### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Brie fs N ove m be r 22, 200 5 STATE OF TENNESS EE v . PAUL NEIL L AURENT Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 2003-B-1165 M ark J. F ishb urn, Jud ge

No. M2005- 00289-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Fe bruary 27, 2006

D AVI D G. H AYES , J

. , d i s s en t i n g. The majority

af f ir ms c o n s e c u tive sentenc es base d upon a finding that the appe llant’s criminal history is ex tensive. T.C.A. § 40-35-115(b)(2) . The pre -sentenc e re port ref lects no docume ntation of a prior c on vic tio n o f any

ty pe . T he app e llant’ s sta te me nts to the pr e -s e nte nc e of fi c e r i nd ic a te e xce ssi ve a lc oh ol anddr

ug abu se a ndthat hec omp le ted a dr ug a nda lc oh ol t

re a tme nt p ro g ram in 1983. Ba sed upon t he appellant’s s elf-r eporting of drug use , the majority conclude s that consec utive sentenc es ar e wa

rranted. I am unable to join with the majority in concluding that a def

endant’ s selfreporting of

unchar g ed alc ohol or drug abuse will war rant consecutive sentence s. This information is sought in the pre-sente nce report for t he purpose of fashioning an individualiz ed sente nce unde r sentenc ing g uidelines, not for purpose s of g athering inc riminating e videnc e. To utiliz e the of fe nd e r’ s state me nts wi thi n there po rt fo r i nc re a se d p e na l sanc tio ns is c ou nte rp ro du c tiv e in that it dis c ou ra g e s tr

uth fu lne ss andis i nc on sis te nt with the pu rp os e s o f the pr e -s e nte nc e re po rt . I f the State wishes to introduce e vidence of uncha rg ed criminal activity , then it may do so; however , the defe ndant should not be pena liz ed for candor

. Moreove r, t his case illustrates a serious void which e x ists in t he structur e of c onsecutive sentenc ing in this state. The g enesis of our co n s ec u t ive sentenc ing c lassifications stem from our supreme c ourt’s holding in Gr ayv . S tate , 538 S.W .2d 391 (Tenn. 1976) . The c lassifications in Gray included: (1) the persistent off ender ; (2) the pr ofessional c riminal; (3) the multiple offe nder; (4) the dang erous menta lly

abnorma l person; and ( 5) the dang erous of fende r. Id . at 393.
The Sentenc ing Commission comments ex press that “ [t ]he first four criteria [in T.C.A. § 40- 35 -1 15 ] we retake n d ir e c tly fr om Gr ayv . S tate . . . ” T h e s e ar e : ( 1 ) th e p r o f e s s io n a l c r im in a l; ( 2) the defe ndant whose rec ord of criminal activity is ex tensive; (3) the dang erous menta lly abnorma l person; and ( 4) the dang erous of fende r. See T.C.A. § 40-35-115( b)(1) -(4) (2003). The Sentencing Commi ssion comments further note that the per sistent offende r criteria a dopted in Gray was de leted by the 1989 Sentencing Act. The result, howeve r, which has f ollowed is that while ea ch of the four criteria was pe rhaps intende d to be the same , the criteria of the “mult i p l e off ender ” in Tenne ssee Cod e A n n o t a t e ds e c t i o n 4 0

- 3 5

- 1 1 5 ( b ) ( 2 ) h a s c l e ar l y r e c e i v e da

d i f f e r e n ti n t e rp r e t a t i o n t h a n its multipl e off

ender counter part in Gray

. Se e Sta te v . R ic k ey Cra wfo rd , No. 02C01-9806-CR-00169-2-

( T e n n
. C r i m
. A p p
. a tJ a c k s o n , M a y 1 2 , 1 9 9 9 ) ( T i p t o n , J

. , s e p ar a t e c o n c u rr i n g , j o i n e db y L a f f e rt y, S.J .).
Both Gray and Ten ne sse e Cod e An no tate d s e c tio n 4 0- 35 -1 15 (b )( 2) de fi ne themul tip le offe nder a s one whose rec ord of criminal activity is gr eat. Gray , 5 38 S.W. 2da t 39 3. Ev e ry app e llate decision which has ex amined the phrase “re cord of criminal ac tivity ” since the 1989 ena ctment of 40-35-115( b)(2) has done so with re fer enceto the offe nder’ s prior rec ord of criminal activity

. See State v. Palme r , 10 S.W .3d 638, 647-49 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) (discussing application of T.C.A. § 40-35- 1 1 5 (b )( 2 ) following revie w under Gray and 1989 Sentenc ing A ct.) In defining the term “re cord of

criminal ac tivity ,” Gray instructs, “[t] he prior r ecor d of the multiple offe nder may have been g ood, but the crimes f or which hehas bee n con v i ct ed indicate criminal ac tivityso ext ensive and continuing for suc h a period of time as to war rant c onsecutive se ntencing .” Gray , 538 S.W .2d at 393. Additionally , Gray provides that the definition of a multiple offe nder is consistent with the multipl e off

ender definition contained in the Mode l Penal Code. Id . (citi ng Model Penal Code § 7.03). Indeed, all four conse cutive sente ncing cate g ories of Gray wer e adopte d direc tly from the model code.
The Model Penal Code desc ribes the multiple offe nder a s an off ender who is befor e the c ourt to be sentenc ed for

more than onefe l o n y
. T his categ ory rec og nizes that the mult iple offe nder prese nts a leg itimate conce rn that conc urre nt sentence s will not re flec t the combined g ravity of the a c tio ns fo r wh ic h the de fe nd a nt is to be pe na lize d. Com me nts , M od e l Pe na l Co de § 7 .0 3. Th us , if wea c c e pt Gr

ay ’s pronounce ment that the definiti on of a multiple offe nder is der ived from the Mode l Pe na l Co de , andthat th e “ pri or recor d o f the mul tip le of fe nd e r m a y

ha ve be e n g oo d, ” the n it nece ssarily

follows that the re fer ence to “ extensive c riminal activity ” ref ers to cur rent a ctivity

from the multipl e convictions for which the defe ndant is be ing sentenc ed. This position i s further reinfor ced by

the fa ct that the per sistent of fende r criteria in Gray , deleted by the 1989 Sentencing Act, was based upon a his tory of prior c riminal convictions. Thus, it would be illogica l to have two consec utive sentenc ing c ateg ories base d upon the same c riteria. T he res u l t is that the persistent offe nder unde r Gray , which wa s based on a history of prior convictions, is now the multipl e off ender under Te nnesse e C ode Annotate d section 40-35- 115(b)( 2), and the multipl e off ender as c o n t e m p l a t e db y Gray no longe r exists

. The e nd result is that the appe llant in this case , who would have q u al i fi ed fo r conse cutive sentenc es as a

mult i p l e off

ender under Gray , now esc apes c onsecutive se ntencing unless he, per c hanc e , q ua lif

ie s u nd e r so me oth e r c on se c uti ve se nte nc ing c ri te ri a . T his se nte nc ing vo id e ff e c tiv e ly provides a fre e pass to the multipl e offe nder w hose prior r ecor d may have be en g ood, “but the crimes for whic h he ha s b een c onvicted indicate criminal ac tivityso ext ensive and continuing f or such a p e r i o d o f t i m e a s t o w arr a n tc o n s e c u t i v e s e n t e n c i n g , ” a s r e c o g n i z e db y Gray

. Moreove r, the loss of the multiple offende r ca t ego ryunder Gray does little to deter the c ommissi on of multiple crimes stemming fr om a sing le criminal episode.
B e c au s e th e ap p e ll a n t f

a il s to me e t an y

o f th e d e f in e ds tatu to ry

c r it e r ia f o r c o nsecutive sentenc ing, I

am unable to join with the majority with reg ard to this issue.

____________________________________ DAVID G. HAY ES, J UDGE