### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON Jul y 13, 200 4 S es sio n STATE OF TENNESS EE v . TIMO THY E. BAL LARD
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Carr oll Coun ty No. 03CR- 6 C. Cre ed McG inley, Jud ge

No. W2003-01627-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Augu st 27, 2004

The de fendant, Timothy E. Ba llard, was convicted of DUI , a C lass A m isdemeanor , and driving on a re voked license , a Class B misdeme anor, and was sente nced to an eff ective s en t en ce of ele ven months, twenty -nine day s, suspended e x cept f or six ty day s, with the balanc e to be se rved on supervised pr obation. On appe al, he a rg ues that h i s s en t en ce is ex cessive and that the trial court err ed in denying fu l l probation or a lternative se ntencing . Following our re view, we aff irm the jud g me nts of

thetr ia l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nts of

the Circ uit Court Aff

irm ed
A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., delivered t h e o pinion of the court, in which J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined.
Be njamin S. Dempsey , Huntingdon, T ennesse e, for the appe llant, TimothyE. Ba llard. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral and Reporter ; Ra chel E. Wil lis, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; G. Rob e rt Ra df or d, Di stric t A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; andEl e a no r C ahil l, A ssi stant D ist ri c t A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee. OP IN ION

F AC TS
Be ca u s e t h e r ec o rd o n ap p ea l d o es n o t co n t ai n a co p y o f t h e tri al tra n s cr i p t , o u r k n o wl ed ge of the fa cts resulting in the d ef en d an t ’s prosec ution comes from va rious other pa

rts of the re cord. Acc ording to the aff

idavits of complaint of Off icer Geor g e Ty l er o f t h e McKe nzie Pol ice De p ar t m en t , o n J u l y

3 1 , 2 0 0 2 , atap p ro x i m at el y 1 0 : 0 0 p
. m
. , h e o b s er v ed t h e d ef en d an td r i v i n g a motor vehicle on Walnut Circle while his license was re voked. Of fice r Ty ler smelled alcohol on the de fe nd a nt, a ndthede fe nd a nt a dmi tte d th a t he ha d b e e n d ri nking . T he de fe nd a nt’ s tw e lve -y e ar- old son was a passeng er in the vehicle at t he time. The de fendant failed seve ral fie ld sobriety tests and wa s p la c e d u nd e r a

rr e st.Se e N o rt h C aroli na v. A l fo rd, 4 0 0 U

. S. 25 , 31 , 91 S. C t

. 16 0 , 16 4 , 27 L. E d

. 2d 16 2 (19 7 0 ). 1

-2- O n J a n u a r y 6 , 2 0 0 3 , t h e d e f e n d a n tw a s i n d i c t e d b y

a C arr o l l C o u n t y

G r a n d J u r y

f o r D U I, second of fense , driving on a revoke d license, and child endang erme nt. Following a jury trial, he wa s convicted of the driving on a re voked license char g e; howeve r, the jury was una ble to rea ch a ve rdict on the t wo remaining charg es. Subsequently , on Marc h 18, 2003, the defendant entered an Alford 1 plea to DUI , first offe nse, and the child endang erme nt char g e was dismiss ed. F ollowing a sentenc ing h e ar i n g , t h e tr i a l c o u r ts e n t e n c e d t h e d e f e n d a n tt o e l e v e n m o n t h s , t w e n t y- n i n e d a ys , w i t h t e n d a ys to be serve d in confineme nt on weeke nds and t he remainder on supervised probation, for the D UI conviction. For the drivi ng on a re voked license conviction, the trial c ourt sentenc ed the de fendant to a conc urre nt term of six months, with si x ty day s to be serve d in confineme nt and the bala nce on supervised pr obation.
AN AL YSI S
T h e d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s th a t th e tria l c o u r t e rr e d in o r d e r in g h im to s e r v e s ixty d a y s o f h is s ixmonth sentence for his driving on a revoke d license c onviction in the county jail, say ing that the trial court “ enhanc ed the Cl ass B Misdemeanor se ntence beca use the De fendant took the case to trial and that the trial re sulted in a mistrial, based upon a split verdic t by the jury .” Additionally , he ar g ues that the trial court erre d in its application of the enhanc ement and mitigating f actor s and in denying full probation, community corr ections, or other alternative sentencing afte r service of the require d minimum

. The State contends that the defe ndant has waived the issues because the re cord on a ppeal is inadequate

. When an ac cused c halleng es the leng th and manner of ser vice of

a sente nce, it is the duty

of this court to conduct a de novo revie w on the rec ord with a presumption t h at “t h e d et erminations made by the court from which the a ppeal is t aken are corr ect.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-401(d)

. This presumption is “ co n d i t i o n ed upon the a ffirmative showing in the rec ord that the trial c ourt considere d the s entenc ing principles and all rele vant facts and cir cumstance s.” State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991) . The pre sumption does not apply t o t he leg al conc lusions reac hed by the t rial court in sentenc ing the acc used or to the determinations made by the trial court which ar e predic ated upon unc ontroverte d fac ts. St ate v. B utler, 900 S.W.2d 3 0 5 , 311 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994); State v. Smit h, 891 S.W .2d 922, 929 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) ; State v. Bone stel, 871 S.W .2d 163, 166 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993), overruled on othe r g rounds by State v. Hooper , 29 S.W .3d 1, 9 (Tenn. 2000) . Howeve r, this court i s require d to g ive gre at weight to the t rial court’s determination of c on tr ov e rt e d f

a c ts a s th e tr ia l c ou rt ' s det e rm inatio n of the se fa c ts is pre dic a te d upo n th e wi tne sse s’ d em ea n o r a n d ap p ea ra n ce wh en t es t i fy i n g.
I n conducting a de novo revie w of a sentenc e, this court must co n s i d er (a) any evidenc e rec eived at the trial and/or se ntencing hearing, ( b) the pre sentenc e re port , (c ) t he princ iples of sentenc ing, ( d) the arg uments of counse l relative to sente ncing alternatives, (e) the nature and-3-

char acte ristics of the off

ense, ( f) any

mitigating or enhanc ement fac tors, (g ) any statements made by the accused in his own beha lf, and (h) the ac cused' s potential or lack of potential for r ehabilitation or treatment. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40- 35-103, -2 1 0 ; State v. Tay lor, 63 S.W .3d 400, 411 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). The pa rty challeng ing the sentenc e im posed by the t rial court has the burde n of establishing that the sentenc e is erroneous. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 401, Sentencing Commi ssion Cm ts.; Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169. I n this case, the de fendant has the b u rd en o f i llustrating the se ntence imp os e d b y

the tr ia l c ou rt

is e rr on e ou s.
Misdemeanor

sentenc ing is c ontrolled by Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sect ion 40-35-302, wh ic h p ro vid e s, in p art , th a t th e tr ia l c ourt shal l impo se a sp e c if ic se nte nc e that is c on sis te nt w ith the p u rp o s e s a n d p r in c ip le s o f th e 1 9 8 9 Se n te n c in g Re f o r m A c t. Se e T e n n
. Code Ann. § 40-35-302( b). Althoug h the Sentencing Reform Ac t typically treats misdemeanants and f elons the same, misdemea nants arenot give n the presumption of a minim um sentence . See State v. Seaton, 91 4 S. W.2 d 1 29 , 1 33 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 95 ). A s e pa rate se nte nc ing he ari ng is n ot r e qu ir e d in misdemeanor se ntencing , but the trial court must " allow the parties a re asonable opportunity to be hear d o n t h e q uestion of the leng th of any sentenc e and the manner in which the sente nce is to be serve d." T enn. C ode Ann. § 40-35-302( a). A m isdemeanor sentenc e, unli ke a felony sentenc e, has no sentenc e rang e. State v. B aker , 966 S.W .2d 429, 434 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997)

. The trial c ourt has gre at flex ibilit y and discre tion in fashioning a misdemeanor se ntence . The sentenc e must be spec ific and in a ccor dance with th e p ri n ci p l es, purpose s, and g oals of the 1989 Sentencing Act. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 302(b); Stat e v
. P al m er , 902 S.W .2d 391, 393 (Tenn. 1995). The trial court should consider enhanc ement and mitig ating fac tors in making its sentenc ing determinations; however, unlike the f elony sentenc ing statute, which re quires the tria l court to place its fi nd ing s o n th e re c or d, themis de me a no r se nte nc ing sta tut e " me re ly

re qu ir e s a

tria l ju dg e to consider e nhance ment and mitigating f actor s when c alculating the per centa g e of a misdemeanor sentenc e to be se rved in c onfinement." State v. Troutman, 979 S.W .2d 271, 274 (Tenn. 1998) . The trial court is authorized to placethe misdemeana nt on probation either immediate ly or af ter a term of conf inemen t

. T en n
. Code Ann. § 40-35- 302(e) . When a def endant c halleng es a misdemeanor s e n te n c e , th is c o u r t c o n ducts a d e novo re v i ew wi t h a p re s u m p t i o n t h att h e t ri al co u rt 's de te rm inatio ns are c or

re c t. Although a

transcript of the sentenc ing he aring is included i n t h e re cord on a ppeal, a tr a ns c ri pt o f the defe nd ant ’s tria l is no t in c lud e d, a s w e ha ve state d. I t is the de fe nd a nt' s d uty to prepa re a fair, a ccur ate, and complete r ecor d on appea l to enable meaning ful appe llate re view. Te nn. R. Ap p. P. 24( b)

. Whe n ne c e ssa ry pa rt s of the re c or d a

reno t in c lud e d o n a

pp e a l, w e mus t pr e su me that the trial court 's ru l i n g wa s corr ect. State v. Oody , 823 S.W .2d 554, 559 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).
At these nte nc ing he ari ng , d e fe ns e c ou ns e l in te rr up te d th e pr os e c uto r’ s st a te me nt o f the fa c ts to “stipulate” that those facts shown by the S tate during the trial could be e stablished by the State:-4- THE COURT: L et’s hea r the fa cts that would – [DEFENSE COUNSEL ]: Stipul ate. THE COURT: Really , I

don’t nee d any

fac t s
. W e’ve alre ady

tried the ca se to a jury

once. H e is entering a p l ea of g uiltyunder an Al f[o r]dple a . It’ s a

be st i nte re st.
He still continues t o insist that he wa s not under the influe nce at the time he wa s driving the car
. T h at was his leg al def ense. H e continues to insist. Howeve r, will he stipulate to the fac ts that were prese nted to the jury

can be established by

the State? [DEFENSE COUNSEL ]: Yes, Your Honor.
The trial court then explained its basis for sentencing the def endant on the A lford plea

to the DUI char g e and his c onviction for driving on a re voked license :

I n this case, he d o es have a prior history of criminal convictions or beha vior in addition to those ne cessa ry to establish the rang e . In o the r w or ds , I

wi ll n ot c on sid e r, oth e r tha n he’ s g ot tho se prior DWI

convictions , they

can be considere d, at this point, as cr i m i n al co n v i ct i o n s t h ataf fe cts en t en ci n g. Thus, the re cord shows that the defe nd ant was se ntence d as he w as bec ause of his “prior history of criminal convictions or behavior ,” contra ry to his claim on appea l that his se n t en ce for drivi ng on a

re vo ke d li c e ns e wa s in c re ased becaus e he ha d ta ke n h is c a se to t

ri a l. O ur on ly kn ow le dg e of

thede fe nd a nt’ s p ri or

re c or d c ome s f

ro m hi s D UI

ind ic tme nt, wh ic h a lle g e s th a t hi s fi rs t D UI c on vic tio n h a d o c c ur

re d o n Se pte mbe r 2 8, 19 92

. Cou nt 2 of the de fe nd a nt’ s in dic tme nt, char g ing driving while license revoke d, does not ide ntify when the revoc atio n h ad o ccurred. Acc or d in g ly , e v e n th o u g h w e d o n o t kn o w th e f a c ts o f th e arr e s t w h ic h r e s u lt e d inth e p r e s e nt char g es ag ainst the defe ndant or the de tails of his previous convictions, we a re a sked to reve rse the trial court’ s sentencin g d et ermination based upon his prior rec ord. B eca use of the insuff

iciencie s in the re c or d, we are un able to c on c lud e that the tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d in its se nte nc ing a nd , infa c t, mus t conclude the def

endant wa s corr ectly

sentenc ed.
CO NC LU SION
Ba sed upon the for eg oing a uthorities and re asoning , we a ffir m t h e j u d gments of the trial c ou rt

.

___________________________________ ALAN E. GL

ENN, JUDGE