### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs S ep te m be r 14, 200 4
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. TR AC Y L YN N F RA NKS

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Hardin County No. 8290 C. Cr eed Mc Ginley, Judge

No. W2004-00076-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled October 26, 2004

Th e app e lla nt, Tr a c y L y nn F ra nk s, ple d g uil ty to ag g ra vate d ass a ult , fe lon y re c kle ss e nd a ng e rm e nt, and fe lony

evading arr est. Pursuant to the plea ag ree ment, the appellant wa s sentence d to six y ear s in the Tenne ssee De partment of Corr ection for the ag g ravated assault convic tion and four y ear s eac h for the r eckle ss endang erme nt and eva ding a rre st convictions, wit h the sentenc es to be ser ved
concur rently . Additionally , the trial court imposed a $500.00 fine for the eva ding a

rre st conviction. On appe al, the appe llant arg ues that the trial c ourt err ed in deny ing him pr obation. Upon revie w of the re cord a nd the parties’ brief s, we a ffirm the judg ments of the trial 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 uit Co ur t a r e Affir m e d.

N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., joined.

Richard W. DeB erry , Assistant Publ ic Defende r, C amden, Tennessee , for the a ppellant, Tra cy

L y nn F ra nk s.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , Attor ne y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Ra c he l E . Wil lis , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Robert “Gus” Radford, District Attorney Gene ral; and J ohn W. Ove rton, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

. OP IN ION

I. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound At the guilty

plea he aring on Dec ember 10, 2003, the State re cited the f acts of the offe nses a s f oll ow s:
This occur

red on July10th of this y ear . The De fenda nt was see n sp e e din g on Pin ho ok

Roa d. Whe n th e of

fi c e r atte mpt e d to pull him over f or that, the De fenda nt took off. At that time, the office r pursue d-2- him fo r s ome pe ri odof tim e

. Th e De fe nd a nt wa s chang ing la ne s a ll over the road. The re w ere other pe ople on the road. That’s why he
wa s c ha rg e d w ith re c kle ss e nd a ng e rm e nt.

Th e a g gravateda ssa

ult oc c ur re d w he n th e De fe nd a nt l os t control of his ve hicle and came to a stop. The office r g ot out of the vehicle at that time t o ap prehe nd the Def endant. The Def

endant dr ov e his a uto mob ile tow ard the of fi c e r. Th e of

fi c e r fi re d s ome sh ots to t ry to d isa ble the ve hic le

. Th e ve hic le too k off a g a in at th a t po int

. Mr. Fr anks wa s ab l e to get out of the ve hicle at some point and r un of f a ndwa s a

rr e ste d a t so me po int

a ft e r that.

After entry of the g uiltypleas, the trial court held a se ntencing hearing. A t sentencing , the Sta te re lie d u pon the pr e se nte nc e re po rt a ndthe fa c ts r e c ite d a t th e ple a he ari ng . Jac kie Sc ott testified on beha lf of the a ppellant. Scott stated that she had be en “w orking in Court” for more than twenty y ear s, and had seen the appellant “ off a nd on all that time.” A fe w day s befor e the a ppellant committed the instant offense s, he vis ited Scott at t he J ack Gene Shelter for W omen. The appellant told Scott t hat he ha d a proble m with drug s and alc ohol that h e could not overcome w ithout treatment. Scott advised the appe llant that she did not have a place to send hi m for treatment at that time and sug g ested he chec k with her the f ollowing we ek. Shortly

there afte r, the a

ppellant committed the instant offense s.
Scott stated that she h ad s p o k en with the appellant we ekly since he had bee n in jail. She believed the appella n t wanted he lp with his alcohol and drug problem, and in he r opinion he wa s “salva g eable .” Scott a ssured the court that she could make arr ang ements for the appe llant to rece ive

“ lon g -t ime ” tr e a tme nt.

I n deny ing probation, the trial court noted that the prese ntence report inc luded more tha n five pag es outlining the a

ppellant’s prior c ri minal history , including at least six prior fe lonies and numerous mi sdemea nor convictions. The court order ed the appellant to serve an ef fec tive sentenc e of six y ear s in the Depa

rtment of Correc tion but re commended that the appellant be assessed f or drug and alc ohol treatment “ within the sy stem.”

II. Ana lys is
On appe al, the appellant contends that the t rial court err ed by deny ing pr obation. When an appellant c halleng es the leng th, r ang e or manner of ser vice of

a sente nce, this court conducts a de novo revie w with a pre sumption t hat the dete rminations made by the t rial court are corr ect. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 401(d) ( 2003). Howeve r, this presumption is “conditioned upon the af firmative sh ow ing in the re c or d th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt c on sid e re d th e se nte nc ing princ ipl e s a nda ll r e le va nt f a c ts and cir cumstance s.” State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991) . I n the eve nt that the rec ord fails to demonstrate suc h consideration, review of the s entenc e is purely de novo. I d. I n conducting
our re view, this court must consider ( 1) the e vidence , if any , rec eived at trial and at the se ntencing-3-

hearing; ( 2) the pre s en t en ce re p ort; (3) the principles of sente ncing and the a rg uments of counse l relative to sentencing alternatives; (4) the na ture a nd char acte ristics of t he offense; (5) any mitigating or enha nceme nt fac tors; (6) any statements made by

the appe llant on his own behalf; and ( 7) the appellant’ s poten t i al for r ehabilitation or treatment. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40- 35-102, -103, - 210 (2003); see also Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 168. The bur den of showing that a sente nce was improper is on the appellant. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 401, Sentencing Commi ssion Com ments.

Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40-35-102(5) pr ovides that only “convic ted fe lons committing the most sever e offe nses, possessing criminal histories evincing a clea r disreg ard for the la ws a ndmor a ls o f s oc ie ty , a nd e vin c ing failu re of pa st e ff orts a t re ha

bil itatio n s ha ll b e g ive n f ir st pr iority re g ard ing se nte nci ng inv olv ing inc arc e ratio n. ” A d e fe nd a nt w ho do e s n ot f a ll w ith in this
c la ss of of

fe nd e rs a nd wh o is “ a n e sp e c ia lly mit ig a te d or sta nd ard of fe nd e r c on vic te d of

a Cla ss C , D or E f el o n y is p r e s u me d to b e a f a v o r ab le c a n d id a te f

o r a lt e r n a ti v e s e n te n c in g o p ti o n s

. ” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-102( 6). F urthermor e, “[t]he trial court must presume that a defe ndant sentenc ed to eig ht y ear s or less and not an of fende r for whom incar cer ation is a priority is subjec t to a lternative sentenc in g a n d th a t a

s e n te n c e o th e r

th a n in c ar c e r a ti o n w o u ldr e s u lt in s u c c e s s f

u l r e h ab il it a tion.” 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) (2003).

Be cause the appe llant was convic ted as a Rang e I I multipl e off

ender , t h e ap pellant is not
e nti tle d to a

pres ump tio n o f f

a vo ra ble c a nd ida c y

fo r a lte rn a tiv e se nte nc ing . In a ny e ve nt, considerations for a sente nce of confine ment can be found in Te nnessee Code Annotated se ction 40- 35-103(1) , which provide s for c onfinement whe n:

(A ) [ c] o n fi n em en ti s n ec es s ar y t o p ro t ec ts o ci et y

b y re s tra i n i n g a de fe nd a nt w ho ha s a

lon g his tory

of c ri min a l c on du c t; (B ) [c ]onf ine me nt i s ne c e ssa

ry to a vo id d e pr e c ia tin g the se ri ou sn e ss of the off ense or confine ment is particular ly suited to provide an eff ective de terre nce to other s likely to commit si milar offe nses; or (C) [m] easur es less re strict i v e than conf inement have fre quently

or re c e ntl y be e n a pp lie d u ns uc c e ssf

ull y to the de fe nd a nt. See also State v. Hoope r, 29 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tenn. 2000).
Additionally , the principles of sentenc ing ref lect that the se ntence should be no g reater than that deser ved for

the offe nse commi tted and shoul d be the least sever e mea sure ne cessa ry to achieve the purposes f

or which the s entenc e wa s imposed. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-103(2) and (4)

. Further, “ [t ]he po t en t i al o r l ack of potential for the r ehabilitation or treatment of the def endant should be consider ed i n determining the se ntence alternative or leng th of a term to be imposed.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-103(5) . A def endant with a long history

of criminal conduct and “ evincing failure of past ef

forts at re habilitation” is presumed unsuitable f or alternative sente ncing . Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 102(5).-4-

We conclude that the rec ord in this case a mply supports the trial court’s denial of pr obation. As the t rial court noted, the appe llant has an e x tensive history of criminal activity . The pre sentenc e re po rt re fl e c ts tha t th e thi rt y -f

ou r- y e ar- old app e lla nt ha s a t le a st six prior fe lon y c on vic tio ns a s w e ll
as numerous misdemeanor convictions. Additionally , the appe llant has a leng thy juvenile re cord, be g inn ing a t th e a g e of

tw e lve . D e sp ite re pe a te d co nv ic tio ns , the app e lla nt h a s c on tin ue d to vio la te the law, pr oving that he is unable to conf orm his behavior to c omply with the l aw. As this court has said, “[a] felon’s re habilitation potential and the risk of re peating criminal conduc t are fundame ntal in determining whether he or she is suited for a lternative se ntencing .” State v. Ke en, 996 S.W.2d 842, 844 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) . We find no err or in the trial court’s denial of pr obation.

III. Conclusi on
We affirm the trial court’ s denial of the a ppellant’s re quest for pr obation.

___________________________________ NORMA McGEEOGLE, J UDGE