T h is C o u rt c o n so lid a te d the two c a se s fo r p u rp o se s o f ap p e a l. S e e ge n e ra lly T e n n . R . A p p . P . 1 6

. 1 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jun e 6, 200 6
STATE OF TENNESS EE v . GREGO RY O. CHERRY
Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Hardin County Nos. 8395 and 8396 C. Cree d McG inley, Jud ge

No. W2005-02078-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Augu st 25, 2006

T h e H ar d i n C o u n t y g r a n d j u r y r e t u r n e d t w o i n d i c t m e n t s a g a i n s tt h e D e f e n d a n t , G r e g o r y O

. C h e rr y, 1
c ha rg ing him wi th thirte e n d ru g of

fe ns e s. I n se pa

rate ple a a g re e me nts , the De fe nd a nt p le d g uil ty to five offenses: (1) possession with intent to manufacture , deliver, or sell .5 g rams or more of coc aine, ( 2 ) s i m p l e p o s s e s s i o n o f m ar i j u a n a , ( 3 ) p o s s e s s i o n o f

d ru g p ar ap h e r n a l i a , ( 4 ) s e l l i n g a S c h e d u l e IV controlled substanc e, and (5) delivering less than .5 g rams of cocaine. The plea ag ree ments provided that the Def

endant would r ece ive an e ffe ctive sente nce of ten y ear s with the m anner of ser vice to be determined by

the trial court. Following a sente ncing hearin g, the trial court ordere d that the Def endant’ s ten-y ear

sentenc e be serve d in the Depa rtment of Correc tion. On appe al, the De fendant arg ues that the trial c ourt err ed in denying an alternative sentenc e. Finding no err or, we aff irm the jud g me nts of

the Ha rd in C ou nty

Cir c uit Cou rt

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

the Circ uit Court Aff

irm ed

D AVI D H. W EL L ES , J., del ive re d th e op ini on of the c ou rt , inwh ic h J.C. M C L IN , J . joined. G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., n o tp ar t i ci p at i n g.
Richard W. DeB erry , Assistant Public Defe nder, Camde n, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Gre g ory

O. C h e rr y.
Paul G. S ummers, Att orney Gene ral and Reporter ; Sophia L ee, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; Robert Ra df or d, Di stric t A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; a ndJohn W. O ve rt on , J r. , A ssi stant D ist ri c t A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.T he cas es ar e di s cus s ed i n c hr onol ogi cal order , not i n n umer i cal s equen ce, becau s e t he eve nt s of ca s e n umber 2 8396 oc cu r r ed bef

or e t h os e i n 8395.
-2- OP IN ION

F ac tu al B ac kgr ound This case relates to the Def endant’ s g uiltypleas and resulting s en t en ce s . I n 2004, the November

term of the H ardin County g rand jury

indicted the De fendant in two s ep ar at e ca ses for thirteen drug offe nses.

I n c a se nu mbe r 8 39 6, a

te n c ou nt ind ic tme nt wa s re turne d a g a ins t th e De fe nd a nt f or : ( 1) sa le 2 of Phentermine, a

Schedule IV controlled s u b s t ance, on J anuary 29, 2004; (2) delivery

of Phentermi n e, a Sche dule I V controlled substanc e, on January 29, 2004; (3) possession of Oxy codone, a

Schedule II

control led substance , with intent to manufacture , deliver, or sell on Janu ary 29 , 2 00 4; (4 ) po sse ssi on of Al pr a zolam, a Sc he du le I V c on tr oll e d s ub stanc e , w ith int e nt t o m a n u f a c t u r e , d e l i v e r , o r

s e l l o n J a n u ar y

2 9 , 2 0 0 4 ; ( 5 ) p o s s e s s i o n o f D i a z e p a m , a

S c h e d u l e IV controlled substance with intent to ma nufac ture, deliver, or sell on J anuary 29, 2004; (6) possession of Clonazepam, a Sche dule I V controlled substanc e, with intent to ma nufac ture, deliver, or sell on J anuary 2 9 , 2 0 0 4 ; ( 7 ) p o s s e s s io n o f o v e r o n e
- h a lf o u n c e o f ma r ij u a n a w ith in te n t t o man u fac ture, deliver, or

sell on J anuary

29, 2004; (8) possession of drug para pherna lia on J anuary 29, 2004; (9) sale of le ss than .5 g rams of c ocaine on J uly 15, 2004; and (10) del i v er y o f l es s t han .5 g rams of
cocaine on J uly

15, 2004. See Te nn. Code Ann. §§ 39-17- 417(a) , -425(a )(1)

. As contained in the pre- sentenc e re port, the fa cts underlying c ounts one throug h eig ht are as fo llo ws :
On 1 / 2 9 / 0 4 w h i l e s t ak i n g a r e s i d e n c e o u ta t1 3 0 L o n g S t

. , [th e D e f e nd a nt]
came to this residence and sold 30 Fa sten pills (Sch. I V) for the sum of $150.00. [Ag e nt T im Cu nn ig ha m] a nd Ag e nt Ke lly wa s [sic] insi de thi s r e sid e nc e lis te nin g to this transaction and took [the Def endant] into custody

while he wa s takin g possession of the mon e y . Ins ide a

re nta l c ar p ark e d inthe drive way , inwh ic h [th e De fe nd a nt]
c a me up in w a s a re d pape r box whic h c on ta ine d a me ta l c on ta ine r w ith 5 O xec oti n pills (Sch. I I ), p i l l b o ttle containing 8 Valium (Sch. I V, Dee Dee Saucedo, name of la b e l) , p il l b o tt le c o n tain in g 1 0 X a n e x p il ls ( Sc h

. I V , Ja me s D ic u s n a me on label), 27 Xane x in a pill bottl e with no label ( Sch. I V, diffe rent manuf actur e fr om the other bo ttl e ), a pil l bo ttl e c on ta ini ng 5 Kl on op in pil ls ( Sc h. I V, un la be le d, se izur e pil l) , p ill bottle c ontaining 25 Ativan pills (Sch. I V, no label) , a lar g e bag containing appx. 20 g rams of ma

rijuana, a set of digital scale s, and a bottle c ontaining 10 Antihistamine pills (L eg end Dr

ug , Bonnie J ames on labe l). [The Defe ndant] ga ve conse nt to searc h his re sid e nc e a t 26 0 H a nd y St. Du ri ng the se arc h o f this re sid e nc e a br ow n p ill bo ttl e (no labe l) was f

ound in a chest draw er that had residue that field tested positive for
coca ine ( Sc h

. I I ) , a [n ] e mp ty b o tt le o f h y d r o c o d o n e ( la

b e le d w ith Ca

r o l Woody name) and a[n] emptybottle of Alprazolam (labe led with J erry Gamill name).T he r ecor d r ef l ect s t hat t he D ef

endan t p l ed gu i l t y t o C ount 9 i n c as e 839 6. Co un t 9 of t he i ndi ct ment ch ar ges 3

sa le o f le ss tha n .5 g ra m s o f c o c a ine o n J u ly 1 5 , 2 0 0 4 ; h o w e v e r, the ju d g m e n t f o rm s re flec t t h a t t h e D e fen d a n t p le d gu ilt y t o de l i very of l ess t han . 5 grams of co cai ne o n Jul y 15 , 20 0 4

. B ecause t he i nd i ct m ent charged d el i very i n C o unt 10 and b o th o ff e n se s a re C la ss C felo n ie s, this e rr o r is a t m o st a c le ric a l o n e

. -3- The re cord r efle cts that following the Def endant’ s J anuary

2 9 t h ar re s t, he sec ured bail and was rele ased. In reg ard to c ounts nine and t en o f the indictment, offe nses which oc curr ed on Jul y 15, 20 04 , th e State pr ov ide d th e fo llo wi ng re le va nt f a c ts at th e g uil ty

ple a he ari ng :
The De fendan t wh i l e on bond on the [J anuary ] count[ s] m et with an underc over office r, a differ ent individual, on that date a nd eng ag ed in a transaction for the sa le of c ocaine wher e he sold point three (.3) g rams of c ocaine at that time for six ty dollars ($60) to that a g ent. He w as not arr ested on that at that time.

I n case number 8395, a

three count indictment was re turned a g ainst the Def endant, c harg ing him with: (1) possession with int ent to manufa cture , deliver, or sell .5 g rams or more of coc aine on September 6, 2004; (2) simple posse ssion of marijuana on September 6, 2004; a nd (3) possession of drug para

pherna lia on September 6, 20 0 4

. See Te nn. Code Ann. §§ 39-17- 417(a) (4), - 418(a) , -4 25 (a )( 1) . T he fa c ts s ur

ro un din g the se c ha

rg e s, a s sp e c if

ie d at th e g uil ty

ple a he ari ng , f

oll ow :

L ate r, on Se pte mbe r the 6th , las t y e ar, the De fe nd a nt wa s stop pe d f or a tr a ff ic violation by an office r with the Sheriff’ s Depa rtment. I n the cour se of that stop and th e n a f te r w a lkin g a d o g ar o u n d th e c ar a n d th e d o g h itti n g o n th e a u to mo bile the De fe nd a nt w a s in , s ixty

g rams o f c ra c k w a s f

ou ndin the ve hic le a lon g wi th a sma ll amount of marijuana

and various items of drug para pherna lia.

On F e br ua ry 8, 20 05 , th e De fe nd a nt ple d g uil ty a s c ha rg e d to the thr e e dr

ug of fe ns e s in c a se nu mbe r 8 39 5. I n c a se nu mbe r 839 6, the De fe nd a nt ple d g uil ty to sa le of Phe nte rm ine , a Sc he du le I V controlled substanc e, and de livery of less than .5 g rams of c ocaine

. Pursuant to the neg otiated 3 plea a g ree ments, the Def

endant wa s sentence d as a Rang e I , standard of fende r to eig ht y ear s for the conviction of possession w ith intent to ma nufac ture, deliver, or sell .5 g rams or more of coc aine, a Class B fe lony ; eleven months and twe nty -ni n e day s for the simple possession of marijuana and p o s s es s i o n o f d ru g p ar ap h er n al i a c o n v i ct i o n s , C l as s A m i s d em ea n o rs ; t wo y ea r s f o r s e l l i n g a Sc he du le I V c on tr oll e d s ub sta nc e c on vic tio n, a Cla ss D fe lon y ; and thr e e y e ars fo r d e liv e ri ng le ss than . 5 g rams o f c oc a ine c on vic tio n, a Cla ss C fe lon y . T he e ig ht- y e ar s e nte nc e fo r p os se ssi on wi th intent to manufac ture, de li v er , o r s el l .5 g rams or more of coc aine a nd the two-y ear sentenc e for selling a Schedule IV controlled substance wer e to be serve d consec utively to e ach othe r. The thr eey ear sentenc e for

delivery of coc aine a nd the class A misdeme anor se ntence s were l i k ew i s e to be
serve d consec utively

to the two-y ear

sentenc e but wer e to run c oncur re n t l y wi t h the eig ht-y ear sentenc e, resulting in an eff ective sentenc e of ten y ear s as a Rang e I , standard of fende r. Unde r the terms of the ple a ag ree ment, only the manner

of ser vice wa s to be determined by the trial court.-4-

A sentenc ing he aring w as held on Aug ust 3, 2005. The proof at the sentenc ing he aring established that th e De fe ndant was thirty -four y ear s old, the father

of one c hild, and he had completed hi gh s ch ool. The pre sentenc e re port ref lects that the De fendant had bee n employ ed as an “inspe ctor” with “Aqua G lass Corp.” fr om J une 30, 2 002, until October 28, 2004. During the Def endant’ s employ ment with Aqua Glass Corp., he worke d part-time as a R adio Shack sa lesman fo r a pe ri odof fi ve mon ths . T he De fe nd a nt s tate d th a t prior t o this e mpl oyme nt, he wo rk e d at a fac tory in Selmer from 1997 to 2001, and from 1994 until 1997, he was employ ed as a prison g uard in Cli fton.

With re g ardto crimi na l hi sto ry , th e De fe nd a nt’ s c ri min a l r e c or d, prior to 2 00 2, inc lud e s o nly
c on vic tio ns fo r dri vin g wh ile lic e ns e su sp e nd e d a ndoth e r t ra ff ic of fe ns e s. Ov e r the ne xt thr e e y e ars , the De fe nd a nt w a s c on vic te d of the fo llo wi ng mis de me a no rs : vio la tio n of the ba d c he c k la w, simple
a ssa ult , d iso rd e rl y

c on du c t, v iol a tio n o f an o rd e r of pr ote c tio n, a ndtw o c on vic tio ns fo r v a nd a lis m. The De fendant contested one of his vandalism convictions at the se ntencing h ea ri n g , his counsel stating: “ [The Defe ndant] believes t hat t hat vanda lism offense date of 2/24/02, he be lieves that wa s dismiss ed.” Following this proof, the trial court denied all forms of alternative sentenc ing and orde red that the Defenda nt’s eff

ective ten-y ear sentenc e be serve d in confine ment. I n so ruling, the trial court stated:

I n c he c kin g on him , h e ’s g ot so me prior c on vic tio ns

. Th e y ’r e no t si g nif ic a nt. They ’re misdemeanors, but ba sed upon the rec ord as a whole, the fac t that there a re multipl e drug offe nses, t he fact t hat there is a prior re cord, a lbeit misdemeanors, the Court finds that he’s not an a ppropriat e ca n didate for probation. Ther efor e, alternative sentenc ing is de nied.

T h e D ef en d an tap p ea l s t h i s ru l i n g.
AN AL YSI S Th e De fe nd a nt n ow a sk s th is C ou rt to o ve rturn the tr ia l c ou rt ’s de c isi on a ndse nte nc e him to an alternative sente nce. Spec ifically ,

The [D]efendant c ontends he should have been se ntence d pu rs uant to the Tenne ssee Com munity Correc tions Act 40-36-101 e t seq or plac ed on probation . .

. .

. . . .

. . . T h e [ D] ef

en d an t co n t en d s t h at h e i s am en ab l e t o re h ab i l i t at i o n t h ro u gh an alternative prog ram such a s Communi ty Correc tions that the Court could monit or.W e n ot e t hat t he l egi s l at ur e h as r ece nt l y amended s eve r al provi s i ons of t he C r i mi nal Sent enc i ng R eform Act 4

o f 19 8 9 , sa id c h a n g e s b eco m i ng ef fect i ve June 7 , 20 0 5

. H o wever, t he D efend ant ’ s cri m es i n t hi s case pred at e t he ef fect i ve dat e of

t hes e a mendm ent s

. T her efore, t hi s ca s e i s not af fect ed by t he 20 05 amendment s , and t he s t at ut es ci t ed i n t h i s opi n i on a r e t h os e t h at w er e i n e f fec t a t t h e t i me t h e i n s t an t c r i mes w er e commi t t ed.

-5- The [D]efendant is an e ligible of fende r under

T.C.A. 4 0 -3 6 -106(a )[(1)(B )] b e c au s e h i s c r i m e i s a

n o n
- v i o l e n td ru g r e l at e d f e l o n y. The [D]efendant’ s only

prior re cord w as for

misdemeanors. The Court found that the prior r ecor d was not sig nificant.

Be fore a trial c ourt imposes a sentenc e upon a convicted criminal defe ndant, it must consider (a) the evidenc e adduce d at the trial and the sentenc ing hearing; (b) the prese ntence report; (c) the principles of se ntencing and ar g uments as to sentenc ing a lternatives; (d) the nature and char acte ristics of the criminal conduct involved; (e) e vidence and information offer ed by the parties on the enha nceme nt and m itigating fac tors set forth in Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tions 40-35- 113 and 40-35- 114; and (f) any statement th e d ef

en d an t wishes to make in the de fendant’s own behalf about sentenc ing. T enn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-210(b) (2003); State v. I mfeld, 70 S.W .3d 698, 4 70 4 ( Te nn . 2 00 2) . T o f

a c ili ta te app e llate re vie w, the tr ia l cou rt is re qu ir e d to pla c e on the re c or d it s rea sons for imposing the specific sentenc e, including the i d en tification of the mitigating a nd enhanc ement fa ctors found, the specific fac ts su p p o rt i n g eac h enhanc ement fa ctor found, and the
me tho d b y

wh ic h th e mitig a tin g a nde nh a nc e me nt f a c tor s h a vebeen eval uate d a ndba la nc e d in determining the se ntence . State v. Samuels, 44 S.W .3d 489, 492 (Tenn. 2001)

. Upon a c halleng e to the sente nce imposed, this court has a duty to conduct a de novo revie w of the sente nce w ith a presumption that the determinations made by the t rial court are corr ect. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 401(d). How ever , this presumption “is conditi o n ed u p o n the af firmative sh ow ing in the re c or d that the tr ia l c ou rt 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 and cir cumstance s.” State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991)

. I f our r eview r efle cts that the trial court followed the statutory sentenc ing pr ocedur e, that the c ourt imposed a lawf ul sentence afte r having g iven due c onsideration and pr oper w eigh t to the fac tors and princ iples set out under the sentenc ing law, and that the trial court’s finding s of fa ct ar e ade quately supported by

the re cord, then t he pres u mp ti o n is ap p li c ab le , a n d w e may n o t m o d if

y th e s e n te n c e e v e n if

w e w o u ldh a ve p r e f e rr e d a d if f e r e n t r e s u lt

. St a te v
. F le tc h e r , 8 0 5 S. W. 2 d 7 8 5 , 7 8 9 ( T e n n

. Crim

. A p p

. 1 9 9 1 )

. We will uphold the sentence imposed b ythe trial court if (1) the se ntence complies with the purposes and princ iples of the 1989 Sentencing Act, and ( 2) the trial c ourt’s finding s are adequately supported by the re c or d. Sta te v. Arne tt, 49 S .W. 3d25 0, 25 7 ( Te nn . 2 00 1) . T he bu rd e n o f s ho wi ng that a sentenc e is improper is upon the a ppealing party . Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 40-35-401, Sentencing Commi ssion Com ments; Arnett, 49 S.W.3d at 257.

A def endant who doe s not possess a criminal history showing a clear disreg ard f or society ’s laws and mora ls, who has not failed past reha bilitation efforts, and who “ is an espec ially mitigatedW i t h regard t o hi s t wo
- y ear, C l ass D fel o ny sent ence, he i s p res um ed t o be a f avo rable candidate f o r al t ernat i ve 5

sent enci ng ab sent evi d ence t o t he co nt rary

. T enn. C o d e A nn. § 4 0

- 3 5

- 1 0 2 (6).

-6- or stand ardof

fe nd e r c on vic te d o f a

Cla ss C , D , o r Efe lon y

is p re su me d to be a

fa vo ra ble c a nd idate for a lternative se ntencing options in the absence of evidenc e to the contr ary .” Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35-102( 6); see a lso St ate v. F ields, 40 S.W .3d 43 5 , 440 (Tenn. 2001) . The following
c on sid e ratio ns pr ov ide g uid a nc e re g ard ing wh a t con sti tut e s “e vid e nc e to the c on tr ary ” wh ic h w ou ld
re b u tt h e p re s u m p t i o n o f a l t er n at i v e s en t en ci n g: (A) Confine ment is nece ssary to protect socie ty

by restraining a defe ndant who has
a lon g his tory

of c ri min a l c on du c t; (B ) Confinement is nec essary to a void de prec iating the seriousness of the offe nse or c on fi ne me nt i s p art ic ula

rl y su ite d to pr ov ide a n e ff e c tiv e de te rr e nc e to o the rs lik e ly to commit si milar offe nses; or (C) Mea sures less re strictive than conf inement have fre quently

o r re cently

been applied unsucc essfully

to the defe ndant[.]

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-103(1) ; see a lso St ate v. Hoope r, 29 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tenn. 2000). Additionally , the principles of sentenc ing r efle ct that the sente nce should be no g reater than that deserved for

the offe nse commi tted and shoul d be the least sever e mea sure ne cessa ry to achieve the purposes f

o r whi ch the se ntence is imposed. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-103(2) , (4). The court should also consider the d ef en d an t ’s potential for r ehabilitation or treatment in determining the appr opriate se ntence . See id. § 40-35-103( 5).

The De fendant’s eff

ective te n-y ear

sentenc e re sulted from his convictions for Class B and D fe lonies. Be cause the Def endant wa s convicted of

a C lass B f

elony , he re ceive s no presumption in favor of

alternative sentenc ing. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-102(6). Nonethele ss, the Def endant r emains elig ible for pr obation beca use he r ece ived a sentenc e of eig ht y ear s. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-303( a). Howeve r, i n view of his C lass B f elon status, it is t he De fendant who bear s the burde n of establishing suitabilit y for a n alternative sentenc ing option. 5

Th e tria l c o u r t f

o u n d th a t i n c ar c e r a ti o n w a s ap p r o p r iate inth is c a s e

. T h e D e f e n d a n t w as indicted for thirte en drug offe nses, m any of which wer e commit ted whil e the Def endant was out on bail. State v. Z eolia, 928 S.W.2d 457, 462 (Tenn. Crim. A pp. 1996) (multipli city of offe nses under indictment is relevant to suitabilityfor a lternative se ntencing option s )

. A d d it io n a ll y , th eD e f

e ndant’s cri mi n a l h is to r y

h a s b e c o me in c r e a s in g ly s e v e r e s in c e 2 0 0 2 , in c lu d in g r e c e n t m is d e me a n or c o n v ic ti o n s f

o r a s s au lt , d is o r d e r ly c o n d u c t, v io lati o n o f a n o r d e r o f p r o te c ti o n , v a n d a li s m, and violation of the bad chec k law. The prese ntence report r efle cts that the Def endant wa s unemploy ed-7-

for se ver al m o n t h s p rior to his arr est in J anuary of 2005. This, coupled w ith the various types of drugs fo u n d i n the possession of the De fendant, leads to the conc lusion that the Defe ndant was selling dr u g s f o r p e c u n iary

g ain. See State v. Ernest Wil lie May s, M2001-02446-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 1949695, at *7-8 (T enn. Crim. App., Nashville, Aug . 23, 2002). B ased upon our review of the
rec ord, we cannot c onclude that the trial court e rre d or abuse d its discretion by denying an alternative sentenc e.
CO NC LU SION For the fore g oing r easons, we conclude that the trial court did not err in its determination of the manner

of ser vice. The sentenc ing de cision of the trial c ourt is affirmed.

___________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, J UDGE