### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ma y

15, 200 7

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. J OANN CRADDICK

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court of Hi ckm an Coun ty No. 05-5159CR

Donald P. Harr is, Jud ge

No . M200 6-0143 5-CCA -R3-C D 

### - F ile d Ju ne 7, 200 7

The De fenda

nt, J oann Craddic k, pled g uilty to two counts of vehicula r assa ult, and the trial court sentenc ed her

to concur rent two y ear

sentenc es for

eac h conviction, with e ight months to be served in jail, followed by

supervised pr obat i o n

. On appea l, the Def endant c ontends that the trial cour t

er re d wh en it denied her full probation. Concluding that there exis ts no error , we a ffirm the jud g me nts of

the tr ia l c ourt

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

the Circ uit Court Aff

irm ed

R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., and D. K EL L Y T HOMAS , J R ., J J ., joined.

Kenne th K. Crites, Centerville, Tenne ssee, f or the Appe llant, J oann Craddic k.

Robert E

. C o o p er, Jr., Attorney Gene ral a

nd Reporter ; Eliz abeth B . Marne y , Assistant Attorney Gene ral; Ronald L

. Davis, Dist rict Attorney Gene ral; Michae l J . Fa

hey , Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION I. F acts

This case arises f

ro m the Def

endant’ s appea l from the sente nce that she rec eived f or her vehicular assault convictions. The r ecor d ref lects that on Oc tober 27, 2004, the De fendant drove under the influence of an intoxi cant a nd collided with another ca r. T h e following evidenc e wa s pr e se nte d at th e De fe nd ant’ s se nte nc inghe ari ng :

Mil dr e d Jon e s, a

vic timin t

he a c c ide nt, te sti fi e d th a t sh e wa s life -f lig hte d to Va

nd e rb ilt Hospital after

the collision. As a re s u lt of the collision, she had a c oncussion, a fr actur ed skull, a br o k e n ar m, b r o k e n r ib s , d a ma g e d s in u s e s , a s p li t h ip s o c k e t, an d a b r o k e n f e mur. Due to he r injuries, J ones had me tal inserted a bove her left knee that extends fr o m h er kne e to her hip bone. J ones ca n no longe r full y b en d or extend her lef t arm. Afte r the c ollisi on, J ones stay ed in the hospital for ele ven day s, was tra nsfer red to a reha bilitation center for two wee ks, and then unde rwe ntT h e I n v es t i g at i on Repor t f i l ed by Pr obat i on O f

f i ce r Le n n y B u r n s v er i f i ed t h at t h e D ef

en dan t h ad n o pr i or 1

cr i mi n al r ec or d.

2 months of phy sical t hera

py

. J ones testified this car collision permanently

chang ed her

life, and now sh e is una ble to b e a s a c tiv e a s sh e wa s in the pa st.

J udith Field, J ones’s pa sseng er dur ing the collision, testified t hat s he had a cr ushed hee l and

a br ok e n an kle a s a re su lt of the c oll isi on

. F ie ld’ s injuri e s re qu ir e d sur g e ry , an d she ha s a meta l pl a te and eig ht screw s in her ankle . Field wa s confined to a whee lchair f

or t hirteen w eeks a

nd continues to have pa in when she w alks.

Curtis Rochelle testified t hat he had known the Defenda nt for the past four to five y ear s and had never seen the De fenda nt eng ag e in rude or cr iminal behavior. He trusts the Defe ndant and believes that she would adher e to any terms of probation that the court imposed upon her . He ha d

never seen the Def

endant dr ink or take dr

ug s.

W an d a V i ct o ry , t h e D ef

en d a n t ’s co u s i n , t es t i fi edt h at t h e D ef en d an twa s h ar d -w o rk i n g, truthful, and depe ndable. She ha d never seen the Def endant dr ink or take dr

ug s and thoug ht that the

acc ident at issue was aty pical of the Def

endant’ s behavior. She te stified that the Def endant expressed re morse over

the ac cident.

Dorothy Clark, the De fenda

nt’s mother, t estified that the De fenda nt was a g reat person, a g ood mother, and a g ood provider f or her family . The De fenda

nt was a g ood child and did not g et into a lot of trouble. Clark believed that the acc ident was an isolated incident and that the Def endant would not eng ag e in such be havior e ver a g ain. She believe d that the Def endant would abide by

any conditions imposed upon her as a part of her probation. Clark s tated that the Def endant ha s custody of four children.

Th e De fe nd ant te sti fi e d that sh e ha d no pr ior c ri min a l hi sto ry , a

nd sh e e xpre sse d r e mor se 1 for he r conduc t. The De fenda nt stated that her husband is a truck dr iver a nd sometimes leaves f

or two wee k periods in orde r to do his job. The Defenda nt apolog ized for her actions and said that she

never meant to hurt anyone. She testified that she lear ned a pa inful lesson from this incident.

Th e tr ia l c ourt

state d th e fo llo wi ngwh e n it se nte nc e d th e De fe nd ant:

I think that these are the most difficult case s that this court has to deal with, that I persona lly have to de al with a s far as sentenc ing, be cause fre quently y ou have someone who g ener ally

has bee n a dec ent individual all their lives and then a ll of a

su dd e n th e y

g o o ut a nd c omm it an of

fe ns e lik e thi s, and y ou have to b e lie ve that if they would have be en pay

ing attention to their ac tions they would’ve know n that they did not have the a

bility to opera

te that automobile in a saf e and pr oper f

ashion, and then someone like the s e l adies a re so se vere ly

injured and the ir lives are chang ed. And I think - - and I ’ll explain more about that - - I think that imposes an obligation,3

actua lly , on this court to rec og nize that.

I ’ve c are fully considere d the enhanc ing a nd mitigating fac tors and I find that the re are no e nh anc ing fa c tor s or no mit ig a tin g fa c tor s that a pp ly to thi s c a se . A s I

un de rs tand , th e n, a c c or din g to the de sir e s of the le g isl a tur e , the se nte nc e that sh ou ld be imposed by

th is Co u rt in e a c h o f th e c a s e s is tw o y e ar s

. T h e r e is n o b a s is on which they

should be serve d consec utively
, so Iwill order that they be ser ved

c o n c u r r e n t l y.

I ’ve c are fully

consid ered the purpose s of incar cer ation in the sentenc ing considerations, and s h e i s en titled to the presumption included in Tennesse e Code Annotate 3 0 -3 5 -1 02 that there ’s a pr esumption that she will be appropr iate for

a lte rn a tiv e se nte nc ing . I

a lso fi nd th a t th is i s a

c a se wh e re the c ourt

sh ou ld a vo id depre ciating the seriousne ss of this offense by g ranting straig ht pro b ation. Ithink when some o n e is injured to the extent these ladies wer e as a result of c riminal activities, there ’s an oblig ation for this court to i m p o se some kind of inca rce ration so that people in society

rea liz e their criminal j ustice sy stem is working and that they

c an’ t g o o ut a

nd hurt so me on e lik e thi s w ith ou t th e re be ingc on se qu e nc e s.

Ifurther think that this is an appropr iat e s en t en ce to c onsider dete rre nce, ho pe fu lly , c a

us ingso me on e to t

hink abo ut wh a t ma

y ha pp e n to the m if

the y g e t in

a ca r and ope rate an automobile whe n they should knowthat they can’ t safely

do so.

Th e tr ia l c ourt

the n o rd e re d th e De fe nd ant t o s e rv e e ig ht m on ths in t he Hi c kma

n Co un ty Jail with a probationary

sentenc e of two y ear s, requiring that she pay J ones $1090.12 in restitution, pay the cour t costs, and per form twenty hours of public ser

vice wor k.

II. Ana lys is

On appe al, the De fenda

nt contends that the trial court err ed when it de nied her full probation. The State c ontends that the trial cour t properly sentenc ed the De fenda

nt.

When a def

endant c halleng es the length, ra ng e or ma nner of service of a se ntence , it is t he duty of this Court to conduct a de novo r eview on the rec o rd wit h a pre sumption t hat “the deter minations made by

the cour t from which the a

ppeal is take n are co rr ec t

. ” T.C.A. § 40-35- 401(d) ( 2006). As the Sentencing Commi ssion Comments to this section note, the burden is now on the appe aling party

to show that the sentenc ing is improper . T.C.A. § 40-35-401, Sentenc ing Comm’n Cm ts. This means that if the tria l court followed the statutory sentenc ing pr ocedur e, made finding s of fac ts w hich are adequately supported in the rec ord and g ave due consideration and proper

we ig ht t o th e fa c tor s and

pr inc ipl e s th a t are re le va nt t o s e nte nc ingun de r the 19 89 Se nte nc ingAc t, T.C.A. § 40-35-103 ( 2006), we may not disturb the sentenc e even if a differ ent result was pr efe rre d. State v. Ross, 49 S.W .3d 833, 847 (Tenn. 2001). The presumption does not a pply to the l eg al4

conclusions re ache d by

the trial cour

t in sentenc ing a defendant or to the determinations made by the tri al co urt which a

re pr edicated upon uncontrove rted fa cts. State v. Dea n, 76 S.W .3d 352, 377 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) ; State v. Butler, 900 S.W.2d 305, 311 ( Tenn. Crim. App. 1994); State v. Smit h, 891 S.W .2d 922, 929 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)

.

I n conductinga de novo r eview of a sentence, we must consider: (1) any evidenc e re ceive d at the trial a

nd sentenc ing he aring , (2) the pr esente nce r eport, ( 3 ) t h e principles of se ntencing , (4) the ar g uments of counse l relative to sentencing alternatives, (5) the nature a nd char acte ristics of the of fe ns e , ( 6) any mit ig a tin g or e nh anc e me nt f

a c tor s, (7 ) a

ny state me nts ma de by

the de fe nd ant o n h is

or he r o wn be ha lf and (8 ) t he de fe nd ant’ s p ote nti a l or la c k o f p ote nti a l f

or re ha bil itatio n o r t

re a tme nt. See T.C.A. § 40-35- 210 (2006); State v. Ta y lor, 63 S.W .3d 400, 411 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001)

.

To me e t th e burd e n o f e sta bli sh ingsu ita

bil ity fo r f ull pro bation , a

de fe nd ant m

us t demonstrate that full probati o n wi l l s u bserve the ends of justice and the be st interests of both the public and the de fenda

nt. State v. Blac khurst, 70 S.W .3d 88, 97 (Tenn. 2001) . The following criter ia, while not controlling the discre tion of the sentenc ing court, shall be accor ded we ight whe n decidingthe def

en d an t ’s suitabilit y

for f ull probation: (1) the nature a nd circ umstances of

the criminal conduct involved, T.C.A. § 40-35-210( b)(4) (2006); (2) the def endant’ s potential or lack of potential for reha

bilitation, T.C.A. § 40-35-103( 5) (2006); (3) whether a sentenc e of full probation would unduly depre ciate the seriousness of the offe nse, T.C.A. § 40-35- 103(1)( B) (2006); and ( 4) wh e the r a se nte nc e oth e r t

ha n f ull pr ob a tio n w ou ld pr ov ide an e ff e c tiv e de te rr e nt t o o the rs lik e ly to commit sim ilar cr imes, T.C.A. § 40-35-103(1) (B ) (2006) . See B lackhur st, 70 S.W .3d at 97.

He re , th e De fe nd ant i s e lig ibl e fo r f ull pr ob a tio n b ecaus e he r s e nte nc e is t e n y e ars or le ss (s u b j ec tt o s o m e s t at u t o ry

ex cl u s i o n s n o t re l ev an t h er e)

. T

. C

. A. § 4 0 -3 5 -3 0 3 (a ) ( 2 0 0 6 ). Al t h o u gh full probation m u s t b e au tomatically considere d by

the trial cour

t as a sente ncing alternative wh e ne ve r t

he de fe nd ant i s e lig ibl e , “ the de fe nd ant i s no t a uto ma tic a lly

e nti tle d to pr ob a tio n a s a matter of la

w.” T.C.A. § 4 0 -35-303( b), Sentenc ing Comm’n Cmts. As noted above, a defe ndant seekingfull probation bea rs t he burden of showing t hat full probation will be in the best intere sts of the def endant a nd the public. B lackhur st, 70 S.W .3d at 97.

I n the case under submissi on, the evidenc e does not pre ponderate ag ainst the finding s of the trial court. The trial court e x plained that it would not g rant full probation due to the seve rity of the victim’s injuries and a ne ed to deter other defenda nts from commit ting sim ilar crimes. This Court ha s p re vio us ly

he ld t hat in ve hic ula r a ssa ult c a se s in vo lvi ngdr

un k dri vi ng whe re vic tim s su sta in serious injuries, conf

inement m ay be warra

nted i n order

to avoid depre ciating the seriousne ss of the of fe ns e . Stat e v. Er ic W. Fr ie dl, No . 0 2C0 1- 95 09 -C R- 00 25 5, 19 96 WL51 26 38 , at *3 (T e nn . Cr im. App., at Jackson, Sept. 11, 1996), no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed . We conclude that the
tr ia l c ourt us e d s ou nd reas on in g wh e n it c ho se to d e ny

fu ll p ro batio n. B e c a

us e of the e xtre me ly serious and pe rmane nt nature of the injuries suffe red by the victims, i t is important that the

se ri ou sn e s s o f

t h e o f f e n s e s i nt h i s c a s e n o tb e d e p r e c i a t e d

. A p e r i o d o f c o n f i n e m e n tm ay

a l so pr ov ide an e ff

e c tiv e de te rr e nt t o o the rs wh o w ou ld c ho os e to driv e un de r s imi lar c ir c ums tanc e s. Acc ording ly , we c onclude that the r ecor d supports the t rial court’s denial of f ull probation and the5

imposit ion of a sente nce of split confinement.

III. Conclusi on

I n acc ordanc e with the for eg oing r easoningand author ities, we af firm the judgments of the
tr ia l c ourt

.

________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE