant wa s convicted of burg lary , a C lass D fe lony , which ca rries a possible sentence of four to eig ht y ear s for a Rang e I I multipl e off

ender

. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39- 14-402(c ), 40-35- 112(b)( 4). The trial court found the follo wing enhanc ement fa ctors applica ble to Def

endant’ s se nte nc e : ( 1) that Def

e nd a nt h a s a

pr e vio us his tory

of c ri min a l c on vic tio ns in a dd iti on to tho se nece ssary to establish the appropriate ra ng e, Te nn. Code An n
. § 4 0 -35-114(2); and (2) that Def endant ha s a pre vious h i s t o ry o f u nwillingness to comply with the conditions of a sente nce involving re lease in the community , Tenn. Code An n
. § 40-35-114( 9). The trial court g ave signific ant weig ht to Defe ndant’s prior c riminal history

. The trial court also found mitigating fac tor (1), that De fenda nt’s conduct ne ither caused not threatened se rious bodily injury , to be applica

ble. Tenn. Co d e An n
. § 40-35-113( 1). The trial court de clined to apply mitigating fac tor (7), that Def en d a n t w a s mo ti v a te d b y a d e s ir e to p r o v id e f o r n e c e s s it ie s f

o r h is f a mi ly o r h imself, or mit ig a tin g fa c tor

(8 ), that D e fe nd a nt s uf

fe re d fr om a me nta l or ph y sic a l c on dit ion that si g nif ic a ntl y reduc ed his culpability . Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-113.

Th e tr ia l c ou rt se nte nc e d De fe nd a nt to se ve n y e ars . D e fe nd a nt d oe s n ot c ha lle ng e the le ng th of the sente nce imposed. Rath er, Defe ndant ar g ues that the trial c ourt err ed by imposing an indefinite period of confine ment that is potentiallylo n ger t h an what is permitted under the Se nt enci ng Ac t. D e fe nd a nt c on te nd s th a t he e ff e c tiv e ly re c e ive d a

se nte nc e of

sp lit c on fi ne me nt. I n s e nte nc ing De fe nd a nt t o s e rv e his se nte nc e on c ommun ity c or re c tio ns a nd , a s a

c on dit ion of

his sentenc e, to c omplete the L ifelines prog ram while incar cer ated, the trial court appar ently relied upon Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-306(a ), wh ich provides that “ [a] defe ndant re ceiving probation may be require d to serve a portion of the sentenc e in c ontinuous c onfinement for up to one (1) y ear

in the local jail or wor

khouse.”

Where a ppropriate , a defenda nt may be given as much as one y ear of “shoc k” conf

inement
as a c ondition o f a communitycorr ections sentenc e. See State v . Jimmy D. Johnson , No. 03C01- 9602-CC-00062, 1997 Tenn. Crim

. App. L EXI S 1037, (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knox ville, October 16, 1997), no perm. to app. filed

. Howeve r, in suc h case s, the period of confine ment may

not exceed one y ear
. Sta te v . Ti m M

att ing ly , N o
. M 2 0 0 2

- 0 2 7 6 5

- C C A

- R 3

- C D , 2 0 0 3 T e n n
. C r i m
. A p p
. LE X IS 754, (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, September 2, 2003) , no perm. to app. filed

. At the se nte nc ing he ari ng , the tr ia l cou rt state d, “ So h e ’s no t g oin g to m e e t w ith the pa ro le bo ardsin c e he ’s no t on a re le a se status . H e is n ot t e c hn ic a lly inc arc e rat ed in th at sen se. A s a condition of his prog ram, I want him to attend the Lifelines prog ram. And w hen he doe s that, he’s out of custody .” Despite the trial court’s verbia g e that Def endant “is not technica lly incar cer ated,” the trial court sentence d Def endant to a te rm of inca rce ration. As a co n d i t i o n of De fenda nt’s community

correc t i ons sentence , the trial court ordere d Def endant to participate in the Lifelines prog ram while in c ontinuous c ustody

. We c onclude that the condition imposed is no t i m p roper; howeve r, we cannot a

pprove the trial court’ s theory that Def endant wa s not incarc erated.

We note that t h e judg ment form shows a se ntence of seve n y ear s in the Tennesse e De pa rt me nt o f Co rrec tio n ( TD OC ) anda lso sh ow s a se nte nc e of

se ve n y e ars to c ommun ity
c or re c tio ns , a nda s a con dit ion , tha t De fe nd a nt mus t c omp le te the L if e lin e s p ro g ram. Ac ommun ity-6-

corr ections sentenc e is meant to be used instea d of a se ntence to a state pe nal institut ion. See Tenn. Cod e An n. § 4 0- 36 -1 06 (e )( 1) ; State v. Robert J. W illiams , No. W2002-02366-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXI S 366, (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, April 14, 2003), no perm. to app. filed

. There fore , the judg ment should not ref lect a sentenc e to the TDOC. Moreove r, t he judg ment form do e s n ot s pe c if

y a te rm of mon ths , n ot t o e xce e d o ne y e ar, th at Defen da nt s e rv e in c on fi ne me nt. Ac c or din g ly , w e re ma ndthi s c a se fo r e ntry of a n A me nd e d Judg me nt that st a te s th a t D e fe nd a nt i s sentenc ed to serve seven y ear s on communitycorr ections following o n e y ear of continuous confine ment.
Def endant a lso asserts t hat he is entitled to rec eive credit for time served in jail. Unde r the he a din g , “ sp e c ia l c on dit ion s, ” the jud g me nt f orm st a te s th a t “

ja il c re dit

no t app ly to s pli t [co nf ine me nt]. ” (E mph a sis in o ri g ina l) . T e nn e sse e Cod e An no tate d s e c tio n 4 0- 23 -1 01 (c ) p ro vid e s,
Th e tr ia l c ou rt

sh a ll, a t th e tim e the se nte nc e is i mpo se d a ndthe de fe nd a nt i s committed to jail, . . . render the jud g ment of the c ourt so as to allow the defe ndant cr edit on the sente n ce fo r any period of time f

or which the defe ndant
was c ommitt ed and he ld in .

. . county jail

. . . pending arr aig nment and trial. The de fe nd a nt s ha ll a lso re c e ive c re dit on the se nte nc e fo r the tim e se rv e d in the ja il . . . subsequent to any

conviction arising out of the origina l offense for whic h the defe ndant was trie d.

Te nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 23 -1 01 (c ). F urthe rm or e , a de fe nd a nt is e nti tle d to e arn g oo d c on du c t c re dit if he re ceive s a sentenc e of inc arc eration in the c o u n t y j ai l as part of a c ommunitycorr ections sentenc e. Sta te v . D e rri c k L. D ill ar d , No. M2002 -0 3 0 89-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXI S 36 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Na shville, J anuary 16, 2004), no perm. to app. filed

. The judg ment in this case was enter ed on J anuary 31, 2003. Def endant a sserts that he ha s been in c ontinuous custody for a lmost t hree y ear s, since his arr est on September 22, 2001. The trial court implied that Def

endant wa s in custody at t he time of sente ncing . At the hea ring , the trial court stated, “That means y ou’re not going to ge t out of custody , y o u ’r e go i ng to be at the Lifelines prog ram. You’ ll be on Communi ty Correc tions a s of today , but y ou’ll just not get out of c ustody .”

We c on c l u d e t h a t t h e tr i a l c o u r t e rr e d i n s e n t e n c i n g D e f e n d a n t t o s e r v e a p o r t i o n o f his
s en t en ce i n ca rc er at ed wi t h o u tal l o wi n g cr ed i tfo r t i m e s er v ed i n co n f i n e m e n t p r i o r t o s en t en ci n g. Furthermore , beca

use the a ctual time serve d exceeds one y ear , we modify the judg ment of the trial court a nd order

that Def endant be rele ased f

rom custody

and plac ed on community corr ections.
CO NC LU SION

F or the re a so ns state d h e re in, the ju dgmen t of the tria l c ou rt is r e ve rs e d, a ndthi s c a se is
rema nded for

entry of an A mended Judgment, re flec ting a community corr ections sentenc e of se ven y ear s, with one y ear

of inca rce ration in “shock” confine ment, and Def endant shall rec eive c redit for-7-

all time al re ad y s er ved in jail. I t appea rs from the r ecor d that Def endant ha s alrea dy

serve d more tha n th e on e y e ar in c on fi ne me nt; if thi s is c or re c t, a nd the re ha s be e n no re vo c a tio n o f c ommun ity
c or re c tio ns , D e fe nd a nt s ho uld be imm e diate ly re le a se d f

ro m c us tod y

to s e rv e the ba la nc e of

his community

corr ections sentenc e.

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODAL

L , J UDGE