### 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 10, 200 7

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . FELI CIA ANN LOW ERY

Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Hardin County No. 8538 C. Cr eed Mc Ginley, Judge

No. W2006-01808-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Jul y 9, 2007

The de fenda

nt, Felicia Ann L ower

y , pled g uilty

to ag g ravated burg lary , a Class C felony
, and wa s
se nte nc e d a s a

Rang e I , s tand ard

of fe nd e r t o s ix y e ars in the De pa rtme nt of Cor

re c tio n. On

a pp e a l, the def endant c ontends that the trial court err ed in de ny ing her alternative sentenc ing or probation. We affir m the judgme nt of the trial cour t.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

J OS EP H M. T I PTON , P.J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J ., joined.

Guy T. Wil kinson, District Publ ic Def ender , and Richar d W. DeBe rry , Assistant Publ ic Def ender
, f o r t h e a p p e l l an t , F e l i c i a

A n nL o w e r

y.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; Sop hia S. L e e , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; Hanse l J ay

McCadams, District Attorney Gene ral; and John W . Over ton, J r., Chief De puty

District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

Th e fa c ts s up po rt ingthe de fe nd ant’ s c on vic tio n w e re re c ite d at the ple a he ari nga s f

oll ow s:

“ On De c e mbe r 6 th o f [2 00 5] th e De fe nd ant e nte re d in to t he ho me of Jame s Mc L ara n at 21 2 Sh e ll Street, S av an n ah
, Tenne ssee without the [effe ctive] consent of the pr operty owner with the intent to commit theft without t he per mission of the owner .” The defe ndant ag ree d to a six -y ear sentenc e under he r plea

ag ree ment, with the manner of sentenc e to be de termined by the trial cour

t.
The only evidenc e pre sented at the defe ndant’s sente ncing h ea ri n g was the pr esente nce repor t, which re flec ts a history

of cr iminal c onvictions dating back to 1984, when the def endant wa s eig hteen y ear s old. The defendant’s criminal history included over thirty convictions for of

fense s i n c l u d i n g a s s a

u l t , d i s o r d e r l y

c o n d u c t , c o n t e mp to f

c o u rt , r e s i s t i n g ar

r e s t , s h o p l i f

t i n g , b u r g l a r y, damag e to public proper

ty , public intox ication, attempted bur g lary , vandalism, theft, possession of-2-

narc otic equipment, and tra ffic of fense s. The prese ntence repor t a lso states that the defe ndant had a pendingdrug -re lated ca se. The de fenda nt’s history

o f felony convictions included sente nces of incar cer ation, community corr ections, and probation. The re port states that the de fenda nt gr aduate d from high school but note s no employ ment history

. The re port also re flec ts that the defe ndant had a history of drugabuse. In sentenc ing the defe ndant to incar cer ation, the trial cour t made the fo llo wi ngc omm e nts :

Ok ay , s he ha s ple d g uil ty to a c la ss C fe lony . Sh e sta

rt s w ith t h e .

. . p re s u mp t i o no f e l i gi b i l i t y fo r a l t ern at i v e s en t en ci n g. Howeve r, consider ing he r past cr iminal history , the Court finds that she’s not a suitable c andidate. The extensive history of prior fe lonies p re p o n d er at es [ aga i n s t ] h er co n s i d er at i o nfo r a l t ern at i v e s en t en ci n g.

I n this appeal, the de fenda nt challeng es her sentenc e of inc arc eration, and she conte nds that the trial cour

t e rre d in de ny ing her a

sentenc e under

the Communit y

Correc tions Act, T.C.A. § 40- 36 -1 01 , o r a

se nte nc e of pr ob a tio n. She sp e c if ic a lly argue s th a t th e state did

no t of fe r e vid e nc e to sh owthat c on fi ne me nt w a s n e c e ssa ry to p ro te c t so c ie ty

and that th e pr e se nte nc e re po rt sh ow s a po te nti a l f

or re ha bil itatio n th a t c ou ld b e a c c omp lis he d thro ug h a ltern ative se nte nc ing . T he state

co u n t er s t h at t h e d ef

en d an t ’s ex t en s i v e cr i m i n al h i s t o ry j u s t i fi ed t h e d en i al o f a l t ern at i v e s en t en ci n g. We ag ree with the state.

Whe n a de fe nd ant a

pp e a ls the mann e r o f s e rv ic e of a se nte nc e imp os e d by

the tr ia l c ourt , th is court c onducts a de novo revie w of the r ecor d with a pre sumption t hat the trial c ourt’s de te rm inatio ns a re cor

re c t. T .C. A. § 4 0- 35 -4 01 (d ). Ho we ve r, the pr e su mpt ion of c or re c tne ss i s “conditioned upon the a ffirmative showing in the rec ord that the trial c ourt consider ed the se ntencing principles and a ll r eleva

nt f acts and circ umstances.” State v. Ashby
, 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991). T h e b u r d e n is o n th e a p p e a li n g p arty to s h o w th a t th e s e n te n c e is im p r o p e r

. T.C.A. § 40-35-401( d), Sentenc ing Commis s i o n C omments. This means if the trial cour t followed the statutory sentenc ing pr ocedur e, made finding s of fact that ar e ade quately supported in the re cord, a

nd g ave due consideration and proper weig ht to the fac tors and princ iples releva nt to sentencingunder the 1989 SentencingAct, we may not disturb the sentence even if a diffe rent re sult were pr efe rre d. State v. Fletc her, 805 S.W.2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).

I n conductinga de novo r eview, w e must consider ( 1) the e v i dence , if any , rec eived at the trial and sente ncing hear ing, ( 2) the pre sen t en ce r eport, (3) the principles of sentenc ing a

nd

argume nts a s to se nte nc ing a lte rn a tiv e s, (4 ) the na tur e and c ha

ra c te ri sti c s of the c ri min a l c on du c t, (5) a ny mitigating or statutory

enhanc ement fa ctors, (6) any statement that the defe ndant made on his own behalf, a

nd (7) the pote ntial for re habilitation or treatment. T.C.A. §§ 40-35-102, - 103, - 210; see Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 168.

When a def

endant is an espec ially mitigated or standard offende r convicted of a Class C, D, or E fe lony , the def

endant is pre sumed to be a f avora ble ca ndidate for

alternative sentenc ing. T .C.A. § 40-35-102( 6). Howe ver, this pre sumption m ay be re butted upon a showing that (1) c onfinement-3-

is ne e de d to pro te c t soc ie ty by re str a ini ng a de fe nd ant wh o ha s a long his tor y of c ri min a l c on du c t, (2 ) c on fi ne me nt i s n e e de d to a vo id d e pr e c ia tin g the se ri ou sn e ss o f t he of fe ns e or c on fi ne me nt i s particula rly suited to provide an e ffe ctive dete rre nce to pe ople likely to commit si milar offe nses, or (3) less r estrictive mea sures than c onfinement have fr equently or re cently

been a pplied

unsucce ssfully

to the defe ndant. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169 (citing T.C .A. § 40-35-103( 1)(A) -(C))

. The trial c ourt may

also consider

the mitigating and enhancingfac tors set forth in Tenne ssee Code Annotated se ctions 40-35-113 a nd -114. T.C.A. § 40 -3 5 -2 1 0(b)( 5); State v. Boston, 938 S.W.2d 435, 438 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) . I n addition, a trial court should consider a def endant’ s potential or lac k of potential for

reha bi l i t at i o n when de termining if an a lternative se ntence would be appropr iate. T.C.A. § 40-35- 103(5); B oston, 938 S.W .2d at 438.

I n the pre sent ca se, the trial court denied the defe ndant alternative sentencing or probation by placingg reat weig ht on the defe ndant’s extensive criminal history . The de fenda nt’s criminal history includes over

thirty convictions, many

of which wer e fe lonies and some of w hich wer e thef t offe nses. Moreove r, mea sures less re strictive than conf inement have been applied to the def endant in t he pa st a nd , a s e vid e nc e d b y

the de fe nd ant’ s c on tin

ue d cr imi na l c on du c t, h a ve no t r e su lte d in eff ective r ehabilitation. Nothing in the rec ord supports the defe ndant’s contention that she has the potential for rehabilitation. On t he contrary
, the defendant’s repeated criminal behavior , her history of drug abuse, and her lack of a work history indicate that she lacks a potential for reh ab i l itation. The defe ndant has not met her burden on a

ppeal of showingthat her se ntence of conf inement was improper.

B a se d o n th e fo re g oin g and the re c or d a s a

wh ole , w e a ff

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

.

___________________________________ J OSEPH M. TI PTON, PRES I DI NG JUDGE