# FIL ED A ug ust9, 1996 Cecil W. Crow son A pp ellat e C ou rtC lerk IN T HE C OU RTOF C RI MI NA L A PPEA LS OF T EN NE SSEE

A T NASHVILLE A PR ILSES SION , 199 6

STA TE OF T EN NE SSEE , ) ) No. 01C 01- 9508- CR -0 0259 Appel lee ) ) SU M N ERC OU N TY v s . ) ) Ho n . J a n e W . W h e a tc ra f t, Ju d ge PHILLIP CRA IG MA NGRUM , ) ) (A ggra va t e d B u rg la ry) Appel lan t )
For the Appel lan t: For the Appel lee : James M . H unter Cha rl es W . Bu rs on Hun ter & H unter Atto rn ey Gene ra l and R epor

ter 182 W estF ra nkl in Street Gallatin , TN 37 066 Sarah M. Branch Ass is tant Atto rn ey

Gene ra l Cr imi nal Ju sti ce Di v is ion 450 J ames R ober

tso n Par kway Nas hv il le, TN 37243- 0493 Law re nce Ray

W hit ley Di str ict Attor ney

Gene ra l Mr . D ee Ga y Ass t. Di str ict Attor ney

Gene ra l 113 Ea st Ma in Street Gal lat in, TN 37066

OPIN ION F ILED : A FF IR ME D
Dav id G. H ayes Ju d geT enn . Code Ann. § 40-35 -202 (a) (1990) provides: 1 If the di str ict attor ney g eneral bel iev es that a defendant s houl d be sent enced as a mul ti ple , persi ste nt or

ca re er offender , he shal l file a s tatement the reof w ith the court an d de fense coun sel notless t h a n t e n ( 1 0 ) d a y s b e fo re t r i a l o r a c c e p t a n c e o f a g uil ty pl ea .. . Such st atement ... mustse t fort h the nature of the pr ior

felony co nv icti ons, the dates of the conv icti ons and t he i denti ty of the c our

ts of the convictions. T enn . R. Cr im. P. 12.3 provi des: W ri tten sta tements of the d is tr ict attor ney g iv ing noti ce that the d efendant s houl d be sent enced to an enhanc ed puni shment.. . s hal l be fil ed notl ess than ten ( 10) days p ri or

to tr ial . If the no ti ce is fil ed l ater than thi s t ime, the tr ial j udg e s hal l g ra nt t he defendant upon hi s mot ion a reason abl e c onti nuanc e of the tr ial . 2 OPIN ION The appel lan t, Phi ll ip Ma ng ru m, pl ed g uil ty i n the C ri minal C our

t of Sumner C ounty to ag g ra v ated burg lar

y , a cl ass C felony
. Tenn. C ode An n. § 39- 14- 403 ( 1991)
. The tr ial co urt s entenc ed th e appel lan t as a mul ti ple offender w it hin rang e II to eig ht y ears i ncarcerati on i n the D epar tment of Cor re cti on. The appel lan t app eal s from thi s s entenc e, c ontendi ng , i n es senc e, t hat ( 1) the appel lan t’ s s tatus as a mul ti ple offender i s n ot s uppor

ted b y the re cord; ( 2) the Sta te’s no tice of

enh ance d sen ten cing was inad equate und er the Se nte ncing Act and Tenn. R. C ri m. P. 12.3 ; and ( 2) hi s s entenc e i s e x ces si v e.
FACTUA L BACKGROUND On D ecember

7, 1994, the S umner

C ounty Grand J ur

y retur ned an indictm entcharging the app ellantw ith on e cou nt of theft of prope rty worth m ore than $1000, one c ount of theft of prop erty worth l ess than $500, and one c ount of ag g ra v ated burg lar

y . On J anuar

y 12, 1995, the S tate filed i ts noti ce of inte nt to s eek enhanc ed puni shmentof the a ppel lan t as a rang e II , mul ti ple offender . The Stat e reli ed upon two pr ior co nv icti ons, i ncl udi ng a 19 73 c onv icti on for p o s s e s s i o n o f s t o l e n m a i l i n C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s a n d a 1 9 9 1 c o n v i ct i o n fo r s a l e o f a sc hedul e II I c ontroll ed s ubst ance in the S umner C ounty C ri minal C our

t. O n 13

Fe b ru a ry 17 , 1 9 9 5 , t h e ap p e lla n t p le d guil ty to aggra vat e d bu rgla ry in e xch a n ge for the d ismissal of

the rem aining tw o cou nts of the ind ictme nt. In a ccorda nce w it h the pl ea ag re ement, the t ri al cour t was to de ter mine the l eng th an d manner of ser v ic e of the sent ence. On A pr il 3, 1995, the t ri al cour t c onducted a se ntenc ing hear ing . The Stat e reli ed upon the pre- sent ence re por t s ubmitted b y

C arol Ma rt in, a com mu nity correction s case of f icer. Martin testif ied atthe he aring that th e Illinois conv icti on for sto len mai l, se t fort h i n the Sta te’ s n oti ce of enhancement , was prob ably errone ously i nclud ed in th e ap pellan t's criminal histo ry . Nev erthe less, the p re -s entenc e repor t reflect s t hir

ty -o ne pr ior

co nv icti ons, co mpri si ng fourt een felony co nv icti ons and s ev enteen mis demeanor co nv icti ons. Atthe ti me of the sent enci ng hear ing i n the i nst ant c ase, the appel lan t was ser v ing two c oncur re nt sent ence s of

one y ear an d three y ears w ith Correction s Corporatio n of Ame rica in Dav ids on C ounty

pursuantto conv icti ons for th eft. The appel lan t t est ified on h is ow n behal f. W it h respect t o the co nv icti ons li ste d i n the Sta te’ s n oti ce of enhancement , he deni ed bei ng co nv icted o f poss ess ion of sto len mai l in Chi cag o, I ll ino is , c lai ming thathe h as nev er been to Chi cag o. The appel lan t di d notdeny the conv icti on for the s ale of sc hedul e II I dr ug s . H e rem ar k ed , “ In t he p as t I ha d a prob l em . I g otc au g htw i th s om e peopl e w it h dope sev eral ti mes, and I took the bla me for i t s ev eral ti mes.” The app ellanttestif ied th at his m em oryof past events “is kind of

foggy” due to his abuse of crack

co cai ne. Mo re ov er , t he appe ll ant a dmitted n umero us conv icti ons for first deg re e burg lar

y , s econd deg re e burg lar y , and g ra nd l arceny , ex pla ini ng that he was on heroin at the t ime. The appel lan t i s 3 5 y ears o ld. H e i s mar ri ed. Hi s w ife i s n amed as a c o-4

defendant w it h respect t o the offenses co mmitt ed i n the i nst ant c ase. The appel lan t has three c hil dren w ho c ur re ntl y resi de w it h the appel lan t’ s mot her . The appel lan t’ s s is ter , Li nda Ev ans, tes ti fied, “As a father [t he appe ll ant] has been al most not t here.” H ow ev er , M s. Ev ans als o as ser ted a bel ief tha t her brother has ch ang ed and is prepared to as sume respon si bil ity for h is ch il dren and his life. The app ellanthas an eleventh grade ed ucat ion, a nd h is em ploymen t history is sporadic. The appel lan t t est ified thathe h as been ab usi ng dr ug s s inc e he w as si xteen. H e att ri butes hi s c ri minal hi sto ry to his dr ug addi cti on. Howev er , he tes ti fied, “ Ei g ht mont hs ag o I g ot s av ed. Ev er si nce I g ot s av ed, I w as tr y ing to help peo ple arou nd th e jails ... .” The app ellanthas be en a tten ding a substa nce abu se program o pera ted by"Lifeline. " Add itiona lly , he is atte ndin g classes in order to obtai n hi s G ED . T he a ppe llant also subm itted a letter f rom h is aunt , Billie Jean Owens, in w hic h M s. Ow ens g uaranteed the a ppel lan t a job renov ati ng her home s houl d he be rele ased from pr is on. Mo re ov er , t he appe ll ant i ntroduce d l etters from the Sunday Sc hool D irect or

and the M ini ste r of the c hurch atten ded by the Ma ng ru m fa m il y. Pr ior

to the c oncl usi on of the sent enci ng hear ing , t he St ate mov ed to amend i ts noti ce of enhanced puni shmentby i ncl udi ng the conv icti ons setforth in the p re -s entenc e repor t. D efense c ounse l int er posed no o bje cti on, a nd th e tr ial co urt g ra nted the S tate’ s mot ion . In s entenc ing the appel lan t t o ei g ht y ears i ncarcerati on i n the D epar tment of Correction, th e trial court foun d ap plicable the followi ng enha ncem entfacto rs: (1 ) The defendant ha s a prev iou s h is tor y of cr imi nal co nv icti ons or cr imi nal behav ior

i n addi ti on to thos e nec ess ar y to est abl is h the5 app ropriate range, Te nn. Code An n. § 40 -35-11 4(1) (1994 Supp .); and (2) The defend antw as a lead er in the com mission of an of fense involv ing two ( 2) or

more c ri minal actors, Tenn. C ode An n. § 40- 35- 114 (2). The record reflect s t hat t he tr ial co urt was par ti cul ar ly i mpres sed by

the appel lan t’ s c ri minal hi sto ry . A NA LYSIS I n i t i a l l y , w e c o n c l u d e t h a t , c o n t ra r y t o t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s a s s e rt i o n i n h i s b r i e f, the e v ide nce adduc ed atthe sent enci ng hear ing ov er w hel ming ly

es tabl is hes the appel lan t’ s e li g ibi li ty

for s entenc ing w it hin rang e II as a mul ti ple offender . Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 40 -3 5- 106 ( 1990)
. In t he c ontext of es tabl is hin g the appropr iat e sent encin g range, this cou rt has he ld tha t, ab senta showing thatthe rep ort is based upon unreli abl e s ources or i s o ther w is e i nacc urate, infor mati on abou t conv icti ons cont ain ed i n a p re -s entenc e repor t i s reli abl e. Stat e v . H ine s, No. 01C 01- 9406- CC -0 0189 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. at Nas hv il le) , per m. to appeal deni ed, (Te nn. 199 5). Th e record ref lects tha t the of f icer w ho p repa red the pre-sent ence re por t i n thi s c ase did not re ly so lel y upon an N .C .I. C. repor t i n c ompil ing the appel lan t’ s c ri minal hi sto ry . Stat e v . Bu ck , 670 S.W .2d 6 00, 6 07 ( Tenn. 1984 ) (t he i nformati on c ontai ned i n N .C .I. C. repor ts is of a dubi ous deg re e of acc uracy ). M oreov er , t he appe ll ant was prov ide d more tha n a mont h to inv est ig ate t he c onv icti ons li ste d i n the Sta te’ s n oti ce of enhancementand, at the sent enci ng hear ing , present ed proof that the a ppel lan t was not t he s ubj ectof the Il li noi s c onv icti on. In c ontrast , al thoug h the appel lan t was enti tl ed to rebut infor mati on c ontai ned i n the pre- sent ence re por t c oncer nin g othe r pr ior conv icti ons, he fai led to chal len g e the repor t or fil e any st atement in re spons e to it . See Tenn. C ode An n. § 40- 35- 209( a) and (d )( 1) ( 1990)
. In fact , t he app ellant ’s ow n test imo ny une quiv ocally supp orts his statu s as a mu ltiple of fend er.See s upra not e 1. 2 W aiver ma y

also be foun d pu rsuan t to T enn . R. App. P. 36(a). T hatrule 3 prov ide s t hat “ [n]ot hin g i n thi s r ule sh all be c onst ru ed as req uir ing reli ef be grant ed to a party ... w ho failed to take whatever action w as reaso nab ly av ailable t o p re ve n to r n u ll ify t h e h a rm f u l e f fe cto f a n e rro r. ” T h e a p p e ll a n tco u ld h a ve subm itted a mo tion to contin ue th e sen ten cing hearing in order thatthe trial court mig ht de ter mine w hether the Stat e’s amendment of the not ic e had so preju dic ed the a ppel lan t as to re q uire an oppor tuni ty for t he w it hdraw al of the g uil ty pl ea. Obviously , defense coun sel did no t ma ke such a mo tion in th is case beca use suc h a mot ion woul d hav e been enti re ly futil e. The la ck

of preju dic e to the appel lan t i n thi s c ase w as bla tantl y obv iou s. 6 The appel lan t al so arg ues that the S tate’ s n oti ce of enhanced se ntenc ing did no t com ply w ith the app licable provisions of the Se nte ncing Act and Te nn. R. Cr im. P. 1 2.3. W it h respect t o the Sta te’ s a mendment of the noti ce of enhanced 2 sent enci ng to inc lud e the feloni es li ste d i n the pre- sent ence re por t, w e not e tha t the a ppel lan t fail ed to obj ectat the s entenc ing hear ing . Y et, in Stat e v . D ebro, 787 S.W .2d 932 , 933 -934 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p. 19 89), th is court hesita ted to app ly the waiv er

doctr ine se t fort h i n St ate v . St ephens on, 7 52 S. W .2d 8 0, 81 ( Tenn. 198 8), to case s inv olvi ng defects in the conte nt of notice rather tha n de lay in f iling. Th e w aiver doct rine set forth in Ste phe nson add ressed defense coun sel’s obl ig ati on unde r Tenn. R . C ri m. P. 12.3 to seek a c onti nuanc e of tr ial i n the ev ent of a late f iling. See a lso Stat e v . Ada ms, 788 S.W .2d 557 , 559 (Ten n. 19 90)(a cont inu ance w oul d notordin ar il y su ff ic e to cor re ct mis infor mati on)
. Arg uabl y , t he Stat e’s amendment cons ti tuted a l ate fil ing . Nev erthel ess , i n the i nst ant c ase, the a ppel lan t had al re ady pl ed g uil ty

w hen t he St ate s oug ht t o amend noti ce to inc lud e addi ti onal co nv icti ons. C lea rl y , t he appe ll ant c oul d notreq uesta cont inu ance of tri al. Ac cordin g ly , t he i nq uir y i s o ne of preju dic e rather than w aiv er . Id. 3
W e c oncl ude t hat t he appe ll ant h as faile d to show any preju dic e ar is ing f rom th e de fective notice an d the State ’s ame ndm enttheret o. Id. T he St ate ’s ini ti al noti ce subs tanti all y co mpli ed w it h Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 40 -3 5- 202( a) and T enn . R. Cr im. P. 12.3 . Th e Sta te’s mista ken relian ce up on th e IllinoisT h e a p p e ll a n td o e s n o tch a ll e n ge t h e t ri a l c o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f a n a lt e rn a t ive 4 sent ence. 7 conv icti on c onst it uted an er ro r appear ing upon the face of the not ic e, ob li g ing the appel lan t t o i nq uire furt her . Id. Ag ain , t he St ate s ubmitted t he not ic e of enhanc ed s entenc ing more tha n one month pr ior to the a ppel lan t’ s g uil ty pl ea, prov idi ng su ff ic ien t t ime for th e appel lan t t o c onduct s uch inq uir ies . Cl ear ly , t he appel lan t was aw are of the mis tak e pr ior to his g uil ty

pl ea, a nd c lea rl y

the app ellantw as aware of his ow n extensive cr imina l history prior to the en try

of his ple a. Fi nal ly , we hav e prev iou sl y obs er v ed th at t he record es tabl is hes the appel lan t’ s c ri minal hi sto ry beyond a re asona ble doubt . This i ss ue i s w it hout meri t.
T he a ppe llant also argues thathis sente nce is excessiv e. Rev iew , by this 4 court, of the len gth of

a sente nce is de n ovow it h a p re sumpti on th at t he deter minat ion made by the tr ial co urt i s c or re ct. Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 40 -3 5- 401 (d) (1990). T his presum ption only app lies, howev er, if the reco rd demonst ra tes thatthe tr ial co urt proper ly co nsi dered s entenc ing pr inc ipl es and all rele v ant fact s a nd c ircums tanc es. St ate v . As hby , 823 S.W .2d 1 66, 1 69 (Tenn. 1991)
. The le g is lat ure has l is ted fact ors t hat t he tr ial j udg e s hal l cons ide r in deter mini ng the spec ificse ntenc e: 1. the e v ide nce, i f any , recei v ed atthe tr ial and the se n te n cin g he a rin g; 2. the p re -s entenc e repor t; 3. the p ri nci ple s o f sentenc ing and arg uments as to sent encin g altern atives; 4. the natu re and characte ristics of th e crimina l condu ct involved; 5. ev ide nce and i nformati on offered by the par ti es on th e enhanc ement an d mi ti g ati ng factors i n §§ 40- 35- 113 and 40- 35- 114; and 6
. an y st a t e m e n tt h e d e fe n d a n twis h e s t o m a k e in h is o wn behal f about s entenc ing . Tenn. C ode An n. § 40- 35- 210( b) (1 990)
. General pr inc ipl es of senten ci ng inc lud e the foll ow ing : pot enti al or l ack of potent ial for rehabi li tati on; the impos it ion of a s entenc e no g re ater than thatw ar ra nted by the offense; t he8

impos it ion of the l eastse v ere meas ure nec ess ar y to achi ev e the pur poses for w hic h the se ntenc e i s i mposed; and the av ail abi li ty of alt er nati v es to incarcerat ion. T enn . Code Ann. §§ 40 -35-10 3(2)-(6)(1990 ).
W it h respect t o the l eng th of a s entenc e, Tenn. C ode An n. § 40- 35- 210 (199 0) provi des th at th e min imu m sen ten ce w ithin th e ap prop riate range is the p re sumpti v e s entenc e. If there are enhan ci ng and miti g ati ng factors, the cour t mus t s tar

t atthe mini mum sent ence in the rang e and enhanc e the sent ence as appropr iat e for the e nhanc ement fact ors a nd th en reduce the sent ence w ithin th e range as ap prop riate for the m itigating facto rs. Id. If there are no mitigating fa ctors, the court ma y set the sente nce a bove the minim um in that ra ng e, bu t s ti ll w it hin the ra ng e. Id. See als o St ate v . D ies , 829 S.W .2d 706, 710 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1991)
. "[T]here i s n o par ti cul ar v alu e as si g ned by the 1 989 Se ntenc ing Act t o the v ar iou s fact ors a nd th e ' w eig ht afforded miti g ati ng or

enhanc ement fact ors d er iv es from bal anci ng rela ti v e deg re es of c u lp a b il it y wit h in t h e t o t a li ty o f t h e ci rc u m s t a n c e s o f

t h e ca s e in vo lve d . ' " St a t e v. Ma rs hal l, 870 S.W .2d 5 32, 5 41 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. ), per m. to appeal deni ed, (Te nn. 199 3)(citation omitt ed). T he weig ht assigned to any ex isting fa ctor is g enerall y

l eft to t he tr ial j udg e's di sc re ti on. Id.
T he a ppe llant w as con v icted o f a class C felo ny and sente nced as a mu ltiple of

fend er w ithin range II. Thu s, the app licable sen ten cing range w as six to t en y ears. See Tenn. C ode An n. § 40- 35- 112( b) (3 ) (1 990)
. The appel lan t received a mid-ran ge sente nce o f eight y ears. As no ted earlier, the trial cou rt appl ied enhanc ement fact ors ( 1) and (2 ). W e ag re e tha t t he record does not suppo rtthe appl ic ati on of factor ( 2)
. Therefore, t his co urt nee d notdefer to t he tr ial co urt’ s d eter minat ion . Nev erthel ess , t he record c lea rl y su ppor ts the t ri al cour t' s reli ance upon fact or ( 1)
. Upo n de n ovorev iew of the record, we c oncl ude that the a ppel lan t' s c ri minal hi sto ry i s n ot on ly

extens iv e, i t i s reprehens ibl e. In9

fact, t he appe ll ant’ s c ri minal hi sto ry outweig hs any

mit ig ati ng factors, inc lud ing any pote ntial for rehab ilitation, othe rw ise indicat ed b y the reco rd and f ully suppo rt s t he s entenc e i mposed. Thi s i ss ue i s w it hout meri t.
For the foreg oin g reason s, the j udg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

_________

_________

_________

_________ DAVI D G. HAYE S, Ju d ge CONCUR:

_________

_________

_________

_________

___ JO E B . J ON ES , P re sid in g Ju d ge

_________

_________

_________

_________

___ JO HN H. PE AY, Ju d ge