### IN THE COURT OFCRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE ATJAC KSON N ove mb er

10, 200 9 S es sio n STATE OF TENNESS EE v . DARRYL HUBBARD
D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e C rim ina l C o u rt fo r S h elb y C o u n ty N o. 07- 03060; 07- 01581 L ee V . C of f ee, Judge

N o. W 2008- 02437- C C A - R 3- C D - F i l ed A pri l 19, 2010

T he def endant , D arr yl H ubbar d, pl ed gui l t y i n cas e num ber07- 01581 t o pos s es s i on of m a rijuana, t hir d off

ense or great er, a C l ass E fel on y, and i n case nu m ber 07 -0306 0 to p o ss e ss io n o f m o re th a n 0 .5 g r a m s o f c o c a in e w ith in ten t to se ll, a C las s B fe lo n y , an d to pos s es s i on of

m ar i j uana w i t h i nt ent t o s el l , a C l as s E fel ony. T he t r i al cour t s ent ence d t he def endantas a m ul t i pl e of fender to fou r ( 4) year s forcas e num ber07- 01581, t o r un c o n se c u tiv e ly to 0 7 -0 3 0 6 0 a n d to a p rio r ca se . T h e trial co u rt se n ten c e d h im a s a m u lti p le o ffe n d e r in c a se n u m b e r 0 7 -0 3 0 6 0 to fo u r (4 ) y e a rs fo r th e C las s E fe lo n y , co n c u rre n t w ith ei ght een ( 18) year s for t he C l as s B fel ony, t o be s er ved cons ecut i vel y t o 07- 01581 and the pr i orcas e. T he def

endant ’ s ef

fect i ve s ent ence for0 7

- 0 5 1 8 1 and 07- 03060 i s t w ent y- t w o ( 22) year s i n t he Tennes s ee D epa rt m entof C or r ect i on, cons ecut i ve t o a ni net een ( 19) year s ent ence i n t he pr i orcas e. O n appea l , t he def endantcont ends t hat( 1) t he t r i al cour terr ed by i m pos i ng cons ecut i ve s ent ence s and ( 2) t hathi s s ent ences are di s pr opor t i onat e t o t he of fens es , am ount i ng t o cr uel and unus ual puni s hm ent
. Fol l ow i ng our r evi ew , w e af f i r m t he ju d g m e n ts o f t h e tr ia l c o u rt
. T enn. R . A pp. P . 3 A ppeal as of R i ght ; Judgm ent s of

t he C ri m i nal C ourt A f f i rm ed
J

. C. M C L IN , J

. , del i ver ed the opi ni on of t he cour t , i n w hi ch J OH N E VE RE TT W I LLI AMS and R OB ER T W. W EDE MEY ER , J J

. , j oi ned.
L arr y D

. Si m s , I I , M em phi s , T ennes s ee, fort he appe l l ant , D arr yl H ubbar d.
R ober t E

. C ooper , J r . , A t t or ney G ener al and R epor t er ; R ache l E

. W i l l i s , A s s i s t antA t t or ney G ener al ; W i ll ia m L

. G i bbons , D i s tr i ctA t t or ney G ener al ; and St acy M cEndre e and Bri an W i ns et t , A s s i s t antD i s tr i ctA t t or neys G ener al , fort he appe l l ee, St at e of T ennes s ee. OP I NI ON-2- Backg r ound
W e i ni t i al l y not e thatt he tr ans cr i ptof t he def endant ’ s g ui l t y pl ea he ar i ng i s not i ncl uded i n t he r ecor d. H ow ever , t he pr es ent ence r epor tcont ai ns an age ncy s t at em ent cont ai ni ng t he fact s under l yi ng t he cha r ges . T he fact s under l yi ng cas e num ber07- 03060 ar e:

O n J ul y 22, 2006, at2245 hour s , [ She lby C ount y Sher i f f ’ s O f f i ce] narc o t i cs [ uni t ] exec ut ed a s ear ch w arr antat2396 Sar at oga A ve[ nue] w i t h a M / B know n as “D arr yl ” w as nam ed i n t he w arr ant [ s i c]

. D et ect i ves knocked, an n o u n ce d , an d rec eive d n o an sw er at th e fron t d o o r o f th e re side n ce . O ffi ce rs for ced e ntr y and s ecur ed the r es i dence [ , ] f i ndi ng no one i ns i de the r es i dence

. A f t er s ecur i ng t he r es i dence , K

- 9 handl er C

. G r i m es and hi s cer t i f i ed K

- 9 L ucy r an the r es i dence w i t h L ucy gi vi ng pos i t i ve i ndi cat i on for nar cot i c odor i n t he m i ddl e bedr oom on a t abl e, on t he TV ar ea, and on a pi l l ow on a couc h. A f t er s ear chi ng t he ar ea[ , ] D et ect i ve M cC al l r ecove r ed a pl as t i c bag w i t h s us pect ed c r a c k c o c a in e , a d ig ital sc a le w ith c o c a in e re sid u e o n th e tab le, a n d a p las tic bag w i t h s us pect ed coc ai ne on the TV

. D et ect i ve M i l l s r ecove r ed a bi g fake punctur e s eal cont ai nerw i t h t w o bags of s us pect ed m ar i j uana, t w o pl as t i c bags of U

. S

. curr ency[ ; ] s ever al s m al l bags of s us pect ed m ar i

j uana w er e l ocat ed i ns i de the bags , and a l o ad ed

. 3 8 0 L or ci n pi s t ol w as undert he pi l l ow of t he c o u c h

. N o arr es t [ s ] w er e m ade on t he s cene , and al l evi dence w as tr ans por t ed to 1 0 8 0 M a d iso n fo r p a p e rw o rk . D e tec tiv e G rim e s w e ig h e d a n d tes ted a ll evi dence w i t h pos i t i ve r es ul t s . T he w ei ght s on t he nar cot ics found ar e 1. 5 g t gw cr ack c ocai ne, 1. 7 g t gw coca i ne, and 96. 2 g t gw of m ar i j uana. T he m oney found t ot al ed $28 3

. 00 i n U

. S. curr ency. D et ect i ve W al t on found m i s c[ el l aneous] paper w or k w i t h t he def endant ’ s nam e on i tand al s o t ook a p h o to g ra p h o f a m a rria g e lice n se w ith th e d e fe n d a n t’s n a m e o n it . A ll evi dence [ w as ] pl ace d i n t he M [ em phi s ] P[ ol i ce] D [ epar t m ent ] pr oper t y r oom a n d ta g g e d . . . . T h is d id o c c u r i n S h e lb y C o u n ty , T e n n e s s e e . . . . I n M ar ch 2007, a Shel by C ount y gr and j ur y i ndi ct ed the def endanti n t hi s cas e for( 1) pos s es s i on of

m or e than 0. 5 gr am s of coca i ne w i t h i nt entt o s el l , ( 2) pos s es s i on of m or e than 0. 5 gr am s of

coca i ne w i t h i nt entt o del i ver , ( 3) pos s es s i on of m or e than one- hal f ounce of m ar i j uana w i t h i nt ent t o s el l , and ( 4) pos s es s i on of m or e than one- hal f

ounce of

m ar i j uana w i t h i nt entt o del i ver . T he def endant pl ed gui l t y t o count s one and thr ee on J une 3, 2008, and th e s ta te d is m is s e d c o u n ts tw o a n d fo u r. T h e fa c ts u n d e rly in g c a se n u m b e r 0 7 -0 1 5 8 1 a re :-3- O ffi ce rs S tew art an d M o n ist ere w ere att em p ti n g a pick -up for a rob b ery s us pectknow n as “B i g J as on” [ w ho] w as i n t he ar ea of G r and and Sar at oga. O f f i cer s at t em pt ed t o det ai n a s us pectm at chi ng hi s des cr i pt i on [ w ho] r an so u th o n G ra n d to a c o rn e r sto re w h e re th e su sp e c t th re w d o w n [n in e ] sm a ll b a g s [o f] m a riju a n a . T h e m a riju a n a w a s ta k e n o u t o f h is rig h t fro n t p o c k e t. O ffi ce rs a p p reh en d ed the s u sp ec t, fri sk ed h im , an d d etaine d h im

. O ffi ce rs d isc o v e re d th is w a s n o t “ B ig Ja so n ” b u t [th e d e fe n d a n t]. [T h e d e fe n d a n t] beca m e apol oget i c af

t erdet ent i on. T he def

endant had no w arr ant s s o he w as i s s ued a m i sd em ea n o r ci t at i on i n l i eu of arr es t
. T he m ar i

j uana w as t es t ed p o s itiv e w ith a w e ig h t o f 1 1 .9 g tg w . . . . I n J anuar y 2007, a Shel by C ount y gr and j ury indi ct ed the def endanti n cas e num ber07- 01581 forpo sses sion of m ar i j uana, t hi r d of

fens e orgr eat er . T he def endantpl ed gui l t y on J u n e 3 , 2 0 0 8

. T h e trial c o u rt h e a rd th e fo llo w in g e v id e n c e a t a b ifu rc a ted se n ten c in g h e a rin g o n Ju ly 18, 2008, and Sept em ber12, 2008. M i chae l B ur ns t es t i f i ed t hat he i s t he s t or e m anage rof t he Fi r e s t o n e s t o r e l o c a t e d o n Po p l a r Ave n u e i n M e m p h i s . He a u t h e n t i c a t e d i n v o i c e s t hat i ndi cat ed thatt he defendant pai d cas h for s ever al aut om ot i ve re pai r s t ot al i ng ar ound $300. T he cour tadm i t t ed the i nvoi ces as an exhi bi t
. O n cr os s - exam i nat i on, M r . B ur ns t es t i f i ed that for t y per centof

hi s cus t om er s pai d i n cas h.
D uw ayne Sm i t h t es t i f

i ed t hat he re nt ed 2396 Sar at oga A venue t o t he def endantand his w i fe i n 2 00 6 for one y ear. T he defend ant pa i d his $3 50 m on t hly rent i n cash. O n crossexam i nat i on, M r . Sm i t h t es t i f i ed thathe never obs er ved t he def endant par t i ci pat i ng i n i l l egal act i vi t y, and he w as unaw ar e of any i l l egal act i vi t y unt i l he r ece i ved a not i ce f r om t he s t at e. T h e c o u rt a sk e d M r. S m ith to c lar ify w h a t ty p e o f n o tice h e re c e iv e d , to w h ich M r. S m ith r epl i ed thatt he s t at e not i f i ed hi m that the def

endantw as char ged w i t h dr ug- deal i ng outof th a t r e s id e n c e , a n d M r. S m ith w o u ld h a v e to e v ic t h im

. T he def ens e ca l l ed Li s a N el s on, a f r i end of t he d ef endant ’ s w i fe w ho knew t he d e fe n d a n t p e rso n a lly . M s. N e lso n tes tified th a t th e d e fe n d a n t so ld d ru g s to s u p p o rt h is fam i l y w hen h e w as out of w or k. She s ai d t hats he t ook t he def endantj ob- hunt i ng on o c c a sio n a n d w o u ld so m e tim e s ta k e h im to a n d fro m w o rk

. M s. N e lso n tes tified th a t b o th t he def endantand hi s w i fe di d nothave s t eady e m pl oym entbutw er e cons i s t ent l y l ooki ng for w o rk . S h e a ttribu ted th e d e fe n d a n t’s in a b ili ty to h o ld a jo b to h is c rim in a l re c o rd . S h e sa id t hatt he def

endantand hi s w i fe w er e hom el es s fora ti m e bec aus e of t hei rl ack of em ploym ent. M s. N el son aske d the cou rtforl eniency in sent encing t he defendan tbecau se sh e k n e w h e w a s a lre a d y se rv in g a n in e tee n -y e a r se n ten c e fo r sim ilar c h a rg e s, a n d sh e fe lt t hat ninet een years w as suff i ci ent t i m e t o s erve for al l of t he d efendan t ’s charges. O n cross--4-

exam i nat i on, M s . N el s on s ai d t hats he w oul d notchar act er i ze the def endantas a pr ofes s i onal d ru g d e a le r. T h e d efe n d an t’ s w if

e, S h elt a H u b b ard , test if ied that h er h u sb an d so ld d rug s to su p p o rt hi s fam i l y. T hey w er e hom el es s fora t i m e bec aus e M r s . H ubbar d’ s m ot her , w i t h w hom s he l i ved w i t h w hi l e the def endantw as i ncar cer at ed, w oul d notal l ow t hem t o l i ve ther e af t ert he def endantw as r el eas ed. M r s . H ubbar d t es t i f i ed t hat her hus band gr ew up i n a fam i l y of dr ug us er s . T he def

endantal s o us ed dr ugs and w as us i ng dr ugs w hen the pol i ce a r r es t ed hi m on t hes e cha r ges . S h e s ai d t hathe had a hi s t or y of dr ug char ges and w as curr ent l y s er vi ng ni net e e n y e a r s o n s i m i l a r c h a r g e s . Th e y h a d b e e n m a r r i e d fo r f i v e y e a r s a n d had a good m a rr ia g e . O n cross- exam i nati on , M rs . H ub bard sai d t hat s he k new t he d efendan thad sol d d rugs, b u th e wa s wo r k i n g a tt h e t i me t h e y g o tma r r i e d

. T h e d e fe n d a n t h a d t wo c h i l d r e n f r o m a pr evi ous r el at i ons hi p, of w hom t hey occ as i onal l y had s uper vi s i on, i ncl udi ng t he t i m e they l i ved at2396 Sar at oga A venue. M r s . H ubbar d t es t i f i ed thatt hey w er e nothom e w hen the p o l i c e e x e c u t e d t h e s e a r c h wa r r a n t u n d e r l y i n g c a s e n u mb e r 0 7

- 0 3 0 6 0 , b u t t h e y we r e h o me w h e n th e p o lice re tu rn e d a m o n th late r. D u rin g th a t m o n th , the d e fe n d a n t co n tin u e d to se ll d ru g s fr o m th e re s id e n c e . O n r e- di r ectexam i nat i on, M r s . H ubbar d s ai d t hatt hey w er e hom e w hen the pol i ce returned, and th e p o li ce arr est ed the defenda nt att hat t i m e. S he sai d thatt hey w ere j ust g ett ing b y o n the m o n ey that the d efe n d an t m ad e from d rug -de ali n g an d li v ed “in th e h ard p a rt o f O ra n g e M o u n d .” W h e n a sk e d w h e th e r th e d e fe n d a n t w a s th e o n ly d ru g d e a ler in O r ange M ound, M r s . H ubbar d s ai d, “C om e on now . W e t al ki ng [ s i c] aboutO r ange M ound, Speedy C or ner . L et ’ s be r eal

. ” ( I V , 34) O n r e- cr os s exam i nat i on, M r s . H ubbar d s ai d t hat s h e s o ld th e irc a r t o p a y fo r t h e d e fe n d a n t’ s b o n d

. I n det er m i ni ng t he def

endant ’ s s ent ence s , t he tr i al cour ts t at ed thati tcons i der ed the pr es ent ence r epor t , t he pr i nci ples o f s ent enci ng, t he evi dence and ar gum ent s pr es ent ed by eac h par t y, t he ci r cum s t ance s o f th e o f fens es , t he s t at i s t i cal dat a on s i m i l arcas es , and the s t at em ent s m ade by t he defendant , hi s w i fe, and t hei rf r i end. T he tr i al cour tfound t hatt he def endantw as a R ange I I , m ul t i p le off ender , beca us e he ha d atl eas tt w o pr i orfel ony con vict i on s. T he cou rt found t hat enhan cem ent fact or one a pp l i ed to t he d efendan tbecau se he h ad a “ p revious his t ory of cri m i nal conv i ct i on s and b ehav i or i n ad dit i on t o those nece s s ar y t o es t abl i s h t he appr opr iat e ran g e.” The cour tfound t hathe had a t ot al of four fel ony convi ct i ons and num er ous m i s dem ean o r c o n v i ct i ons . T he cour tf ur t herfound t hat enh a n c e m e n t fa c t o r s i x t e e n a p p l i e d b e c a u s e “ t h e d e fe n d a n t h a s b e e n a d j u d i c a t e d t o have co m m it te d del i nquentact s as a j uveni l e thatw oul d cons t i t ut e a f el ony i f com m i t t ed by an adul t
. ” The cour tfound t hatt he def endantcom m i t t ed the of fens e under l yi ng cas e num ber 07- 01581 w hi l e on bond forcas e num ber07- 03060; t hus , enhanc em entfactor t hi r t een-5-

a p p lied . T h e c o u rt fo u n d th a t en h a n c e m e n t fa c to r e ig h t a p p li e d - th e d e fe n d a n t fa iled to com pl y w i t h a s ent ence i nvol vi ng r el eas e i nt o t he com m uni t y - and thatfact orni ne appl i ed - “the def endantw as i n pos s es s i on of a pi s t ol att h[ e] r es i dence w hen th[ e] w arr antw as exec ut ed. ” T he cour t gave gr eat w ei ght t o eac h of t he enhance m ent fact or s . T he cour tfound th a t th e d e fe n d a n t co m m itt e d th e o ffe n se s to p ro v id e fo r h is fa m ily b u t g a v e lit tle w e ig h t to th a t m iti g a tin g fa c to r. T h e c o u rt d e te r m in e d th a t th e o ffe n se s in v o lv e d m o re th a n a sm a ll am ountof

dr ugs , s o t hatm i t i gat i ng fact orw as i nappl i cabl e. T he cour t ad d it iona l l y found t hatconf

i nem entw as nece s s ar y t o pr ot ectt he com m uni t y, t o avoi d depr eci at i ng t he seriou sn ess o f the o ffen se, an d to p rov ide a n effec ti v e d eterren ce to o thers. T h e c o u rt det er m i ned that cons ecut i ve sent ence s w er e prope r beca us e the def endantw as a pr ofes s i onal cr i m i nal w i t h an ext ens i ve re cor d. A ddi t i onal l y, t he cour tfound t hat“cons ecut i ve s ent ence s r eas onabl y relate d t o t he s ever i t y of t he of fens es com m i t t ed by the def endantand that c o n s e c u t i v e s e n t e n c e s a r e n e c e s s a r y i n o r d e r t o p r o t e c tt h i s p u b l i c , t h i s c o mmu n i t y , f r o m .

. . f ut ur e cr i m i nal act s com m i t t ed by [ t he def endant ]

. [ T he def

endant ] i s a dange r ous p e rs o n .”
T he tr i al cour ts ent ence d t he def endantt o ei ght een ye ar s fort he C l as s B fel ony and fouryear s foreac h C l as s E fel ony. T he cour t d eter m i ned thatt he s ent ence s for07- 03060 w oul d r un concurr ent l y, for an ef fect i ve ei ght een- year s ent ence t o be s er ved i n t he Tennes s ee D epar t m entof

C or r ect i on. B as ed on the cour t ’ s f i ndi ng t hatt he def

en d antcom m i t t ed the of fens e under l yi ng 07- 01581 w hi l e on bond, t he cour tor der ed tha t the s ent ence s for07- 0 3 0 6 0 w o u ld b e c o n s e c u tiv e to th e fo u r-ye ar se n tenc e fo r 07 -01 5 8 1

. B ec au se th e c o u rt found t he def

endantt o be a pr ofes s i onal cr i m i n al w i t h an ext ens i ve cr i m i nal hi s t or y, t he cour tor der ed thatt he ef

fect i ve t w ent y- t w o- years ent ence forcas e num ber s 07- 01581 and 07- 03060 w oul d r un cons ecut i ve t o t he s ent ence i n cas e num ber06- 09390. T he def endantt hen filed th is tim e ly a p p e a l.
A n a ly sis
I

. C ons ecut i ve Se nt ence s T he def endantar gues t hatt he tr i al cour t err ed i n or der i ng t hatt he def endants er ve the t w ent y- t w o- years ent ence for cas es 07- 01581 and 07- 03060 cons ecut i vel y t o t he ni net eeny ea r sen tenc e in c ase 0 6 -09 3 9 0

. S p ec if icall y , the d efe n d an t con tend s tha t th e tr ial co u rt abus ed i t s di s cr et i on by notappl yi ng t he gene r al s ent enci ng pr i nci pl es , nam el y, t hatt he s ent en ce m us tbe j us t l y des er ved i n r el at i on t o t he of fens es and thatunj us tdi s par i t i es b etw ee n d efe n d an ts m u st be eli m inated

. T h e d efe n d an t has n o t argu e d th a t th e tri al co u rt err ed i n i m pos i ng cons ecut i ve s ent ence s forcas es 07- 01581 and 07- 03060 n o r does he c o n tes t th e len g th , ran g e , o r m a n n e r o f se rv in g h is s e n ten c e s. T h e sta te r e sp o n d s th a t th is cou rt shou l d pres um e t hat t he tri al cou rt ’s sent encing det erm i nati on s w ere corr ectbecau se t he def endantdi d noti ncl ude the gui l t y pl ea tr ans cr i pt i n t he appel l at e re cor d. A l t er nat i vel y, t he s t at e ar gues t hat tr i al cour tfol l ow ed s t atut or y pr ocedur e i n s ent enci ng t he def endant , and-6-

t he r ecor d s uppor t s t he tr i al cour t ’ s det er m i nat i ons . W e f i nd t hatt he def

endant ’ s ar gum ent is w ith o u t m e ri t.
T he r ecor d befor e thi s court does not cont ai n a t r ans cr i pt of t he gui l ty pl ea. I n or der t o conductan ef

fec t i ve appe l l at e r evi ew of s ent enci ng, a tr ans cr i ptof the gui l ty pl ea he ar i ng is n e c e s s a ry. Stat e v. Keen , 996 S. W

. 2d 842, 844 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1999)

. T he tr ans cr i pt of the gui l typl ea i s us ual l ynece s s aryi n or derforthi s courtt o as cert ai n the fa ct s and ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng t he off ens e. I ndeed, the gui l typl ea he ar i ng i s the equi val entof a t r i a l. Id

. at 84 3. In the absence of a transcr i pt of a gu i l ty plea, this cou rt m ust g e n e ra lly c o n c lu d e th a t th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d b y th e tr ia l co u rt w a s c o rr e c t. Id

. at844. H ow ever , t he re c o rd in th is m a tte r i s s u ffic ie n t to d e te rm in e th e is s u e s p re s e n te d b y th e d e fe n d a n t. A defe ndant w h o ch al l enges hi s orhers ent ence has the bur den of pr ovi ng t he s ent ence i m pos ed bythe tr i al courti s i m pr oper . T enn. C ode A nn. § 40- 35- 401, Sent enci ng C o m m ’n C o m m e n ts; Stat e v. A s hby , 8 2 3 S

. W

. 2 d 1 6 6 , 1 6 9 (T en n . 1 9 9 1 ). It is th is c o u rt ’s dutyt o conducta de novo rev iew o f th e re c o rd w ith a p resu m p ti o n that the tri al co u rt ’s det erm i nat i ons ar e corr ectw hen a defe ndant appea l s the l ength, r ange, orm annerof s ervi ce of h i s or hersent ence. Ten n. C o d e A nn . § 4 0-35-40 1(d). T he p res um pti on of co rr ect ness i s condi t i oned upon t he affi r m at i ve show i ng i n the r ecor d thatthe tr i al courtcons i der ed the s e n te n c in g p ri n c ip le s a n d a ll r e le v a n t f a c ts a n d c ir c u m s ta n c e s . Stat e v. P et t us , 986 S. W

. 2d 5 4 0 , 5 4 3 -44 (T en n . 1 9 9 9 ).
I n thi s cas e, the def

endanti s chal l engi ng the i m pos i t i on of cons ecut ive sent enci ng, r atherthan the l ength, r ange, or m anner of s ervi ng hi s s ent ence . G ener al l y , i ti s w i thi n t he di s cr et i on of the tr i al courtt o im p o se co n s ecut i ve s ent ence s i f i tfi nds bya pr eponder ance o f th e e v id e n c e th a t at le a st o n e o f f o llo w in g sta tu to ryc riter ia a p p ly : (1 ) [ t]h e d e f

e n d a n t is a p ro f

e ss io n a l cr im in a l w h o h a s k n o w in g ly devot ed s uch defe ndant ’ s l i fe t o cr i m i nal act s as a maj ors our ce o f liv e lih o o d ; ( 2) [t ] he def

endanti s an of

fende rw hose rec or d of cr i m i nal a c tiv ityis e x ten siv e ; (3) [t ]he defe nd ant i s a dang erous m ental l yabn orm al person so d e c lar e d b ya c o m p e ten t p sy c h iatris t w h o c o n c lu d e s a s a re su lt o f a n inv esti g ati o n p ri o r t o sen tenc ing that the d ef en d an t’ s cr i m i nal co nducthas been c har act er i zed bya patt ern of re p e tit iv e o r c o m p u lsiv e b e h a v io r w ith h e e d les s in d if f e re n c e to c o n se q u e n c e s;-7- ( 4) [t]he defe ndanti s a dange r ous of fende rw hos e beha vi or i n d i c a t e s l i t t l e o rn o r e g a r d f o rh u ma n l i f

e , a n d n o h e s i t at i on a b o u t co m m itt in g a c r im e in w h ich th e risk to h u m a n life is h ig h ; (5) [ t] h e d ef

en d an t i s co n v ict ed o f t w o (2 ) or m o re statutory of fens es i nvol vi ng s exual abus e of a m i norw ith cons i der at i on o f th e a g g ra v a tin g c irc u m sta n c e s a risin g f ro m th e re latio n sh ip betw een the defe ndant and vi ct i m or vi ct i m s , the t i m e s p an of defe ndant ’ s undet ect ed s exual act i vi ty, the natur e and s cope of t he sex u a l a c t s a n d th e e x t e n to f th e r e s i d u a l , p h y s i c a l a nd m e n tal d a m a g e to th e v ictim o r v ictim s; (6 ) [ t]h e d e f

e n d a n t is se n ten c e d f

o r an o ffe n se c o m m itt e d w h ile o n p rob ati o n ; or (7 ) [ t] h e d e f

e n d a n t is s e n te n c e d f

o r c ri m in a l c o n te m p t. T e n n . C o d e A n n . § 4 0 -3 5 -1 1 5 (b ).

I f the courtconcl udes the def endanti s a dange r ous of fende runderT ennes s ee Code A n n o tate d se c tio n 4 0 -3 5 -1 1 5 (b )(4 ), itm u st m a k e tw o f u rth e r d e ter m in a tio n s in a d d iti o n to a p p lyin g g e n e ra l s e n te n c in g p ri n c ip le s . S ta te v. Im feld , 7 0 S .W .3 d 6 9 8 , 7 0 8 (T en n . 2 0 0 2 ). Fi r s t , i tm us t f

ind an ex te nded s ent ence i s nece s s aryt o pr ot ectthe publ i c fr om fur ther cr i m i n al c o nductbythe def endant , and, s econd, i tm us tfi nd cons ecut i ve s ent enci ng t o be re a s o n a b ly r e la te d to th e s e v e ri ty o f th e o ff e n s e s . S tat e v
. W i lker s on , 905 S. W

. 2d 933, 939 ( T e n n . 1 9 9 5 )

. Howev e r , s u c h s p e c i f i c f a c tu a l f i n d i n g s a r e u n n e c e s s a ryf o rth e o ther c a te g o ri e s o f

T e n n e s s e e C o d e A n n o ta te d s e c tio n 4 0 -3 5 -1 1 5 (b ). S tat e v
. Lane , 3 S. W

. 3d 456, 4 6 1 (T en n . 1 9 9 9 ).

T he tr i al cour ti m pos ed cons ecut i ve s ent en cing on t he bas es t hatt he def endantm et the q u ali fi ca ti o n u n d er T ennes s ee Code A nnot at ed s ect i on 40- 35- 1 15( b) ( 1) , t hatt he def endanti s a pr ofes s i onal cr i m i nal ; unders u b d ivisi o n ( 2) , t hatt he def endanthas an ext ens i ve cr i m i nal r eco rd; an d unders ubdi vi s i on ( 4) , t hatt he def endanti s a dange r ous of fender

. A s for s ubdi vi s i on ( 1) , t he defendant ’ s w i t nes s es at t he sent enci ng hear i ng t es t i f i ed t hatt he def

endants ol d dr ugs t o s uppor thi s fam i l y and r ar el y hel d a j ob, t hus s uppor t i ng t hat t he def endants ol d dr ugs as a s our ce of l i vel i hood. T he r ecor d al s o r evea l s t hatt he def endant h ad fou r prior felon y co n v ict ion s, an ex tens ive li st o f m isde m ea n o rs, an d a juv en il e re co rd begi nni ng atage t w el ve. T he def endantcl ear l y has an ext ens i ve cr i m i nal r ecor d, w hi ch al one w oul d be s uf

f i ci entt o i m pos e conse cut i ve sent enci ng. T he t r i al cour t al s o det er m i ned-8-

t hatt he def

endant w as a danger ous of fender

. I n s uppor t of i t s f i ndi ngs t hatt he i m pos i t i on o f co n sec u ti v e se n tenc ing rea so n ab ly relates to the sev erit y o f th e o ffen ses a n d is ne ce ssary to p ro tec t th e c o m m u n ity , the c o u rt sp e c ifica lly sta ted : [E ]v e ry tim e h e [se lls] d o p e in th is c o m m u n ity a n d g o e s o u t an d c o n tin u e s to [s el l ] dr ug s i n thi s com m un i t y, every rock o f cocai ne thatM r. H ub bard [s el l s] i s i n facta dange r ous acti n w hi ch peopl e abs ol ut el y can a nd of t en ar e ki l l ed by dr ugs t hat are so ld in thi s com m uni t y. A nd t hi s C our tf i nds t hat c o n se c u tiv e se n ten c e s in th is c a se a re a b so lu te ly n e c e ss a ry to p ro tec t th is com m un i t y an d they are r easona bly r el at ed to t he seve ri t y o f th e se o ff enses. A per s on w ho has been com m i t t i ng cr i m es for23 year s , get s arr es t ed, m akes bond, goes outand cont i nues t o [ s el l ] dope, cont i nues t o [ s el l ] ever ybody [ s i c] i n hi s nei ghbor hood - - t el l ever yone i n t hat nei ghbor hood t hat I w i l l [ s el l ] as m any, as m uch drugs t hat I w ant and ther e i s not hi ng t hatj udges w i l l do about this be ca u se I’v e b ee n g ett ing aw ay w ith this stu ff fo r 22 y ea rs [si c]. W e conc l ude thatt he tr i al cour tm ade s uf f i ci entf i ndi ngs of

factt o s uppor tt he i m pos i t i on of cons ecut i ve s ent enci ng. T o t he ext entt hatt he def endantar gues t hatt he tr i al cour tdi d not co n side r w h ethe r th e se n tenc e w as ju stl y d ese rve d in re la tio n to th e o ffen ses, t h e c o u rt ’s fi n d ing s i n i t s di s cus s i on of t he W i l kers on fact or s dem ons tr at e thatt he cour tgave pr oper cons i der at i on t o t hats ent enci ng pr i nci pl e. T hus , t he def endant i s w i t hout r el i ef on t hi s i s s ue.

T he def endantf ur t herar gues t hatcons ecut i ve s ent ence s vi ol at es t he pr i nci pl e that unj us t i f i ed di s par i t i es i n s ent enci ng s houl d be el i m i nat ed. T he def endantcl ai m s t hat“[ t ] he di s par i t y i n t he pr es entcas e i s cl ear l y evi dentbeca us e i f ever y def

endantw ho had a c r i m i nal r ecor d w er e s ent ence d t o 19 year s and then s ent ence d agai n i n addi t i on t o t hat , r unni ng t he s ent ence s conc u rr entorcons ecut i ve ther e w oul d be a gr eatam ountof i ncons i s t ent p u n ish m e n t v io lativ e o f ju stic e .” T h e d e fe n d a n t p re se n te d n o a u th o rity in su p p o rt o f h is c la im

. T h is iss u e is w a iv e d a s th e d e f e n d a n t h a s f

a iled to c ite a u th o rityto su p p o rt h is a r g u m e n t. Te n n . C t. C rim . A p p . R . 1 0 (b ); S tat e v
. Schal l er , 9 7 5 S

. W

. 2 d 313, 318 ( T enn. C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ).

I I

. C r uel and Unus ual P uni s hm ent T h e d e fe n d a n t co n ten d s tha t th e im p o sitio n o f c o n se c u tiv e se n ten c e s, a m o u n tin g to for t y- one yea r s , vi ol at es cons t i t ut i onal pr ohi bi t i ons on cr uel and unusual puni s hm ent
. T he s t at e r es ponds t hathi s s ent ence i s notgr os s l y di s pr opor t i onat e t o hi s of fens es and, t her efor e, d o e s n o t c o n s titu te c ru e l a n d u n u s u a l p u n is h m e n t. W e a g re e w ith th e s ta te
.-9-

T he Ei ght h A m endm ent of t he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i t ut i on for bi ds cr uel and unus ual puni s hm ent , and t he U ni t ed S t at es Supr em e C our t has i nt erpr et ed t hi s pr ovi s i on t o m ean that a s e n te n c e m u s t b e p ro p o rt io n a l to th e u n d e rl y in g o ffe n s e . S ta te v . Ha rr is , 844 S. W

. 2d 601, 602 ( T enn. 1992) ( ci t i ng Weem s v. Uni t ed Stat es , 217 U

. S. 349, 347 ( 1910) )

. T he Tennes s ee Supr em e C our thas s ai d t hatt he s i m i l ar i t y i n l anguage bet w een the f eder al cons t i t ut i on and A r t i cl e I , s ect i on 16, of t he s t at e cons t i t ut i on “does no t fo rec l os e a m or e expa ns i ve i nt erpr et at i on of

t he Tennes s ee c ons t i t ut i onal pr ovi s i on. ” I d. at 60 3

. T h e state su p rem e c o u rt al s o not ed that“bec aus e r evi ew i ng cour t s s houl d gr ants ubs t ant i al def er ence t o t he br oad author i t y l egi s l atur es pos sess in de t er m i ni ng puni s hm ent s forpar t i cul arcr i m es , ‘ [ o] ut s i de th e c o n te x t o f c a p ita l p u n is h m e n t, s ucce s s f ul chal l enges t o t he pr opor t i onal i t y of par t i cul ar s ent ence s [ w i l l be] exce edi ngl y r ar e. ’ ” Id

. a t6 0 2 ( q u o t i n g S o le m v . H e lm , 463 U

. S. 277, 289- 90 ( 1983) (e m p h asi s i n or i gi nal ) )

. T he m ethodol ogy w hen exa m i ni ng t he propo rt i on al i t y o f a nonc apit al sent ence is : [ T ] he s ent ence i m pos ed i s i n it ial l y com par ed w i t h t he cr i m e com m i t t ed. U nles s t his t hreshol d com pari son l eads t o an i nfer ence o f g ross d ispro p o rt ion ali ty, th e inq u ir y en d s-t h e se n tenc e is co n sti tuti o n al. In th o se ra re cas es w her e t hi s i nfer ence does ar i s e, t he ana l ys i s pr ocee ds by com par i ng ( 1) t he s ent ence s i m pos ed on ot her cr i m i nal s i n t he sam e j ur i s di ct i on, and (2) t he sent ences i m po sed forcom m i ssi on of the sam e cri m e i n o t her j uri sdi ct i on s. I d. a t 6 0 3 . W h e n m a k in g th e in iti a l c o m p a riso n b e tw e e n th e o ffe n se a n d th e se n ten c e , this c o u rt h a s h e ld th e fo llo w in g fa c to rs to b e re lev a n t: ( 1) t he natur e of

t he cr i m e, i ncl uding w hethers oci et y vi ew s t he cr i m e as s er i ous orr el at i vel y m i norand w hethert he cr i m e i s vi ol entornon- vi ol ent ; ( 2) t he ci r cum s t ance s of

t he cr i m e, i ncl udi ng t he cul pabi l i t y o f t he of fender , as r ef l ect ed by hi s i nt entand m ot i ve, and the m agni t ude of t he cr i m e; and ( 3) t he ex ist en ce an d n ature o f an y p ri o r felon ies i f use d to en h an ce the d efe n d an t’ s penal t y. S ta te v . S m ith , 48 S. W

. 3d 159, 171 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 2000) ( ci t i ng Sol em , 463 U

. S. at290- 91)

. “Fact or s r el evantt o t he har s hnes s of a penal t y i ncl ude t he t ype of penal t y i m pos ed and, i f a t e r m o f i mp r i s o n me n t , t h e l e n g t h o f t h e t e r m a n d t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f p a r o l e o ro t h e rfo r ms of ear l y r el eas e. ” I

d. ( ci t i ng Sol em , 4 6 3 U .S . a t 2 9 7 ).

I n t hi s cas e, t he t r i al cour t fol l ow ed s t atut or y pr ocedur e i n s ent enci ng t he def endant t o t w ent y- t w o year s for cas es 07- 01581 and 07- 03060. For t he C l as s B fel ony, t he m i ni m um sent ence for a R a n g e II offend er i s t w el ve y ears . T he co urtapp l i ed en han cem ent fact ors, w hi ch t he def

endant has notchal l enged, t o i ncr eas e the s ent ence t o ei ght een ye ar s . For t he t w o C l as s E fel oni es , t he m i ni m um s ent ence i s t w o year s . A f t erappl yi ng t he enha ncem ent fact or s , t he tr i al cour ts ent ence d t he def endantt o four y ea r s , t he m axi m um s ent ence . T he se n ten c in g sta tu tes m a n d a ted th a t th e trial c o u rt ru n th e o ffe n se s in 0 7 -0 1 5 8 1 c o n se c u tiv e ly-10-

t o 0 7-030 60 becau se the d efendan tcom m i t t ed o ne w hil e on bo nd fort he o t her. T he rel ease elig ibil ity for a R an g e II, m u lt iple o ffen d er, i s thirty -fi v e p erc en t. B ec au se th e tri al co u rt fol l ow ed s t atut or y pr ocedur e i n det er m i ni ng t he def endant ’ s s ent ence s for 07- 01581 and 07- 03060, w e gi ve def

er ence t o t he l egi s l at i ve det er m i nat i on of t he puni s hm ent for t he of fens es a n d h o ld th a t th e se n ten c e s fo r 07 -0 1 5 8 1 a n d 0 7 -0 3 0 6 0 a re n o t g ro ss ly d isp ro p o rtio n a te to t he of fens es . T he s ent ence for06- 09390 i s notbefor e this cour t ; w e, t her efor e, dr aw no c o n c lu s io n a s to w h e th e r th a t se n ten c e is p ro p o rtio n a l. T h e re m a in in g q u e stio n , the n , is w hetheror der i ng the def endantt o s er ve the t w ent y- t w o years ent ence cons ecut i ve t o t he n in e te e n -y e a r s e n te n c e a m o u n ts to c ru e l a n d u n u s u a l p u n is h m e n t.

T h e state c o n ce d es th at t h e a m o u n t of d rug s inv o lved in 0 7 -01 5 8 1 an d 0 7 -03 0 6 0 are relati vel y s m al l ; how ever , t he def endanthas num er ous pr i orconvi ct i ons , s ever al fordr ug deal i ng. T he def

endant ’ s ow n w i t nes s es adm i t t ed t hat he s el l s dr ugs t o m ake a l i vi ng. T he l egi s l atur e det er m i ned thatcons ecut i ve s ent ence s ar e appr opr i at e, t hough notm andat ed, wh e n d e fe n d a n t s h a v e e x t e n s i v e c r i mi n a l h i s t o r i e s a n d a r e p r o fe s s i o n a l c r i mi n a l s . As we pr evi ous l y det er m i ned, t he tr i al cour t fol l ow ed t he s t atut or y pr ocedur e and m ade s uf f i ci ent f i ndi ngs t o s uppor tt he i m pos i t i on of cons ecut i ve s ent ence s . G i vi ng d efer ence t o t he leg isla tiv e d e ter m in a tio n o f p u n ish m e n t, afte r fin d in g th a t th e trial c o u r t d id n o t ab u se its di s cr et i on, w e conc l ude thatfor t y-on e y ea rs , w i t h r el eas e el i gi bi l i t y begi nni ng af t ert he def endants er ves t hi r t y- f

i ve per centof

hi s s ent ence , i s notgr os s l y di s pr opor t ion at e t o t he of fens es , es peciall y co n s i der i ng t he def endant ’ s hi s t or y. T her efor e, w e hol d t hatt he i m pos i t i on of

cons ecut i ve s ent ence s does notam ountt o cr uel and unus ual puni s hm ent
. T he d e fe n d a n t is w ith o u t r e lie f o n th is is s u e .
C oncl usi on

B a s e d o n th e fo re g o in g re a s o n s , w e a ffir m th e ju d g m e n ts o f t h e tr ia l c o u rt
.

___________________________________ J

. C. M c L I N, J UDGE