T h e p o licy o f t h is C o u rt is to a d d re ss the d e fen d a n t o n d ire c t a p p e a l a s h is na m e is l isted o n the ind ic tm e n t. 1 T he i nd i ctm en t s i n t hi s ca s e a r e a bse nt f r om t he r ecor d, an d t he r ecor d l i s t s t he defendan t ’ s na me as “ Jer r y Lore nzo S a n d rid g e ,” “J e rr y L . S a n d rid g e ,” a n d “J e rr y L o re n z e S a n d rid g e .” C o n se q u e n tly, this o p inio n w ill li st the d e fen d a n t’s
name a s s t at ed i n N ot i ce O f Ap peal , “ Jer r y L. Sandr i dge. ” 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Marc h 1, 200 5 STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. JERR Y L . S AN DR IDGE
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Laud erdale County No. 7119-C Jose ph H . Walker, III, Jud ge

No. W2004-01199-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled May 20, 2005

T h e d e f e n d a n t , J e rr y L

. S a n d r i d g e , w a s c o n v i c t e d b y a j u r y o f t w o c o u n t s o f a g g r a v a t e d r o b b e r y. 1 On direc t appea l, this C ourt modified one of the convictions to ag g ravated assault and r emande d for re- sentenc ing. Stat e v
. Franklin, 130 S.W .3d 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003) . At a subseque nt sentenc ing he aring , the trial court sentence d the def endant a s a ca

ree r off ender to fifteen y ear s in the Depa rtment of Corre ction. I n this appea l, the defendant presents t he sing le issue of whe ther the tria l court prope rly

classified him as a

car eer offe nder. We a ffirm the judg ment of the trial c ourt. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed
J.C. M C LIN , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL and J AM ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J J ., joined.
Wil liam Dan Doug las, J r., for the appe llant, J erry

L . Sandridg e.
Paul G . Summe rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Mic ha e l Ma rk ha m, A ssi stant A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; Eliz abeth T. Rice , District Attorney Gene ral; an d T rac ey

Br ewe r, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
. OP IN ION
F ac ts and P r oc e dur al B ac kgr ound
The fa cts as pre sented at the trial of the defe ndant and his co-def endant, I rvin L ee Franklin, we resu mma

ri zedby thi s Co urt a s f

oll ow s:-2- On the morning of September 22, 2000, Howar d Hutcher son was wor king be hin d th e c ou nte r o f the Am oc o mark e t in Rip le y , Te nn e sse e
. He wa s wo rking wi th Mary J as an i , o n e o f the owne rs, who wa s behind the counte r with him. Mr. Hutcher son testified that he had just looked at the clock and noti ced that it was 7:10 when a black m an ca m e into the store bra ndishing a handg un and ente red the are a behind the counter wher e he and Ms. J asani we re. Thearme d man demande d all the money from th e ca s h reg ister and told Mr. Hutche rson to open the r eg ister. Mr. Hu tc he rs on didso , a ndthema n th e n to ok themon e y

fr om the re g ist e r andpla c e d it in a plastic bag . The g unman then told Mr. Hutcher son and Mr. J asani to g o into the marke t’s restroom. On his way to the restroom, Mr. H utcher son saw anothe r blac k man, who appe are d to be the g unman’s cohort. No one else was in the store

. Mr. Hu tcher son and Ms. J asani re mained in the bathr oom for a c ouple of minutes. When the y emer g ed, the two black men wer e g one. Mr. Hutcher son called the police.
Fr anklin, 130 S.W .3d at 791. B ased upon the se fa cts, the def endant wa s convicted by

juryof the ag g ravated robbe ry

of both Hutchers o n and Jasani. Howeve r, this Court modified one of the aggr av at ed ro b b er y

co n v i ct i o n s t o ag g rava

ted ass au l tan d re m an d ed t h e c o n v i ct i o n fo r r e- s en t en ci n g. I d. at 798.
Whil e sente ncing the def endant f or the lesse r off

ense of ag g ravated assault, the trial c ourt stated: The de fendant was sentenc ed to ten y ear s with the Depa rtment of Corre ctions [si c] in 1976 for robbery with a deadly wea pon. I n 1979 he was sente nced to TD OC fo r ano the r te n y e ars fo r ro bb e ry wi th a de a dly we apo n. He wa s r e le a se d o n p aro le in 1983. I n 1994 he was sentenc ed to 35 y ear s with T DOC for sever al convictions of robbe ry

with a dea dly

wea pon. He wa s relea sed on par ole at t h e time of the commission of these offe nses of a g g ravated robbe ry with a dea dly

wea pon for whic h he wa s sentence d. . . . [A] s a re peat violent off ender h e re ce i v ed a se ntence of life without parole [for ea ch ag g ravated robbe ry conviction]. Ho we ve r, a g g ra vate d a ssa ult is not on e of tho se se nte nc e s for wh ic h h e c ou ld be sent e nc e d a s a

re pe a t vi ole nt o ff

e nd e r. Th e re fo re , h a vin g to b e se nte nc e d a s a car eer offe nder, the Court sentenc es him to the 15-y ear sentenc e as a

car eer offe nder, the Court finding that the def endant is being sentenc ed for a C fe l o ny , and under T.C.A. 40-35-108 he has more than six prior felony convictions of a Class A, B, or C and his conviction offe nse is a C.
The de fendant now appea ls the sentencing determination.
Ana lys is The sing le issue pre sented in this appea l is whether the trial co u rt p ro perly classified the defe ndant as a

car eer offe nder. Spec ifically , the defendant has construed T ennesse e Code Annotated-3-

section 40-35- 108(b)( 4) to arg ue that six of his prior convictions must effe ctively count as one and, thus, render

him a persistent, rather than a car eer , offe nder.
When a criminal defe ndant challeng es t he length, rang e, or manner of service of a sente nce, this Court conducts a de novo standard o f re v iew of the rec ord with a pre sumption t hat the trial c ou rt ’s de te rm inatio ns arec or re c t. T e nn . Co de . A nn . § 40 -3 5- 40 1(d ) ( 20 03 ). Ho we ve r, thi s p re s u m p t i o n is “conditioned upon the a ffirmative showing in the rec ord that the trial c ourt considere d the sentenc ing principles and a ll releva nt f acts and circ umstances.” State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991)

. I n the instant case , the pre sumption of corre ctness ac companies our de novo revie w bec ause the rec ord re flec ts that the trial court considere d the sentenc ing principles and the r elevant fac ts. Thus, as the Sentencing Commi ssion Com ments to se cti on 40-35-401 provide, the bur den is upon the def endant, a s the appe aling party , to sho w t h e i m p ro priety of the sentenc e and ove rcome the pre sumption of corre ctness af forde d to the trial court’ s action.
Te nn e sse e Cod e An no tate d se c tio n 4 0- 35 -1 08 (a )( 1) (2 00 3) state s th a t a c are e r o ff

e nd e r “ is a defe ndant who has rec eived . . . any combination of six (6) or more Class A, B , or C prior fe lony convictions, and the de fendant’s conviction offe nse is a Class A , B, or C f elony .” In classifying the defe n d an t as a care er of

fende r pursua nt to this section, the trial c ourt revie wed the de fendant’s prese ntence report, w hich reve aled e ight c onvictions for armed robbe ry and one c onviction for thirddeg ree burgl ar y
. As evidenc ed in the pre sentenc e re port, six of the prior arme d robbery

offe nses wer e consolidate d, eac h offe nse i n d icating a diffe rent e vent date but the same date of conviction, Fe bruary 21, 1984.
Se c tio n 4 0- 35 -1 08 (b )( 4) pr ov ide s: Convictions for multipl e fe lonies committed as part of a single course of conduc t within twenty -four

(24) h o u rs constitute one (1) conviction for the purpose of determining prior c onvictions; however, a cts resulting in bodilyinjury or threatened bodily injury to the vi ctim or vi ctims shall not be construed t o be a single course of conduct.
Th e plain l a ng ua g e of thi s sec tio n en c omp a sse s e xce pti on fo r f e lon ie s c omm itt e d a s p art of a sin g le “cour se o f conduct within t wenty -four (24) hour s.” The de fendant’s prior fe lonies in question do ha ve a sin g le c on vic tio n date , bu t ste m fr om c ou rs e s of c on du c t ou tsi de thetw e nty -f ou r h ou r t ime fr a me
. Th e re fo re , pur su a nt t o s e c tio n 4 0- 35 -1 08 (b )( 4) , th e se c on vic tio ns aretr e a te d a s si x sep arate fe lon y c on vic tio ns
. Mo re ov e r, the de fe nd a nt’ s prior c on vic tio ns of

arm e d r ob be ry

c le arl y do no t f a ll wi thi n th e sco pe of s e c tio n 4 0- 35 -1 08 (b )( 4) be c aus e , b y natur e , th e c on vic tio ns thr e a te n b od ily injury . Acc ording ly , this iss ue has no me rit.
Conclusion
We affirm the judgme nt of the trial court.-4- ___________________________________ J .C. McL IN, J UDGE