### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jun e 21, 200 5
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. TON EY JASON HA LE
Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Bedf ord County Nos. 15409, 15410 Lee Russell, Judge

No. M2004- 01370-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Augu st 2, 2005

Th e de fe nd a nt, To ne y

Jaso n H a le , p le d g uil ty

in the B e df

or d Co un ty

Cir c uit Cou rt to thr e e c ou nts o f b u r g l ar y o f

a n a u t o m o b i l e , a

C l a s s E f e l o n y, a n d e s c ap e f

r o m a p e n a l i n s t i t u t i o n , a

C l a s s E f e l o n y. He c ommitt ed these offe nses while serving an effec tive ten-y ear sentenc e on probation for crimes committed in Marsha ll County

. The de fendant was sentenc ed as a Rang e I , standard of

fende r to one y ear , six months for ea ch convic tion, pursuant to a neg otiated plea a g ree ment, with the issue of
consec utive s en t encing to be dec ided by the trial court. After a

sentenc ing he aring , the trial court order ed two of the three sentenc es for the burg lary convictions to be serve d concur rently with eac h oth e r b ut c on se c uti ve ly

to the se nte nc e fo r the thi rd c on vic tio n. Th e tr ia l c ou rt fu rthe r o rd e re d th e se se nte nc e s to ru n c on se c uti ve ly to h is s e nte nc e fo r the esca pe offe ns e a ndc on se c uti ve ly to h is previous ten- y ear

sentenc e, for

an eff ective sentenc e of fourtee n y ear s, six months in t he Te nnessee Depa rtment of Corre ction. On appe al, the def endant c ontends that the trial court e rre d by ordering
c on se c uti ve se nte nc e s. We a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ou rt

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

the Circ uit Court Aff

irm ed

J OS EP H M. T I PTON , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P .J., a ndJ.C. M C L IN , J ., joined. N. Andy Myrick, Jr., Fay etteville, Tenne ssee ( on appea l), and Richard A. C awley , Shelby ville, Tenne ssee ( at trial), f

or the a ppellant, Toney

J ason Ha le.

Paul G. Sum me rs , Atto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Jenn if e r L . B le ds oe , A ssi stant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil liam Michae l M cC o wn , District Attorney Gene ral; and Micha el D. Randles a nd Ann L . Filer , Assistant District Attorney s Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
. OP IN ION

At th e s e n te n c in g h e ar in g , th e s tate s u b mi tt e d th e d e f e n d a n t’ s p r e s e n te n c e in v e s ti g a tion
re p o rt an d as k ed t h e t ri al c o u r t t o co n s i d ert h e e v i d en ce p re s en t ed at h i s p l eas u b m i s s i o n h ea ri n g. No witnesses testified at the sentenc ing hearing. I n revie wing the pre sentenc e re port, the trial court-2-

noted the following : The defe ndant was eig hteen y ear s old at the time of the hearing and that at the
a g e of se ve nte e n, he ple d g uil ty to f if te e n c ou nts of

aut om ob ile b ur g lary

a ndon e c ou nt o f s imp le burg lary in the Marsha ll Count y

Circuit Court. He re ceive d a sente nce of ten y ears probation for those offe nses, all of which wer e commit ted on Marc h 10 and 11, 2003. As a juvenile, the def

endant
wa s a dju dic a te d d e lin qu e nt b a se d o n f our as sault s, bu rg lary

of a n auto mob ile , c ri min a l tr e sp a ss, a g g ra vate d a

rs on , a nddis or de rl y

c on du c t. T he de fe nd a nt c omm itt ed th ese de lin qu e nt a c ts i n Rutherford County

when he was between the ag es of thirteen and sevente en. He a lso had a history of probation violations . The trial c ourt observe d that by statute, the sentenc e for the fe lony

esca pe conviction must be serve d consec utively to the sentenc es re ceive d for the c harg es for which he w as being held at the time he e scape d. See T.C.A. § 39-16- 605(c)

. The trial court found that conse cutive sente nces w ere war rante d in this case base d upon two criteria provided in T.C.A. § 40-35- 115(b): (2) the proof pr esente d of the de fendant’s extensive
rec ord of c riminal activity , and (6) the fa ct the def endant wa s being sentenc ed for offe nses committed while on probation. The trial court stated that g iven the def endant’ s ext ensive c riminal history and the f ailure of p ro b at i o n to deter him fr om continuing to commit crimes, c onsecutive sentenc es would also ser ve to protec t the public.

T h e d e f e n d a n t c o n te n d s th a t th e tria l c o u r t e rr e d b y o r d e r in g tw o o f

h is s e n te n c e s f

o r the automobile burg lary

convictions to run conse cutively to the t hird and by order ing the sentenc es for the B edfor d Countyconvictions to run conse cutively to his effe ctive ten- y ear sentence for

the Ma rs ha ll Coun ty

of fe ns e s. He a sse rt s th a t hi s e ff e c tiv e se nte nc e of

fo urte e n a ndon e -h a lf

y e ars is not justly deserved in relation to the s eriousness of the offenses and that it is gr eate r than de serve d for the of fense s committed. He cla ims that the prima ry purpose of

consec utive sentenc es for de fe nd a nts wi th e xten siv e c ri min a l re c or ds is to pr ote c t the pu bli c fr om an in div idu a l no t li ke ly to be re habilitated and that the rec ord contains no proof to indicate re habilitation was not possible. The state ar g ues that t he sentencing issue is waived because t he defenda nt failed to include a transc ript of th e g u il ty p le a h e ar in g in th e ap p e ll a te r e c o r d

. A lt e r n a ti v e ly , th e s tate c o n te n d s th a t th e re cord supports the trial court’s sentenc ing de termination.

When a def

endant a ppeals the leng th, rang e, or ma nner of service of a se ntence imposed by the trial court, this court conducts a de novo revie w of the re cord w ith a presumption that the trial
c ou rt ’s de te rm inatio ns are c or re c t. T .C. A. § 4 0-35- 40 1( d) . T he pr e su mpt ionof c or re c tne ss i s “conditioned upon the a ffirmative showing in the rec ord that the trial c ourt consider ed t he sente ncing principles and a ll releva nt fac ts and circ umstances.” State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991). The bur den of showing that the sentenc e is improper is upon the a ppealing party . T.C.A. § 40 -3 5- 40 1( d) , Se nte nc ing Com mis sio n Co mme nts . I f the re c or d sho ws that the tr ia l cou rt faile d to consider the sentenc ing principles and a ll releva nt fac t s and circumstance s, then revie w of the sentenc e is de novo. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169.

Ho we v e r , “ t h e p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o rr e c t n e s s w h i c h a c c o m p a n i e s t h e tr i a l c o u r t ’ s a c t ion is conditioned upon the aff

irmative showing in the rec ord that the trial court considere d the sentenc ing-3-

principles and a ll releva nt fac ts and circumstance s.” S tate v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991). I n this reg ard, f

or the purpose of mea ningf ul appellate r eview,

the trial court must pl ace on the re cord its re asons for a rriving at the final sentenc ing de cision, identify the mitigating and enh an ce ment fac tor s found, state the spe cific f acts supporting eac h enhanc ement fac tor found, and a

rt iculate how the mitigating and enhanceme nt fac tors have be en eva luated an d b a la n c e d in determining the se ntence

. T.C.A. § 40-35-210( f) ( 1990).

State v. J ones, 883 S.W.2d 597, 599 (Tenn. 1994).

I n conducting our de novo r eview, w e must c onsider (1) the evidenc e, if any , rec eived at the trial and s en tencing hearing, ( 2) the pre sentenc e re port, (3) the principles of se ntencing and
arg ume nts a s to se nte nc ing a lte rn a tiv e s, (4 ) the natur e a ndc ha ra c te ri sti c s o f thec ri min a l c on du c t, (5) a ny mitigating or statutory

enhanc ement fa ctors, (6) any statement that the defe ndant made on his own behalf, and (7) the pote ntial for re habi l i t at i o n o r treatment. T.C.A. §§ 40-35-102, -103, -210; see A shby , 823 S.W .2d at 168; State v. Moss, 727 S.W .2d 229, 236-37 (Te nn. 1986).

I nitially , we note that any

evidenc e pre sented at the g uiltyplea he aring should be consider ed in determining the appr opriate se ntence . See T

. C

. A. § 40-35-210( b)(1) . Howeve r, the de fenda nt ha s f a ile d to inc lud e in the re c or d o n app eal a tr a ns c ri pt o f the g uil ty ple a he ari ng re la tin g to h is convictions. I t is the duty of the defe ndant to pr epar e a fair, acc urate , and complete rec ord on appe al to e na ble me a nin g fu l app e llate re vie w. T. R.A .P. 24

. F a ilu re to i nc lud e the tr a ns c ri pt o f the g uil ty plea he aring in the rec ord prohibits the court’ s condu ct i n g a full de novo r eview of the sentenc e under T.C.A. § 40- 35-210(b)

. I n any event, we c onclude the trial court did not err by imposing conse cutive sente nces. A s noted by the trial court, the defe ndant has fiftee n prior convictions for bur g lary of an automobile and one convic tion for burg lary . His juvenile rec ord is also extensive. Moreover , it is undi sputed that the def endant c ommitt ed the B edfor d Countyoffe nses while on probation for the off e n s e s c o mmit

te d in M ars ha ll Co un ty

. Ac c or din g ly , the re c or d a mpl y su pp orts the tr ia l c ou rt ’s fi nd ing that th e c ri te ri a provided in T.C.A. § 40-35- 115(b)( 2) and ( 6) we re ap p l i ca b l e in the def endant’ s case and that
consec utive sentenc ing w as prope r. We note that the de fenda nt’s sentenc e for his felony

esca pe conviction must be serve d consec utively to the sentenc es re ceive d for the c harg es f o r wh ich the defe ndant was be ing he ld at the time he esca ped. See T.C.A. § 39-16-605( c). A s for the de fenda nt’s arg ument that the re cord c ontains no proof he could not be r ehabilitated, we note the def endant ha s not established that he ha s any such potential.-4-

Ba sed o n t h e fo reg oing and the re cord a s a whole, the judgme nts of the trial court are aff irmed.

___________________________________ J OSEPH M. TI PTON, J UDGE