### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ma rc h 19
, 200 8

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . KRIS TA REGI NA LESCH

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty Nos. 2002-A- 375, 385, and 486 S teve Dozier , Judge

No. M2007- 00429-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Jun e 25, 2008

The de fenda

nt, Krista Reg ina L esch, ple d g uilty to three counts of obt aining a S chedule I Icontrolled substance by

fra ud (Class D fe lony) and attempted child neg lect (Class E felony ). She wa s sentence d

a s a Rang e I , s tand ard

of fe nd e r t o tw o y e ars on

c omm un ity c or re c tio ns fo r one of the C la ss D felonies a nd to one y ear on community corr ections for the C lass E felony , with the sentenc es to run

concur rently with cre dit f

or time serve d. She was fur ther sente nced to two y ear s on both of the other Class D felony convictions, with those sentenc es to r un consec utively to the other sentenc e for a total eff ective se ntence of si x y ea rs , with time served a nd the balanc e on community corr ections. The defe ndant violated the t er m s of her community

corr ections sentenc es on seve ral oc casions and
eventua lly

had her sentenc es revoke d and incre ased. On appea l, she argues that the trial c ourt err ed in r e vo kin g he r c omm

un ity c or re c tio ns re le a se and in inc re a sin g he r e ff e c tiv e se nte nc e fr om s ix to nine y ear s. After

car eful re view, we conclude that no err or exists and af firm the judg ments from the
tr ia l c ourt

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

the Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON , P.J
., and J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J ., joined.

Michae l A. Colavecc hio, Bre ntwood, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Krista Reg ina L esch.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; L e sli e E. Pr ic e , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; Victor S. (Torr

y ) Johns on, I I I , District Attorney Gene ral; and A m y E isenbec k, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

The de fenda

nt pled g uilty

to three c ounts of obtaining a Schedule I I controlled substanc e by fra ud and one c ount of attempted c hild ne gl ec t an d wa s sentence d to community corr ections. On

se ve ra l oc c a sions , w arr ants fo r t he de fe nd ant w e re iss ue d d ue to v iol a tio ns of

he r c omm

un ity

corr ect io n s s e n te n c e s

. A f te r e a c h o f

f e n s e , th e c o u rt h e ld a h e ar in g an d e it h e r r e in s tate d her-2-

alternative sentenc e or or dere d a per iod of confine ment foll o we d b y a re turn to the alternative
sentenc es.

The most rec ent incident, g iving r ise to this appeal, occ urre d on October 4, 2006, when a

n

arres t wa rr ant w a s is su e d c ha

rg ingthe de fe nd ant w ithvio la tio n o f t he te rm s o f h e r c omm

un ity

c or re c tio ns re le a se by : r e fu sin g to g ive a ur ine sampl e ; a

ne w o ff e ns e , a n a rr e st f or be ingin possession of drugpara

pherna lia and driving on a suspended license; fa ilure to complete dr ug tr e a tme nt; a nd

fa ilure to i nf

or m he r c omm

un ity c or re c tio ns of

fi c e r of he r arr e st. A h e ari ngwa s h e ld on November 30, 2006, and the trial judge sustained t he warra nt and continued the case . The c ourt enter ed an a

mended judg ment that indicated the c ommunity corr ections sentenc e wa s revoke d. A

se nte nc inghe ari ngwa s h e ld o f Janu ary 11 , 2 00 7, and

the c ourt too k th e ma tte r u

nd e r a dv ise me nt. On J anuar

y 25, 2007, the trial court issued a re-sente ncing order and increase d the def endant’ s total eff ective se ntence from six to nine y ear s. Specific al l y , the trial cour t increa sed ea ch of the defe ndant’s sente nces f

or Class D fe lony

convictions from two y ear s t o t h re e y ea rs . The ne w judgme nts were enter ed on J anuar y 31, 2007, and the defe ndant filed a notice of appea l on Febr

uary 16, 2007.

Duri ng the No ve mbe r 30
, 20 06 Com mun ity Cor re c tio ns Vi olatio n H e ari ng , a de te c tiv e wi th the Na sh vil le Pol ic e De pa rtme nt t e sti fi e d th a t he wa s in vo lve d in a “ buy bu st o pe ratio n” on

Au g us t 28, 2006, that resulted in a drug dealer being arr ested. L ater that day
, he rece ived a phone call on the deale r’s cell phone. He a nswere d the phone, a

nd a fe male voice order ed four Dilaudid pills. The detec tive arr ang ed to meet the c aller in the s ame alley wher e the drug deale r had been a rre sted and was told she would be dr iving a blue Pontiac Sunfire.

The d e te c ti v e te s ti f

ie d th a t h e w e n t to th e lo c a ti o n an d o b s e r v e d a v e h ic le matching the descr iption given to him by the woman on the phone. He stopped the vehicle a nd deter mined that the def endant wa s the driver

and that the woma

n he spoke to on the phone wa s the passeng er in the

ve hic le . H e te sti fi e d th a t th e de fe nd ant d id n ot h a ve a va lid dr ive r’ s lic e ns e

. A s e arc h o f t he ve hic le
pr od uc e d tw o sy

ri ng e s with y e llo w re sid

ue on the m w hic h th e de te c tiv e sa id w a s c on sis te nt f or us e with Dilaudid.

Th e de fe nd ant’ s c omm

un it y c o r r e c t i o n s o f

f i c e r t e s t i f i e d th a t sh e vis ite d th e de fe nd ant’ s h ome on September 30, 2006, beca use the defe ndant had resc heduled twenty -three office visits in less than thr e e mon ths and

ha d n ot a lw ay s p ro vid e d d oc ume ntatio n f or he r a bs e nc e s. Th e of

fi c e r t e sti fi e d th a t, when she took out the drug scree n, the defendant beg an shaking and her ey es “got re ally big.” The defe ndant told the office r that she did not want to do a drug scre en beca use she ha d taken a

L ortab. The de fenda

nt also told the community corr ections off

icer t h at she c ould not use the bathroom beca use the toilet was br oken; howeve r, a ma le in the hom e used the bathroom during the t ime the office r wa s there. She said that she waited fiftee n minutes f or the defe ndant to take the test a nd then left the house be cause “it was c lear ” the de fenda nt did not want to take the drugtest. The def endant ha d ta ke n a dr ugte st e le ve n day s earl ie r wit h a neg a tiv e re su lt. A f

e w d ay s late r, the de fe nd ant c a me to t he of fi c e r a nd too k a dr ugte st w itha

ne g a tiv e re su lt.-3-

The c ommunity

corr ections off

icer testified that, eve n though the court ha d o rd er ed the defe ndant not to live with her husband, she was living with both her husband a nd her mother

at the time of the drug scre en. She said the def endant did not complete the Pathfinders c ourse a s order ed by the c ourt

and did no t r e po rt

that sh e ha d o bta ined new cri min a l c ha rg e s a ft e r h e r a

rr e st i n September 2006. She te stified that the defendant knew she was to repor t any arr ests as a c ondition of her community

corr ections re lease

.

On Janu ary 11
, 20 07
, the tr ia l c ourt c on du c te d a re -s e nte nc ing he ari ng in which th e state introdu ce d the community corr ections re -sentenc ing r eport, whic h listed the defe ndant’s prior violations. I n addition to the community corr ections violations, the de fenda nt had prior c onvictions for criminal trespass, shoplifting, theft of proper ty , forg ery , ag g ravated assault, c ri m i nal impersonation, and numer ous traff ic violations.

During the hea

ring , the def

endant testified that she had a prior hist o ry o f d ru g abuse. She

a lso ackn owle dg e d th a t sh e fa ile d to g ive a dr ugsampl e duri nga

ho me vis it b y

he r c omm

un ity

corr ections off

icer . She stated that she wa s afr aid the test would be positive for drug s beca

use she had take n a Da

rvoce t for a mig raine heada che. The Da rvoce t had bee n presc ribed for her sister. She testified t hat s he had worke d hard to stay clea n and did not want the incide nt to set her bac k. She said she told the community corr ections off

icer that she took a L ortab be cause , at the time, she thought that wa s what s h e t o o k

. On l y later did she look at the bottle and discover that it was Dar vocet r ather

than L ortab.

The de fenda

nt said she had not tested positive for drug s at any

other ti me whil e she w as on

c omm un ity c or re c tio ns and

te sti fi e d th a t sh e ha d no t us e d dr ug s e xce pt fo r thi s p art ic ula r i nc ide nt. She said that she had missed a number of her appointments with her c ommunity corr ections off

icer beca use her d au ghter ha d been hospitalized, but she ac knowledg ed that her repor ting ha d been

err atic.

The de fenda

nt acknowle dg ed that she w as g uilty of driving on a s uspended lice nse and possession of drugpara

pherna lia. She claimed that she was g iving he r fr iend a r ide to meet someone

and did no t r e a lize wh a t w a s h a

pp e nin g un til he r f

ri e nd c a lle d s ome on e and

a sk e d f or pil ls.

The de fenda

nt testified that she had taken sever al classe s in a prog ram c alled B rea king the Cha ins . Sh e a lso te sti fi e d th a t sh e wa s invo lve d in a twe lve -s te p re c ov e ry pr og ra m c a lle d Ce le br a te Re c ov e ry and that sh e re g ula

rl y a tte nd e d N arc oti c s A no ny mou s me e tin g s.

An a ly sis

The de fenda

nt argues that the trial court err ed in inc rea sing her sentenc es from two to three
y e ars e a c h a

nd in r e vo kin g he r c omm

un ity c or re c tio ns se nte nc e . T he Ten nesse e Com mun ity Cor re c tio ns Ac t of

19 85 , w hic h g ov e rn s c omm un ity c or re c tio ns se nte nc e s, pr ov ide s th a t: [t]he c ourt

sh a ll .

. . po sse ss t

he po we r t o r e voke th e sente nc e imp os e d at any tim e due to the conduc t of the def endant

. . . and the court may rese ntence the def endant-4-

to any appropr iate sente ncing alternative, including incar cer ation, for a ny period of tim e up to t

he ma ximumse nte nc e pr ov ide d for the of fe ns e c omm itt e d, le ss a

ny tim e actua lly serve d in any

community -base d alternative to incarc eration. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(e )(4)

. The trial court may revoke a community corr ections sentenc e up on fi nd ing , b y

a prepon dera nce of th e e vid e nc e , th a t an o ff e nd e r v iol a te d th e c on dit ion s o f h is suspended se ntence . See S t at e v. Harkins, 811 S.W .2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991) . The trial c ourt’s

revoc ation of a c ommunity corr ections sentenc e will be upheld ab sent an a buse of discr etion. I d. An abuse of di scre tion occur s if the re cord c ontains no substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trial c ourt that a violation of community corr ections has oc curr ed. I d.

The re cord c ontains evidenc e to support the trial c ourt’s conc lusion that the defenda nt violated the ter

ms of her c ommunity

corr ections re lease . The de tective testified that he stopped the de fe nd ant’ s v e hic le ba se d on inf or ma tio n tha t one of its oc c up ants wa s atte mpt ingto p ur c ha se dr ug s. Th e de fe nd ant w a s un a

ble to pr od

uc e a va lid dr ive r’ s lic e ns e a ft e r the sto p. A s e arc h o f t he ve hic le

reve aled two sy

ring es t hat appeare d to have be en used f or drug s. The def

endant a cknowledg ed she had re offe nded while on community corr ections. Fur ther, the de fenda

nt’s community

corr ections office r testified that the de fenda nt did not report the new

offe nses as re quired by

her te rms of re lease

. The de fenda

nt also violated the terms o f her r elea se by ref using to submit to a drug test and by failing to c omplete drug treatment a s order ed by the trial court. The rec ord supports the trial c ourt’s fi nd ing s that the de fe nd ant vio la te d the te rm s of he r re le a se ; the re fo re , the tr ia l c ourt did no t a bu se its discretion and the de fenda nt is not entit led to any

relief on this iss ue.

Next, the defenda

nt argues that the trial cour t improperly

incre ased he r sentenc es fr om two y ear s to three y ear s. When a criminal def endant challeng es the leng th, rang e, or ma nner of service of a se nte nc e imp os e d by the tr ia l c ourt , thi s c ourt mus t c on du c t a

de no vo re vie w o f t

he re c or d w ith
a pre sumption t hat the sente ncing deter minations made by

the trial cour

t ar e co rr ec t. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d). “The presumption is conditioned upon t he af firmative showingin the rec ord that the trial court considere d the sentenc ing principles and all rele vant fac ts a n d circumstances.” State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991)

.

So longa s th e s e n te n c in g c o u rt f o ll o w e d th e a p p r o p r iate s tatuto r

y p r o c e d u r e an d impose d a lawf ul sentence afte r g iving due consideration a nd proper weig ht to the fac tors and princ iples under law and so long as the s entenc ing court’s findings of fac ts are adequately supported by the re cord, the n [th e a

pp e llate c ourt ] may

no t mo dif

y the se nte nc e , ev e n if ac tua lly pr e fe rr ing a dif fe re nt r e su lt. State v. Goodwin, 143 S.W .3d 771, 783 (Tenn. 2004) (citing State v. Pike, 978 S.W .2d 904, 926- 27(Tenn.1998) ).

The defe n d an t ’s original sentenc e wa s to two y ear s for e ach of her thre e Class D fe lony convictions. As a R an ge I offe nder, she was subjec t to a sentenc e of two to four y ear s for e ach conviction

. T enn. C ode Ann. § 40- 35-112. The tr ial court e nhance d the def endant’ s sentence beca use of her previous history of criminal convictions or beha vior, in addition to those necessa ry to e stablish the rang e pursuant to T ennesse e Code Annotated se ction 40-35-114( 1). The c ourt noted that the def

endant ha d sever al misdemeanor convictions, in addition to convictions for f org ery and-5-

the ft , th a t oc c ur

re d w hil e sh e wa s o n c omm un ity c or re c tio ns . T he c ourt is pe rm itt e d to c on sid e r t his fa c tor in e nh anc ingthe de fe nd ant’ s se nte nc e , a nd no e rr or e xists

.

Be cause t h e court determined that the defe ndant violated her community

corr ections

se nte nc e s, the c ourt

wa s w ith in i ts d isc re tio n in or de ri ngthe de fe nd ant t o con fi ne me nt a nd in enhanc ing he r sentenc es.

Conclusion

Ba sed on the for eg oing a

nd the re cord a s a whole, we c onclude that no e rror exis ts and aff

irm the jud g me nts fr om t

he tr ia l c ourt

.

___________________________________ J OHN EV ERETT WI L L I AMS, J UDGE