As t h i s Cou r t ha s n ot e d, t h e a bs e n c e of a t r a n s c r i pt of

t h e g u i l t y pl e a pr oc e e di n g ma y r e qu i r e u s t o p r e s u me 1
t hat t he sent ence i m p o sed b y t he t ri al co urt i s supp o rt ed by t he evi d ence. See Stat e v. K een, 9 9 6 S.W

. 2 d 8 4 2 , 84 4 (T enn. C ri m
. A p p
. 19 9 9 ). 

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

AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jun e 2, 200 4 S es sio n STATE OF TENNESS EE v . LATI SHA LE E MORGAN
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Laud erdale County

No. 7412 Joseph H. Walk er, III, Judge

No. W2003-02174-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Jul y 9, 2004

The De fendant, L atisha L ee Mor g an, pled g uiltyto assault, a Class A misdemeanor . Pursuant to the plea a g ree ment, sentenc ing w as left to the tria l judge . After a hea ring , the trial judg e imposed a sentenc e of e leven months and twenty -nine day s, with six ty day s to be serve d in confineme nt, and the balanc e of the s entenc e to be served on supervised probation. The sole issue in this direct a ppeal is whether the trial court should have g rante d the Def endant f ull pr obation. We a ffirm the judg ment of thetria l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed
D AVI D H. W EL L ES , J ., delivere d the opi nion of the court, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.
J . Thomas Caldwell, Ripley , Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, L atisha L ee Mor g an.
Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Jenn if e r B le ds oe, Assis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Eliz abeth Rice , District Attorney Gene ral; and T ra cey

A. B rew er, A ssistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
. OP IN ION We gle an the f

ollowing f

acts fr om the prese ntence report and the transc ript of the sente ncing hearing, be cause the t ransc ript of the g uiltyplea a cce ptance hearing w as not included in the re cord on appea l. On September 15, 2002, the Def endant was braiding a little girl’s hair in her cousin’s 1 ho us e
. She wa s usin g a bo x c utt e r to unt a ng le the g ir l’ s hai r. Whe n s he ste pp e d o uts ideto t a lk t o theg ir l’ s mo the r, thevic tim , Sh aro n Hurdle , a pp ro a c he d. Ap pa

re ntl y the reha d b e e n a nim os ity betwee n the Def

endant and Ms. Hurdle for some time. The De fendant’s aunt, Melissa Dixon, was stand ing in f

ro nt o f he r, a nd Ms. Hu rd le re a c he d ov e r the aun t to hit theDe fe nd a nt. Ac c or din g to-2-

the Def en d an t , s h e s t ruck back at Ms. Hurdle, “not re alizing that [she] had the box cutter in [her] hand.” T he De fendant cut the victim on her left hand, her head, her stomach, and the rig ht side of her ne ck. Thevictim required tr eatment at the emer g ency room, wher e worke rs put stitche s in her n ec k t o s t o p t h e b l ee d i n g.
The De fendant pled g uilty to assault, a Class A m isdemeanor , see Te nn. Code Ann. § 39-13- 10 1( b) (1 ), a ndthetria l c ou rt se nte nc e d th e De fe nd a nt to e le ve n mo nth s a ndtw e nty -n ineday s inja il. The c ourt determined that she qualified f or partial probation, so it suspended all but six ty day s of the sentenc e. The Def

endant c omplains that she should have be en g rante d full probation. Upon a c halleng e to the sente nce imposed, this court has a duty to conduct a denovo revie w of the sente nce with a presumption that the determinations made by the trial court are corr ect. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-401(d) . Howeve r, this presumption “is conditioned upon the aff irmative sh ow ing in the re c or d th a t th e tria l c ou rt c on sid e re d the se nte nc ing princ ipl e s a nda ll r e le va nt f a c ts and cir cumstance s.” State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991) . I f our r eview r efle cts that the trial court followed the statutory sentenc ing pr ocedur e, that the c ourt imposed a lawf ul sentence afte r having g iven due c onsideration and pr oper we ight to the f actor s and principles se t out under the sentenc ing la w, and that the trial court’s finding s of fac t a re adequately

supported by

the re cord, then the pre sum p t i o n i s ap p licable, and we may not modify

the sentenc e eve n if we w ould have pr e fe rr e d a

dif fe re nt re su lt. Se e State v. Pik e , 9 78 S.W. 2d90 4 a pp . at 92 6- 27 (T e nn . 1 99 8) . We wi ll uphold the sentenc e imposed by the trial court if (1) the se ntence co m p l i es wi t h the purposes and principles of the 1989 Sentencing Act, and (2) the tria l court’s finding s are adequately supported by there c or d. Se e State v. Arne tt, 49 S.W. 3d25 0, 257 (Ten n. 20 01 ). Th e bu rd e n o f s ho wi ng that a sentenc e is i m p ro p er is upon the appealing party . See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 401 Sentencing Commi ssion Com ments; Arnett, 49 S.W.3d at 257.
Misdemeanor

sentenc ing is c ontrolled by Tenne ss ee Code Annotated sec tion 40-35-302, which provide s in part that the trial c ourt shall impose a spec if i c s en t en ce consistent with the purposes a nd principles of the 1989 Criminal Sentenc ing Reform Act. See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40- 3 5 -302(b). Misdemeanor se ntencing is designe d to provide the trial c ourt with continuing jurisdiction and a g reat deal of f l ex ibilit y . See State v. Troutman, 979 S.W.2d 271, 273 (Tenn. 199 8 ) ; St a te v
. B ak e r , 9 6 6 S. W. 2 d 4 2 9 , 4 3 4 ( T e n n
. Crim

. A p p
. 1 9 9 7 )

. O n e c o n v ic te d of a mis de me a no r, un lik e on e c on vic te d o f a fe lon y , is not en tit le d to a pre su mpt ive se nte nc e . See State v. Creasy , 885 S.W .2d 829, 832 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)

. I n mi sd e me a no r s e nte nc ing , a se pa rate se nte nc ing he ari ng is n ot m a nd a tory , b ut the c ou rt is require d to pr ovide the parties with a rea sonable opportunity

to be hea rd as to the leng th and manner of se rv ic e of the se nte nc e
. Se e Te nn . Code An n. § 4 0- 35 -3 02 (a ). Th e tria l c ou rt re ta ins theauth ority to place the defe nd an t o n probation either immediately

or af ter a time of periodic or

continuous confine ment. See id. § 40-35-302( e).
A d e fe nd a nt is eli gib le fo r p ro batio n if thea c tua l se nte nc e imp os e d u po n th e de fe nd a nt i s eig ht y ear s or less and the of fense for whic h the defendant is sentenc ed is not specific ally excluded-3-

by statute. See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 303(a) . The trial c ourt shall au t o m atically consider probatio n as a s en t en ci n g al t er n at i v e f o r e l i gi b l e d ef

en d an t s ; h o we v er , t h e d ef

en d an tbear s the burden of pr ov ing his or

he r s uit abil ity

fo r p ro bation. S ee id

. § 4 0- 35 -3 03 (b ). No c ri min a l de fe nd a nt i s automaticall y en t i t led to probation as a matter of la w. See id. § 40-35- 303(b), Sentenc ing Commi ssion Com ments; State v. Davis, 940 S.W.2d 558, 559 (Tenn. 1997). Rather , the def endant must demonstrate that probation would serve the e nds of justice and the best interests of both the public and the de fendant. See State v. Souder, 105 S.W.3d 602, 607 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002).
I n determining whe ther to g rant probation, the court m ust consider the nature a nd circ umstances of

the offe nse; the def

endant’ s criminal re cord; his or he r back ground and social his tory ; hi s o r he r pr e se nt co nd iti on , both ph y sic a l and me nta l; the de te rr e nt ef fe c t on the de fe nd a nt; a ndthe de fe nd a nt’ s pote nti a l for re ha bil itatio n or tr e a tme nt. Se e id. I f the c ou rt de te rm ine s th a t a period of pr obation is appropriate, it s h all sentenc e the de fendant to a specific sentenc e but then suspend that sentenc e and pla ce the defe ndant on supervise d or unsupervised probation either immediately

or af ter the service of a period of confine ment. See Te nn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35- 303(c) , -306(a ).
I n this c ase, the pre sentenc e re port ref lects that, at the time of se ntencing , the Def endant wa s twenty -on e y e ar s o lda n d s in g lew ith n o c h il d r e n
. Sh e g r a d u a te d f r o m h ig h s c h o o l, a n d w as attending Volunteer

Be auty Aca demy . She had no wor k history at the time of sente ncing , and the only pri o r cr i m i n al history

she had w as a c onviction for disorderly conduct. In the Def

endant’ s a c c ou nt o f w hat tr a ns pir e d b e tw e e n h e r andMs. Hu rd le , th e De fe nd a nt e xpla ine d th a t Ms . H ur dle had bee n hara ssing he r for some time prior to the fight. When Ms. Hurdle hit her , she struck ba ck in se lf -d e fe ns e
. She ma int a ine d that she did no t know the bo x-c utt e r wa s inhe r h a nd , a ndsh e did not intend to harm Ms. Hurdle.
Th e tria l c ou rt

didno t st a te on there c or d it s reaso ns for deny ing theDe fe nd a nt f ull probation. Our supr eme c ourt has held that, a lthough the be tter pra ctice is for a trial c ourt to make fi nd ing s o n th e re c or d w he n f ixing a pe rc e nta g e of

a de fe nd ant ’s se nte nc e to b e se rv e d in confine ment, such finding s are not require d. See Troutman, 979 S.W .2d at 274. A trial c ourt should, however , consider the pri n c ip le s o f s e n te ncing and enhanceme nt and mitigating fac tors when sentenc ing a

misdemeana nt. See id.
I n d e te rm ini ng wh e the r a

se nte nc e inv olv ing c on fi ne me nt i s app ro priate , tria l c ou rt s sh ou ld look to Tennessee Code Annotated se cti o n 40-35-103( 1), which se ts forth the following c on sid e ratio ns : (A) Confine ment is nece ssary to pro t ec t s o ciety

by restraining a

defe ndant wh o h a s a lon g his tory

of c ri min a l c on du c t; (B ) Confinement is nec essary to avoid depre ciating t he seriousness of the of fe ns e or con fi ne me nt i s p art ic ula rl y su ite d to pr ov idea n e ff

e c tiv e de te rr e nc e to others likely

to commit si milar offe nses; or“[T ]h e trial c o u rt m a y lo o k b e h ind a p le a a g re e m e n t a n d c o n sid e r th e tru e na tur e o f t h e o ff e n se c o m m itt e d .” 2 St at e v
. La t oy a Ande r s on , N o. 02C 01- 9707- CR

- 00251, 1998 W L 599527, at * 3 (T en n
. C r i m. A pp. , Jac k s on , Se pt

. 11, 1 9 9 8 ) ( ci t i ng S t at e v. H o l l i ngswort h, 6 4 7 S

. W

. 2 d 9 3 7 , 9 3 9 (T enn. 1 9 8 3 )) ; Stat e v. B i ggs, 76 9 S.W

. 2 d 50 6 , 50 7 (T enn. C ri m
. A p p
. 19 8 8 ).

In a su b se q u e n t o rd e r allo w ing a d e la ye d re p o rting d a te to b e g in se rv ing the se n te n c e , t h e trial c o u rt n o te d it s 3 find ing tha t t h e D e fen d a n t “sh o w s n o re m o rs e a n d tha t co n fine m e n t i s n e c e ssa ry.” -4- (C ) M e a su re s le ss restr ict ive tha n c on fi ne me nt h a ve fr e qu e ntl y or re c e ntl y 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[

. ]

Al tho ug h th e De fe nd a nt ple d g uil ty to misd e me a no r as sault in thi s ca se , the re c or d r e fl e c ts t h ats h e c u tt h e vi ct i m fo u r t i m es wi t h a r az o r b l ad e, a d ea d l y we ap o n
. At s en t en ci n g t h e t ri al j u d ge stated that he r eca lled “the testimony hear d when the de fendant entere d a plea of g uilty to the lesser included off

ense of the A misdemea nor of a ssault, h av i n g b een c harg ed with the C felony of a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult .” Th e trial court

ob vio us ly

c on c lud e d th a t so me c on fi ne me nt i s n e c e ssa ry to 2
a vo id d e pr e c iatin g these ri ou sn e ss o f the of fe ns e
. We c on c lud e that the tria l ju dg e a c te d w ith in h is

3 dis c re tio na

ry auth ority in r e qu iring theDe fe nd a nt t o s e rv e sixty day s inc on fi ne me nt. The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed.

___________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, J UDGE