### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d onBr ie fs F eb ru ar y 20, 200 8
STATE OF TENNESS EE v . CHARLES MI CHAEL B EAN
Appeal f rom the Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 2006-A- 405 Cheryl Blackbu rn, Judge

No. M2006- 02417-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Jul y 2, 2008

Th e Ap pe lla

nt, Cha rl e s Mi c ha el Bean, a

pp e a ls t he se nte nc ingde c isi on

of the Da vid so n Co un ty Criminal Court. A j ury found Bean guilty of t hree counts of agg ravated assault and two counts of
re c kle ss a g g ra

vate d a ssa

ult

. Th e tr ia l c ourt

me rg e d th e c on vic tio ns fo r r e c kle ss a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult with the three ag g ravated assault convic tions, and a sentenc ing hear ing w as held. At the c onclusion of the he ari ng , th e tr ia l c ourt imp os e d th e min imum se nte nc e of thr e e y e ars fo r e a c h o f t

he Cla ss C felonies a nd order ed that B ean se rve nine months in i ncar cer ation followed b y fo u r y ear s of probation. The se ntence s were order ed to run c oncurr ently . On appe al, B ean a rgues that the trial court e rre d in denying him a sente nce of total probation. After

a thoroug h revie w of the r ecor d and the brief s of the par

ties, we a ffirm. Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nts of the Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

D AVI D G. H AYES , S R .J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined.
Patrick G. F rog g e, Na shville, Tennessee (on appe al and at tri al ); an d J ack B utler, Na shville, Tenne ssee ( at trial), f

or the Appe llant, Charles Michae l Be an. Robert E. Cooper, Jr., At t o rney Gene ral a

nd Reporter ; Cameron L . Hy der, A ssistant Attorney Gene ral; Victor S. Johnson I I I , District Attorney Gene ral; and Bre t Gunn, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.
OP IN ION

F actual Background & P roce dural Hi story
On J anuar

y 1, 2006, a Da

vidson County

g rand ju ry

returne d an indictment cha rg ing the Appellant with eight counts of agg ravated assault, which occurre d on Marc h 6, 2004. The State late r dismiss ed thre e counts of the indictment, a nd the case was tried befor e a jury on Marc h 27-28, 2006.-2-

Th e pro of at tr ia l e sta

bli sh e d th a t th e Ap pe lla nt w a s p re se nt at th e Cou rt y ard Ca fé in Davidson County

in the ear ly

morning of Mar ch 6, 2004, in the compa ny of two women. The Appellant eng ag ed in a brief verba l a ltercation with another patron, Clint Br eeding , at the bar are a inside the restaur ant. After leaving the restaurant with the t wo women, the A ppellant enc ountere d a fe male re staurant patron, Misty Stankoff, in the restaurant parking lot. St ankoff was attempting to a ssi st h e r i nto xicate d a nd ph y sic a lly

ill bo y fr ie nd

e nte r h is v e hic le so that sh e cou ld driv e him ho me

. Th e Ap pe lla

nt a pp ro a c he d Stank of

f and int ro du c e d h ims e lf

and his tw o f e ma le c omp anio ns

. The Appe llant then g rabbe d Stankoff’s buttocks, a nd she re sponded ang rily . The Appe llant showed Stank of f h is M e tr o Fi re De pa

rt me nt ba dg e and ide nti fi e d hims e lf a s a par a me dic , off e ri ngto a ssi st her intoxi cate d boy friend. Stankof f replied that her f

riend would be fine a

nd did not require me dical attention. When another f emale r estaura

nt patron appr oache d and identified h er s el f as a retire d nurse, the A

ppellant said “[v]ery

rude a nd vulga r thing s to he r” and “we nt after her.” When Stankoff intervene d, the Appellant struc k Stankoff i n t h e chest. Bre eding , whom the Appellant ha d
e nc ounte re d e arl ie r i ns ide the re sta ur ant, the n r an u

p to the Ap pe lla

nt, and the tw o me n e ng a g e d in a phy sical fig ht. After a few minutes, Stankoff broke up the fight, and the g roup of pe ople disperse d. As the Appe llant walked to his vehicle in the pa rking lot, two males, Christopher J eff erson and De lw y n Sh e lto n, pa

rk e d th e ir

ve hic le and

wa lke d to wa

rd the ent ran c e of

the re sta ur ant. J eff erson and Shelton, who had see n the Appellant “ g etting r oug hed up pre tty g ood,” cr ossed paths with him as they walked toward the entra nce of the restaur ant. J eff erson notice d that the Appellant “g ave [hi m]

. . . [a] look like he wanted to do somethingto [ J eff erson], too,” and Jeffer son advised t h e Ap p el l an t that he had “ better g o ahea d on unless [he wanted] to ge t whooped ag ain.” The Ap pe lla nt t he n w a lke d to his ve hic le , r e tr ie ve d a .4 0 ca lib e r hand g un fr om the g lov e c omp artme nt, pointed the handgun at people in the pa rking lot, and beg an “shootingin a circ le[,] ” firing approximately

eig ht shots. Both J eff

erson a nd Shelton were injured, but only J eff erson, who w as sh ot i n th e le g , r e qu ir e d me dic a l a tte nti on

. Af te r fi ri ng the sh ots , th e Ap pe lla nt d ro ve awa y in h is vehicle, a nd he wa s subsequently

appre hended by

police officer s. Offic er J oseph C . Hig h, with the Metro Police De partment, testifi ed t h at upon respondingto a sec ondary location wher e the Appellant’s vehicle had been detained by two other officer s, he obser ved that the Appe llant “had a n extreme odor of a lcohol on his person.”

Th e jur y fo un d the Ap pe lla

nt guil ty of the c ha rg e d o ff e ns e s o f a g g ra

vate d a ssa

ult , a Cla ss C fe lony , in c ounts on e , tw o, and

thr e e of the ind ic tme nt, and re c kle ss a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult , a Cla ss D felony , in counts four a

nd five. The trial court merg ed the rec kless ag g ravated assault convic tions with the ag g ravated assault convic tions, and a sentenc ing he aringwas he ld on J uly 5, 2006.

At th e s e n te n c in g h e ar in g , T e r r y M c G r e w , a

f o r me r f r ie n d an d b u s in e s s p artn e r

o f the Appellant, testified that the A ppellant has “a terrible road rag e problem, [and] temper pr oblem,” and that the Appellant of

ten would “whip his badg e out in tr af fi c” and “whip his gun out in traffic .” McGre w testified that he a nd the Appellant ha d a ver bal alter cation, a ft er which the Appe llant

“ c lip pe d” Mc Gr e w’ s le g wi th h is F or d E xpe dit ion and dr ov e ov e r a mile wi th Mc Gr e w hang ingon to the trailer attache d to the vehicle. Mc Gre w testified t h at he aw oke at Va nderbilt Hospital and suffe red se rious phy sical injuries fr om this i ncident.-3-

McGre w furthe r t estified that the Appellant had re trieved a g un to confront a

persona l debtor in 2004. The Appellant was arr ested for this incide nt, but the case was appar ently dismiss ed. Mar y Wil hoite, an employ ee of the Metro Police Dep ar t m ent, testified that the Appe llant approa ched Se rg e ant M ike B ro wn

a bo ut r e tr ie vin g his we a

po n f ro m th e po lic e pr op e rt

y ro om a ft e r t

his inc ide nt. Br own re fused to turn ove r the we apon to the Appe llant, and he e x plained the p o l icies and appropr iate proc edure for r ecove ring seized wea pons, after

which the Appe llant became irate

. When Wil hoite stepped in a

nd reiter ated the proce dures, the A ppellant bec ame a

ng rier. T he Appe llant was asked to lea

ve, whe reupon he curse d Wil hoite and wa s to the point of throwing a “te mper tantrum.”
At the sentenc ing hear ing, the Appellant testified that he was thirty -four y ear s old, unmarried
an d h a d g r a d u a t e d f r o m V o l u n t e e r

S t a t e C o m m u n i t y C o l l e g e w i t ha d e g r e e i np ar a m e d i c t e c h n o l o g y. The Appe llant acknowle dg ed that he had been suspended from the fire depar tment on two occa sions
and that he ha d b e e n r e qu ir e d to a tte nd ang e r m ana gemen t couns e lin g . T he Ap pe lla nt e sse nti a lly de nie d an y re sp on sib ili ty fo r his tw o susp e ns ion s, statin g that a ft e r h e “ bu c ke d [th e ] sy ste m th e fi rs t tim e b ec au s e [he] wasn’t guilty , ever since then e very

time [ he] turned ar ound something w as ha pp e nin g .” He ult imate ly

re sig ne d f

ro m th e fi re de pa

rtme nt a nd ob ta ine d e mpl oy

me nt w ithF ir st Call Ambulance Ser

vice. The Appellant denie d any cu l p ab i l i ty for his conduc t at the re staurant pa rk inglot on Marc h 6 , e xpla ini ng“ that hi s a c tio ns we re no t ma lic iou s” and that he wa s si mpl y actingin self-de fense

. The Appe llant was sentenc ed to three y ear s o n ea ch co u n t of ag g ravated assault, to run
concur rently , as a Standa

rd, Rang e I

offe nder. The sentenc es wer e suspended, and the Appellant wa s order ed to s erve nine m onths of the re spective se ntence s in incarc eration, followed by four y ear s of probation. The A

ppellant filed a m o t i o n fo r new trial, which wa s denied by the trial cour

t. The Appellant timely

filed a notice of appe al.

Ana lys is
When a def

endant c halleng es the leng th, rang e, or manner of service of a sentenc e, it is t he duty of this court to conduc t a de novo revie w on the re co rd with a pre sumption t hat the deter minations made by the court from which the a ppeal is take n are corr ect. T.C.A. § 40- 35-401(d) (2003). The presumption of cor rec tness is conditioned upon the affirmative showingin the rec ord that th e tr ia l c ourt

con si dere d the se nte nc ingpr inc ipl e s and a ll r e le va

nt f a c ts a nd c ir c ums tanc e s. State v. Pe ttus , 986 S.W .2d 540, 543-44 (Te nn. 1999). In conductinga de novo revie w of a sentenc e, we must consider : (1) any evid ence re ceive d at the trial a nd/or sentenc ing he aring ; (2) the prese ntence repor

t; (3) the princ iples of sentenc ing a nd arguments as to sentenc ing a lternatives; (4) the nature and ch ar ac t eristics of the of fense ; (5) any

mitigating or enha

nceme nt fac tors; (6) any statements made by

the defendant on his or her own behalf; and (7) the potential for r ehabilitation or treatment. See T

. C

. A

. § 4 0

- 3 5

- 2 1 0 ( 2 0 0 3 ) ; S t a t e v

. T a ylor , 6 3 S. W.3 d 4 00 , 4 11 (T e nn . Cr im. App. 2001).T he A pp el l ant comm i t t ed t he of f ens es pri or t o J un e 7, 20 05

. U nder t he Sent enc i ng R ef orm Act as i t ex i s t ed 1
at t he t i me, def

endan t s wer e e l i gi bl e f

or pr ob at i on i f

t he s ent enc e i mp ose d was ei gh t y ear s or l es s

. T

. C

. A

. § 40

- 35

- 30 3(a) (2 0 0 3 ). F o r o ff

e n se s c o m m itt e d o n o r a fter J u n e 7 , 2 0 0 5 , a d e fen d a n t i s e ligib le fo r p ro b a tio n if the se n te n c e a c tua lly im p o se d is t e n ye a rs o r le ss. T .C .A . § 4 0 -3 5 -3 0 3 (a ) (S u p p . 2 0 0 5 ).

T h e A p p e llan t ac tua lly fra m e s h is issu e a s w h e the r h e w a s im p ro p e rly d e n ie d “p ro b a tio n .” W e c o n stru e this 2
to m e a n to ta l p ro b a tio n a s it is u n d isp u te d tha t the A p p e llan t w a s g ra n te d a te rm o f p ro b a tio n w ithin his se n te n c e o f sp lit
co nf i nem ent

. A s such, t he A p p el l ant was af f o rded t he b enef

i t of an al t ernat i ve sent enci ng op t i o n. -4- The re cord c lear ly

demonstrates that the trial court c onsidered the sentenc ing pr inciples and all re l ev an t facts and circ umstances in sente ncingthe Appellant. Ac cording ly , we pr esume the deter minations made by

the trial cour

t to be corr ect.

I n view of the Appellant’s convictions for Cl ass C felonies as a Standar d, Rang e I offe nder, it i s u n d i s p u ted that he is statutorily entitled to the presumption of an a lternative se ntence

. See T.C.A. § 40-35-102( 6) (2003) . Moreove r, the Appe llant is eligible for p ro b at i o n beca use the
se nte nc e impos e d w a s thre e y e ars

. See id . § 40-35-303( a) ( 2003). Althoug h probation “sha ll be 1 automatically considere d by the court as a se ntencingalternative for e ligible de fenda nts[ ,]” id . § 40- 35-303(b) , “the de fenda

nt is not automatically

entitled to probation as a mat t er o f l aw.” Id ., Se nte nc ing Co mm iss ion

Com me nts ; State v. Fletc her , 805 S.W .2d 785, 787 (Tenn. Crim. App. 19 91 ). A d e fe nd ant r e c e ivi ngpr ob a tio n ma y be re qu ir e d to se rv e a

po rt ion of the sen tence in continuous confineme nt for up to one ( 1) y ear in the local jail or wo rk h o use, with probation for a period of time up to and inc luding the statut o ry m ax i m u m of time for the class of the conviction offe nse. T.C.A. § 40-35- 306 (2003). The Appe llant argues that the trial court e rre d in denying him a se ntence of total probation. 2 De te rm ini ngwh e the r a de fe nd ant is en tit le d to an al te rn a tiv e se nte nc e ne c e ssa ri ly re qu ir e s a

se pa rate i n q u i ry from that of de termining whether the def endant is entitled to full probation. S ta tev. Bingham , 9 1 0 S

. W

. 2 d

4 4 8 , 4 5 5 ( T e n n

. C r i m

. A p p

. 1 9 9 5 ) , o v e r r u l e d o no t h e r g r o u n d s b y State v. Hooper , 29 S.W .3d 1 (Tenn. 2000). These inquirie s require a diffe rent burde n of proof

. Bingham , 910 S.W .2d at 455. “[A] defenda nt is required to e stablish his sui tability for f ull pr o bation as distinguished fr om his favora ble candida cy for alternative sentenc ing in g ener al.” State v. Mounge r , 7 S. W.3 d 7 0, 78 (T e nn . Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ); see also T.C.A. § 40-35-303( b) (2003)

. To me e t th e burd e n o f e sta bli sh ingsu ita

bil ity fo r f ull pr ob a tio n, the Ap pe lla nt m us t de mon str a te that pr ob a tio n w ill “ su bs e rv e the e nd s of jus tic e a nd the be st i nte re st o f b oth the pu bli c and the de fenda

nt.” Bingham , 910 S.W .2d at 456. I n deter mining one’ s suitabilit y

for f ull probation, the cour t may consider the circ umstances of the offe nse, the defe ndant’s potential or lac k of potential for r ehabilitation, whether full probation will unduly depre ciate the seriousness of the offe nse, and wh e the r a se nte nc e oth e r tha

n f ull pr ob a tio n w ou ld p ro vid e an e ff e c tiv e de te rr e nt t o o the rs lik e ly to c omm it simi lar cr ime s. T. C.A . §§ 40- 35 -2 10 (b )( 4) , -10 3( 5) , -10 3( 1) (B ) ( 20 03 ); see also Bingham , 91 0 S. W.2 d at 456. De nia l of pr ob a tio n ma

y be ba se d s ole ly

up on the c ir c ums tanc e s o f t

he of fe ns e when t hey

are of such a

nature as to outweig h all other fa ctors fa voring probation. Id. (citing Fletche r , 805 S.W .2d at 788-89).-5-

I n det e r mi n in g w h e th e r

to g r an t o r

d e n y f u ll p r o b a ti o n , a d d it io n a l c o n s id e r a ti o ns include the de fenda

nt’s criminal rec ord; social history and pre sent condition of the defe ndant, including his or her me ntal and phy sical conditions wher e appr opriate; defe ndant’s ame nability to corr ection and ge nera l attitude, including be havior since
arr e st, ho me e nv ir on me nt, c ur re nt d ru g us a g e , e mot ion a l sta

bil ity , pa st e mpl oy

me nt, g ener al rep utation, marital stability , family responsibility , and the be st interests of both the defe ndant and the public.

Sta te v . B lac k

hu rst , 7 0 S

. W

. 3 d

8 8 , 9 7 (T en n

. C ri m

. Ap p

. 2 0 0 1 ) ( ci t i n g State v. W a s h i ngton , 866 S.W. 2d 95 0, 95 1 ( Te nn . 1 99 3) ; State v. Boy d , 925 S.W .2d 237, 244 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) ).
At the conc lusion of t he sentencing hear ing, the trial court a nnounced its dec ision reg arding tot a l pr ob a tio n a s f

oll ow s: Now, let’s look at r egular proba tion, with reg ard to this. And, looking at the statut e , I have to c on sid e r .

. . wh e the r c on fi ne me nt i s n e c e ssa ry to p ro te c t . . . s oc ie ty by restra ining a defe ndant who has a long history of criminal conduct. That does not
a p p ly to [th e A p p e ll an t]

. Whether or not . . . conf inement is nece ssary

to avoid depre ci at ion of the seriousness of the offe nse or

. . . or confinement is particular ly suited to provide an eff ective de terre nt to others li kely to commit these simil ar of fense s, and whe ther or not measure s less restrictive tha n confine ment have f

reque nt l y , o r recently , been
a pp lie d uns uc c e ssf

ull y to t he de fe nd ant.
That kind – m ay ap p l y , but, not really ; that is, he has bee n on diversion prev io us ly . I t s eem ed n o t t o d o a n y good . But , t hat was backin 19 92 for a “B” mis de me ano r. I ’m

no t sure that a

pp lie s.
Ithink the thing that the Court is p ar ticularly conce rned a

bout, is the circ umstances of

the offe nse. Now, the y

are not espec ially

violent, hor ri fy i n g and shocking . But, they

are . . . exagg erated and – a nd to an exag g erated deg ree . And, Ido find that there is some need to – to avoid depr eciatin g t h e s er i ousness of the of fe ns e and , a lso , th e re is s ome ne e d to – to have so me de te rr e nc e ; tha t is , e sp e c ia lly when somebody

. . . g ets into a fig ht, that they g o to their ca

r and g et a gun and, then, starts shooting r andomly

at eve ry body in the parkinglot.

Imean, that’ s just outrag eous beha vior that ca

n’t be tolerate d. People nee d to know that. So, there ne eds t o be som e deterre nt value as well as the f act that – that . . . this is . . . one that all these fac tors do outweig h total pr obation. I t is re ally up to the defe nd an t t o co n v i nce me why he nee ds total probation and he ha s not done so,-6-

mainly beca use of his – his horrible tempe r problem that – that seems to go on for – for no g ood rea son. Upon re view, we conclude that the trial cour t’s sentenc ing de cision was cle arly justified. Particularly

rele vant to the t rial court’s decision t o deny the Appellant a sente nce of full probation was its finding that the Appellant ha d a “hor rible temper

problem[.] ” This was a

n appropr iate foc us fo r t he tr ia l c ourt in its c on sid e ratio n o f t he Ap pe lla

nt’ s so c ia l hi sto ry

and pr e se nt c on dit ion , a s w e ll
as his a menability to c orre ction and g ener al attitude. Moreove r, we ag ree with the t ri al court’s conclusion that the fa cts and circ umstances of this c ase are such that total pr obation is inappropriate

. Acc ording ly , the Appellant’ s sole issue on appea l is without merit.

CO NC LU SION

Ba se d u p o n th e f o r e g o in g , th e ju d g me n ts o f th e D a v id s o n Co u n ty Cr im in a l Co urt are aff irmed.

___________________________________ DAVI D G. HAY ES, SENI OR J UDGE