### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ja nua ry 27, 200 4
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. JOHN CHR IS ELR OD

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Warre n Coun ty No. F -8968 Larry B. Stanley, Jr., Judge

No. M2003- 01600-CCA -R3-C D - F iled March 17, 2004

The de fenda

nt, J ohn Chris Elrod, was indicted by the Warre n County

Gra nd J ury on on e count of ag g ravated kidnapping , a Class B f elony , and one c ount eac h of assault and vandalism under $500, bo th C la ss Amis de me a no rs

. He ple d g uil ty to the Cla ss A misd e me a no rs of fa lse imp ri so nme nt, assault, and va

ndalism under $500 and w as sentenc ed to eleve n months, twenty -nine da y s at 75%
o n e a c h c o u n tw i t h c o u n t s o n e a n d t w o c o n s e c u t i v e a n d

c o un tt h r e e c o n c u r

r e n tw i t h c o u n to n e

. In this a ppeal as of rig ht, the defe ndant contends that the trial cour t abused its discretion in imposing
consec utive sentenc es for two misdemeanors arising from the same episode. Following our re view,
we a ff ir m th e 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

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.

J . Hilton Conger , Smit hville, Tennesse e, for the appe llant, J ohn Chris Elrod.

Pa ul G . Summe rs , Atto rn e y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; Re ne e W. Tur ne r, As sis ta

nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; C. D a le Pot te r, Di str ic t Atto rn e y Ge ne ra l; an d L a rr y G. B ry a nt, As sis tant 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

The fe w details of the inc ident resulting in the defe ndant’s convict i o n s are set out in the pr e se nte nc e re po rt :-2- Ag g ravated Kidnapping (F alse I mprisonment):

“Chris Elrod is char g ed with Ag g ravated Kidnapping in that on Dec ember

19, 2001[,] Ms. Christy

Elrod s tated to investig ators that Mr. Elrod busted the w indow out of her f ather ’s vehicle pulling her fr om the ve hic le le a vin g mark s on Ms. El ro d’ s a rm s a nd c he st. Ms. Elrod did not consent to g oing w ith Mr. Elr o d

. M s

. E l rod had a n active or der of

protec tion signed pr ior to this incident.” Ag g ravated Assault (Assa ult):

“Chris Elrod is char g ed with Ag g ravated Assault in that on Dec ember 19, 2 0 0 1 [, ] M r

. E lr o d

w a s f o u n d to b e w it h h is w if e Ch r is ty Elrod who has a n order of protec tion on Mr. El rod. Ms. Elrod s tated to the investigators that Mr. El rod drug her from her father’s ve hicle busting the wind o w[

. ] Ms. Elrod had bruising on her uppe r ar ms and
scratches on he r che st and [her] shi rt had be en torn.”

Va nd a lis m:

“ Ch r is E lr o d is c h a r g e d w it h V a n d a li s m in th a t o n D e c e mb e r 19, 2001[,] Ms. Elrod stated t o investigators that Mr. Elrod drugher f rom he r f a the r[’ s] ve hic le bu sti ng the wi nd ow . M r. El ro d w a s a lso char g ed with Agg ravated Assault due to Ms. Elrod having a order of protec tion on Mr. Elrod.”

De fe nd a nt’ s State me nt:

“ T h i s w a s a

m e e t i n g g o n e b a d

. It d i d n o th a p p e n t h e w a y s h e [ s ] a ys it did! S o for the plea I rea lly wish it could be my

time on probation[,] not in jail. When this first happene d, I was awa y from my kids f or a y ear

. Now [that] Ihave visitation they have a djusted[.] [I ]f gone for a

nother y ear

it will be hard on them under standing and adjusting a ll over.”

AN AL YSI S

Co nse c ut ive Se nt e nc ing

The de fenda

nt’s sole issue on appe al is that the trial court err ed in or dering that the sentenc es fo r co un ts one a nd tw o be se rv e d co ns e c uti ve ly

. He a rgue s tha t con se c uti ve se nte nc ing is “ c le a rl y excessive and inappr opriate g iven the fa ct that the assa u l t an d the fa lse imprisonment charg es ar e essentially

one and the same.” When an ac cused c halleng es the leng th a nd manner

of ser vice of a-3-

sentenc e, it is the duty

of this court to conduc t a de novo revie w on the re cord w ith a presumption that "the deter

minations made by the court from which the appea l is taken are corr ect." Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401( d). This presumption is "c onditioned upon the affirmative showing in the rec ord that the trial cour

t considere d the sentenc ing pri n ci p l es and all re levant fa cts and c ircumstance s." State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991) . The pre sumption does not ap p l y to the leg al conclusions re ache d by

the t rial court in sentenc ing the acc used or to the deter minations made by

the trial court whic h are predic ated upon unc ontroverte d fac ts. St at e v
. Butler , 900 S.W .2d 305, 311 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) ; State v. Smi th, 891 S.W .2d 922, 929 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994); State v. Bone ste l, 871 S.W .2d 163, 166 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) , overr uled on other g rounds by State v. Hooper , 29 S.W .3d 1, 9 (Tenn. 2 0 00). Howe ver, this cour t is required to g ive g reat weig ht to the tr ia l c ourt ' s d e te rm inatio n of c on tr ov e rt e d f a c ts a s th e tr ia l c ourt ' s d e te rm inatio n o f t he se fa c ts i s p re d i ca t edu

p o n th e w i t n es s es ' d em ea n o r a n d ap p ea ra n ce wh en t es t i fy i n g.
I n conducting a de novo revie w of a sentenc e, t h i s co u rt must consider (a ) any evidenc e rec eived at the trial and/or se ntencing hear ing, ( b) the pre sentenc e re port, (c) the principles of sentenc ing, ( d) the a

rg uments of counse l relative to sente ncing alternatives, (e) the nature and char acte ristics of the off

ense, ( f) any mitigating or enhanc ement fac tors, (g ) any statements made by the accused in his own beha lf, and (h) the ac cused' s potential or lack of potential for r ehabilitation or treatment. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40- 35-103, -210; State v. Scott, 735 S.W .2d 825, 829 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). The party challeng ing the sentenc es imposed by the trial cour

t has the burde n of establishing that the sentenc e is e rrone ous. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-401, Sentenc ing Commission Cmts .; A shby , 823 S.W. 2d at 169. Th is co ur t' s re vie w of

the se nte nc e imp os e d b y

the tr ia l c ourt

is de novo wi th a pr e su mpt ion of c or re c tne ss. Te nn

. Cod e An n. § 4 0- 35 -4 01 (d ). Th is p re su mpt ion is conditioned upon an a ffirmative showing in the rec ord that the trial judg e conside red the sentenc ing principles and a ll releva

nt fac ts and circ umstances. State v. Pettus, 986 S.W .2d 540, 543 (Tenn. 1999). I f the trial c ourt fails to comply wi t h t h e st atutory

direc tives, there is no pre sumption of
c or re c tne ss a nd our r e vie w i s de novo . State v. Poole, 945 S.W .2d 93, 96 (Tenn. 1997)

.
I n sentenc ing the defe ndant, the trial c ourt stated that it ha d considere d the pre sentenc e re port and the testim o n y , at the sente ncing hear ing, of the probation officer

who had pr epar ed the r eport and the victim, as well as t he ar g uments of counse l. Reviewing this information, the court noted that the def endant wa s on probation when he committed the instant of fense s and that “he was unwilling t o a b i d e b y t h o s e t e r

m s o f p r o b a t i o n

. ” T h e c o u rtd i s c u s s e d t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s p r i o r

c r i m i n a l h i s t o r

y, which included four convictions for speedingfrom 1997-2000; two c onvictions in 1996 for passing
wo rt hle ss c he c ks ; a

c on vic tio n in

19 98 fo r t heft un der $5 00 , f or wh ic h h e wa s se nte nc e d to six months probation; and a conviction on Aug ust 13, 2001, for domestic assa ult on the same victim as in the prese nt appea l, with the defe ndant being place d on probation and or dere d to stay awa y from the victim and attend c onflict manage m en t cl as s es. The trial court also noted that the defe ndant te ste d p os iti ve fo r me tha

mph e tamin e on Ma

rc h 28, 20 03 , two we e ks a ft e r e nte ri ng his g uil ty ple a s. The c ourt conc luded that the defe ndant had an e x tensive cr iminal recor d, had committed the instant offe nses while on probation, was unwilling to a bide by terms of probation or court order s, and, as
a re sult, two of his sentences should be serve d consec utively

. A court may order sentenc es to run
consec utively

if the cour

t finds by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e that “[t ] he def endant is an-4-

offe nder w hose re cord of criminal a ct i vity

is ex tensive” a

nd “[t] he def

endant is sentenc ed for

an offe nse committed while on probation.” Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 40-35-115( b)(2) , (6). The rec ord
s u p p o rt s t h e t ri al co u rt ’s d et er m i n at i o n as t o t h e d ef en d an t ’s p ri o r r ec o rd an d

co n s ec u t ive sentenc in g.
CO NC LU SION

Ba sed upon the for eg oing a uthorities and re asoning , we a ffirm the ju d gm en t s o f t he trial
c ourt

.

___________________________________ AL AN E. GL ENN, JUDGE