### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jul y 30 , 200 8

ST A TE OF TE N N ES SE E v

. D EN V ER L. BR OW N , III
Appeal from t he Criminal Court for Sul livan Cou nty No. S53,182 Robert H. M ontgomer y, Jr., Judge

No. E2007-02786-CC A-R3- CD - Filed Oct ober 27, 2008

Th e de fe nd ant, De nv e r L . B ro wn , I I I , wa s c on vic te d in the Sul liv an County Cr imi na l Court on his g ui l t y plea to ag g ravated robbe ry , a Class B f elony . As part of

the plea a g ree ment, the def endant

acc epted a

sentenc e of e ight year s with the understanding that the offe nse of which he wa s convicted was statutorily

ineligible f

or probation, but he reser

ved the rig ht to have the manner of service of the sentenc e dete rmined by

the trial cour

t and soug ht c ommunity corr ections. The trial c ourt imposed incar cer ation. The de fenda nt appea ls, contendingthat the trial cour t erre d in determiningthat he wa s statut or il y in eli gible fo r c omm un ity c or re c tio ns and

that he sh ou ld h ave re c e ive d a c omm un ity

c or re c tio ns se nte nc e . We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

. Tenn. R. App . P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Cr iminal Cou rt A ffirm ed

J OS EP H M. T I P TO N , P.J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J ER R Y L. S MIT H and C AM I LLE R. M C M ULLEN , JJ., joined.
Richard A. Spivey, Kingsport, Te nnessee , for the a ppellant, Denve r L. Brown, I II.

Robert E. C o o p er, Jr ., Attorney Ge nera l and Reporter ; Rachel W est Harmon, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; H. Gr eele y Wells, Jr., District Attorne y Gene ral; and W illiam B . Har per, A ssistant District Attorney Ge nera l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

Acc ording to the state’s r ecitation of f acts at the plea ac ceptance he aring, the de fendant’s conviction re lates to the following:

The State’s pr oof would be that this offen s e o cc urre d on Dec ember

the 27th of 2006 at a

round 9 p.m.

. . . [whe n] t he def endant enter ed into the King College Mart which is located on King College Road, Bristol, Tennessee , Sulli van C o u nty, with a shotgun and demande d money from the c l er k , Lisa Mutter. Af ter the c lerk ga ve-2- the def endant the mone y from the r egister he exited the store and r an to the rea r.

The de fendant sought to serve his eight-yea r sentenc e on community corre ctions under the “spec ial needs” provision of Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40-36-106(c ) which a llows a trial

c ou rt to i mp os e a co mmu nity c or re c tio n s e nte nc e fo r o the rw ise ine lig ibl e of fe nd e rs “ wh o w ou ld usually be considered unfit for probation due to histories of chronic alcohol or drug abuse, or mental he a lthpr ob le ms, bu t who se sp e c ia l nee ds are tr e a ta ble a nd c ou ld be se rv e d be st in th e c ommun ity rathe r t han in a c orre ctional institut ion[.]” T he def endant sought the be nefit of this provision based upon his substance a

buse problem. The trial c ourt denied c ommunity correc tions placement on the basis that the def

en d an t was not entitled to community corre ctions as a matter of law. The court interpre ted the re levant st atutes t o require that a defenda nt be eligibl e, albe it unsuit ed, for probation in order to be considere d for c ommunity correc tions placement unde r sec t i o n 40-36-106( c). W e must determine whe ther the tria l court er red in this determination, and if so, whether the def endant sh ou ld h a ve be e n p la c e d inc ommun ity c or re c tio ns

.
Under the Tenne ssee Community Corrections Act, trial c ourts may sentenc e cer t ai n nonviolent felony off

ender s to community based alternatives to incar cer ation. T.C.A. § 40-36-103( 1). A def end a n t c a n b e e li g ib le f

o r a c o mmu n it y c o rr e c ti o n s s e n te n c e if th e d e f e n d a n t me e ts the following criteria:

(A) Per sons who, without this option, would be incar cer ated in a

corr ectional institution; (B ) P e rs on s w ho are c on vic te d of pr op e rt y- re la te d, or dr ug /a lc oh olrelated fe lony offense s or other f elony offe nses not involving crimes against the pe rson . . . ; (C ) P e rs on s w ho are c on vic te d o f n on vio le nt f e lon y o ff e ns e s; (D) Per sons who are convicted of felony off

enses in which the use or possession of a we apon wa s not involved; (E) Per sons who do not demonst ra t e a p rese nt or past pattern of behavior indicating violence; (F) Persons who do not demonstrate a pattern of committing viol ent offe nses[.]
T.C.A. § 40-36-106( a). Subsec tion -106(c) provides that def endants who are n ot eligible for a Com mun ity Cor

re c tio ns se nte nc e un de r s ub se c tio n ( a ) and“ wh o w ou ld b e us ua lly c on sid e re d u nf it fo r p ro batio n d ue to his torie s of c hr on ic a lc oh ol, dr ug abu se , o r m e nta l he a lth pr ob le ms, bu t w ho se specia l needs a

re tre atable and could be se rved be st in the co m m u n i ty” may be e ligible for

c ommun ity c or

re c tio ns . T his c ou rt

ha s c on str

ue d th e wo rd s “ wh o w ou ld b e us ua lly c on sid e re d u nf it for pr obation” to mean

that a def endant must be other wise eligible for probation under

the sentenc ing act in orde r to be e ligible for place ment in the Communi ty Corr ections Program under subse ction -106(c ). State v. Staten, 787 S.W.2d 934, 936-37 (Te nn. Crim. App. 1989); see State v. Cowa n, 40 S.W.3d 85, 86-97 (Te nn. Crim. App. 2000) (citing numerous unr eporte d case s for this proposition).-3-

As the trial court corre ctly determined, the def endant in the pr esent c ase w as not eligible for community c orre ctions under subsec tion (a) be cause his conviction of aggr avate d robbery involved a violent fe lony offense , an off ense a gainst a per son, and an offe nse involving the use of a we apon. See T.C. A. § 40-36-106( a)( 1)(B), ( C), (D). Furthe r, the off ense of aggra vated r obbery is not an offe nse for

which a sentenc e of probation may be imposed. Id., § 40-35-303( a). The ref ore, the trial

c ou rt pr op e rl y d e nie d th e de fe nd a nt’ s r e qu e st f or c ommun ity c or

re c tio ns be c a us e he wa s n ot e lig ibl e for this form of se ntence

.
In consider ation of the for egoing and the re cord a s a whole, the judgment of the trial court is affirme d.

___________________________________ JOSEPH M. TIPTON, PRES IDIN G JUDGE