### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ma y 11, 200 5 STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. WAN DA JOYC E D RA KE
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Cannon County

No. F 04-57A J.S. Daniel, Jud ge

No. M2004- 02339-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Augu st 4, 2005

The a ppellant, Wanda J oy ce Drake, pled g uiltyin the Cannon County Circuit Court to conspiracy to manufac ture metha mphetamine, possession of a wea pon during a felony , and possession of me thamph e ta min e . T he app e lla nt r e c e ive d a tot a l ef fe c tiv e se nte nc e of

tw o y e ars inc arc e ratio n in the Tenne ssee De partment of Corr ection. On appeal, the a ppellant ar g ues that the trial c ourt err ed in d e nying pr ob a tio n. Up on ou r r e vie w o f the re c or d an d the pa rt ie s’ brie fs , w e a ff

ir m th e jud g me nts 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 opi nion of t he court, in which A L AN E. G L EN N and R O BERT W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.
J ohn W. P rice , Murfre esboro, Te nnessee , for the a ppellant, Wanda Joy ce D rake

. Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Ra c he l E . Willis, A ssi stant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil liam C. Whit esell, J r., Dist rict Attorney Gene ral; and D avid Puckett, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
. OP IN ION
Be cause a tra nscript of the appe llant’s g uiltyplea he aring was not included in the r ecor d for ou r r e vie w, we ha ve g le a ne d th e fa c ts u nd e rl y inghe r c on vic tio ns fr om the pr e se nte nc e re po rt

.

Ca nn on Co. re c or ds re fl e c t th a t on 3- 29 -0 4, Sg t. Deff e nd oll rec eived information from a store owner reg arding a female subjec t who had pur chase d a lar g e quantity of matche s. The subjec t was driving a b l u e/s ilver S-10 pick-up truc k, license #PUV- 032. The vehicle w as re ported to be tra veling toward W oodbury on Hig hway 53. Sgt. De ffe ndoll located the ve hicle tra veling north on Hig hway-2- 53 . T he ve hic le turne d into the Do lla r Stor e a nd tw o f

e ma le su bje c ts exit ed the ve hicle and w ent inside the store. Sgt. De ffe ndoll init iated a tr aff ic stop on the vehicle as it left the Dollar Store pa

rki n g l ot. The vehic le turned into Fred’ s. The oc c up a nts e xite d th e ve hic le a ndc a me tow ard the p a tr ol c ar. Sg t. De ff e nd oll sp ok e wi th the drive r o f the ve hic le , Wa nd a Dr ake . M s. Drake wa s asked f

or her driver’ s license. She was a lso asked if ther e was a ny thing in the ve h i cl e t h at should not be there . Ms. Drake stated that there was a loaded g un the in the g love box. W hen aske d if she had a

permit to car

ry a wea pon, Ms. Drake stated “N o I don’t need one .” She wa s then p l aced under arr est for c arry ing a

wea pon for the pur

pose of g oing a

rmed.
A sea rch of the vehicle reve aled a case of matche s, a g allon of iodine, a pint of iodine and 23 box es of Sudafed. All of the items are us e d in the ma nu fa c turing of me thamph e ta min e . A ll o f the ite ms wer e foundin th e f

r o n t s e a t f

lo o r o f th e 1 9 9 1 Ch e v y

S- 1 0 p ic kup truc k

. Sg t. D e f

f e n d o ll s e ar c h e d th e v e h ic le

. T h e p a s s e n g e r o f the truc k, An ne tte Ho bb s, state d “ I do n’ t kn ow what is in the re .” Ms. Drake stated “ The g un is mine” “I don’t know where the other stuff came from.”
Ms. Drake and M s
. Hobbs wer e tra nsported to the Cannon CountySheriff’ s Dept. A sea rch of Ms. Drake ’s purse rev eale d a small bag of a w hite powdery substance be lieved to be me thamph e ta min e . A se arc h o f M s. Ho bb s’ pu rs e revealed a g la ss tube used for

smoking metha mphetamine. Subsequent to her a

rre st, the appellant pled g uiltyto conspirac y to manufac ture methamphetamine, a

Class D felony ; posse ssion of a we apon during a fe lony , a Class E fe lony ; and possession of methampheta mine, a Class A m isdemeanor . The plea ag ree ment provided that the appellant would rec eive a two y ear sentenc e for the conspirac y conviction, a one y ear sentenc e for the possession of a wea

pon conviction, and an eleven mont h and twenty -nine day sentenc e for the possession of methampheta mine conviction. The se ntence s were order ed to run c oncurr ently for a total effe ctive sente nce of two y ear s.
A sentenc ing he aring was he ld to determine the ma nner of service of the a

ppellant ’ s s e n te nce. The a ppellant soug ht a probationary sentenc e. At the hearing, Ta ra Cannon te stified that she had prepa red the appellant’ s prese ntence report. Cannon noted that the fifty -nine-y ear -old appellant wa s re ceiving extensive medica l treatment for psy chiatric and phy sical conditions. The a ppellant had been totally

disabled since 1989. The appe llant told C annon that she w as sorry for c ommitt ing the offe nses, and she acknow ledg ed the de structive natur e of dr ug s. The appe llant denied eve r using-3-

illega l substances, including methamphetamine, coca ine, or marijuana. Howe ver, Cannon a sserted that the appe llant told office rs who ar rested he r that she ha d used methamphe tamine a f ew day s prior to h e r a rr e st.
Detec tive Charles Wilder wit h t h e C annon C ounty Sheriff’ s Depa

rtment testified that the app e lla nt ha d thr e e pr e c ur so rs to the ma nu fa c tur e of me thamph e ta min e in h e r p os se ssi on , n a me ly ephedrine, iodine, and red phosphorus. In her state ment to police, the appe llant admitted that she ha d th e ma te ri a ls f

or ma nu fa c turing me thamph e ta min e
. She ha d b e e n a sk e d to de liv e r the ite ms t o other pe ople who would manuf actur e the methamphetamine. The appellant was going to assist by taking the “striker

plates” f rom the match boxes to ext rac t red phosphorus.
De te c tiv e Wild e r a lso te sti fi e d th a t me thamph e ta min e wa s a pr ob lem o f “ ho rrif

ic pr op ortio ns ” in C a nn on Cou nty . H e state d th a t th e po lic e de pa rt me nt c a se loa d w a s jus t c ov e re d up with me thamph e ta min e
. Ou r c ou nty is p la g ue d w ith ho me bu rglari e s. Ma ny

of the ite ms that c ome fr om the se ho me burg laries ha ve been found in me th la bs or on people’ s persons that have be en ar

rested f or possession of methamphe tamine.
And we a re se eing every day

that the manufa cture of meth, the selling, the use of meth is le ading to othe r crimes. And it’s cre ating more victims than just the person who is using the drug

. At the conclusion of t he hearing , the t rial court found that the appe llant had a prior criminal histo r y , in c lu d in g a

p r e v io u s c o n v ic ti o n f

o r p o s s e s s io n o f

d ru g s
. A d d it io n a ll y , th e tria l c o u rt rema rked that the appellant “ made a misstatement, unexpl ained at this poi n t , b et wee n her of ficial version of how this oc curr ed and her denial of the use of drug s and then what she sa id to the office r. And that impairs my

ability to believe that she ’s a g ood candidat e. ” T h e t ri al court de nied the app ell ant pro bat io n an d o rder ed h er t o s erve her s ent ence i n co nfi nem ent . T he ap pel lan t n ow a pp eals the trial court’s denial of pr obation.
II. Ana lys is Appellate r eview of

the leng th, rang e or ma nner of service of a se n t en ce is de novo. See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 401(d) (2003). I n conducting its de novo review , this court considers the following fac to rs : (1) the e vidence , if any , rec eived at the trial and the se ntencing hearing; ( 2) the pr e se nte nc e re po rt ; ( 3) the princ ipl e s of se nte nc ing a nd arg ume nts a s to se nte nc ing a lte rn a tiv e s; (4) the nature a nd char acte ristics o f the criminal conduct involved; (5) e vidence and information of fe re d b y the pa rt ie s o n e nh a nc e me nt andmit ig a tin g fa c tor s; ( 6) a ny state me nt b y

the app e lla nt i n her ow n behalf ; and (7) the potential for r ehabilitation or treatment. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35- 10 2, -1 03 , -21 0 ( 20 03 ); se e a lso Sta te v. As hb y , 8 23 S.W. 2d16 6, 16 8 ( Te nn . 1 99 1) . T he bu rd e n is on the appe llant to demonstrate the impropriety of her sentenc es. See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 401, Sentencing Commi ssio n C o m m en t s . I n the instant case , the re cord r evea ls that the trial courtW e no t e t hat , whi l e t he ap p el l ant is e nt i t l ed to a p res um p t i o n in f avo r of pro b at i o n i n rel at i o n t o her f el o ny 1

c o n v ic tio n s, sh e is en tit le d to no su c h p re su m p tio n re g a r d in g he r m isd e m e a n o r se n te n c e
. See St a t e v
. W i l l i a ms , 914 S.W

. 2 d 94 0 , 94 9 (T enn. C ri m
. A p p
. 19 9 5 ). -4- a d e q u a t e l y c o n s i d e r e d s e n t e n c i n g p r i n c i p l e s a n d a l l r e l e v a n t f a c t s a n d c i r c u m s t a n c e s ; a c c o r d i n g l y, this court will review the trial court’ s rulings de novo with a presumption of cor rec tness. I d. at (d); Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169.
I nitially , we r ecog nize that an appellant is elig ible for alternative sentencing if the sentenc e actua lly imposed is eight y ear s or less. See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 303(a) (2003). Moreove r, an appellant who is an especially mitigated or standard offende r convicted of a Class C, D, or E fe lony is presumed to be a

favor able c andidate f

or alternative sente ncing . See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 102(6). In the instant case , the appe llant is a standard Range I offe nder convicted of a Class D felony and a Class E f

elony ; theref

ore, she is presumed to be a fa v o ra b l e candidate for a lternative sentenc ing. Howeve r, this presumption may be re butted by

“evide nce to the co n t rary .” State v. 1 Z e oli a , 9 28 S.W. 2d45 7, 46 1 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 96 ). Th e fo llo wi ng se nte nc ing c on sid e ratio ns , set forth in Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40-35-103(1), may constitu t e “e v i d en ce to the contra ry ”: (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 ) Confinement is nec essary to avoid depre ciating the seriousness of the offe nse or c onfinement is particularly s u ited to provide an eff ective de terre nce to other s likely to commit si milar offe nses; or (C) Mea sures less re strictive than conf inement have fre q u en t l yor rec ently been a pplied unsucce ssfully

to the defe ndant.
Z eolia, 928 S.W.2d at 461. Additionally , the “potential or lack of potential for the r ehabilitation or treatment of the def

endant should be considered in determining the se ntence alternative or leng th of a term to be imposed.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103( 5).
As we previously

noted, one of

the consider ations in our de novo re view is the nature and char acte ristics of the criminal conduct involved. Howe ver, the appellant ha s failed t o include the transcript of the g uiltyplea he aring in the rec ord for our re view. This court has previously noted,
For those defe ndants who pl ead guilty , the guilty plea he aring is the equivalent of

trial, in that it allows the State the opportunity to present the fa cts underlying the offe nse. F or this rea son, a transc ri p t of the g uiltyplea he aring is often (if not alway s) nee ded in order to conduct a prope r re view of the sentenc e imposed.-5-

State v. Kee n, 996 S.W .2d 842, 843 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). Acc ording ly , the appe llant’s “failure to i nc lud e the tr a ns c ri pt of the g uil ty ple a he ari ng in the re c or d pr oh ibi ts the c ou rt ’s c on du c tin g a fu ll de novo revie w of the sentenc e under [Tennessee Code Annotated se ction] 40-35-210(b).” State v. Shatha L iti sse r J on es, No . W2 00 2- 02 69 7- CCA -R 3- CD , 2 00 3 WL 21 64 43 45 , at *3 (T e nn . Crim. App. at Jackson, J uly

14, 2003). Reg ardle ss, from the testimony at the sent encing hearing, w e conclude that the trial court did not err in denying the appellant pr obation.
I n deny ing the appellant pr obation, the trial court found that the appellant had a long history of crim inal conduct. The appellant’ s prese ntencereport refle cts that the appe llant has four convictions for misdemeanor theft, two convictions for driving unde r the influenc e, and a conviction for possession of ma

rijuan a. We conclude that this i s sufficient c riminal history to overc ome the presumption in f

avor of alternative sentenc ing. Additionally , the rec ord supports the trial co urt’s finding that the appe llant’s lack of candor reg arding her history of drug usag e re flec ted poorly upon her pote ntial for re habilitation. See State v. Dowdy , 894 S.W .2d 301, 306 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)

. There fore , the trial court did not err in denying the appellant pr obation.
III. Conclusi on Finding no err or, we aff

irm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

___________________________________ NORMA McGEEOGLE, J UDGE