### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ma y 18, 200 4
STATE OF TENNESS EE v . MICHAE L BRANDON MOTT ERN
Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Washington Cou nty Nos. 25637, 26445, 25945, 27999B, 28000 Robert E. Cupp, Ju dge

No. E2003-00746-CC A-R3- CD June 22, 2004
The de fenda nt pled g uilty to two counts of automobile burg lary and one c ount of theft under $500. The Washing ton CountyCriminal Court ordered the defe ndant to serve an effec tive sentenc e of f ive y e ar s o f in c ar c e r a ti o n a s a

Ra n g e I I mu lt ip le o f

f e n d e r
. D u r in g th e s a me h e ar in g , th e tria l c ourt revo ked th e def

end ant ’s p rob a t i on fro m n um erou s p ri or co nv ict io ns and ord ered th e def end ant to s e rv e ane f

f e c ti v e thr e e
- y e a

r s e n te n c e o nth o s ec a s e s
. The g uilty plea case s and the re vocation ca ses wer e consolidate d on appea l. On appeal, t he defenda nt contends: (1) upon r evoking his probation fo r the pri or con vic tio ns , th e tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d b y or de ri ng him

to s e rv e his orig ina l se nte nc e s in confine ment; and (2) the trial co u rt erred in denying a lternative se ntencing reg arding his new c on vic tio ns . We a ff

ir m th e jud g me nts of

the tr ia l c ou rt

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

the Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed
J OE G. R I L EY , J. , d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f th e c o u r t, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., joined.
Da vidF . B a uti sta , D ist

ri c t Pu bli c De fe nd e r; a ndDe bo ra h B la c k H us kin s, As sis ta nt D ist ri c t Pu bli c Def ender , for the a

ppellant, Michae l Brandon Mottern. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; Thomas E. Wil liams, I I I , Assistant Attorney Gene ral; Joe C. C rumley , J r., District Attorney Gene ral; and St ev en R. Finne y , Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.

OP IN ION
I n M a rc h 2 0 0 1 , t h e d e f

e n d a n t p l e d g u i l t y t o s i x c o u n t s o f t h e f t u n d e r $ 5 0 0 , C l a s s A misdemeanors, a nd four counts of vandalism over $500, Class E felonies. He a lso pled g uiltyto one c o u n te a c h o f

v a n d a l i s mo v e r

$ 1 , 0 0 0 , a C l a s s D f e l o n y; a t t e m p t e d s i m p l e b u r g l ar y, a C l a s s E f e l o n y; s i m p l e b u r g l ar y, a C l a s s D f e l o n y; a u t o m o b i l e b u r g l ar y, a C l a s s E f e l o n y; a n d a g g r a v a t e d b u r g l ar y, a Cla ss C fe lon y
. Th e de fe nd a nt re c e ive d a n e ff e c tiv e thr e e -y e ar se nte nc e a s a Ra ng e I of fe nd e r w ith six ty day s incarc eration followed by probation.-2-

I n Dec ember

2002, the def

endant pled g uiltyto two counts of automobile burg lary and one count of theft under $500 f or bre aking into two vehicles on January 10, 2002, and taking a television and a Play Station fr om one of the ve hicles. Pursuant to the plea ag ree ment, the def

endant r ece ived an eff ective five-y ear sentenc e as a Rang e I I multipl e offe nder to be serve d consec utively to the prior sentenc es. F ollowing a

sentenc ing he aring , the trial court order ed the defe ndant to serve the fivey ear sentenc e in c onfinement. During the same hearing, the trial court revoke d t h e d ef en d ant’s probation for the Marc h 2001 convictions and order ed him to serve that eff ective three -y ear

sentenc e in confineme nt, resulting in a total effe ctive sente nce of eig ht y ear s of incar cer ation.
I. SENT ENCING HEARING
Th e de fe nd a nt t e sti fi e d th a t in Oc tob e r 2 00 1, he wa s la id o ff fr om h is j ob a ndwa s u na ble to imm e diate ly

ob ta in e mpl oy me nt. He a tte mpt e d to tr a ns fe r his pr ob a tio n to Chatta no og a wh e re his fathe r re sided in order

to esca pe fr om the drug scene
. He e x plained that with his probation offic er’ s pe rm iss ion , h e tr a ve le d to Chatta no og a on fi ve or six oc c a sio ns se arc hin g fo r e mpl oyme nt, bu t hi s e ff orts w e re un su c c e ssf

ul.
The de fenda nt expl ained that he committed the J anuary 2002 offe nses because he was “ down on [hi s] l uck” a nd “hig h” on Xanax, which he beg an consuming approximately one month afte r los ing his job in Oc tob e r 200 1. He state d h e re po rt e d th e se c ha rg e s to his pr ob a tio n o ff

ic e r o ne to tw o d a y s f

oll ow ing his arr e st. Cliff Runion, the defenda

nt’ s p ro b at i o no ff

i ce r, t es t i fi edth e d ef

en d an t m ai n t ai n edem p l o y

ment until the end of 2001 and r eporte d to him on a reg ular basis until April 2002. The defenda nt reporte d his J anuary

2002 arr est to Runion on Februa ry 28.
As t o nR i ce , th e d ef

en d an t ’s s i s t er , t es t i fi edth at i f t h e d ef endant received alter

nat i v e s en t en ci n g, sh e wo uld a llo w t hede fe nd ant t o re sid ewi th h e r a nd her f amil y in T e lford . Ric esta

te d s hewo uld provide the defe ndant wit h transporta tion to meeting s and to work, and she would report the def endant to the po lic e if

he us e d d ru g s.
At the c on c lus ion of

the he ari ng , th e tr ia l c ou rt fo un d the de fe nd a nt vio la te d the te rm s o f h is pr ob atio n regardin g the M arch 20 01 con vi cti on s, revo ked th e def end ant ’s pro ba

tio n, and or dere d h im to serve his orig inal three -y ear sentenc e in conf

inement. Reg arding the J anuary 2002 offe nses, the trial court noted the defe n d an t h ad a leng thy criminal history , which included nine prior fe lony convictions, and the de fenda nt commi tt e d the offe nses appr ox imately ten months after

he wa s place d on probation on the prior

convictions. The trial court found the def endant’ s potential for re habilitation and the possibility

of abiding by the terms of proba tion were“non-e x istent” and noted thedefe ndant continued to commit simi lar offe nses while on probation. The trial court fur ther found tha

t measure s less res t ri ctive than c onfinement ha d fre quently or re cently

been unsuc cessf

ully applied to the defe ndant. The tria l court orde red the defe ndant to serve his effe ctive fiv e-y ear sentenc e for

the Janu ary 20 02 of fe ns e s in c on fi ne me nt.-3- II. P RO BA TIO N R EV OC AT ION
The de fenda nt conce des that the e vidence was sufficient t o support the trial court’s finding that he violated his probation reg arding his March 2001 c onvictions. Howeve r, the defe n d ant contends the tria l court should have imposed le ss restrictive punishment. We disag ree
. A trial court may

revoke probation and order the impositi on of the orig inal sentenc e upon a finding by

a pre ponderance of

the evidenc e that the pe rson has violated a condition of probation. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40- 35-310, -3 1 1

. T h e d ecision t o revoke probation re sts within t he sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Mitche ll, 810 S.W .2d 733, 735 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). Revoca tion of probation is subject t o an abuse of di scre tion standard of r eview, r ather than a de novo standard. State v. H arkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991). Up on fi nd ing that a

de fe nd a nt h a s v iol a te d the t e rm s o f h is p ro batio n, a tr ia l c ou rt

is e xpre ssl y a uth or ize d to or de r the de fe nd a nt t o s e rv e the e nti re ba la nc e of th e or ig ina l se nte nc e in confine ment. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40- 35-310, -311; State v. Hunter, 1 S.W .3d 643, 647 (Tenn. 1999). F urthermor e, a de fenda nt who is alrea dy on probation is not nece ssarily en t i t l ed to an additional g rant of pr obation or some o t h er fo rm of alternative sente ncing . State v. J eff rey A. Warfield, No. 01C01-9711- CC-00504, 1999 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXI S 115, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Fe b. 10, 1999), perm. to app. denie d (Tenn. 1999)

. Upon re voking the defe ndant’s probation, the trial court was authorized to or der him to serve his original s en t en ces. W e conc lude the trial c ourt did not abuse its discretion in ordering the de fe nd a nt t o s e rv e his or ig ina l se nte nc e s in c on fi ne me nt.
III. ALTE RNATIVE SENTE NCING
The de fenda nt contends t h e trial c ourt err ed in orde ring him to serve his sentenc es for the J anuary 2002 offe nses in confine ment. The defe ndant submits the trial court should have imposed a s e n te n c e in v o lv in g c o mmunity c o rr e c ti o n s o r

s o me o th e r

f o r m o f a lt e r n a ti v e s e n te n c in g
. We disag ree
. A. Standard of

Review
Th is c ou rt ’s re vie w o f the se nte nc e imp os e d by the tr ia l cou rt is de novo with a pre sumption of cor rec tness. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-401(d) . This presumption is conditioned upon an a f f i r m a t i v e s h o w i n g i n t h e r e c o r d t h a tt h e tr i a l j u d g e c o n s i d e r e d t h e s e n t e n c i n g p r i n c i p l e s a n d a ll rele vant fa cts and ci rc u m s tance s. State v. Pettus, 986 S .W.2d 540, 543 (Tenn. 1999). I f the trial court fa ils to complywith the statut o ry d i re ctives, there is no presumption of corr ectne ss and our re vie w i s de novo . State v. Poole, 945 S.W .2d 93, 96 (Tenn. 1997)

. Under the 1989 Sentencing Act, sente nces w hich involve conf inement ar e to be ba sed on the following considerations contained in Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40-35-103(1):-4-

(A) [c]onfinement is nece ssary to protect socie ty by restra ining a defe ndant who has a lon g his tory

of c ri min a l c on du c t; (B ) [c ]onf ine me nt i s n e 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 of fe ns e or conf inement is p ar t i cu larly

suited to provide an e ffe ctive dete rre nce to other s likely to commit si milar offe nses; or (C) [m] easur es l es s restrictive tha n confine ment have f reque ntly or re cently

been app lie d u ns uc c e ssf

ull y to the de fe nd a nt. State v. Grig sby , 957 S.W .2d 541, 545 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) ; State v. Millsaps, 920 S.W .2d 267, 270 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995)

. B. Waiver We note that eig ht pag es of the se ntencing hearing tr anscript detailing a portion of the trial court’s f indings a re not include d in the appellate rec ord. In his brief, the de fenda nt c ites to the trial court’s f indings on these pag es in contending t h at co n fi nement is improper. Furthermor e, the de fe nd a nt’ s p re se nte nc e re po rt is abs e nt fr om the app e llate re c or d. I t is the du ty of the app e lla nt t o provide a rec ord which convey s a fair, accurate and complete account of what transpire d with reg ard to the iss ue s w hic h f

or m th e bas is of th e app e a l. T e nn . R. Ap p. P. 2 4( b) ; see State v. Tay lor, 992 S.W .2d 941, 944 (Tenn. 1999)

. R ega rdless, the re cord a mply supports the trial court’s denial of al t er n at i v e s en t en ci n g. C. Ana lys is
W e n o t e t h a tt h e d e f

e n d a n tw a s s e n t e n c e d f

o r t h e J a n u ar y

2 0 0 2 o f f e n s e s a s a

R a n g e II multipl e off

ender . Thus, the def

endant is not aff

orded the presumption in favor of alternative sentenc ing. See Te nn . Co deAn n. § 40 -3 5- 10 2( 6)

. Al tho ug h th ede fe nd ant w a s, ne ve rt he le ss, e lig ibl e for a lternative se ntencing , the trial court did not err in imposing confinement. The trial court noted the def endant’ s long history

of criminal conduct, which included nine prior felony convictions and six prior misdemea nor convic tions. See id. § 4 0- 35 -103( 1)( A). The tr ia l c ou rt fu rthe r f ou ndle ss restric tive measure s had re cently been unsuc cessf

ully applied to t h e defe ndant and that the d ef en d ant’s potential for

reha bilitation was poor. See id. § 4 0

- 3 5

- 1 0 3 ( 1 ) ( C) , ( 5 )

. T h e d e f endant committed two counts of automobile burg lary and one c ount of theft under $500 while on probation for c ommitt ing similar of fense s. There fore , we c onclude the trial court prope rly order ed the de fe nd a nt t o s e rv e his e ff e c tiv e fi ve -y e ar s e nte nc e fo r the Janu ary 20 02 of fe ns e s in c on fi ne me nt.
Ac c or din g ly , w e a ff

ir m th e jud g me nts of

the tr ia l c ou rt

.

____________________________________ J OE G. RILEY, JUDGE