IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs March 4, 2008

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. SAMUEL McALISTER

 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County

Nos. 05-228 & 05-493 Donald H. Allen, Judge

No. W2007-01242-CCA-R3-CD - Filed August 12, 2008

The defendant, Samuel McAlister, pled guilty in case number 05-228 to two counts of sale or

delivery of cocaine, Class C felonies, and one count of sale or delivery of more than .5 gram of

cocaine, a Class B felony. In case number 05-493, the defendant pled guilty to an additional count

of sale or delivery of more than .5 gram of cocaine, one count of possession of drug paraphernalia,

a Class A misdemeanor, and one count of possession of a weapon with intent to employ it in an

offense, a Class E felony. In exchange for his guilty pleas, the defendant received an effective

sentence of eight years to be served under community corrections supervision. The trial court

subsequently revoked the community corrections sentences and resentenced the defendant to an

effective sentence of twelve years in the custody of the Department of Correction. In this appeal as

of right, the defendant contends that the Madison County Circuit Court imposed an excessive

sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Circuit Court are Affirmed. 

D. KELLY THOMAS,JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which THOMAS T. WOODALL and

NORMA MCGEE OGLE, JJ., joined.

George Morton Googe, District Public Defender; and Gregory D. Gookin, Assistant Public

Defender, attorneys for appellant, Samuel McAlister.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General & Reporter; Sophia S. Lee, Assistant Attorney General;

James G. Woodall, District Attorney General; and Shaun A. Brown, Assistant District Attorney

General, attorneys for appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

The record reflects that on July 25, 2005, the defendant entered guilty pleas in case number

05-288 for offenses that occurred in July 2004. On November 21, 2005, the defendant entered guilty

pleas in case number 05-493 to the additional offenses that occurred in May 2005. Ultimately for

all of these offenses, the defendant received an effective sentence of eight years to be served on
 The record reflects that an earlier probation violation warrant issued on September 6, 2006, alleging that the 1

defendant had violated his community corrections sentence by his September 5, 2006, arrest for attempted murder,

aggravated robbery, and evading arrest. On December 15, 2006, the trial court dismissed the warrant due to the grand

jury’s return of a no true bill on the charges and failure to secure the alleged victim’s attendance at scheduled revocation

hearings.

-2-

community corrections. On March 20, 2007, a probation revocation warrant issued alleging that the

defendant violated his community corrections sentences by failing to remain drug free after a drug

screen revealed evidence of marijuana use. A superceding warrant issued on March 26, 2007, with

additional allegations that the defendant failed to make monthly payments toward court costs and

failed to complete court-ordered community service. At the April 2, 2007, revocation hearing the 1

defendant admitted to all of the alleged violations, and the trial court revoked the community

corrections sentences.

The twenty-seven-year-old defendant testified that he had only used marijuana once – the

time that he tested positive leading to the revocation warrant. He explained that he only smoked the

marijuana because he was depressed about his mother’s failing health. He also explained that he had

not performed his community service work because “[t]he way I figured it is I had eight years. I had

a period of over eight years to do it. I didn’t just exactly know that you had to do it off the top. I

didn’t know that.” The defendant added that he was now prepared to complete his community

service hours “[a]s quick as possible.” He testified that he had maintained employment with the

same logging company for several years but that much of his income went to support his five

children. He stated that he lived with his mother who was ill and who relied upon him to take her

to doctor appointments. The defendant reported that his employer had offered him additional work

to help him pay his fines and costs if the court chose to place him back on probation.

On cross-examination, the defendant admitted that he was behind on child support payments

but had gotten caught up with the help of family and friends. He explained that his work with the

logging company often depended upon the weather, but that his employer had promised him work

in the saw mill when weather prevented him from working in the field. When questioned by the trial

court about his recollection that his community corrections sentence required the performance of

eight hours of community service each month, the defendant claimed to have forgotten that aspect

of his community corrections obligations.

The defendant’s mother, Margaret McAlister, testified that she needs her son at home with

her because she is sick and he helps care for her. She stated that she assisted him in paying his court

costs because his work had been sporadic due to the weather. She urged the trial court to place the

defendant on probation so that he could care for her and his five children. 

Thomas Hardin, the defendant’s girlfriend’s father, testified that the defendant works hard

to provide for his mother and children. He added that the defendant had exercised poor judgment

in the people he associated with and that, although he was twenty-seven years old, the defendant

really does not have the intelligence of a twenty-seven year old.
-3-

Jennifer Hardin, the defendant’s girlfriend and mother of his fifth child, testified that she has

known the defendant for eleven or twelve years. She stated that the defendant sees his son every

day. She testified that she does not work and relies on the defendant completely for financial

support.

Beverly Butler, the defendant’s aunt, testified that she had done a lot to help the defendant

get caught up on his financial obligations. She stated that he needed to be on probation so that he

could pay her back some of the money she had loaned him. She acknowledged that she helped him

in the past and that it was now “time for him to straighten up and grow up and act like a man.” 

At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the trial court resentenced the defendant to

twelve years for each sale or delivery of more than .5 gram of cocaine offense and six years for each

sale or delivery of less than .5 gram cocaine offense based upon its findings that the defendant had

a previous history of criminal convictions and an unwillingness to comply with conditions of a

sentence involving release into the community. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114 (2) and (9) (2003).

The trial court considered the defendant’s admissions at the revocation hearing as evidence of his

unwillingness to comply with conditions of release. The trial court considered a letter by the

defendant asking for another chance and stated:

You know, [the defendant] got his chance back in July of ‘05 when I put him on

Community Corrections supervision, and then he got another chance in his second

case, which is 05-493, which involved [the] sell of cocaine. He pled guilty in that

case November the 21 of 2005 and as part of the plea agreement, he received st

concurrent sentences. So, he’s been given a couple of chances at Community

Corrections supervision, but unfortunately for Mr. McAlister, [he] has not taken

advantage of the opportunity.

As mitigation, the trial court considered the defendant’s consistent work history, but the trial court

further commented that the defendant “had the ability to pay on his fines and court costs each and

every month as he was ordered to do, but unfortunately [the defendant] chose to spend his money

elsewhere . . . I don’t understand that, Mr. McAlister. You could have done this.” The trial court

ordered the sentences to be served concurrently in the custody of the Department of Correction. The

defendant now appeals this sentencing determination.

ANALYSIS

Standard of Review

An appellate court’s review of sentencing is de novo on the record with a presumption that

the trial court’s determinations are correct. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d) (2003). As the

Sentencing Commission Comments to this section note, on appeal the burden is on the defendant

to show that the sentence is improper. This means that if the trial court followed the statutory

sentencing procedure, made findings of fact that are adequately supported in the record, and gave

due consideration and proper weight to the factors and principles that are relevant to sentencing
-4-

under the 1989 Sentencing Act, the court may not disturb the sentence even if a different result were

preferred. State v. Fletcher, 805 S.W.2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).

However, “the presumption of correctness which accompanies the trial court’s action is

conditioned upon the affirmative showing in the record that the trial court considered the sentencing

principles and all relevant facts and circumstances.” State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn.

1991). In this respect, for the purpose of meaningful appellate review,

[T]he trial court must place on the record its reasons for arriving at the final

sentencing decision, identify the mitigating and enhancement factors found, state the

specific facts supporting each enhancement factor found, and articulate how the

mitigating and enhancement factors have been evaluated and balanced in determining

the sentence. 

State v. Jones, 883 S.W.2d 597, 599 (Tenn. 1994) (citation omitted); see Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-

210(e) (2003). The weight to be afforded an enhancement or mitigating factor is left to the trial

court’s discretion so long as its use complies with the purposes and principles of the 1989 Sentencing

Act and the court’s findings are adequately supported by the record. Id. § (d)-(f); State v. Moss, 727

S.W.2d 229, 237 (Tenn. 1986); see Ashby, 823 S.W.2d at 169. 

In conducting its de novo review, the appellate court must consider (1) the evidence, if any,

received at the trial and sentencing hearing, (2) the presentence report, (3) the principles of

sentencing and arguments as to sentencing alternatives, (4) the nature and characteristics of the

criminal conduct, (5) any mitigating or statutory enhancement factors, (6) any statement that the

defendant made on his own behalf, and (7) the potential for rehabilitation or treatment. Tenn. Code

Ann. §§ 40-35-102, -103, -210 (2003); see Ashby, 823 S.W.2d at 168; Moss, 727 S.W.2d at 236-37.

In his brief, the defendant acknowledges the trial court’s authority to revoke a community

corrections sentence and resentence a defendant within the statutoryrange applicable to the offenses.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(e)(4). However, he contends that the trial court’s application of the

enhancement factors does not support an imposition of the maximum effective sentence of twelve

years. He argues that his prior criminal history was not serious, consisting only of convictions for

various traffic offenses, one simple assault and one vandalism. He further argues that, although he

did violate the terms of his community corrections sentence, “the trial court should only have

afforded this factor slight weight in re-sentencing” the defendant. The defendant also argues that the

trial court should have given more consideration to his history of providing for his girlfriend and

children as mitigation. The state contends that the record fully supports the trial court’s findings and

determination of sentence in this case. Following our review, we agree with the state. 

With the entry of the guilty plea, the trial court allowed the defendant the opportunity to

demonstrate to the court his apparent intelligence and ability to lead a responsible life. The

defendant failed to comply with the most basic conditions of his community corrections sentence;

these conditions, by his own admissions, were explained fully at the guilty plea submission hearings.

The defendant candidly admitted to the violations at the revocation hearing. Only after being
 We do note that the judgment for sale or delivery of more than .5 gram of cocaine in case number 05-228 2

erroneously notes the offense as a Class C felony. Instead it should reflect a Class B felony conviction. The trial court

should correct the judgment to reflect the accurate felony classification upon remand.

-5-

revoked did the defendant express a desire to comply with the conditions. Furthermore, the evidence

does not support the application of the defendant’s proposed mitigating factor regarding his financial

support of his children. Rather, the testimony at the sentencing hearing revealed a defendant who

has been remiss in supporting at least four of his children, despite an apparent steady work history,

and who has relied upon the assistance of family members to pay child support, as well as court

costs. Simply put, the defendant wasted the opportunity presented by the plea agreement. We

cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in its application of enhancement factors

and imposition of sentences in this case. On the contrary, the record supports the enhancement

factors applied by the trial court and further establishes that the trial court followed the applicable

sentencing considerations. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.2

CONCLUSION

Upon consideration of the foregoing and the record as a whole, the judgment of the trial court

is affirmed. 

___________________________________ 

D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., JUDGE