### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs O ct obe r 25, 200 5
STA TE OF TE N N ES SE E v
. COR EY DES HAWN RO BINS ON

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Sulli van Coun ty

No. S48,326 P hylli s H. Miller, Judge

No. E2005-00515-CC A-R3- CD - F iled Dece m ber 15, 2005

The defe ndant appea ls his sentenc e of three y ear s confine ment afte r entering a g uilty plea t o theft of pr op e rty ov e r $ 10 ,0 00

. Th e de fe nd a nt co nte nd s the tr ia l judg e e rr e d in fa ili ng to s e nte nc e him to fu ll p ro batio n o r o the r al te rn a tiv e se nte nc ing

. Ou r re vie w re ve a ls that th e tr ia l ju dg e c omp lie d w ith sentenc ing pr ocedur es, and w e af firm the sente nce. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined. Stephen M. Wall ac e, Di s trict Public Defe nder, and L eslie S. Hale, A ssistant P ublic Def ender , for the appe llant, Corey

Desha wn Robinson.

Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Da vidE. Coe ne n, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; H. Gre eley

Wells, J r., District Attorney Gene ral; and Te resa M u rray -Smith, Assi stant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.

OP IN ION

This case involves an appe al by the def endant of his three- y ear

sentenc e of c onfinement. The defe ndant, Corey

Desha wn Ro b i n s o n, pled g uiltyto the indicted cha rg e of the ft of prope rty

over $1 0, 00 0, a

Cla ss C F e lon y . The ple a a g re e me nt p ro vid e d th a t th e de fe nd a nt w ou ld b e se nte nc e d to three y ear s as a Range I , standard offende r and would pay restitution of $13,765.53. The manne r of service was re serve d for de termination by the trial court. At the sentenc ing he aring , the def endant
wa s se nte nc e d to thr e e y e ars in the De pa rt me nt o f C or

re c tio n. Th e de fe nd a nt n ow app e a ls h is sentenc e, alleg ing that the trial court should have gr anted the de fendant probation or other alternative
s en t en ci n g.-2-

This court’s re view of the sentenc e imposed by the trial court is de novo with a pre sumption of c o rr ec t n es s
. T. C. A. § 40-35-401( d). This presumption is conditioned upon an af firmative sh ow ing in the re c or d th a t th e tr ia l ju dg e 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 a ndc ir c ums ta nc e s. State v. Pe ttu s, 98 6 S. W.2 d 5 40 , 5 43 (T e nn . 1 99 9) . I f the tr ia l c ou rt fails to comply with the statu t ory

direc tives, there is no pre sumption of corre ctness and our revie w is de novo. State v. Poole, 945 S.W .2d 93, 96 (Tenn. 1997)

. The burde n is upon the appea ling pa rty to show that the sentenc e is imprope r. T. C. A . § 40- 35-401(d) , Sentencing Commi ssion Com ments. I n conduct in g our re view, we are require d, pursuant t o T en n es s ee C o d e A n n o t at ed s ec t i o n 4 0 -3 5 -2 1 0 , t o co n s i d ert h e f o l l o wi n g fa ct o rs i n s en t en ci n g: (1) [t ]he e vidence , if any , rec eived at the trial and the sentenc ing hearing; (2 ) [ t ] he prese ntence report; (3) [t] he princ iples of sentenc ing and arg uments as to sentenc ing alternatives; (4) [t] he natur e and c hara cteristics of the criminal conduct involved; (5) [e] vidence and information offer ed bythe parties on the enha nceme nt and mitigating fac tors in §§ 40-35-113 and 40-35-114; and (6) [a]nystatement the de fendant wishes t o m ak e i n t h e d ef

en d an t ’s o wn b eh al f a b o u ts en t en ci n g.
Un de r the Cr imi na l Se nte nc ing Re fo rm Ac t of 19 89 , tria l ju dg e s a

re e nc ou raged to use a lte rn a tiv e s to inc arc e ratio n. An e sp e c ia lly mit ig a te d or stand ard of fe nd e r c on vic te d of a

Cla ss C , D, or E f elony is presumed to be a

favor able c andidate f

or alternative sente ncing o p t i o n s in the absenc e of e vidence to the contra ry . T. C. A. § 40-35-102( 6).

I n determining if inca

rce ration is appropriate, a trial court may consider the need to pr otect so c ie ty by re str a ining a

de fe nd a nt h a vin g a

lon g his tory

of c ri min a l c on du c t, the ne e d to a vo id de pr e c ia tin g the se ri ou sn e ss o f the of fe nse, whe the r c on fi ne me nt i s p art ic ula rl y app ro pria te to eff ectively deter others likely

to commit si milar offe nses and whether less restric tive measure s have of te n o r r e c e ntl y

be e n u ns uc c e ssf

ull y app lie d to the def

e nd a nt. T. C. A . § 40 -3 5- 10 3( 1) ; se e a lso State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991)

. A court may

also consider the mitigating and enhanc ing f actor s set forth in Tenne ssee Code An no ta te d s e c tio ns 40 -3 5- 11 3 a nd-1 14 a s th e y are re le va nt to the se c tio n 4 0- 35 -1 03 c on sid e ratio ns
. T. C. A. § 40-35-210( b)(5) ; State v. Boston, 938 S.W.2d 43 5 , 4 3 8 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996)

. Additionally , a court should c onsider the defe ndant’s potential or lack of potential for reha bilitation when de termining if an alternative sentence would be appropriate. T. C. A. § 40-35-103(5); B oston, 938 S.W .2d at 438.

There is no mathematica l equation to be util ized in determining se ntencing alternatives. Not only should the sentence fit the offe nse, but it should fit t h e o ff en d er as well. T. C. A. § 40-35- 103(2); State v. B atey , 35 S.W .3d 585, 588-89 (T en n
. C rim. App. 2000). Indeed, individualized punishment is the essenc e of alternative sentenc ing. State v. D owdy , 894 S.W .2d 301, 305 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). I n summary , sentenc ing must be dete rmined on a c ase- by -ca se basis, tailoring
eac h sentenc e to that particular defe ndant based upon the fa cts of that ca se and the circ umstances of that defe ndant. State v. Moss, 727 S.W .2d 229, 235 (Tenn. 1986)

.-3-

Th e fa c tua l bac kg ro un d of the of fe ns e wa s summ ari zed a t the g uil ty ple a he ari ng a s f oll ow s: Your Honor , this case be g an whe n Detec tive J ohn Ble ssing with the King sport Police Depa

rtment was called to the Sam’s Club located at Sam Walton Drive in th e B lo u n tv il le ar e a h e r e in Su ll iv a n Co u n ty , K in g s p o r t, B lo u n tv il le , reg arding thefts from a

vender within Sam’s. Wireless Retail operates a c ell phone business within the Sam’s Club. Ben Russell, who was at that time the manag er f or that org anization had employ ed the defe ndant, M r. R obinson, during the months of September 2002 to A ug ust 2003. I n revie wing acc ounts there they discovere d that Mr. Robinson had been c reating f alse, fa ke re turns and re ceiving the money from the ref unds g ener ated by

Sam’s Club. He had g iven M r. R obinson ---- Mr. Robinson had g iven a state ment to Mr. Russell and upon review ing w it h Mr. B lessing the advice of his rig hts he admitted to cre ating those false phone numbers and w ould refund the money to h i m s elf a nd estimated that he ha d taken a pproxi mately

$20,000.00. The actua l loss is thirteen thousand as st ated in the plea a g ree ment, thirteen thousand a nd some odd monies. Sam’s Club has indemnified Wire l es s to some ext ent but bear s the bu lk o f the los s.
The trial c ourt had a vailable f or consider ation at t

h es e n te n c in g h e a

rin g the pre sentenc e re port and the de fendant’s testimony . The d efendant wa s twenty -seve n y ear s of ag e at the time of the offe nse. He lived wit h h i s g irlfriend and their two childre n in a mobile home on prope rty that belong ed to his g irlfriend’ s mother. The defe ndant did not gr aduate from hig h school but had take n the pr e lim ina

ry ste ps tow ardob ta ini ng a GE D. Th e de fe nd a nt is a ty pe A d ia be tic . H e a dmi tte d to
c u rr e n t a lc o h o l u s a g e
. A t th e ti me o f th e s e n te n c in g h e ar in g , th e d e f e n d a n t w a s e mp lo y e d a t P iz za Hut. The de fendant’s prior work history was err atic. The defe ndant admitted having used marijuana and cr ack c ocaine in the pas t b u t claimed that his usag e had stoppe d. He sa id that, in the past, he stole to support his $100-200 per we ek cr ack c ocaine habit.

A l l o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s p r i o r

c o n v i c t i o n s w e r e f

o r m i s d e m e a n o r s , b u t t h e l i s tw a s l e n g t h y. Omitting traf

fic off enses, the recor d i n cluded two c riminal trespass c onvictions and one c asual
e xch a ng e c on vic tio n. Th e de fe nd a nt h a d tw ic e be e n fo un d g uil ty of vio la tio n of pr ob a tio n a nda lso had a c harg e pending for driving on a revoke d license. The trial judg e re viewed the pre s en t en ce report and hea rd the de fendant’s testimony . She then m ade de tailed finding s noting the de fendant’s convictions and observed that the de fenda nt’s social history was ex tremely poor and that he did not lead a r esponsible life. She noted that his work history was poor. The trial judg e then c onsid er ed enhanceme nt fac tors and found thre e applica ble: Under Tenne ssee Code Annotated section 40-35-114, the defe ndant has a previous hi s t o ry o f c riminal
c on vic tio ns or c ri min a l be ha vio r, id. a t (2 ); the de fe nd a nt ha s a pr e vio us his tory of un wi lli ng ne ss t o comply with th e c o n d it io n s o f s e n te n c e in v o lv in g r e le a s e inth e c o mmu n it y , id

. a t ( 9 ) ; an d the defe ndant abuse d a position of private trust, id. at (16)

.P res um ab l y , H ay H o use i s a hal f

- way house i n t he l o cal a re a, ut i l i zed fo r def end ant s ser vi ng al t ernat i ve 1

sen t en ce s. -4- The trial judge found only one mitigating fac tor applicable ; that the defe ndant’s co n d u ct neither c aused nor threatened serious bodily injury

. T. C. A. § 40-35-113( 1). The trial judge g ave this fa ctor “the least amount of we ight possible.” O f non-statutory mitigating fac tors, the judg e g ave the def endant c redit for

his voluntary

confe ssion of g uilt. The t rial judg e further found that the de fe nd a nt l a c ke d g e nu ine re mor se fo r h is ac tio ns a nd that the de fe nd a nt co nti nu e d to us e dr ug s u nti l October of 2004. After noting that the offe nse was not a crime of violence , the trial judg e found that the def endant ha d twice be fore violated probation. The trial judg e found that the defe ndant’s medical c ondition and special ne eds pre cluded his plac ement in the loca l jail or at Hay House. 1 Finally , the trial j u d ge stated that the de fendant had not demonstrated that full probation would serve the ends of justice for the defe ndant or the community and proc eede d to sentence the defe ndant to thr ee y ear s in the Depa rtment of Corre ction. I t was adde d that the def endant wa s to be
e va luate d f

or sp e c ia l ne e ds

. Our re view of the entire r ecord reve als that the trial judg e prope rly followed the statutory sentenc ing principles and c onsidered a ll r eleva nt f acts and circ umstances. Although the def endant
ma int a ins that th e tr ia l jud g e e rr e d in no t imp os ing a n a lte rn a tiv e se nte nc e , he po int s to no fl a ws in the method of re view.

We a re min df ul that se nte nc ing c on sid e ratio ns dic ta te a dh e re nc e to the fo llo wi ng princ ipl e s: (1) Sentence s involving confine ment should be based on t h e f o llowing
c on sid e ratio ns : (A) Confinement is ne cessa ry to pr otect society by restraining a de fendant wh o h a s a lon g his tory

of c ri min a l c on du c t; (B ) Confinement i s n ece ssary to avoid depre ciating the seriousne ss of the offe nse or c onfinement is particularly suited to provide an e ffe ctive deter renc e to others likely

to commit si milar offe nses; or (C ) Me a su re s le ss r e stricti ve th a n c on fi ne me nt h a ve fr e qu e ntl y 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. T. C. A. § 40-35-103( 1).

The de fendant here in had a leng thy history of criminal conduct and had proven unsucce ssful in comp lyin g w ith p r e v io u s s e n te n c e s in v o lv in g r e le a s e inth e c o mmu n it y
. E v e n th o u g h the de fe nd a nt w a s st a tut orily e lig ibl e fo r p ro batio n, he is n ot a uto ma tic a lly

e nti tle d to pr ob a tio n a s a matter of la w. T. C. A. § 40-35-303( b), S entenc ing Comm ission Comments; S tate v. Ha rtley , 818 S.W .2d 370, 373 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) . I n determining whe ther to gra nt or deny probation, a trial court should consider the circ umstances of

the off en s e, the def

endant’ s criminal re cord, the de fe nd a nt’ s so c ia l hi sto ry a ndpr e se nt c on dit ion , th e ne e d f or de te rr e nc e a ndthe be st i nte re st o f b oth the defendant a nd the public. State v. B oy d, 925 S.W .2d 237, 244 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) . The trial judg e adhe red to these principles and se t them out in a thoroug h fashion. Our re view has f ailed-5-

to find any

flaw in the tria l judge ’s sentenc ing. T here is substantial evidence in the rec ord to support the sentenc e. The sentenc e is there fore aff irmed.

__________________________________ J OHN EV ERETT WI LL I AMS, J UDGE