### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ma rc h 27 , 200 7
STATE OF TENNESS EE v . DAVID WAYNE WAT KI NS

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Sulli van Coun ty No. S48,374; S50,957 Phyllis H. Miller, Judge

No. E2006-01425-CC A-R3- CD - F iled Jul y 20, 2007

The de fenda

nt, David Way

ne Watkins, pled g uilty

to the o ff

en s es of theft ove r $1000, fe lony
rec kless en d an germent, and felony failure to appea

r. As a r esult, he re ceive d a total ef fec tive sentenc e of e ight y ear s to be serve d consec utively to a prior s en t en ce of

six y ear s he wa s alrea dy serving . On appe al, the def endant a rg ues t hat the trial c ourt err ed in deny ing a lternative se ntencing
and or de ri ngc on fi ne me nt. F ind ingno e rr or , w e a ff ir m th e jud g me nts of

the tr ia l c ourt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nts of

the Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed
J.C. M C L IN , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R . and R O BERT W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.

L eslie S. Ha le, Assistant Public Def ender , Blountville, Tenne ssee, for the appellant, Da vid Way ne Watkin s. Robert E. Cooper, J r. , At t o rney Gene ral a

nd Reporter ; Rachel West Har mon, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; H. Gre eley Wells, Jr., District Attorney Gene ral; and Tere sa Smit h, As s i s t an t Di strict Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.

OP IN ION

F AC TS
On Novembe r 5, 2003, the de fenda nt was cha

rg ed with one count of the ft over $1000 a nd
on e c ount o f f

e lony re c kle ss e nd ang e rm e nt. On Se pte mbe r 1 4, 20 05 , the de fe nd ant w a s c ha rg e d w ith felony failu re t o appear. The defe ndant pled g uilty to eac h of these c harg es, ag ree ing to a total eff ective se ntence of eig ht y ear s as a Rang e I I , multipl e offe nder, but leaving the manner of ser vice of his sentenc es to the discre tion of the trial cour t. At the plea a ccep t an ce hear ing, the state re cited the f ollowing f

actua l basis underlying the de fe nd ant’ s g uil ty

ple a s:-2-

[I n] F e br ua ry 20 02 [,] th e B ri sto l po lic e de pa rtme nt w a s c a lle d to Tri -C ity Auto P art s, a bu sin e ss l oc a te d the re in B ri sto l .

. . . I t wa s re po rt e d to the m th a t G a le and Da le Proffit, a fa

ther a nd son who opera

ted that business had hire d [t he defe ndant] to work for them in Dec ember and one day in D ece mber they had g iven [the defenda nt] the key s to unlock the g ates to the business . .

. . L ater [,] they

. . . found t he key s back on the desk . . . re turned to them by [t he def endant]

. About [t he] same time they discovere d that $1200.00 that had be en l o ck ed i n a dra wer in a locked r oom at the of fi c e wa s mi ssi ng
. . . . T he da y the mon e y

wa s d isc ov e re d mi ssi ng[the de fe nd ant] didn’t c o me to w o r

k ; h o w e v e r [, ] th e n e xt d ay h e c a me in dr iv in g a d if f e r e n t c ar, a fairly new . . . Cama

ro. . . . At that time t h ey d i dn’t repor t the theft bec ause the y wer en’t c erta in that [ the def endant] having the key s and the [missi ng] m o n ey
. . . we re re l at ed

. Ho we v er a mo n t h o r so l at er i n Fe b ru ary t h e P ro ff i t s t o o ki n a l a r ge a m o u n to f m o n e y .
. . f

r o m
. . . s o m e o n e p u r c h a s i n g c ar p art s
. . . [ w i t h ] c a s h

. T h e [ y] locked $1200.00 in the building , [and] ag ain . .

. the money was g one . . . . So when Mr. Proffit came in and told [the defenda nt] that they

wer e conc erne d about the
mon e y be ingmis sin g and

qu e sti on e d [the de fe nd ant] a bo ut i t [,] h e de c ide d to qu it. At tha t t im e M r
. Pr o f

f it s a id “ Ith ink y o u ’ v e g o t my

k e y s , ” w e n t o u t t o th e B la zer, which [the defe ndant] was now driving . . . and Mr. Proffit leans in t he ca r and f inds the set of ke y s that he believ es m atch the ke y s to his busi ness. Ther e’s a verba l confr ontation betwee n the two of them . . . . [Mr. P roff it] tried to put . . . the ca

r out of g ear to keep [t he defenda nt] from leaving .

. . . [The defe ndant] then said “I f y ou don’t ca ll the police I ’ll g ive y ou y our money back.” There was some sc uffle ove r the key s. Mr. Gale Proffit was l o o k i ng throug h the g love box of the Blazer a nd found more ke y s that matched his business and also a folder with a g ood deal of pa pe rs and mon e y in i t . .

. . Ov e r t

he c ours e of

that sc uf fl e , [th e de fe nd ant] tri e d to dr ive of f a nd Mr . Pro ff

it w a s st ill in t

he c ar a nd he fe ll o ut o f t

he c ar a nd ha d s ome scuff marks on . . . his hands . . . and the knee to his jea ns was scuf

fed up a bit but he wasn’t se riously

injured. All that was r eporte d t o t h e police a nd the cha

rg es we re broug ht and filed in Ge nera l Sessions C o u rt i n Br istol and the case was set to be hear d on J une 25th, 2002 and [t he def endant] failed to appe ar f

or that hea

ring and .

. . in f act he was an absconde r fr om supervised probation at that time, too. W e have fi le d a no tic e a lle g ing that he ha s su ff ic ie nt p ri or

c on vic tio ns to m a ke him po ssi bly
a Rang e I I I of

fe nd e r but re a c he d this Rang e I Iple a a s a c omp ro mis e . [T he de fe nd ant] has made restitution for the money taken . . . . Following the entry

of the de fenda

nt’s g uilty

pleas, a s en t encinghear ing w as held. At the hear ing, the defe ndant’s pre sentenc e report was e ntere d into evidence . Acc ording to the prese ntence repor t, the defe ndant had a

number of pr ior convictions for: be ing a habitual traf

fic off ender , evading
arr est, rec kless drivi n g, t h ef t, felony failure to appea

r, fe lony theft, vanda lism, driving under the inf lue nc e , d ri vin g wi th a

r e vo ke d li c e ns e , d

ri vin g wi tho ut a

lic e ns e , s e c on d d e g re e burg lary , a nd pe tit larc e ny . T he pr e se nte nc e re po rt a lso ind ic a te d tha t the de fe nd ant h a d s e ve ra l pr ob a tio n v iol a tio ns
. I n p art ic ula

r, it w a s n ote d th a t th e de fe nd ant vio la te d a con dit ion of his pr ob a tio n b y his c on du c t in be inga ha bit ua l tr a ff ic of fe nd e r. Th e de fe nd ant w a s th e n p la ced on c omm un ity c or re c tio ns
.-3-

There afte r, the de fenda

nt violated t h e co n d i tions of his communit y corr ections sentenc e by
c omm itt ingthe c ur

re nt o ff e ns e s to wh ic h h e ple d g uil ty . A c c or din g ly , th e de fe nd ant’ s c omm un ity
c or re c tio ns se nte nc e wa s r e vo ke d, and he wa s or de re d to se rv e his six- y e ar s e nte nc e in c on fi ne me nt. The victim’s statement in the pr esente nce r epo rt i n dicated tha t the defe ndant made restitution. The victim also noted that he believe d the def en d an t wa s n o t a violent per son. The vic timfu rt he r n ote d th a t he did

no t ob je c t to pr ob atio n f

or the de fe nd ant.
The de fenda

nt was the only

witness at t h e s en tencinghear ing. T he def endant’ s testimony indicated that he had stay ed out of trouble sinc e he ha d absconde d from B ristol in 2002. The de fe nd ant l ive d in

Sou th Caro lin a fr om 200 2 to 2005 . Wh ile in S ou th C aro lin a he wo rk e d a s an a

uto mecha nic and de tailed ca

rs. He move d to Florida in 2005

. W h i l e i n Florida , he wor ked for Gas B ug g ie s d oin g sim ila

r w or k o n c ars . In Jun e 20 05 , h e wa s a rr e ste d in F lor ida and sen t back to Tenne ssee whe re he was inca rce rate d. The de fenda

nt’s employ er at Gas Bu ggi es wr ote a letter indicating he would re hire the de fenda nt should he return to F lorida.
Acc ording to the defe ndant’s testimony , he had r ece ntly rema rried a nd had custody

of his ten y ear old son. Howeve r, his sister was taking car e of his son while he wa s incarc erated. He spoke wi th h is s on

via te le ph on e tw o o r t

hr e e tim e s a

we e k w hil e in j a il. The de fe nd ant v oic e d h is intention to reunite with his wife and son if pla ced on pr obation and allowe d to relocate. He note d that his wife wa s having trou b l e p ay i ng the bills and could not make it by herse lf. The de fenda

nt a ss e rt e d t h a t h e h a d g o t t e n h i s “ l i f e s t r a i g h t e n e d o u t n o w
. ” H e h a d a h o m e an d a j o b lin e d up in Florida , and he w ould be able to pa y his fines and court costs within a y ear if place d on probation.
The de fenda

nt testified that he wa s having a dif fi cult time while incar cer ated at the Whit eville Corre ctional Fa cility . He noted that his belong ings had been stolen, and he had re ceive d death thre ats from other

inmates. He a lso stated that he wa s suffer ing f rom hea lth problems. The defe ndant said he had taken a relig ious study course in pr ison a nd wanted to do inpatient residential treatment throug h the Have n L ighthouse Prog ram. He further noted that he wa nted to help childre n with disa biliti es in F lorida. He explained that he wante d to do something with his life to make up for his mistakes and he lp others avoid makingthe same mistakes he did. He also voice d his desire to go to B ible colleg e and be come a prea cher

. At the conc lusion of the hear ing, the court found the following enhanc ement fa ctors: that the defe ndant had a previous history of criminal convictions and c riminal behavior; he had a pr evious history of noncomplianc e with the conditions of sente nces involving rele ase int o th e c o mmunity ; and he abused his e mploy er’ s private trust. The court then g ave some mitigating weig ht to the fa ct that the defendant’s conduct di d not threate n serious bodily injury , the def

endant e ng ag ed in some selfreha bilitative eff

orts, and he made a voluntar y confe ssion of g uilt. The court then de nied alter native
se nte nc ing an d ord ered

the de fe nd ant t o s e rv e his tot a l e ff e c tiv e se nte nc e of

e ig ht y e a rs in confine ment consec utively to the sentenc e the de fenda nt was cur

rently serving

. AN AL YSI S-4-

The de fenda

nt’s sole issue on appe al is whether the trial cour

t e rre d in denying a lternative sentenc ing a

nd imposing full confine ment. Specifica lly , the defe ndant submits t hat the trial c ourt failed to c onsider the evidence prese nted s upporting his amena bility to reha

bilitation. The defenda

nt argues that the c ourt only considere d cer

tain enhanc ement and mitig ating fac tors set forth unde r Te nn ess e e Cod e Anno ta te d s e c tio ns 40 -3 5- 11 3 a nd 40 -3 5- 11 4 r a the r t

ha n th e fa c tor s se t f

or th i n section 40-35- 103.
When an ac cused c halleng es th e l eng th and manner of ser vice of a sente nce, this cour

t conducts a

de novo re view of the rec ord with a presumption that the trial cour t’s deter minations are
corr ect. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401( d). This presumption of corr ectne ss is conditioned upon the
a ff ir ma tiv e sh ow ing in the re c or d th a t th e tr ia l c ourt c on sid e re d th e se nte nc ingpr inc ipl e s and a ll rele vant fac ts a

nd circ umstances. State v. Pe ttus , 986 S.W .2d 540, 543-44 (Te nn. 1999). Howe ver, if the re cord shows that the trial court f ailed to consider

the sentenc ing p ri n ci p l es and a ll releva nt fac ts and circ umstances, then r eview of the cha lleng ed sente nce i s p u re l y de novo without the presumption of cor

rec tness. State v. Ashby , 82 3 S.W. 2d 16 6, 16 9 (T e nn
. 19 91 ). On a pp e a l, t he pa rt y challeng ing the sentenc e imposed by the trial court ha s the burden of establishing that the sentenc e is e rr on e ou s. Te nn . Co de Ann. § 4 0- 35 -4 01 , Se nte nc ingCom mis sio n Co mme nts

. Tenne ssee Code A nnotated section 40-35-103 provides g uidance as t o whether the trial cour

t should gr ant alter

native sente ncing or sentenc e the de fenda nt to total confinement. Sentenc es inv olv ingc on fi ne me nt s ho uld be ba se d u

po n th e fo llo wi ngc on sid e ratio ns : (A ) C o n fi n em en ti s n ec es s ary t o p ro t ec ts o ci et y

b y re s t ra i n i n g a de fe nd ant w ho ha s a

lon g his tor

y of c ri min a l c on du c t; (B ) Confinement is nec essar y to avoid depre ciating the seriousne ss of the offe nse or c onfinement is par ticularly s uited 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 i n em en t have f

reque ntly or rec ently been a pplied unsucce ssfully

to the defe ndant. . . .

. . . . (5) The potential or lac k of potential for the re habili t ation or treatment of the defe ndant should be consider ed in deter mining the se ntence alternative or leng th of a ter m to be imposed. . . . Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-103(1) , -(5) . As a Rang e I I , multipl e off ende r, t h e d efendant wa s not presumed to be a fa

vorable candidate for a lternative se ntencing

. Id

. § 40-35-102( 6). There fore , the burden of establishing suitability

for a lternative se ntencingrested w ith the defe ndant.-5-

Upon re view, we initially note t hat t he trial c ourt failed to a rticulate the appropr iate fa ctors s et fo rt h i nT en n es s ee C o d e A n n o t a t e d s ec t i o n4 0 -3 5 -1 0 3 wh en d en y i n g al t ern at i v e s en t en ci n g. Nonethele ss, the rec ord supports the cour t’s decision to deny

alternative sentenc ing. T he re cord
re fl e c ts t hat th e de fe nd ant h a d a

n e xten siv e his tor

y of c ri min a l con du c t. Th e re c or d f ur the r r e fl e c ts that eff orts less restric tive than conf inement had f

reque ntly failed a s the defe ndant was g iven seve ral
o p p o rtu n i t i e s a tp r o b a t i o nan d v i o l a t e d t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f

h i s p r o b a t i o nm an y t i m e s
. A c c o r d i n g l y, we af fi rm t h e t ri al co u rt ’s d en i al o f t h e d ef en d an t ’s re qu es tfo r a l t ern at i v e s en t en ci n g.
CO NC LU SION
Ba sed upon the for eg oing a uthorities and re asoning , we a ffirm the judg ments of the trial c ourt.

___________________________________ J .C. McL I

N, J UDGE