It i s t he p o l i cy o f t his C o urt t o refer t o m i no r victi m s b y t he i r i nit i als. 1

-1- 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Marc h 14
, 200 6

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . KENNETH W. THO MPSON, SR.

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Cheatham County

No. 14229 G eorge C. Sexton, Judge

No. M2005- 01160-CCA -R3-C D - F iled April 21, 2006

The D ef en d ant, Kenneth W. Thompson, S r., pled no lo c on te nd e re to one count of attempted

a g g ra va te d s e xua l batte ry , a ndthe tr ia l c ou rt se nte nc e d h im t o f

ive y e ars , to be se rv e d a t th ir ty perc ent. On appe al, the De fenda nt c ontends that the trial court err ed when it de nied his reque st for alternative sentenc ing. F inding that ther e exists no reversible e rror , we a ffirm the judg ment of the
tr ia l c ou rt

.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

R OB E R T W. W EDEM EY ER , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D G. H AYES , J
., joined. J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J

. , c o n c u rr e d i n t h e r e s u l t s o n l y.

J . Robin McKinney , J r., Na shville, Tennessee for the A ppellant, Kenne th W. Thom pson, Sr.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; C. Daniel L ins, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; Da n M. Alsobrooks, District Attorney Gene ral; and Robert S. W ilson, Assist ant District Att orney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION I. F acts

This case arises f

rom the De fenda nt’s indict m en t o n six counts of ra pe of a child. The
tr a ns c ri pt o f the g uil ty

ple a is no t in clu ded in the re c or d o n a pp e a l, b ut i t app e ars that th e vic tim
, A. N.
, wh o w a s b or n o n M arc h 2 3, 19 95 , ha d live d with the De fe nd a nt sin c e sh e wa s b ro ug ht h ome 1 from the hospital. The indi ctments indicate that betwee n Marc h 23, 1998, and S eptember 1, 2003, the Def endant alleg edly rape d the victim numerous times. The De fenda nt pled nolo contendere to-2-

one count of

attempted ag g ravated sexual battery occur ring betwee n Marc h 23, 1998, and De cembe r 31, 1998, and, in exchang e, the State a g ree d to not prosecute the rema ining c harg es.

At the sentenc ing he aring , Debr a Va nce te stified that she is a probation officer and cr eate d the se nte nc ing re po rt

in this c a se . Sh e state d tha t she g a ve the De fe nd a nt a que sti on na ir e to c omp le te prior to her interview with him. On t he questionnaire, i n response to the questi on asking about the Def endant’ s version of the of

fense and his rea son for being involved, the Def endant wr ote the wor d “lies.” In his personal stateme nt, the Defenda nt reported t hat he has previously been c onvicted of public intox ication and DU I . The probation officer sai d t h at s h e was unable to verify that the Def endant r ece ived a public intox ication citation, but she verifie d that he had been convicted of DUI

a nddr ivi ng on a

re vo ke d li c e ns e . V a nc e sa id tha t the De fe nd a nt a lso ha d a n o uts ta nd ing wa rr a nt i n Davidson County

for f ailure to a ppear on an assault charg e.

Vanc e said that she disc ussed the victim with the Def endant. The Def

en d an t t old her that A. N. ’s mothe r d id no t w a nt t o k e e p A .N
., a ndthe De fe nd a nt b ro ug ht A .N . h ome fr om the ho sp ita l. Va nc e a g re e d th a t, at so me po int
, the juv e nil e c ou rt g a ve the De fe nd a nt c us tod y of A. N. Va nc e sa id that the re ports that she had showe d that the victim w as three to four y ear s old when she wa s abused by the De fe nd a nt. Whe n Va nc e int e rv ie we d the De fe nd a nt, he sa id that the re wa s no vic tim in this

c a se be c a us e he didno t d o a nythi ng a ndthat th e c ha rg e s a re “ bu lls hit

fr om d a y on e .” Va nc e sa id that th e De fe nd a nt t oldhe r tha t he pla nn e d to app e a l a ll the c ha rg e s wh e n he wa s re le a se d fr om j a il.

Vanc e said that the D efe ndant di d n o t co o p er ate with her , and she de scribed both of her int e rv ie ws wi th h im a s “ dis a ste rs .” She sa id that he wa nte d to a rg ue a nddidno t c oo pe rate wi th h is
qu e sti on na ir e or

the qu e sti on s tha t she a sk e d h im. Va nc e te sti fi e d th a t th e De fe nd a nt r e fu se d to
pr ov ide he r w ith inf

or ma tio n. Va nc e op ine d th a t w he n a de fe nd a nt wi ll no t c oo pe rate wi th h e r i n an attempt to g et him out of jail that defenda nt has a slim chanc e of suc cess on pr obation.

Va nc e te sti fi e d that the De fe nd a nt ha s no fa mil y in the Sta te a nd no re sid e nc e

. Va nc e sa id that th e De fe nd a nt t oldhe r tha t he c ou ld l ive wi th h is aun t. Wh e n V a nc e c he c ke d w ith the a un t, ho we ve r, the a un t sa id s he did no t ha ve ro om fo r him
, a nd sh e did no t wa nt him sta y ing the re if

it meant that her

g randc hildren could not be in the house. Va nce sa id that the Def endant wa s asked about his employ ment in the questionnaire, a nd he re sponded “he avy equipment lifetime.”

On cr oss-examination, Vance said that the De fenda nt had bee n in custody since Oc tober 9, 2003, b u t s h e wa s unsure how muc h jail cre dit the Defe ndant would re ceive . She said that she

su pe rv i s e s p e o p l e o n p r o b a t i o n a n d p ar o l e ab o u t e q u a l l y a n d h o w i n t e n s i v e t h e s u p e r v i s i o n is depends on the offe nse committed. Va n ce said that, while there is not an “intensive probation”
prog ram in Cheatha m County , she would be required to provide thi s kind of proba tion if so ordere d by the tr ia l c ou rt . V a nc e a g re e d th a t th e De fe nd a nt’ s st a te me nt d e ny ing that he c omm itt e d th e se crimes ha d rema ined consistent and that he profe ssed his innocence “quite loudly .” Va nce a g ree d that the Def

endant did not have any

prior fe lony

convictions or an y prior convic tions for sexual offe nses.-3-

Vanc e ag ree d that there was an issue with wher e the Def endant would live if he wa s g iven
pr ob a tio n. She sa id tha t if the De fe nd a nt p ro vid e d a n a dd re ss o f w he re he wo uldliv e sh e wo uld ha ve to i nv e sti g a te it t o e ns ur e that it wa s su ita ble . V a nc e a g re e d th a t if the De fe nd a nt s e rv e d h is
sentenc e and wa s relea sed there would be less super vision than if the Def endant r emained on supervised pr obation for f ive y ear s.

On redire ct examination, Va nce said that if the Def endant se rved ja il tim e and w as re lease d he would have to report f our times per y ear

. Vanc e then offe red a victim impact statement, which

was a dmitted by

the trial court. The victim impact statement showed that the victim ge ts very upset wh e n th e De fe nd a nt’ s n a me is m e nti on e d, a ndsh e ho pe s that he sta y s in ja il f or e ve r. Th e vic tim
, who has ha d counseling , has a ha rd time trusting pe ople and ha s an attac hment disorder.

The De fenda nt testified that he had never been a rre sted for a

felony befor e and tha t he lives on his social security

chec k, which is $791.00 per month. The Def endant sa id that, while he had not had the opportunityto see it, he ha s a trailer to live in being he ld for him to use when he is rele ased from jail. He sa id tha t the re are just two tra ilers in the ar ea a nd no children ne arby . The De fenda nt said that he would live by himself and the tra iler would cost him $135.00 per month in rent, whic h he c ou ld pa y wi th h is s oc ia l se c ur ity c he c k. He te sti fi e d th a t he int e nd s to g e t a job on c e he g e ts h is health proble ms straig htened out. Specif ically , the Def

endant said that he had “ black lung,” but he admitted that he still smokes ciga rettes. The Def

endant sa id that he has broke n his back twice , and he is losing fee ling in his fee t. He also testified that he is a veter an and wa s an infantry soldier for the Marine Corps for seve n y ear s.

The De fenda nt stil l de nied the cha rg es ag ainst him, but he apolog ized to Vance a nd to the
tr ia l ju dg e fo r h is d e me a no r d ur ing the int e rv ie w. He agreed th a t he on ly too k th is p le a

ba rg a in be c a us e he re a lize d th e ra ng e of po ssi ble pu nis hme nt that he wa s fa c ing . T he De fe nd a nt s a id tha t, if the tr ia l c ou rt

pla c e d h im o n p ro ba tio n, he wo uldc oo pe rate wi th Va nc e , a nd he wo uld no t vi olate his probation.

On cr oss-examination, the Defe ndant testified that the tra iler whe re he would live is located in N ashville. He said that he has lived on that street befor e, and there are no sch o o l s o r d ay car e cente rs locate d near

by

. The Def

endant sa id that he did not cooper ate with Va nce be cause “[m] ay be [he] didn’t understand.” Further, he said that he wa s sick at the time of the interview and that he ha d apologi z ed t o h er. The Def endant sa id that he under stood that he will have to re g ister as a sex offe nder.

Ba sed upon this evidence , and the a rg uments of counse l, the trial court f ound:

I ’ve c onsidered the evidenc e presented at this hearing , the pre -sentenc e re port, [and the] arg uments of counse l. We have in this case, of course , an ag ree d upon sentenc e of five y ear s. I t’s just a matter of w hether and how this Court determines the [D] efe ndant should serve his sentence

.-4- B a se d u po n th e e vid e nc e a ndarg ume nts the C ou rt find s th a t ju sti c e is b e st

se rv e d in thi s c a se wi th the [D]e fe nd a nt be ing or de r[e d] to se rv e the ba la nc e of his five y ear s in T ennesse e Depa rtment of Correc tio[ n] to avoid the depre cia t i n g t he

se ri ou sn e ss o f the of

fe ns e a nda s a de te rr e nt to oth e rs wh o mig ht be lik e ly to c omm it this same offe nse.

II. Ana lys is

On app e a l, the De fe nd a nt c on te nd s th a t t he tr ial cou rt e rr e d w he n it

fa ile d to g ra nt h im alternative sentenc ing. H e asse rts that the trial court based its decision to d en y his request for probation based upon two fac tors: deter renc e and to avoid deprecia ting the seriousness of this crime. Th e De fe nd a nt c on te nd s th a t th e fi rs t of the se fa c tor s, de te rr e nc e , is ina pp lic able to his c a se be c a us e the State fa iled to show a “spe cial nee d or consideration” for deter renc e. See State v. Hartley , 818 S.W .2d 370 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) . Th e De fe n d an t also contends that the se cond of the se two fa ct o rs d o es n o tap p l y

b ec au s e t h e c i rc u m s t an ce s o f t h i s o ff en s e w e r e n o tes p ec i al l y

h o rr i fy i n g, sh oc kin g , r e pr e he ns ibl e , o ff e ns ive , o r o the rw ise to an e xce ssi ve or e xag g e rate d d e g re e . Se e Sta te v. Bla ckhurst, 70 S.W.3d 88 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002). The State c ounters that neither it nor the tr ial
court wa s require d to show that there was a specia l ne ed for deter renc e. Further, it c ontends that the circ umstances of

the Def endant’ s crime a

re, in fa ct, horrif

y ing, shoc ki n g, reprehensible, a nd offe nsive.

When a defendant challeng es t he length or manner of service of a sentence, it is the duty of this Court t o conduct a

de novo re view of the rec ord wit h a pre sumption t hat “the de terminations made by the court from which the a ppeal is take n are corr ect.” T en n

. C o de Ann. § 40- 35-401(d) (2003). This pr esumption is “‘c onditioned upon the aff irmative showing in the rec ord that the trial

c ou rt c on sid e re d th e se nte nc ing pr inc ipl e s a nd a ll r e le va nt f a c ts a ndc ir c ums ta nc e s. ’” Sta te v. Ros s, 49 S.W. 3d83 3, 84 7 ( Te nn . 200 1) (q uo tin g Sta te v. Pe ttu s, 98 6 S. W.2 d 5 40 , 5 43 (T e nn . 1 99 9) ); Sta te v. As h b y , 8 2 3 S. W. 2 d 1 6 6
, 1 6 9 ( T e n n

. 1 9 9 1 )

. T h e p r e s u mp ti o n d o e s n o t ap p ly to the leg al conclusions re ache d by

the trial court in se ntencing a defe ndant or to the deter minations made by the trial court that are predic ated upon uncontrove rted facts. State v. Dea n, 76 S.W .3d 352, 377 (Tenn. Cr im. Ap p. 20 01 ); Sta te v. B utl e r, 90 0 S.W .2d 3 05 , 3 11 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 94 ); Sta te v. Smith 891 S.W .2d 922, 929 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) . I n conducting a de novo r eview of a sente nce, w e must consider: (a) any evidenc e rec eived at the trial and/or sentenc ing hearing; ( b) the pre sentenc e report; (c) the principles of sente ncing ; (d) the a rg uments of counse l rela t ive to sentenc ing alternatives; (e) the nature and cha rac teristics of the of

fense ; (f) a ny

mitigating or statutory enhanc ement fa ctors; (g ) any statements made by the defe ndant on his or her own beha lf; and (h) the defe ndant’s potential or la ck of pote ntial for re habilitation or treatment. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 210 (2003); State v. Ta y lor, 63 S.W .3d 400, 411 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001)

. The party challeng ing

a se nte nc e imp os e d by the tr ia l c ou rt ha s th e bu rd e n o f e sta

bli sh ing that th e se nte nc e is e rr on e ou s. Te nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 35 -4 01 (d ), Se nte nc ing Com m’ n Cm ts.

I n the ca se under

submissi on, we c on cl u d e that ther e is ample e vidence that the trial court considere d the sentenc ing principles and a ll releva nt fac ts and circ umstances. Theref ore, w e re view-5-

its decision de novo with a pre sumption of corre ct n es s

. Ac co rding ly , so long a s the trial court

c o mp li e d w ith th e p u rp o s e s a n d p r o c e d u r e s o f th e 1 9 8 9 Se n te n c in g A c t a n d it s finding s are supported by the fa ctual re cord, this Court may not disturb this sentenc e eve n if we w ould have pref err ed a dif

fer ent re sult. S ee T enn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-210, Sentenc ing Comm’n Cmts; S tate v. Fletc her, 805 S.W.2 d 7 85, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) . We note that the def endant be ars the burden of showin g t h at t h e sentence is improper . Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-401, Sentenc ing Comm’n Cm ts.; Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169.

A def endant “ who is an espe cially mitiga t ed o ff

en der or standard of

fende r convic ted of a Class C, D, or E felony

is pr es u m ed t o b e a favora ble ca ndidate for

alternative sentenc ing in the

abs e nc e of

e vid e nc e to the c on tr ary .” Te nn . Code An n. § 40- 35 -1 02 (6 ) (2 00 3)

. F urthe rm or e , u nle ss sufficie nt evidenc e re buts the presumption, “[t] he trial c ourt must presume that a de fenda nt sentenc ed to eight y ear s or less and not an of fende r for whom incar cer ation is a priority is subject to alterna tive s en t en ci ng and that a se ntence other than inc arc eration would result in successful reha bilitation . .

. .” State v. By rd, 861 S.W .2d 377, 379-80 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993); see a lso Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 303(a)

.

Howeve r, all off

ender s who meet the c riteria a re not e ntitled to relief; instead, sentencing issues must be determined by the fa cts and c ircumstance s of ea ch ca s e. See State v. Ta y lor, 744 S.W .2d 919, 922 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987) (citing State v. Moss, 727 S

. W

. 2 d 229, 235 (Tenn. 1986)). Eve n if a de fenda nt is pre sumed to be a f avora ble ca ndidate for

alternative sentenc ing unde r Tenne ssee Code A nnotated § 40-35- 102(6), the sta tutory presumption of an a lternative se n te n c e may be over come if:

(A) [c]onfinement is nece ssary to protect socie ty by

restra ining a

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

of c ri min a l c on du c t; (B ) [c]onfine m en t is nece ssary 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 ula rl y su ite d to pro vide a n e ff

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

to commit si milar offe nses; or (C ) [m]ea su re s le ss re stric tiv e tha n c on fi ne me nt h a ve fr e qu e ntl y or re c e ntl y been a pplied unsucce ssfully

to the defe ndant . . . .

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-103(1) (A )-(C) (2003). I n choosing among possible sentencing alternatives, the t rial court should also consider Te nnessee Code Annotated § 40- 35-103(5) , which states, in pertinent pa

rt, “The potential or lac k of po t ential for the reha bilitation or treatment of a defe ndant should be consider ed in determining the s entence alternative or le ng th of a term to be imposed.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103( 5); see a lso St ate v. Dow dy , 894 S.W .2d 301, 305 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).

This Court has said:

I n deter mining whe ther to g rant or de ny full probation, add i t i o nal consider ations include the defe ndant’s criminal rec ord; social history and pre sent condition of the-6-

defe ndant, including his or her me ntal and phy sical conditions wher e appr opriate; defe ndant’s ame nability

to c orre ction and g ener al attitude, including behavior since

arr e st, ho me e nv ir on me nt, c ur re nt dr ug us a g e , e mot ion a l st abil ity , p a st e mpl oy me nt, g ener al re putation, marital stability , family responsibil ity , and the be st interest of both the Def

endant a nd the public.

State v. Bla ckhurst, 70 S.W .3d 88, 97 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) (citations omitted). Fa ilure to ac cept responsibilityfor one ’s cr iminal conduct re flec ts poorly on reha bilitative potent

ia l w h e n d e termining whether alternative sentenc ing is appropriate in a particular c ase. State v. Z eolia, 928 S.W.2d 457, 463 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) . Simi larly , lack of candor and cr edibilityref

lec t n ega t i v el y on a defe ndant’s potential for

reha bilitation. Blackhurst, 70 S.W.3d at 98.

I n the ca se under

submissi on, the trial court found applicable fac tor (B ) of Te nnessee Code Annotated se ction 40-35-103( 1), which state s that confineme nt is necessa ry to avoid depre ciating the seriousne ss of the offense or confine ment is particular ly suited to provide an e ffe ctive dete rre nce to others likely

to commit si milar offe nses. I n order to d en y an alternative sentenc e base d upon avoiding depre ciating the seriousne ss of the off ense, the circ umstances of the offe nse as c ommitt ed

mus t b e es p ecia lly

horrifying, shoc king, r epre hensible, off ensive or othe rwise of

an excessive or
exagg erated deg ree , and the nature of t he offense must outweig h all other factors favoring a sente nce other than c onfinement. B lackhur st, 70 S.W .3d at 98. We c onclude that the trial court did not e rr when it conclude d that the Def endant’ s actions wer e sufficie ntly repr ehensible and offe nsive to deny him pr ob a tio n. Th e De fe nd a nt c omm itt e d a tte mpt e d a g g ra va te d s e xua l batte ry to a thr e e y e ar o ld child, A.N., who wa s living with him. A.N. st ill suffe rs t he effec ts of t his abuse and is still scare d when the D efe ndant’s name is me ntioned. The Def endant’ s actions showed ter rible judg ment and a disreg ard fo r t h e we l fa re of a c hild who was entruste d to his care . Consequently , a sente nce of
pr ob a tio n w ou ld c e rt a inl y de pr e c ia te the se ri ou sn e ss o f the De fe nd a nt’ s o ff e ns e s.

F urthe r, the De fe nd a nt h a s n e ve r a po log ize d to A. N. or

take n r e sp on sib ili ty

fo r h is a c tio ns , a ndins te a d h e ha s d e nie d th a t th e a lle g a tio ns are true . T he De fe nd a nt a lso re fu se d to c oo pe rate wi th the proba tion officer , and he w as not forthc oming a bout his p o tential living conditions with her. Under these c ircumstance s, we c onclude that the tr ial court did no t er r wh en it denied the Def endant’ s reque st for an a lternative se ntence

.

III. Conclusi on

I n acc ordanc e with the foreg oing a uthorities and re asoning , we a ffirm the judg ment of the
tr ia l c ou rt

.

___________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE