# FILED July 11, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Ap pellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRI MINAL APPEA LS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVI LLE APRIL SESSION, 1997 STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9604-CC-00169 ) Appell ee, ) ) ) CHEATHAM COUN TY VS. ) ) HON. ROBERT E. BURCH LUTCHER O . MILES and ) JUDGE AMBER DAWN MILES, ) ) Appellants. ) (Sentenc ing )

ON APPEALFROM THE J UDGMENT OF THE CIR CUI T COURT OF CHEA THAM COUNTY FOR THE APP ELLA NT : FOR THE APPELLEE : LI ONEL R. BARRETT, JR. JOHN KNOX W ALKUP W ashingt on Square Two-Sui te 417 Attor ney General and Reporter 222 Se con d A ven ue, N orth Nashvil le, TN 37201 GEORGIA BLYTHE F ELNER Assist ant Attor ney General 450 James Robertson Par kway Nashvil le, TN 37243 DAN ALSOBROOKS Dist ri ct Attor ney General JAMES W. KI RBY Assist ant Di str ictAtto rney Gener al 105 Sycamore Street Ashland Ci ty, TN 37015 OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFI RMED DAVI D H. WELLES, JUD GE-2- 

# OPINION

Th is is an appeal pursuant t o Rule 3 ofthe Tennessee Rul es of Ap pella te Procedure. Pursu ant to a p lea agre em ent, eac h De fenda nt entere d pl eas of guilty to si x counts of sel li ng various drugs. The plea agreemen t for each Defendantcall ed for an eff ectiv e sentence o f ei ght y ears i n the Depart ment of Correct ion, wit h the manner ofserv ice ofthe sentence left t o the di scret ion ofthe tri al cou rt. The tri al cou rt ord ere d th at e ac h D efe nd an t wo uld ser ve o ne yea r in the county wo rkhouse, wit h the bal ance of t he sentenc e to be se rved i n the com m unity corr ecti ons pro gra m . On ap pe al, each Defendantargues t hat t he tr ial courterred in orderi ng thatone yearof t he sen ten ce be ser ved in con finem ent. W e affirm the jud gm ent o f the trial c ourt.
The Defe nda nts we re joi ntl y i ndict ed forsixcounts of conspi ri ng to sel l and sell ing c oc aine, LSD and marij uana. Each Def endant was c onvi cted on a plea ofgui l tyofone cou ntofCl ass B felony sale of cocai ne, two counts ofClass B fel ony sale of

LSD, one cou nt o f Cla ss C felo ny s ale of co cain e, an d two cou nts ofClass E f elonysale of marij uana. Each Def en dan t r eceiv ed concurrent sentencesof eightyears for each Class B felony convi ction, four years for each Class C fel ony conv ict ion and one year for each Class E fel ony conv ict ion. Also, each Defendant was f ined a tot al of$9,500. Aft er conduct ing a se ntenci ng heari ng, the t ri al j udge order ed each Defendantto serve one year in the c oun ty workhouse wit h t h e ba lanc e of th e se nten ce to be s erve d in co m m unity correcti ons. Both Defendan ts were d eter mine d to be i mm ediat elyeli gibl e for work rele as e. O n a pp ea l, each Defendant argues t hat t he tr ial courterred or-3-

abused his dis cretio n in o rder ing o ne ye ar of th e se nte nce to b e se rved in con finem ent.
W hen an accused chal lenges t he lengt h, range, or the manner of service ofa se nten ce, th is cou rt has a du tyto conduct a de novo revi ew of the sentence with a presumption that t he determinations m ade by t he tria l cou rt are c orre ct. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35 -401(d) . Thi s presumpti on is " condit ion ed u pon the affirmative showing i n the record t hat t he tr ial courtconsi dered t he sentenc ing pri ncipl es and all rel evant fact s and circum stan ces ." State v. Ashby , 823 S. W .2d 166 , 169 (T enn . 1991 ).
In conducti ng a de novo r evi ew of a sent ence, t his co urtmust consi der: (a) the evid en ce , if an y, rec eive d a t the tria l an d the sent encing hea ri ng; ( b) t he presentence report; (c) t he pri ncip les o f sen tenc ing a nd a rgum ents as to sentenci ng alt ernat iv es; ( d) t he nature and characteri stics of the cr iminal conduct inv olv ed; ( e) any s tatuto ry m itigating or en han cem ent fa ctors ; (f) any st atement thatthe D efen dan t made on h is own behal f; and (g) the pot enti al or lack of potent ial for reh abilitatio n or tre atm ent. T enn . Co de A nn. §§ 40-35- 102, - 103, and -210 ; see Sta te v. Sm ith , 735 S .W .2d 85 9, 863 (Ten n. Crim . App. 1 987 ).
Ifour r evi ew ref lect s thatthe t ri al court f oll owed the st atut ory s entenci ng procedur e, imposed a l awful sentence aft er havi ng giv en due consi derat ion and properweightto t he fact ors and pr inci pals s et outunder t he sentenc ing law, and thatthe trial c ou rt's fi ndings of factare adequat elysupport ed by t he record, t hen we mayno t mo dify th e sentence e ven i f we woul d have pr efer red a di ff erent resu lt. State v. Fl etcher , 805 S .W .2d 78 5, 789 (Ten n. Crim . App. 1 991 ).-4- A Defendantwho “i s an especi all y mit igat ed or st andard off ender c onvi cted o f a C lass C, D , orE fel ony i s presumed to be a fav orabl e candidat e for alternative sentenci ng opti ons in t he absence ofevi dence to t he contrary. ” Tenn. Code An n. § 4 0-35 -102 (6); see Sta te v. D avis , 940 S. W .2d 558, 560 (Te nn. 199 7). Ou r se nte nc ing law also pro vide s th at “c on victe d fe lon s co m m ittin g th e mo st sever e off enses, pos sessi ng cri minal hi stor ies ev inci ng a cle ar di sregard fo r the law s an d m orals of so ciety, a nd e vincin g failure of pa st effor ts a t rehabi li tat ion, sha ll be give n first priori ty regardi ng sentenc es involv ing inca rcera tion.” Ten n. Co de A nn. § 4 0-35-1 02(5). Thus, a Defendantsentenced to eightyearsor l ess who i s not an offen der fo r who m inca rcera tion is a priority is presumed eligib le for alter native sen tenc ing u nles s su fficient e viden ce re buts the pres um ption . How ever, the a ct does not provide that all offende rs who meet the cri ter ia are enti tl ed to such rel ief ; rather , i t r equires thatsentenci ng iss ues be deter mined bythe fa cts a nd c ircum stan ces pres ente d in e ach cas e. See Sta te v. Tay lor , 744 S.W .2d 9 19, 9 22 (T enn . Crim . App . 198 7).
Addit ional ly , t he pri ncipl es of se ntenci ng refl ect tha t the sen ten ce sho uld be no great er t han thatdeserv ed forthe offense committed and shou ld be t he leastsever e measure necessary toachiev e the pur poses for which t he sentence is impo sed. Tenn. Code An n. § 40-35-103(3)-( 4). The Court should al so consider

the pot enti al f or reh abil it ati on or t reat ment oft he De fen da nt in dete rm ining the s ente nce altern ative. T enn . Co de A nn. § 40-3 5-10 3(5) . The bas ic facts as g lean ed fro m the s ente ncin g he aring are th at th e DefendantAm ber D aw n M iles wa s em ploye d at a pet s tor e. Eac h of her drug convi cti ons and each convicti on of her husband, Lutcher O. Mil es, we re th e re su lt-5-

ofcontroll ed salesof dr ugs made by the Defendants to Ms. Miles’ superv isor at the pet store, who was serving as a n und ercover informant f or l ocal l aw en for cement author it ies. Amber Dawn Miles t esti fi ed thather supervi sor, the inform ant, pres su r ed he ri nt o o bt ai ni ng t he dr ug s f orhi m a nd in ex change, promised he r ad ditio na l w orki ng hours atthe st ore. She and her husban d test if ied thatthese were the onl y drug sales they had ever made and thatneit her ofthem profited from the sales but rathe r were d oing the m a s a favor fo r Ms . Miles’ superv isor

at t he pet st ore. The vari ous sal es took place dur ing an app roxim ate s ix wee k pe riod o f time . The present ence report r efl ects t hat Lut cher Mi les was twenty-two ye ars old, dro pp ed ou t of s ch oo l in the nin th g rad e, a nd late r ea rne d h is G ED . His employment history was apparent lygood and he had no pri or cr iminal record of con victions , althou gh h e rep orted that h e ha d be en a use r of m arijua na.
The present ence reports refl ects t hat Amber Dawn Mil es was twenty-one years old, dr opp ed out ofschool in t he elev enth grade, and l aterearned her GED. He r em plo ym en t rec ord wa s ap pa ren tly goo d. She had been arrested on mo re than one oc casion forshopli ft ing an d h ad on e co nvic tion wh ich res ulte d in com m unity serv ice wor k and si x months probati on. She w as ser ving this sen tenc e on prob ation whe n the drug offen ses occ urre d.
B oth Def endants ex pressed remorse for what t hey had done, had good fam ilysupportand employment oppo rtu nit ies in a fa m ilydrywal l busi ness. The tri al judge not ed thathe was not sure t hat t he De fen da nts un de rsto od the “de ad ly serio usn ess of the ir action s.”-6- Because each Defendantwas convi cted ofa Class B f elony , n eit her Defendantenjoy ed the presumption o f bei ng a fav orabl e candidat e foralternative se ntenci ng optio ns. See Te nn. C ode An n. § 4 0-35 -102 (6). N eve rthele ss, th e tri al jud ge de term ine d th at c on fine m en t in the peni tent iary was not w arra nted . In orderi ng a p erio d o f co nfin em en t in th e co un ty jail, the tr ial judge c onsidered the number of off enses c omm itted, the t ime frame during whi ch theywere committ ed, the vari ety and ty pe of drugs sold, the need for det errence and the n eed to avo id depreciati ng the seriousness of the off enses.
We no te th at th is re co rd a ffirm ative lyshows thatthe t ri al court consi dered the sentenci ng pr in ci pl es an d al l rel eva ntfa ct s and ci rc umst ance s. As we ha ve pre viou sly note d, itis our duty topresume thatthe sent encing det erminat ions made by the trial cou rt are c orre ct. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40 -35- 401 (d). W e are u nab le to co nclu de th at the trial judg e erre d or a bus ed h is disc retion . The judgment ofthe t ri al court i s aff ir med.

___________________________________ DAVI D H. WELLES, JUD GE-7-

CONCUR:

___________________________________ GARYR. WADE, J UDGE

___________________________________ CURWOOD W I TT, JUD GE