### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A pr il 22, 200 9

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. AN THON Y D REW DR AKE

Appeal f rom the Cr im inal Cou rt for Mar shall County No. 08-CR -3 Rober t Cr igler, Judge

No. M2008- 02441-CCA -R3-C D - F iled April 30, 2009

Upon his pleas of gu i l ty , the Def endant, Anthony

Dre w Dra

ke, wa s convicted of

one count of burg lar y o f a b u il d in g o th e r th an a h a b it a ti o n ( a Cl a s s D f

e lo n y )
, e ig h t c o u n ts o f b u r g la

r y of an automobile (Class E felon i es ) an d s ix counts of misdemea nor theft. Sentenc ing w as left to the dis c re tio n o f t

he tr ia l c ourt . F oll ow inga se nte nc inghe ari ng , th e De fe nd ant w a s se nte nc e d a s a Rang e I I , multipl e offen d er t o t erms of five y ear s for the Class D f elony and thre e y ear s for e ach Cla ss E fe lony

c on vic tio n. Th re e of the thr e e -y e ar s e nte nc e s w e re or de re d to be se rv e d c on c ur re ntl y with one another

and consecu t i v el y t o the five- y ear sentenc e. Two of

the re maining thr ee- y ear sentenc es were ordere d to be served concurre ntly with one another and consec utively to the five-y ear
an d thr e e

- y e ar c o n s e c u ti v e s e n te n c e s , f o r an e f f e c ti v e s e n te n c e o f e le v e n y e ar s

. O n appea l, the De fe nd ant a

rgue s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d b y re fu sin g to a llo w h im t o s e rv e his se nte nc e s in

c omm un ity c or re c tio ns . We a ff

ir m th e jud g me nts of

the tr ia l c ourt

.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt s o f the Ci r c uitCo ur t A ffirm e d

D AVI D H. W EL L ES , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.

An dr e w Ja c ks on De ari ng , I I I , As sis tant Pub lic De fe nd e r, She lby vil le
, Te nn e sse e , fo r t

he a pp e lla nt, Anthony Dre w Dra

ke.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; Matthew B ry ant Haske ll, Assist ant Attorney Gene ral; Charles Crawf

ord, District Attorney Gene ral; and Weakley E. Ba rnar d, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

F ac tu al B ac kgr ound W e f i rs ts u m m ar i z e t h e u n d er l y i n g fa ct s as p re s en t ed at t h e gu i l t y p l eas u b m i s s i o nh ea ri n g. Duri ngthe e arl y

mor nin g ho ur s o f O c tob e r 2 8, 20 07 , th e De fenda nt b ur g lari zed

e ig ht s e pa

rate-2-

automobiles belong ing to se parate victims a nd one building other than a habitation not ope n to the pu bli c . Se e Te nn . Co de Ann. § 3 9- 14 -4 02 (a )( 1) and (4 ). Nume ro us ite ms w e re sto le n d ur ingthe se burg laries, includinga che ckbook, hedg e trim mer, blankets, tools, paint spray er a nd a compa ct-discpla y e r f a c e plate . Se e Te nn . Co de A nn

. § 39 -14-1 03 (t he ft of pr op e rt y ). Th e De fe nd ant’ s c ri me
s p re e en d ed when he was c onfronted at gunpoint by the owner

of the building the Def

endant wa s caught b u rgl ar i z ing. T he De fenda nt was deta ined at the sc ene until the police a rrived. A ll of the stolen proper

ty was re cover ed.

Se nt e nc ing He ar ing At the se nte nc inghe ari ng , th e pa rt ie s sti pu la te d that th e De fe nd ant w a s a Rang e I I , mu lti ple

o f f e n d e r

. T h e p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o rtr e f l e c t s t h a ta tt h e t i m e o f

s e n t e n c i n g , t h e D e f

e n d an t w a s t w e n t yone y ear s old a

nd a high school g raduate. The Def endant repor

ted a long history of alc ohol and drug abuse. H e also re ported t h at h e wa s t he father of one child, ag e thre e. The prese ntence repor t ref lects two prior c onvictions for ag g ravated burg lary , one convic tion for Class C felony theft, one

conv i ct i o n for mis demea nor theft, two c onvictions for driving while under the influenc e, one conviction for misdeme anor posse ssion of marijuana , one convic tion for misdemeanor possession

o f a co n t ro l l ed s u

b s t an ce , o n e co n v i ct i o n fo r pu b l i c in t o x i ca t i o n , an d o n e c o n v i ct i o nfo r u n d er age consumption o f alc ohol. The De fenda nt was on probation at the time he committed the cr imes at iss ue in t his a pp e a l.

Th e pr e se nte nc e re po rt

a lso c on ta ine d a

le ngthy state me nt f

ro m th e De fe nd ant. I n th is state me nt, the De fe nd ant a po log ize d to the vic tim s and a sse rt e d th a t hi s c ri me s w e re c a us e d b y his addiction t o d ru g s. He spec ifically reque sted the cour

t to sentence him to “six y ear s at 35% and some drugand alc ohol reha bilitation.” The De fenda

nt expressed remor se for

his crimes and state d that he wa nte d to be a ro le mod e l f

or his so n b y

te a c hin g him

a bo ut t he da ng e rs of dr ug s and a lc oh ol. At the s entenc ing he aring , the Def endant a lso presente d an allocution stateme nt. I n his allocution, the Def endant a g ain apolog ized to the victims and stated that drug addiction had take n over his life. He as k edt h e c o u rt fo r a s s i s t an ce wi t h h i s ad d i ct i o nt o dru gs an d al co h o l

. At h i s s en t en ci n g h ea ri n g, the Def endant did not ar g ue that he should re ceive an alter native sente nce.

Im position of S entence I n consideringthe leng th of the De fenda nt’s sentenc es, the trial c ourt noted that many of the offe nses involved more tha n one victim, but the court stated that it did not place g reat w eig ht on that

as an e nhancingfac tor. See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40 -3 5 -1 1 4 (3 ). The trial c ourt also found that the De fe nd ant h a d a

pr e vio us his tor

y of c ri min a l c onvic tio ns in a dd iti on to t ho se ne c e ssa

ry to e sta bli sh the appr opriate rang e. See T enn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-114(1) . I n addition, the trial court noted the De fe n d an t ’s ad m i s s i o nt h at , al t h o u g h h e h a d n o tb ee nco n v i ct edo f t h e c ri m es , h e h ads o l d dru gs “hundre ds” of times. See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114(1). The trial court dee med the De fenda nt’s pr ior re c or d “ te rr ibl e .” Th e tr ia l c ourt a lso no te d that the De fe nd ant h a d p re vio us ly fa ile d to c omp ly with the conditions of a sente nce involving rele ase into the community

. See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-114(8) . As mitigating fac tors, the trial cour t noted that the Def

endant’ s criminal conduc t neither

cause d or threatened se ri o u s bodily injury . See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 113(1). The trial court

a lso no te d th a t th e De fe nd ant ha d expr e sse d some re mor se fo r his c ri me , a lth ou g h th e tr ia l c ourt did-3-

not place muc h weig ht on that fac tor. The tria l court base d i t s decision to impose consec utive sentenc es on its finding that the Def endant c ommitt ed the instan t o ff en s es while he wa s on probation. See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 115(b)( 6).

I mme diate ly

pr ior to i mpo sin g its se nte nc e , th e tr ia l court e xpla ine d its de c isi on a s f oll ow s: My sentenc e is g oing to e x cee d 10 y ear s so he is not eligible f or probation. I t h ink Ishould address Community Correc tions out of an abundanc e of caution. Ia m g oin g to s e t an e ff

e c tiv e se nte nc e of

11 y e ars a s a

Rang e I Imul tip le offe nder. I nd o i n g t h at Iam re l y i n g o n t h e ev i d en ce re ce i v ed at t h e s en t en ci n g h ea ri n g, the pre sentenc e re port, principles of se ntencing an d argume nts as to sentencing alternatives, the nature and cha rac teristics of the c riminal conduct; evide nce of statutory mitigating and enha

ncing fac tors; the defe ndant’s allocution stateme nt that he ma de and

his la c k o f p ote nti a l f

or re ha bil itatio n w hic h th e Court fi nd s. I n looking at it, it appea

rs t hat t he defenda

nt – less restric tive measure s than

c on fi ne me nt h a ve fr e qu e ntl y and un su c c e ssf

ull y be e n a pp lie d to the de fe nd ant. The re fo re a lte rn a tiv e se nte nc ingis n ot a pp ro pr ia te fo r h im. He a lso ha s a long history of criminal conduct which in a nd of itself would be su ff i ci en t t o deny Com mun ity

Cor re c tio ns

. An d a lso c on fi ne me nt i s n e e de d to a v o i d d e pr e c ia tin g the se ri ou sn e ss o f t he se of fe ns e s. As to the leng th of the sentenc e, I do find it is no g reater than dese rved unde r the circ umstances a

nd justly deser ved in relationship to t he ser iousness of the of fe ns e s.

At the conc lusion of the sentenc ing he aringthe trial cour t imposed an eff

ective se ntence of eleve n y ear s to be serve d as a Rang e I I , multipl e off ender in the Depa

rtment of Corre ction. I t is from the se nte nc ingde c isi on

of the tr ia l c ourt

that th e De fe nd ant a

pp e a ls.

Ana lys is I n this appea l, the Defenda nt does not take issue with any finding made by

the trial cour

t, nor does he a ssert t hat the trial c ourt err ed in its consideration of enhanc ement or mitig ating fac tors. The Def endant doe s argue that the a ppropriate sentenc e in this case would have be en to allow the De fe nd ant t o s e rv e his e le ve n- y e ar s e nte nc e in c omm un ity c or re c tio ns

.
On a p p e a l, th e p arty c h a ll e n g in g th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d b y th e tr ia l c o u rt h a s th e burden of establishing that the sentenc e is err oneous. See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401, Sentenc ing Comm’n Comments; s ee a lso St ate v. Ar nett, 49 S.W .3d 250, 257 (Tenn. 2001). When a def endant c halleng es the leng th, rang e, or ma

nner of service of a sentenc e, it is the duty of this Court to c onduct a de novo revie w on the re cord w ith a presumption that the deter minations made by

the cour t from which the

a pp e a l is take n are c or

re c t. Te nn

. Cod e Ann. § 40 -3 5- 40 1( d)

. Ho we ve r, thi s pr e su mpt ion “is-4-

conditioned upon the af

firmative showingin the re cord tha t the trial court c onsidered the sentenc ing principles and a ll r eleva

nt f acts and circ umstances.” State v. Pettus, 986 S.W .2d 540, 543-44 (Te nn. 1999); see also State v. Carter , 254 S.W .3d 335, 344-45 (Te nn. 2008). I f our r eview r efle cts that the trial court failed t o consider the sentenc ing principles and all rele vant fa cts and c ircumstance s, then

re vie w o f t

he c ha lle ng e d sen te nc e is pur e ly de no vo wi tho ut the pr e su mpt ion of c or re c tne ss. State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991) ; see a lso Carter, 254 S.W.3d at 344-45.

I n conductinga de novo r eview of a sente nce, this Court must consider (a ) the e vidence adduce d at the trial a

nd the sentenc ing he aring ; (b) the pr esente nce r eport; (c ) th e principles of sentenc ing a

nd arguments as t o s entencing a lternatives; (d) the nature and cha rac teristics of the criminal conduc t involved; (e) e vidence and information offer ed by the par ties on the enha

nceme nt and mitigating f

actor s set forth in Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tions 40-35-113 and 40-35- 114; (f) any statistical information provided by the Administrative Off

ice of the Courts as to Tenne ssee sentenc ing pr actice s for similar off enses; and ( g ) any statement the de fenda nt wishes to make in the defe ndant’s own be half a bout sent en cing . Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-210(b) ; see a lso Carter, 254 S.W .3d at 343; State v. I mfeld, 70 S.W.3d 698, 704 (Tenn. 2002).

Effe ctive J une 7, 2005, our le g islature ame nded Te nnessee Code Annotated se ction 40-35- 102(6) by deleting the statutory presumption that a defe ndant who is convicted of a Class C, D, or E felony
, as a mitigated or standard offe nder, is a favor able c andidate f

or alter native sente ncing . Our

s en t en ci n g l aw n o w p ro v i d es t h at a d ef en d an twh o d o es n o tp o s s es s a c ri m i n al h i s t o r y s h o wi n g a clea r disreg ard f

or society ’s l aws and morals, who has not failed past re habilitation effor ts, and who “is an e spec i al l y m i tigated or standa rd off ender convicted of

a Class C, D or E fe lony
, sh ou ld be

c on sid e re d a s a

fa vo ra ble c and idate fo r a lte rn a tiv e se nte nc ingop tio ns in t he a bs e nc e of e vid e nc e to the contrary

. A court shall consider, but is not bound by
, this advisory sentenc ing guideline.” Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 102(5), ( 6) (e mphasis added) . No long er is a n y d ef endant entitled to a presumption that he or she is a favor able c andidate f or alter native sente ncing

. Carter , 254 S.W .3d at 347.
The following considerations provide guidanc e reg arding what constitutes “e vidence to the contra ry ”:
(A) Confine ment is nece ssary to protect s o ciety

by restra ining a

defe ndant wh o h a s a lon g his tor

y of c ri min a l c on du c t;
(B ) Confinement is nec essary to avoid depre ciating the seriousne ss of the of fe ns e or c on fi ne me nt i s p art ic ul arly su ite d to pr ov ide an e ff

e c tiv e de te rr e nc e to others likely

to commit si milar offe nses; or
(C ) M e a sure s le ss r e str ic tiv e tha n c on fi ne me nt h a ve fr equ entl y or re c e ntl y been a pplied unsucce ssfully

to the defe ndant . . . .-5-

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103( 1); see a lso Carter, 254 S.W.3d at 347. Additionally , the principles of se nte nc ing re fl e c t that the se nte nc e sh ou ld be no g re a te r tha n that de se rv e d fo r t he o ffen se committed a

nd should be the least sever e measure nece ssary to achieve the purposes f or which the sentenc e is imposed. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-103(2)
, (4 ). T h e cour t should also consider the defe ndant’s potential for r ehabilitation or treatment in determining the appr opriate se ntence . Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 103(5).

The Community

Correc tions Act was meant to provide an alternative means of punishment for “ selec ted, nonviolent felony offe nders . . .
, there by rese rving secur e confine ment fac iliti es for violent felony offe nders.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-103( 1); see also State v. Samuels, 44 S.W .3d 489, 492 (Tenn. 2001) . Pursuant to statute, persons who s at i s fy al l of the followingminimum

c ri te ri a are e lig ibl e fo r p art ic ipatio n in a c omm un ity c or re c tio ns pr og ra

m:
(A) Per sons w ho, without this option, would be incar cer ated in a c orre ctional instit ution; (B ) Persons who a

re c onvicted of p ro perty -re lated, or dr ug /alcohol-re lated felony offe nses or other felony offe nses not involving crimes ag ainst the person as provided in title 39, chapte r 13, par ts 1-5; (C ) P e rs on s w ho are c on vic te d o f n on vio le nt f e lony of fe ns e s; (D ) P ersons who a

re c onvicted of f

elony offe nses in which the use or possession of a we apon wa s not involved; (E) Per sons who do not demons t ra t e a pr esent or pa st pattern of be havior indicating violence; [and] (F ) Persons who do not demonstrate a pattern of co m m i t t ing violent offe nses[.]

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 36-106(a )(1)

.

Persons wh o d o not otherwise satisfy the minimum criteria and w ho would usually be

c on sid e re d unf

it f or pr ob a tio n due to his tor ie s o f c hr on ic a lc oh ol a bu se , d ru g a bu se , o r m e nta l he a lth problems, but whose specia l ne eds are treatable and could be serve d best in the community may be considere d elig ible for pa

rticipation in a community corr ections progr am. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 36- 106(c) . Eligibility u n d er this s ection is g ener ally ref err ed to as the “ specia l needs” provision for

c omm un ity c or re c tio ns

.

Ev e n th ou g h a

n o ff e nd e r m e e ts t

he re qu ir e me nts fo r e lig ibi lity , h e or sh e is n ot a

uto ma tic a lly entitled to participation in a c ommunity corr ections progr am. See State v. B all, 973 S.W .2d 288, 294 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) ; State v. Taylor, 744 S.W .2d 919, 922 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987)

. Rather, the A ct provides that the criter ia shall be interpre ted as minimum st andar ds to guide a trial court’s de termination of whe ther that offen d er i s elig ible for c ommunity corr ections. See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-36- 106(d).-6-

I n r e sp on se to the De fe nd ant’ s argume nt in fa vo r o f c omm

un ity c or re c tio ns , th e State fi rs t

argue s th a t th e De fe nd ant i s n ot e lig ibl e fo r c omm un ity c or re c tio ns un de r t

he “ sp e c ia l ne e ds ” provision beca

use in order

to be consider ed for community corr ections under

this provision, a defe ndant must be elig ible for pr obation. The State a sserts that t h e De fe n d ant i s not eligible f or pr ob a tio n b e c a

us e his e ff

e c tiv e se nte nc e is e le ve n y e ars

. We co nc lud e that th e State ’s argume nt i s misplaced. Unde r our se ntencinglaw, whe re a defe ndant has multiple convictions with consec utive sentenc es and the total effe ctive sente nce e x cee ds t h e m ax imum sentence a llowed for pr obation

e lig ibi lity , a def

e nd ant re ma ins e lig ibl e fo r pr ob a tio n co ns ide ra tio n if e a c h in div idu a l se nte nc e fa lls within the probation elig ibilit y criter ia. See S tate v. L ang ston, 708 S.W .2d 830 (Tenn. 1986) ; see
a lso Te nn . Co de § 4 0- 35 -3 03 , Se nte nc ingCom m’ n Co mme nts

.

I n revie wing the trial cour t’s decision, we first conc lude that the trial court c onsidered

se nte nc ing pri ncip le s and re le va nt f a c ts a nd c ir c ums tanc e s. Thus , th e jud g e ’s de c isi on is pr e su mpt ive ly c or

re c t. We a lso c on c lud e that the tr ia l c ourt a c te d wi thi n its dis c re tio na ry a uth or ity in o rd e ri ngthe De fe nd ant t o s e rve h is sen tence in t he De pa rtme nt o f C or

re c tio n r a the r t

ha n in Com mun ity

Cor re c tio ns . Firs t, we no te that th e De fe nd ant w a s se nte nc e d a s a Rang e I I , mu lti ple of fe nd e r a nd that th e re fo re , th e tr ia l c ourt wa s n ot o bli g a te d to c on sid e r t he De fe nd ant a s a

fa vo ra ble candidate for alternative sentenc ing options. Second, we note that the Def endant doe s have a

long history o f c r im in a l c o n d

u c t. T h ir d
, w e n o te th a t t h e D e f e n d an t w a s o np r o b a ti o nf o r a g g r a v a te d burg lary and the ft a t th e tim e he c omm itt e d th e c ri me s at is su e he re in. F ina lly , th e re c or d s up po rt s the trial cour

t’s finding that the Def

endant has a poor potential for r ehabilitation. Ba sed upon our revie w of the re co rd
, we conclude that the Def endant ha s not overcome the pre sumption t hat the sentenc ing de termination made by the t rial court is corr ect. Acc ording ly
, the j udg ments entere d by the trial cour

t are aff irmed.

______________________________ DAVI D H. WEL L ES, J UDGE