### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE June 27, 200 6 S es sio n
STATE OF TENNESS EE v . RASHAD K. SANDERS
Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Sulli van Coun ty No. S47,863 R. Jerr y Beck, Judge

No. E2005-01968-CC A-R3- CD - F iled Jul y 14, 2006

The de fenda nt, Rashad K. Sanders, pled g uilty to one count of introduction of marijuana into a penal instit ution, a Class C felony . The Sulliv an C o u n t yCriminal Court sentenced him to a four -y ear sentenc e to be se rve d i n t h e Department of Corre ction as a Rang e I , standard of fende r. The defe ndant appe als, contending the trial court erre d in denying him alternative sentenc ing. We affirm the jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

J OS EP H M. T I PTON , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.

F ra nk L . Sl a ug hte r, Jr., B ri sto l, T e nn e sse e (o n a pp e a l) , a ndMic ha e l J. L a Gu ardia, Ki ng sp ort, Te nn e sse e (at tria l) , f

or the app e lla nt, Ra sh a d K . Sa nd e rs
. Paul G. Summers, At t o rn ey Gene ral a nd Reporter ; L eslie Price, A ssistant Attorney Gene ral; H. Gre eley Wells, J r., Dist rict Att orney Gene ral; and Joseph Eug ene Per rin, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
. OP IN ION

The defe ndant pled g uilty to one count of introduction of marijuana into a pena l insti tution
a nda g re e d to a

fo ur -y e ar s e nte nc e wi th the se rv ic e of his se nte nc e to b e de te rm ine d b y the tr ia l c ou rt

. After the sentenc ing he aring , the t rial court denied the defe ndant alternative sentencing and orde red him to serve his sentenc e in conf inement conse cutively

to a sentenc e in another

case
. At the sentenc ing he aring on J uly 21, 2005, the defe ndant addre ssed the trial court a nd stated that he wa nted to apolog ize to the county and the state for having to “dea l with me” and “housing me.” He said that he wa s very remorse ful, that he wa s willing to ac cep t re s p o n s i b ilityfor the
c ha rg e s, a ndthat he wa nte d to ge t this be hin d him in ord e r to tak e c are of his c hil dr e n. On c ro ssexamination, the defenda nt acknowle dg ed he had not been lawfully employ ed si nce May 2001. He-2-

de nie d s e lli ng c oc a ine to sup po rt him se lf a nd sa id that he ha d b e e n li vin g wi th h is m oth e r a ndhis baby ’s mother. He acknow ledg ed that he te stified at a p re vious hearing that he had a sever e drug problem but then denie d ever using illeg al drugs

. He s ai d t h at re lative to his charg es for coca ine possession, he did not possess the coca ine for pe rsonal use. H e said he could not reme mber the
na me of his c oc a ine so ur c e . H e a c kn ow le dg e d th a t w he n he wa s ar re ste d, he ha d a d ri ve r’ s li c e ns e with his picture on it that ha d a false addre ss and fa lse name, a cre dit card w ith the same fa lse name, and a chec k made out to the false name. He said that he found the cre dit c ard and chec k on the stree t and that a ma n named “ Bug sy ” or “ Big sy ” g ave him the lice nse. The state did not pre sent any witnesses but told the trial cour t i t would rely on the prese ntence report. The trial court denied alternative sente ncing and ordered the defe ndant to serve his sentence in confineme nt. The trial court first cons i d ere d the def endant’ s remorse and the defe ndant’s completion o f h i gh s chool and c ourses a t East Tenne ssee State Unive rsity . The trial court found that

[The defe ndant] beg an ac cumulating an almost continual re cord of some type of of

fense s at ab o u t ag e 21 and built, as set out in the Pr e se nte nc e Re po rt , u p u nti l tod a y , thr e e pa g e s of pr ior c on vic tio ns , some very serious offe nses, some not so se rious offe nses, and . . . he has a te rr i b l e record f

or his ag e, at a g e 25, just to be arr ested that
ma ny tim e s. Mo st o f w hic h, if no t all, oc c ur re d .

. . re su lte d in convictions.

He’ s prese ntly

serving a nine y ear

sentenc e that arose out of this same g ener al time period. Soci al history is not good. He ’s not worke d. He sa y s he’s not addic ted t o co ca i n e b ut he has a lot of
coca ine offenses. All i ndications from his prior c onvictions, he was a dea ler in drug s. . . .

. . . I do n’ t know wh a t hap pe ne d to y ou r lif e , b ut y ou ’v e bu ilt such a rec ord here that I couldn’t put y ou on probation on this case

. Your re cord is ba d. Your socia l history , afte r y ou beca me an a dult or
mor e a du lt, I

g ue ss i t lo oks li ke y ou r l if e jus t f e ll a pa rt a ndjus t continually

in trouble.

. . . .

. . . Also one further thing , I did consider the pote ntialityof
c omm un ity

c or re c tio ns , b ut I

do n’ t th ink

that w ou ld be su c c e ssf

ul i n l ight of his prior rec ord and prior difficulties; he ha d prior fa ilures.

On ap p ea l , t h e d ef

en d an tcl ai m s t h e t ri al co u rt er re d i n d en y i n g h i mal t er n at i v e s en t en ci n g. Specifica lly , he cla ims his s entenc e wa s not in compliance with the Tenne ssee Criminal SentencingW e n ot e t h at on Ju n e 7, 2005, t h e G en er al As s embl y ame n ded T en n es s ee Code An n ot at ed s ec t i on s 40- 35- 102, 1 -2 1 0 , an d -4 0 1 . S e e 2 0 0 5 T e n n . P u b . A c ts c h . 3 5 3 § § 1 , 6 , 8

. H o w e v e r, the a m e n d e d c o d e d se c tio n s a re ina p p lica b le to the d e fen d a n t’s ap p e a l.
-3- Act of 1989. H e conte nds the trial court should have applied mitig ating fac tor (1), tha t his conduct neither c aused nor

threa tened se rious bodily injury

. See T.C.A. § 40-35- 113(1). He asserts that no pr e se nte nc e re po rt wa s c omp le te d in thi s c a se a nd that the c a se sh ou ld be re ma nd e d fo r a re po rt to be complete d.

The state contends that the trial court proper ly denied a lternative se ntencing and probation. The state c ontends that it presente d sufficie nt evidence to rebut the pre sumption of probation or alternative sentenc ing. The state asserts the defe ndant has a long history

of criminal convictions and has fa iled to adher e to conditions of re lease in the past. Th e s t ate a sserts the def endant did not prese nt any proof at the s entenc ing hearing or in his brief supporting the a pplication of mitiga ting fac tor (1). The state arg ues t hat bringing contra band int o a pena l insti tution threatens the sa fety of the g uards, e mploy ees, a nd prisoners of the institut ion.

Whe n a de fe nd a nt a

pp e a ls the ma nn e r o f s e rv ic e of a se nte nc e imp os e d by

the tr ia l c ou rt , th is court c onducts a de novo revie w of the r ecor d with a pre sumption t hat the trial c ourt’s determinations are c orre ct. T.C.A. § 40-35-401( d) (2003)

. Howeve r, the p re s u m p t i on of 1
corr ectne ss is “conditioned upon the af firmative showing in the rec ord that the trial c ourt consider ed the sentenc ing principles and all rele vant fac ts a nd circ umstances.” State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991) . The burde n is on t h e ap p ea l i ng party to show that the sentenc e is improper. T.C.A. § 40-35-401( d) (2003) , Sentencing C o m m i s s i o n Comments. This m eans if the trial court fo llo we d th e statut ory se nte nc ing pr oc e du re , ma de fi nd ing s of fa c t th a t are a de qu a te ly

su pp orte d in the re c or d, a ndg a ve du e c on sid e ratio n a ndpr op e r wei ght to the f a c tor s a ndpr inc ipl e s r e le va nt t o se nte nc ing un de r the 19 89 Se nte nc ing Ac t, we ma y no t di stu rb the se nte nc e e ve n if a dif fe re nt r e su lt
wer e pre fer

red. State v. F letcher , 805 S.W .2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991)

. I n conducting a de novo re view, we must consider (1) the evidenc e, if a ny , rec eived at the trial and sente ncing hearing, ( 2) the pr es entence re port, (3) the principles of se ntencing and
arg ume nts a s to se nte nc ing a lte rn a tiv e s, (4 ) the na tur e a ndc ha ra c te ri sti c s o f the c ri min a l c on du c t, (5) a ny mitigating or statutory enhanc ement fac tors, (6) a ny statement that the de fenda nt made on his own behalf, a nd (7) the potential for rehabilitation or t reatment. T.C.A. §§ 40-35-102, - 103, -210 (2003); see Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 168.

When a defe ndant is a n espec ially mitigated or

standard of

fende r convic ted of a

Class C, D, or E fe lony , the def

endant is pre sumed to be a f avora ble ca ndidate for

alternative sentenc ing. T .C.A. § 40-35-102( 6) (2003) . Howeve r, this presumption may be re b u t t ed upon a show ing that (1) confine ment is neede d to protect society by restra ining a

defe ndant who has a

long history

of criminal conduc t, (2) conf inement is neede d to avoid depre ciating the s eriousness of the offe nse or c o n f i n e m e n ti s p ar t i c u l a

r l y s u i t e d t o p r o v i d e a n e f

f e c t i v e d e t e rr e n c e t o p e o p l e l i k e l y t o c o mmi t simil ar of fense s, or (3) less restric tive measure s than confine ment have f reque ntly or re cently

been-4-

applied unsucc essfully

to the defe ndant. Ashby , 8 2 3 S

. W

. 2 d at 169 (c iting T.C.A. § 40-35- 10 3( 1) (A )- (C )) . T he tr ia l c ou rt may a lso c on sid e r the mit ig a tin g a nde nh a nc ing fa c tor s se t f orth i n Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio ns 40 -3 5- 11 3 a nd-1 14 . T.C. A. § 4 0- 35 -2 10 (b )( 5) (2 00 3) ; State v. Boston, 938 S.W.2d 435, 438 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). I n addition, a t rial court should consider a de fe n d ant’s potential or lack of potential f or re habilitation when determining if a n alternative sentenc e would be a

ppropriate . T.C.A. § 40-35-103( 5); Boston, 938 S.W.2d at 438.

The de fenda nt is incorrec t in asserting that no prese ntence report was complete d in his case. The re cord f

rom the sentenc ing he aring re fl ects that the tria l court re fer red to the r eport a nd rea d fr om the re po rt

a ndthat bo th th e tr ial co urt a ndstate he a vil y re lie d o n th e pr e se nte nc e re po rt

. Howeve r, the pre sentenc e re port was not introduce d as an e x hibit at the hearing and was not included in the rec ord on appe al. I t is incumbent upon the appellant to pr epar e a r ecor d that convey s a fa ir,
acc urate , and complete acc ount of what tra nspired re lative to the issues on appea l. T.R.A.P. 24(b). I n the abse nce of

an appr opriate r ecor d, we must presume that the trial court’s de terminations are
corr ect. See , e.g ., State v. Meeks, 779 S.W .2d 394, 397 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988) ; State v. Be ech, 744 S.W .2d 585, 588 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987)

. Th e tr ia l c ou rt a c kn ow le dg e d the de fe nd a nt’ s re mor se a nde du c a tio na l hi sto ry . H ow e ve r, it found that the de fenda nt had “thre e pag es of prior convictions, some very serious offenses” and that t h e de fe n d an t h ad a po o r so ci al h i s t o ry
. T h e tr i al co u rt fo u n d t h at “t h e u n fa v o ra b l e f ac t o rs o u t we i gh
a ny fa vo ra ble fa c tor s th a t mi g ht e xist” a ndthat th e de fe nd a nt wo uld no t be su c c e ssf ul o n c omm un ity
co r r e c ti o n s
. T h e d e f

e n d a n t a d mi tt e d h e h a d n o t b e e n la w f u ll y e mp lo y e d s in ce Ma y2001. Additionally , the re cord is devoid of any fac ts sur ro u n d i n g t h e convic tion or any proof that the of fe ns e di d no t th reat e n o r c a us e se ri ou s b od ily inj ury . We c on c lud e the tr ia l c ou rt didno t e rr

in de ny ing t h e d e f

e n d a n ta l t e r n a t i v e s e n t e n c i n g a n d o r d e r i n g t h e d e f e n d a n tt o s e r v e h i s s e n t e n c e in confine ment. The de fenda nt is not entit led to relief

. CO NC LU SION

Ba sed on the foreg oing and t he record as a whole , the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed.

___________________________________ J OSEPH M. TI PTON, J UDGE