IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs December 15, 2015

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHRISTOPHER FRALIX

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Sullivan County

No. S63182 R. Jerry Beck, Judge

No. E2015-01115-CCA-R3-CD – Filed March 22, 2016

_____________________________

The defendant, Christopher Fralix, pled guilty to one count of robbery, a Class C felony,

and one count of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, in exchange for an effective 

sentence of six years. The trial court denied all forms of alternative sentencing and 

ordered the defendant to serve his sentence in incarceration. He now appeals, arguing 

that the trial court abused its discretion in denying an alternative sentence. Following our 

review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. 

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Criminal Court Affirmed

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which D. KELLY 

THOMAS, JR., J., joined. ROGER A. PAGE, J., not participating.

C. Brad Sproles, Kingsport, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Christopher Fralix.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Ahmed Safeeullah, Assistant 

Attorney General; Barry Staubus, District Attorney General; and Julie R. Canter, 

Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case arose after the defendant broke into the victim‟s home, assaulted her, 

and stole money and a cell phone from her. The facts are taken from the defendant‟s 
2

presentence report containing statements from Detective Jonathan Carter, from the 

victim, and from the defendant regarding the incident that led to his convictions. 

On the evening of the incident, the victim put her infant daughter to bed and 

watched a movie in her living room. Around 9:30 or 10:00 p.m., the victim heard a 

knock on her door. She opened the door and saw the defendant standing in the doorway. 

He was wearing a white shirt and black shorts. The defendant said that he wanted 

money, and the victim replied that she did not have any. The defendant grabbed her 

throat, pushing her back into the residence. He struck her in the face several times and 

continued to demand money. The victim eventually told the defendant that she had some 

money in her back pocket, and she handed him $140.00. He then told the victim that he 

was calling a ride and that she was not allowed to get up until he had departed. He also 

told the victim that he would leave her phone on the front porch. The victim stayed on 

the floor in her residence until the defendant was gone. She went to a neighbor‟s home, 

and the neighbor contacted police for the victim. 

The victim identified the defendant by his first name when speaking with 

Detective Carter, and she told Detective Carter that she had met the defendant on a dating 

website. The victim later positively identified the defendant as her attacker. When police 

located the defendant, they received consent to search the residence where he was found. 

In the defendant‟s bedroom, officers found a white t-shirt and black pants with what 

appeared to be blood on them, along with bloody pillow cases on the bed. The victim‟s 

phone and identification were found under the defendant‟s bed. The phone was in three 

pieces, and the battery was removed. The victim‟s money was not recovered. 

After this incident, the defendant was charged with one count of robbery, one 

count of aggravated burglary, one count of aggravated assault, and one count of 

aggravated kidnapping. He pled guilty to the counts of robbery and aggravated burglary

in exchange for a six-year sentence and a dismissal of the aggravated kidnapping charge. 

The trial court held a hearing to determine the manner of service of the defendant‟s 

sentence. 

At the hearing, the trial court considered the defendant‟s presentence report and 

noted that the defendant had over twenty convictions for criminal offenses in Tennessee, 

South Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Nevada, and Virginia, along with pending charges in 

Colorado. The defendant testified that the State‟s recitation of his prior convictions was 

accurate. The defendant testified that he had learned from his mistakes and was willing 

to accept whatever requirements the court would impose if he received an alternative 

sentence. He testified that he had problems with alcohol abuse, that he had been accepted

into a rehabilitation program, and that he would be willing to attend the program. The 

defendant explained that he came to appreciate the value of his family while he was 
3

incarcerated pending his sentencing hearing. He testified that he had learned that he 

could not “always do things [his] way.” He stated that he could not currently enroll in a 

GED class but that he was studying independently to prepare for the test. 

The defendant testified that he had been in the custody of the State since he was 

two years old. He spent time in various foster homes before he was adopted at the age of 

seven. He later returned to State custody but was released before his eighteenth birthday. 

The defendant testified that he wanted an alternative sentence so that he could spend 

more time with his biological mother and help care for her medical needs. 

The defendant agreed that he had received thirteen disciplinary actions in the

seventeen months that he was in jail between his arrest and the sentencing hearing. He 

agreed that one action was noted as recently as four months before his sentencing 

hearing. The defendant agreed that he had threatened a guard, although he disagreed that 

he threatened to kill the guard. He also agreed that he was verbally abusive, cruel, and 

threatening to his mother in phone calls that he made from jail before a prior bond 

reduction hearing. He agreed that he had asked his mother to say certain things when she 

was in court during the bond reduction hearing. 

The defendant‟s mother testified that she had several serious medical problems. 

She testified that the defendant would assist her if he were released. She testified that she 

had noticed a recent positive change in the defendant‟s behavior. She stated that she 

would have no concerns if the defendant was released into the community. 

The trial court denied the defendant alternative sentencing. The court found that 

the defendant had one of the most extensive criminal records that the court had ever seen. 

The court noted that the defendant‟s numerous misdemeanor convictions. The court cited 

to the defendant‟s numerous reported violations while in jail, stating that the violations

“indicate a bad social history” and “prior bad conduct while in the jail.” The court noted 

the “very negative presentence report,” which included numerous convictions, “many of 

which [were] outstanding in other states.” After considering the evidence presented at

the hearing, the court denied all forms of alternative sentencing. The court also denied 

community corrections, finding that there was “no possibility that Community 

Corrections would benefit the Defendant or be in the best interest of the public.”

ANALYSIS

The defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider 

the defendant‟s potential for rehabilitation. He also contends that the order to serve his 

sentence in confinement resulted in an excessive sentence. The State responds that the 

trial court properly sentenced the defendant.
4

When imposing a sentence, the trial court should consider: (1) the evidence, if any, 

received at trial and at the sentencing hearing; (2) the presentence report; (3) the 

principles of sentencing and arguments as to sentencing alternatives; (4) the nature and 

characteristics of the criminal conduct involved; (5) evidence and information offered by 

the parties on the applicable enhancement and mitigating factors; (6) any statistical 

information provided by the administrative office of the courts as to sentencing practices 

for similar offenses in Tennessee; and (7) any statement the defendant wishes to make in 

his own behalf about sentencing. T.C.A. § 40-35-210(b)(1)-(7) (2010). This court 

reviews the denial of an alternative sentence that falls within the appropriate range and 

reflects that the decision was based on the purposes and principles of sentencing under an 

“abuse of discretion standard, accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness.” State 

v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012). This court should uphold a sentence 

“so long as it is within the appropriate range and the record demonstrates that the 

sentence is otherwise in compliance with the purposes and principles listed by statute.” 

State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 709-10 (Tenn. 2012).

A defendant “who is an especially mitigated or standard offender convicted of a 

Class C, D, or E felony[] should be considered as a favorable candidate for alternative 

sentencing options in the absence of evidence to the contrary.” T.C.A. § 40-35-

102(6)(A). Additionally, a defendant who receives a sentence of ten years or less may be 

eligible for probation. T.C.A. § 40-35-303(a). However, the defendant bears the burden 

of establishing that he or she is a suitable candidate for probation. T.C.A. § 40-35-

303(b). “This burden includes demonstrating that probation will „subserve the ends of 

justice and the best interest of both the public and the defendant.‟” State v. Carter, 254 

S.W.3d 335, 347 (Tenn. 2008) (quoting State v. Housewright, 982 S.W.2d 354, 357 

(Tenn. Crim. App. 1997)). In determining whether full probation is appropriate, the trial 

court “may consider the circumstances of the offense, the defendant‟s potential or lack of 

potential for rehabilitation, whether full probation will unduly depreciate the seriousness 

of the offense, and whether a sentence other than full probation would provide an 

effective deterrent to others likely to commit similar crimes.” State v. Boggs, 932 S.W.2d 

467, 477 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). 

In determining whether incarceration is an appropriate sentence, the trial court 

should consider whether:

(A) Confinement is necessary to protect society by restraining a defendant 

who has a long history of criminal conduct;
5

(B) Confinement is necessary to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the 

offense or confinement is particularly suited to provide an effective 

deterrence to others likely to commit similar offenses; or

(C) Measures less restrictive than confinement have frequently or recently 

been applied unsuccessfully to the defendant.

T.C.A. § 40-35-103(1)(A)-(C). Additionally, the trial court should consider the 

defendant‟s potential or lack thereof for rehabilitation or treatment in determining 

whether an alternative sentence is warranted. T.C.A. § 40-35-103(5). 

The record supports the trial court‟s denial of an alternative sentence. The trial 

court denied probation based on the defendant‟s lengthy criminal history, and the court 

denied community corrections on the basis that it would not benefit the defendant or be in 

the best interest of the public. The trial court heard the defendant‟s testimony that he was 

willing to enter a rehabilitation program, but the court also considered the defendant‟s 

presentence report, which contains dozens of convictions for a variety of crimes in 

several different states. The trial court found that the defendant continued his criminal 

conduct while in jail, and the presentence report and the defendant‟s own testimony 

confirm that he received thirteen disciplinary actions while incarcerated and awaiting his 

sentencing hearing. The defendant‟s presentence report also indicates that measures less 

restrictive than confinement have been unsuccessfully applied to the defendant. Despite

receiving probation for several of his prior convictions, the defendant continued to 

engage in criminal misconduct. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in ordering the defendant to serve his sentence in confinement, and the 

defendant is not entitled to any relief. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing analysis, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

_________________________________

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE