### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ja nuary 27, 200 4

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . DEXTER LI NEBERRY

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Wayne County

No. 12910 Stella Hargrove , Judge

No. M2002- 00993-CCA -R3-C D - F iled March 24, 2004

Th e de fe nd a nt, De xter

L ine be rry , w a s c on vic te d b y a Way ne Co un ty jury

of a ssa ult , a Cla ss B misdemeanor, and evading arr est, a Class A misdemea nor. The trial court sente nced the def endant to six months with all but ninety day s suspended for t he assault conviction, and eleve n months and twenty -nine day s with all but ninetyday s suspended for the evading arr est cha rg e, with the sente nces to be serve d concur

rently

. I n this a

ppeal as of rig ht, the defe ndant prese nts two issues: (1) whe ther the evidenc e is sufficie nt to support the defe ndant’s convict i o n fo r as sault; and (2) w hether the ninety -day

jail se ntence was appropriate. Following our re view, we aff irm the judg ments of the trial
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 ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and R O BERT W. W EDEMEYER , J ., joined.

Claud ia S. Jac k, Di stric t Pu bli c De fe nd e r; a ndRob e rt H. Sto va ll, Jr., As sis ta nt D ist ri c t Pu bli c D e f e n d e r , f o r t h e ap p e l l a n t , D e x t e r

L i n e b e rr y.

Paul G. Sum me rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; John H. B le ds oe , A ssi stant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Mik e B ott oms , D ist

ri c t A tto rn e y

Ge n e r al ; an d J. D ou g la s D ic us , 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
On Aug ust 30, 2002, Office r Tim Be ckham of the Clifton P olice De partment a nswere d a domestic assault ca ll in C lifton, Tennessee

. When O ffice r B eckham arrive d, he saw the victim, the de fe nd a nt’ s w if

e , Lind a Joy c e L ine be rry , w ho ha d a “ bu ste d li p, ” a t he r n e xt-d oo r n e ig hb or ’s ho me from whe re the sheriff ’s depa rtment had be en ca lled. She had tol d t h e d i s patche r, “My husband slapped me.” After

tal k i n g with the victim, Office r Be ckham we nt to her home to spea k with the-2-

defe ndant. B eckham knocked on the door at the def endant’ s house, with the def endant c oming out
on t he porc h to speak with him. The off icer asked if he and his wife ha d an ar g ument, and the defe ndant re sponded, “[Y]eah, I slapped he r af

ter she hit me.” Be ckham a dvised the def endant that he wa s g oin g to p la c e him un de r a rr e st. Th e vic tim re turne d ho me wh ile B e c kh a m wa s ta lki ng to the def endant, a nd the defe ndant asked her if she was g oing to press char g es, to w hich she re plied that sh e wa s n ot. At

thi s p oin t, the de fe nd a nt turne d a ndwe nt i ns ide his ho us e . B e c kh a m trie d to follow but was de nied entry by the def endant. B eckham shoved ag ainst the door, but the def endant blocked it from the other si de. Be ckham then returne d to his patrol car to radio for assistance , and the victim went inside the home whe re she told the defe ndant that Off icer Be ck h am had lef

t the po rc h. Th e vic tim th en cam e ba c k o uts ide , a ndB e c kh a m e sc orte d h e r t o h e r n e ig hb or ’s ho me instructing that she stay

there

. At trial, the victim expl ained the inc ident by say ing that she had passed out as a re sult of a seizure, and the de fendant slapped her to r evive her. Asked if she had told Offic er B eckham about the seizure that nig ht, she said that she did not have a chance. T he victim t estified that Of fice r Be ckham informed the defe ndant that he was g oing to f ile war rants the next day , and she t o l d t he office r that she did not want he r husband to g o to jail.
Deputy Ba rney Harv i l l e of the Way ne County Sheriff’ s Depa

rtment testified that he responde d to O ffice r Be ckham’ s call for backup at the L ineber

ry residenc e. Ha

rville stated that at approximately

2:00 a.m., afte r a third of fice r ar rived, the three of them beg an a “ sy stematic sea rch” for the de fendant, looking first in the house and then t h e y ar d , s peaking with neig hbors, and
sear ching an empty

lot nearby . At app ro x i m at el y 5 :00 a.m., they called of f the sea rch w ithout fi nd ing him

.
B ob by L ine be rry , th e de fe nd a nt’ s b ro the r, te sti fi e d as a de fe ns e wi tne ss that th e vic tim tol d him sh e ha d a se izur e . He sa id that “ mor e than o ne ” of fi c e r w a s “ wi thi n e ars ho t” wh e n th e vic tim spoke of the se izure.

The de fendant said that, on the day of the incident, he had arrived home betwe en 5:30 and 6:0 0 p .m. a nd fr om the n un til abo ut 11 :30 p. m., he c on su me d “ pr ob ably e ig ht be e rs or nin e ” wh ile he a ndthe vic tim

vis ite d w ithne ig hb or s o uts ide the ir ho me . H e we nt i ns ide the ho us e tw e nty to twenty -five minutes a fter the victim had done so a n d fo u n d her “ sprawle d out in the hallway .” Re a c tin g a s h e “ no rm a lly ” wo uld wh e n sh e ha d a se izur e , he “ [s]ma c k[e d] he r i n th e fa c e a lit tle bit , and w[o]ke her up.” H e said that he slapped he r “[p]robably eig ht or ten” times. He “[h] ad her sittin g in the c ha ir

in the kit c he n, waiti ng fo r he r to c ome ba c k to no rm a l.” Al tho ug h he did no t hi t her ha rd enough to injure he r, the victim’s “lip wa s bleeding .” As he then was g oing to be d, “all of a sudden he re c omes a be er mug fly ing in [sic] i nto the bedroom.” The victim left, saying, “I ’m g oin g to the ne ig hb or ’s ho us e .” On c ro ss- e xami natio n, he sa id that he wa s w or ri e d a bo ut the vic tim when she left, but he “ wasn’t g oing [t]o hog-tie he r up and pull her back.”

Th e de fe nd a nt t e sti fi e d th a t w hil e he wa s st a nd ing on the po rc h ta lki ng to O ff ic e r B e c kh a m, the victim came home and g ave ne g ative re sponses when he asked if she had c alled the police and-3-

if she wa s pressing char g es. Offic er Be ckham then said, “I ’m pressing char g es,” and the de fenda nt went bac k inside the hous e. He said that when he tried t o close the door , Be ckham put his hand on it, bu t he wa s a

ble to c los e it. Th e de fe nd a nt e xpla ine d w hy he c los e d th e do or

on Of fi c e r B e c kh a m:

A. Well, is he God? He’ s not Go d

. I don’t have to stand there and talk to somebody

I don’t want to talk to.
Q. But y ou understand y ou had to comply with police offic ers don’t y ou, sir?

A. Ye s, sir , b ut h e

. . . I ’l l c omp ly – I , I do tha t e ve ry day

in m y life. I try to do it the right way . I f i t’s ag ainst the law, I try not to do it. I been [sic] doing that for

sever al y ear s now.

I ’ll admit when I was y oung er I didn’t. I didn’t car e whatever

. But for the last 20 y ear s I have. I ’ve g ot a 17-y ear -old daug hter. I ’ve tr ie d to se t a good ex a mpl e , e ve n a n o ld h ipp ie de se rv e s a lit tle
re sp e c t.

The de fendant then went to bed, but, af ter re alizing that he c ould not go to sleep, he w ent out the front door ba

ref oot and shirtless to go f

or a w alk. He said that there w as a c ar pa rked on the road in f ro nt o f h is h ou se wh e n h e le ft a ndin the sa me spot w he n h e re turne d. He sa w s ome pe op le “messing around” down the roa d and we nt inside his house. His brother came in and said, “[Y]ou know the cops are looking for y ou.” The defe ndant re plied, “No, I didn’t know they

was [sic] lookin g f o r me , b u t I ’ m g o in g to b e d , I ’ m n o t me s s in g w ith th e m.

. . . I ’ ll s e e th e m tomorrow evening when I

g et bac k.” The next eve ning when the defe ndant returne d home, two offic ers we re waiting for him and a

rre sted him. Accor ding to the de fendant, he coope rate d with these off icers beca use they “tre ated [him] with respec t.”

AN AL YSI S

I. Su ff iciency of the Evid ence

The defenda nt arg ues on appea l that the evidence is i nsufficie nt to sustain his conviction for assault. I n determining the suff iciency of the e vidence , this court does not r ewe igh or ree valuate the the evidenc e. State v. Cabba g e, 571 S.W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978) . A jury verdic t approve d by

the trial judg e ac cre dits the St ate' s witnesses and r esolves all conf licts in favor of th e State. State v. B ig be e , 8 85 S.W. 2d79 7, 80 3 ( Te nn . 1 99 4) . O n a ppe a l, the State is e nti tle d to the str on g e st leg itimate view of the e vidence and all leg it i m at e o r reasonable infe renc es which may be dra wn there from. I d. This court will not disturb a verdict of g uilt due to the sufficien cy o f t he evide nce
u n l es s t h e def

endant de monstrates that the fa cts containe d in the rec ord and the infere nces w hich may be dra wn there from ar e insuffic ient, as a matter of law , for a rationa l trier of

fac t to find the
acc used g uiltybey ond a re asonable doubt. State v. Bre wer , 932 S.W .2d 1, 19 (Tenn. Crim. App.-4-

1996). Ac cording ly , it is t he appe llate court's duty to aff irm the conviction if the evidenc e, viewe d
un de r the se stand ard s, wa s su ff ic ie nt fo r a ny

ratio na l trie r o f f

a c t to ha ve fo un d th e e sse nti a l e le me nts of the offe nse bey ond a rea sonable doubt. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e) ; J ackson v. V irg inia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct . 2781, 2789, 61 L . Ed. 2d 560 (1979); State v. Cazes, 875 S.W.2d 253, 259 (Tenn. 1994).

The defe ndant was convicted of Class B misdemeanor assault, which oc curs whe n a per son

“ [i]nte nti on a lly

or kn ow ing ly

c aus e s phy sic a l con ta c t with a no the r an d a re a so na ble pe rs on wo uld reg ard the contac t as extremely offe nsive or provoc ative.” T enn. Code Ann. § 39- 13-101(a )(3)

.
The victim testified that she told the sheriff’s dispatc her over the telephone that the de fenda nt had slappe d her. O ffice r B eckham, the first o ff i ce r o n t he sce ne, testified that the vic tim had a

“ bu ste d li p. ” Th e de fe nd a nt t oldB e c kh a m, “ [Y]e ah, I sla pp e d h e r a ft e r s he hit

me ” a ndte sti fi e d in court that he struck her eig ht to ten t imes. This evidenc e was sufficie nt for a rea sonable jury to find that th e de fe nd a nt h a d a ssa ult e d th e vic tim

.
II. Excessive Sentence

Th e de fe nd a nt a

rg ue s th a t his sen te nc e is exc e ssi ve a nd that he sho uld ha ve be e n g rante d f ull probation.

When an accuse d challeng es t he length and manner of service of a sentence, it is the duty of this court to conduct a de novo revie w on the re cord wi t h a p re sumption t hat “the de terminations made by the court f

ro m which the a

ppeal is take n are corr ect.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-401(d)

. This presu mp ti o n is “ c o n d it io n e d u p o n th e a f f irmati v e s h o w in g inth e r e c o r d th a t th e tria l c o u rt considere d the sentenc ing principles and all rele vant fac ts and circ umstances.” State v. Ashby , 823 S. W. 2 d 1 6 6 , 1 6 9 ( T e n n

. 1 9 9 1 )

. I n c o n d ucting a de novo re vie w o f a se nte nc e , th is c ou rt

mus t
c on sid e r (a ) a ny e vid e nc e re c e ive d at th e tr ia l a nd /or se nte nc ing he ari ng , ( b) the pr e se nte nc e re po rt , (c) the principles of

sentenc ing, ( d) the arg uments of counsel relative to se ntencing alternatives, (e) the nature and cha

rac teristics of the of

fense , (f) any

mitigati n g o r en hancing fac tors, (g ) any statements made by

the ac cused in his own behalf , and (h) the a ccuse d' s potential or lack of potential for r ehabilitation or treatment. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40- 3 5-103, -210. The party challeng ing the
se nte nc e s impo se d b y

th e tr ial court

ha s th e bu rd e n o f e sta

bli sh ing that th e se nte nc e is e rr on e ou s. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-401, Sentenc ing Commission Cm ts.; Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169.

Misdemeanor

sentenc ing is c ont rol led by Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40-35-302, wh ic h p ro vid e s, in p art , th a t th e tr ial c ou rt sh a ll i mpo se a

sp e c if ic se nte nc e that is c on sis te nt w ith the purposes and principles of the 1989 Sentencing R ef o rm Ac t . See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35-302( b). Althoug h the Sentencing Reform Act typically treats misdemeanants and f elons the same, mi sdemea nants are not give n the pre sumption of a minimum sentenc e. 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 sentenc ing, but the trial court must "allow the pa rties a r easona

ble opportunity

to be hear d on the question of the leng th of any s en t en ce an d the manner in which the sente nce is to be-5-

serve d." T enn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-302(a ). A misdemeanor 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 g reat flexi bilityand discre tion in fashioning a misdemea nor sentenc e. The sentenc e must be spec ific and in a ccor d an ce wi t h the principles, pur poses, and g oals of the 1989 Sentencing Act. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 302(b ); S t at e v

. Palmer, 902 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tenn. 1995). The trial court should c onsider enhanc ement and mitigating fac tors in ma king its sentencing determinations; however, unlike the fe lony 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, the m isd e me a no r s e nte nc ing sta tut e " me re ly

re qu ir e s a

tr ia 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 place the misdemeanant on probation either immediate ly or afte r a te rm of confine ment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-302( e). When a defe ndant challe n ges a m i s demea nor sentenc e, thi s co u rt conducts a de 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 determinations are c orre ct.

A trial court may

base a sentenc e of c onfinement upon a ny one of the following
c on sid e ratio ns :
(A ) C o n fi n em en ti s n ec es s ar y t o p ro t ec ts o ci et y

b y re s tra i n i n g a de fe nd a nt w ho ha s a

lon g his tory

of c ri min a l c on du c t; (B ) Confinement is nece ssary to avoid depre ciating the seriousne ss of the offe nse or c on fi n ement is particula rly suited to provide an eff ective de terre nce to other s likely to commit si milar offe nses; or (C) Mea sures less re strictive th an co n finement ha ve fr equently or
r e c e n tl y h a v e b e e n ap p li e d u n s u c c e s s f u ll y to th e d e f

e n d a n t[

. ]

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103( 1); see State v. Scott, 735 S.W .2d 825, 829 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987)

.
I n s e nte nc ing the de fe nd a nt, the tr ia l c ou rt e xpla ine d th a t it

wa s con sid e ri ng the e vid e nc e in t h e m at t er , i n cl u d i n g t es t i m o n y an d re co rd s ; t h e p re s en t en ce re p o rt ; an d t h e p ri n ci p l es o f s en t en ci n g. The c ourt noted that he ha d been c onvicted in 1994 of the f elonies re ckless endang erme nt with a deadly wea pon and atte mp te d ag g ravated burg lary , rec eiving sentenc es, re spectively , of one y ear and two y ear s, both suspended, and that in 2001 he had bee n place d on probation for public intox ication. This latter convic tion was rele vant, explained the court, because the de fendant said that he ha d been drinking the night he assaulted the victim. Additionally , the court explained that the version of the f a c t s t e s t i f i e d t o b y t h e d e f

e n d a n ta n d t h e v i c t i m w a s “ b l a t a n t l y f a l s e a n d i n c r e d i b l e

. ” A c c o r d i n g l y, the court determined that, while a portion of the de fendant’s sentenc es would be suspe nded, he should be incar cer ated for ninety day s. Following our revie w, we note that the def endant ha d been place d on probation six times in the past, primarily for driving or

intox ication offe nses, and c onclude that the re cord f

ully supports the determination of the trial co u rt that the def endant should be
c on fi ne d f

or a po rt ionof

his se nte nc e s.-6- CO NC LU SION

Ba sed upon the for eg oing a uthoritie s an d re as o ning, w e af firm the judg ments of the trial
c ou rt

.

___________________________________ ALAN E. GL

ENN, JUDGE