### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A pr il 12, 200 5

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. TE RR Y WA YN E MITC HELL

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Over ton County Nos. 5504 & 5505 Lillie Ann Sells, Ju dge

No. M2004- 00721-CCA -R3-C D - F iled May 10, 2005

Th e De fe nd a nt, Te rry

Wayne Mit c he ll, ple d g uil ty to b ur g lary

of a n auto mob ile a ndthe ft

of pr op e rt y
ov e r $ 50 0. 00 , in c a se nu mbe r 550 4, a ndpo sse ssi on of a sc he du le I V c on tr oll e d s ub stanc e , inc a se
n u m b e r 5 5 0 5

. T h e tr i a l c o u r t s e n t e n c e d t h e D e f e n d a n tt o t h r e e y e ar s a n d s i x m o n t h s , a s a R a n g e II offe nder, f

or ea ch of the convictions in case 5504, and it sentenc ed the De fendant to eleven months and tw en t y -n ine day s for the c onviction in case 5505. The trial court f urther or dere d that the two sentenc es in c ase 5504 would be serve d consec utively
, and the sentenc e in 5505 wo u l d run
concur rently

. On appeal, t he Defenda nt contends that: (1) the trial court erre d by not rec using itself; and (2) the t rial court err ed when it sentenc ed the Def endant. After a thoroug h revie w of the r ecor d,

we a ff ir m th e De fe nd a nt’ s c on vic tio ns a ndse nte nc e s.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nts of

the Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , and J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J J ., joined.

B ru c e E. My e rs , Livi ng sto n, Te nn e sse e , f or the app e lla nt, Te rry

Wayne Mit c he ll.

Paul G . Su mme rs , At torne y Ge ne ra l a nd Re po rt e r; Jenn if e r L

. B le ds oe , As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil liam E. Gibson, District Attorney Gene ral; and O wen B urnett, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.
OP IN ION I. F acts

This case arises f

rom the De fendant’s g uiltypleas in two sepa rate case s. The De fendant pled g uiltyto burg lary

of an automobile and theft of pr operty over $500.00, in case number 5504, and he ple d g uil ty

to p os se ssi on of a sc he du le I V co ntr oll e d sub stanc e , in c a se nu mbe r 5 50 5. At the g uil ty plea submission hearing on both case s 5504 and 5505, the State offe red a statement of f

acts, to which the Def end an t agr ee d . Acc ording to the fac ts presente d, Serg eant Christopher H alfa cre , of the L ivingston Police De partment, wa s leaving the hospital and walking to his truck whe n he witnessed-2-

the Def endant r emoving items from Serg eant Ha lfacre ’s truck. Serg eant Ha lfac re f ound the Def endant with bolt cutters in one hand and a chain in the other , both of which the D efe ndant had

remove d from the se rg eant’ s truck. Serg eant Ha lfac re c alled the police , and, whe n the police

sear ched the Def

endant pur suant to the arr est, they found six pills o f Di az ep am , or Va lium, a schedule I V controlled substanc e. The plea a g ree ment provided that the se n t ences in case 5504 would run conc urre ntly

with the sentenc e in case 5505, but the duration of the sente nces and whether the two sentenc es in c ase 5504 would run conc urre ntly or conse cutively , wer e to be de cided by the trial court a fter a

s en t en ci n g h ea ri ng . The De fendant filed a motion for re cusal of the trial court judge , which the tria l court denie d.

The sente ncing h ea ring was c onducted on portions of four date s: November 25, 2003; J anuary 21, 2004; F ebrua

ry 26, 2004; and Marc h 5, 2004. At the sentenc ing he aring , the following evidenc e wa s prese nted: Br endia King testified that s h e i s t h e probation and parole office r who pr e pa re d th e De fend a nt’ s p re -s e nte nc e re po rt . Sh e te sti fi e d th a t, S e rg e a nt H a lf a c re , th e vic tim
, objected to the Defe ndant’s being placed on house arr est. King noted that the De fendant’s conduct neither thre atene d nor caused seriously bodily injury

. She also said that she found two enhanc ing fac tors prese nt in the Def

endant’ s case , namely
, that the Def endant has an extensive prior rec ord of

c ri min a l c on vic tio ns a ndbe ha vio r, a ndthe De fe nd a nt h a s a his tory of un wi lli ng ne ss to c omp ly wi th the conditions of a se ntence involving re lease into the community . King explained that the Def endant pr eviously

had his probation in T en n es see r evoked and, separ ately , had his fede ral probation re vok ed

. She rec ounted that the De fendant has numerous a dult convictions and two juv e nil e DU I

c on vic tio ns . Sh e sa id that th e De fe nd a nt a dv ise d h e r of nu me ro us he a lth pr ob le ms, inc lud ing tub e rc ulo sis , c hr on ic ob str uc tiv e pu lmo na

ry d i s e a s e , a s th m a , h e p ati ti s C
, d e g e ne rativ e dis c disorder, anti-social persona lity disorder, and anxiety disorder. The Def endant also provided King with documentation of two pre scriptions for Hy drocodone and Diazapa m, and he informed King that he wa s presc ribed other

medications as we ll. King testified that the Def endant told her that he ha d b e e n th r o u g h a lc o h o l a n d d ru g tr e a tm e n t o n tw o p r e v io u s o c c a s io n s

. K in g a ls o s a id th at the Def endant admitted to he r that he had smoked marijuana a few wee ks befor e the inter view, and he had pr e v io u s ly ta

k e n T y lo x, a p r e s c r ip ti o n p a in k il le r , w ith o u t a p r e s c r ip ti o n

. K in g s a id that the De fe nd a nt r e po rt e d th a t he is c ur re ntl y un e mpl oy e d, a nd he ha s app lie d for so c ia l se c urity dis abil ity assistance , but he has not y et beg un to rec eive it.

On cr o s s

- e xa mi n a ti o n , K in g a d mi tt e d th a t, s u b s e q u e n t to h e r in v e s ti g a ti o n , s h e r e c e iv e d a copy of a le tter fr om the Social Security Administration (“S S A” ) s t ating that the Def endant wa s entitled to disabilit y

benef its. S he testified that the SSA letter state d the SSA investigation found that th e De fe nd a nt s uf

fe re d f ro m th e c on dit ion s he re po rt e d. Ki ng a ff ir me d th a t th e De fe nd a nt t old her that he is illi terate and that he is his elderly mother’s c are taker , and King stated that she ha d no information to contra dict these statements. King te stified that both hepatitis C and tuberculosis are highly contag ious diseases. She could not re member r ece ivi n g a letter from Dr . Cox , the Def endant’ s mother’s tre ating phy sician, t h at af firmed that the D efe ndant was his mother’ s car eg ive r. Ki ng a dmi tte d th a t, i n h e r d eal in gs wi th the De fe nd a nt, sh e no tic e d th a t he ha d d if fi c ulty breathing. The De fenda nt testified that he wa s forty -o n e y ear s old at the time of the hea ring , and he-3-

c ou ld n ot read or

write , e xce pt h is n a me . H e te sti fi e d th a t he su ff e re d f ro m tu be rc ulo sis , c hr on ic obstructive pulmonary

disorder, a sthma, hepatitis C, anti-social persona lity disorder, de g ener ative disc disease of the lumbar spine, and a nx iety disorder. H e explained that he ha s two ruptured discs and ar thritis in four or five joi nts in his spine. The De fendant said that he has be en unable to work since De cembe r of 2000. He aff irmed that he ha d been a

pproved f or SSA disabilit y

benef its, but had not y et beg un rec eiving them. The De fendant stated that his m o t h er i s h o s p italiz ed bec ause she suffe rs from br eathing problems and “ some kin d o f j o int disease that [makes] y our muscles de te ri or a te .” Th e De fe nd a nt s a id that hi s mo th er is un able to c are fo r h e rs e lf, a ndhe is the on ly pe rs on wh o is wi lli ng or

able to t ake c are of

he r. He state d th a t his moth e r’ s doc tor , Dr . Co x, sa id she will not live much longe r. The D efe ndant ag ree d that he has an extensive criminal rec ord, but he is “ do ne wi th the c ri min a l ju sti c e sy ste m.” He te sti fi e d th a t he a ndhis mothe r a re dying , a nd , if place d on house ar

rest, he w ould be able to c are for he r and make ame nds for his crimes. The Def endant sa id that his mot her’ s SS A disabilitychec k is his family ’s only income. He said that he

un de rs too d th a t, i f p la c e d o n h ou se arr e st, the po lic e de pa rt me nt wo uldfr e qu e ntl y

c he c k o n h im t o
ens u re t h at h e wa s abiding by the law a nd the rules of his alternative se ntence . The De fendant testified that he take s Diazapam for his anxiety and muscle spa sms, and he take s Hy drocodone for pa in r e la te d to his ba c k p ro ble ms. He sa id that he ha s thr e e dif fe re nt inh a le rs , A lbu te ro l, C omb ive nt, and Atrive nt, and he use s a bre athing machine f our times a day , sometim es m ore if his bre athing become s particularly

difficult.

On cr oss-examination, the Defe ndant admitted th at h e has two prior c onvictions for burg larizing businesses. H e said that, whe n he took the l og chain out of Serg eant Ha lfac re’ s truck, he intended to g et a log chain out of a truck be longing to Bra d Kensler . He r eca lled that he re alized he wa s taking the item from the wrong truck whe n the serg eant a pproac hed him, and he inf ormed the serg eant of

his mist ake. H e testified that he was taking Diazapa m at t h e time, and, there fore
, “didn’t know wha t [he] was doing ,” and he should have be en able to disti ng uish betwee n the two trucks. The Def

endant did not re call having bolt cutters or a log c hain in his hand when Ser g eant Halfa cre approa ched him. He said that the items he took from the truck were alrea dy in his vehicle, and he immediate ly

retur n ed t h em to the serg eant. The Def endant did not re member taking veterinary supplies or a c oat from Ser g eant Ha lfac re’ s truck.

F e lic ia Mit c he ll, the De fe nd a nt’ s ex-w if e , tes tif ie d tha t she liv e s with the De fe nd a nt an d h is mother. She t estified that she i s not employ ed, but she t akes care of the De fendant and his mother. Mitchell said that she is awa re of the De fendant’s health proble ms. She ex plained that the De fendant

c a nn ot s it o r s ta ndfo r l on g du ratio ns be c a us e he wi ll b e c ome sh ort of br e a th. Mit c he ll sa id that, i f the Def endant was place d on house arr est, she would ensure that the Def endant a bided by the rules of his sentenc e, or she would “ca ll the law on him [ her]self.”
Following this evidence , the trial cou rt found that the following statutory enhanc ement fac tors wer e applica

ble: (1) that the D efe ndant had a history of criminal convictions and criminal behavior in addition to thos e nec essary to establish the appropriate rang e; and (2) t hat t he De fenda nt ha s a pr e vio us his tory

of un wi lli ng ne ss t o c omp ly wi th the c on dit ion s of a s e nte nc e inv olv ing re le a se int o th e c ommun ity . T enn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 35 -1 14 (2 ) and(9 ) ( 20 03 ). Th e tr ia l c ou rt a lso-4-

considere d, as mitigating f actor s, t h at t h e Defendant’s c onduct did not threate n or cause serious bodily injury , and the De fenda nt’s poor hea lth. The trial court stated:

[T] he court has taken into consideration and has found .

. . as an enhanc ement fa ctor the extensive criminal re cor d i n t h is case. A nd as I said, that he’s pr eviously been g iven the opportunity to be placed on differ ent ki nds of, if y ou look throug h this presentenc e re port, all kinds of diffe rent op p ortunities to be place d back in the community

and something less than incar cer ation.

The c ourt assig ns a g reat amount of weig ht to these two enha nceme nt fac tors

a ndthe c ou rt

make s th e fo llo wi ng fi nd ing a s to mit ig a tin g fa c tor s.

Th e c ou rt fi nd s th a t th e [D]e fe nd a nt’ s c on du c t as to this o ff e ns e , th is auto burg lary and thef t of property

. . . neither c aused nor

th re at ened to cause se rious b o d i l y i n j u ry

. T h at ’s t h e m i t i gat i n g fa ct o r t h at i s fo u n d i n t h i s s e n t en ci n g h ea ri n g.

Also the court finds and has considere d the [D] efe ndant’s medica l condition i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h i s s e n t e n c i n g h e ar i n g t o d a y.

The fa ct that the [D]efendant, what he was doing at the time did not cause or threaten any

serious bodily injury is give n some weig ht, but not a tremendous amount

o f w e i g h ti n l i g h to f

t h e [ D ] e f e n d a n t ’ s c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y.
Also, the court has consider ed his medica l rec ord, which looking at the Social Se c urity his tory he re , th is [D ]ef

e nd a nt’ s med ic a l pro ble ms b e g a n b e fo re thi s o ff e ns e
was c ommitt ed, which indicates to this court even with the medical pr oblems that he has, he’s still g one out into the community and commit[ ed] offense s. That’s a g rave
conce rn to this court and I have c onsidered that as well i n this sentencing hearing today

.

Re g ard ing the imp os iti on of c on se c uti ve se nte nc e s, the tr ia l c ou rt fo un d a s f

oll ow s:

The c ourt finds in this case that the [D]efenda nt i s a p ro fe s sional criminal wh o h a s k nowi ngly dev otedhis lif e to c ri min a l a c ts. An d I

fi ndthat ba se d o n th is

rec ord her e. When we g o back and look at t h is criminal history of [the Defe ndant], [ the De fe nd a n t ] s t ar t s o u t a s a j u v e n i l e a n d h e g o e s o n a n d o n a n d o n

. A n d it’ s so unfortunate

. . . .
But whe n y ou look at the opportunities that this [D] efe ndant has be en g iven, ag ain and a g ain . . . .

And I know in here that he enter ed some sort of dr ug treatment and has g one on and-5-

o n a n d h is me d ic a l p r o b le ms , b u t e v e n th r o u g h a ll th a t h e c o n ti n u e s to s mo ke marijuana , he continues to c ommit criminal offenses . . . .

. . . .
Th is c ou rt , in c on sid e ri ng wh e the r or no t the [D]e fe nd a nt wo uld be pla c e d in the community

on some form of supe rvised probation or something less than i n ca rc er at i o n i s co n s i d er i n g, h as co n s i d er ed t h e f o l l o wi n g:

I considere d the pre -sentenc ing r eport; I considere d his phy sical and mental condition and social hi s to r y ; I c onsidered the fac ts and the circ umstances surr ounding this particular of

fense and the nature of the conduct involved in this particula r ca se.

The c ourt has conside red the prior criminal hist ory of t h e [ D]efenda nt; has

c on sid e re d th e pr e vio us a c tio ns a ndthe c ha ra c te r o f the de fe nd a nt.

You know, one of

the things that I

considere d in this decision today was the fa c t th a t I he ard fr om the of fi c e r in this c a se , w ho ba sic a lly c a ug ht [the De fe nd a nt] in th e a c t th e r e in th is th e f t a n d a u to b u r g la

r y

. A n d th e n , [t h e D e f

e n d a nt] , who doesn’t take very much responsibility for his a ctions. Most unf ortunate that, that he

c a n’ t ta ke re sp on sib ili ty

fo r h is o wn c on du c t.

The trial c ourt went on, finding that the Def endant wa s not likelyto benef it from reha bilitation, and the Defe ndant would not likely abide by the terms of pr obation. The trial c ourt found that probation would “depre ciate the s eriousness” of the De fendant’s crime, and probation was inappr opriate f

or a D efe ndant “who in looking at this rec ord has tim e and time a g ain bee n g iven the opportunity

to be out in society

and not do any t h i n g but lead a pr oductive life but y et ca nnot seem to do that.”

The trial c ourt then sentenc ed the De fendant to thre e y ear s and six months for eac h of the two class E fe lony

convictions, in case number 5504, a nd eleve n months and twenty -nine day s for the mis de me a no r c on vic tio n, in c a se 55 05 . F urthe r, the tr ial court or de re d th a t th e se nte nc e s in c a se 5504 ru n c o n s e c u ti v e ly to o n e a n o th e r , b u t c o n c u rr e n tl y w ith th e s e n te n c e in c a s e 5 5 0 5
, for a n
e ff e c tiv e se nte nc e of

se ve n y e ars . T he tr ia l c ou rt or de re d th a t th e De fe nd a nt b e pla c e d o n h ou se
arr e s tu n t i l a

b e d b e c a m e a v a i l ab l e f

o r t h e D e f e n d a n t t o s e r v e h i s s e n t e n c e i n a s p e c i a l

- n e e d s f

a c i l i t y.

II. Ana lys is

On appe al, the Def

endant contends that: ( 1) the trial c ourt err ed in not rec using itself; a nd (2) the trial court erre d when it sentenc ed the De fendant. Finding no err or in the judg ments of the trial court, we aff

irm the Def

endant’ s convictions and sente nces .-6- A. Rec usal of

Trial Jud ge

The Def endant asserts that the trial court e rre d when it denied his motion reque sting that the t ri al court recuse itself from the De fendant’s case . The De fendant contends that the trial c ourt judge ’s prior mar

riag e to the De fenda nt’s ex-wife’s unc le, who wa s also the De fendant’s second

co u s i n , cr ea t ed an ap p ea ra n ce o f i m p ro p ri et y

. T h e t ri al co u rt d en i ed t h e m o t i o n , s t at i n g:

I ’ve ne ver me t this [ D]efenda nt before in my life. I don’t know [the Defe ndant] and I d o n ’ t kn o w [h is e x- w if

e ].

. . . . [I ]f I rec use my self on eve ry

case that I ’ve he ard of

individuals and some ex-husband related to a first c ousin, etc., etc ., then I would doubt that, I

don’t think that’s the standard at all.

I wi ll, fo r the re c or d, re c us e my se lf in any c a se a ndI

ha ve re c us e d my se lf

in

case s wher e I was familiar with the parties and was close to the m or knew them a nd wher e ther e would be som e s o rt of conf lict. I don’t know either

of these pa

rties, I don’t know [the Defe ndant] . . .

. I would imag ine i t’s been sinc e the late 70’s since I l i v e d h e r e i n O v e r t o n C o u n t y a n d k n e w a n y o f t h e p e o p l e t h a t w e r e r e l a t e d t o m y, or had a ny

contac t with people that wer e related to m y first husband. So I

don’t have conflict in this case

. . . . A trial judg e should rec use himself or he rself w heneve r t he judge has any doubt as to his or her ability to preside impartially or whe never

his or her impartialitycan r easona bly be questioned. State v. Pannell, 71 S.W .3d 720, 725 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). This is an objective sta ndard. A lley

v. Sta te , 8 82 S.W. 2d81 0, 82 0 (T e nn . Crim . App . 199 4)

. “ Th us , whi le a tr ia l judg e sh ou ld g rant a

re c us a l w he ne ve r t

he jud g e ha s a ny do ub ts a bo ut h is o r h e r a

bil ity to p re sid e imp art ia lly , r e c us a l is

a lso wa rr a nte d w he n a

pe rs on of or din ary pr ud e nc e in the jud g e ’s po sit ion , kno wi ng a ll of the fa c ts known to the j udg e, would find a re asonable basis for que stioning the judg e’s impartiality .” I d. The tr ia l ju dg e re ta ins dis c re tio n ov e r his or he r re c us a l. Sta te v. Smith, 90 6 S. W.2 d 6 , 1 1 ( Te nn . Crim. App. 1995). Unle ss the evidenc e in the re cord indicates that the failure to rec use wa s an abuse of discretion, this c ourt will not interfe re with that de cision. State v. Hines, 919 S.W .2d 573
, 578 (Tenn. 1995)

.

I n the ca se under

submissi on, we c onclude that the trial court did not abuse its di s cre tion when it denied the Def

endant’ s motion t o rec use. The rec ord reflec ts that the trial court considere d the Def endant’ s motion and her prior a ssociations with the Defe ndant’s fa mi l y , an d t h e court

c o n c l u d e d t h a tt h e r e w a s n o r e a s o n t h a ti tw o u l d b e u n ab l e t o p r e s i d e o v e r t h e c a s e w i t h i m p ar t i a l i t y. Further, the c ourt determined that an ordina ry person would not fee l that the court had rea son to be less than impartial. This issue is without merit.-7- B. Se nt e nc ing

T h e De fenda nt contends that the trial c ourt improperly order ed that his sentenc es run
c on se c uti ve ly , a ndthe tr ia l c ou rt imp os e d a n e xce ssi ve se nte nc e

. Spe c if ic a lly , th e De fe nd a nt a sse rt s that the trial court erre d by “not s tarting his sentence s at the low end of the ra ng e that he w as in . .

. . ” Th e Sta te c ou nte rs that th e De fe nd a nt’ s se nte nc e is n ot e xce ssi ve , a nd the tr ia l c ou rt pr op e rl y order ed the De fenda nt’s sentenc es to run conse cutively in acc ordanc e with Tenne ssee law

.
Whe n a de fe nd a nt c ha lle ng e s th e le ng th, rang e or the ma nn e r o f s e rv ic e of

a se nte nc e , it is the duty of this Court to conduct a d e n o v o re v i ew of the re cord w ith a presumption that “the determinations made by

the court from which the a ppeal is t aken a

re c orre ct.” Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401( d) (2003). This presumption is “‘conditioned upon the a ffirmative showing in the rec ord that the trial court considere d the sentenc ing principles and a ll releva nt fac ts and circ umstances.’ ” State v. Ross, 49 S .W.3d 833, 847 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Pett u s , 9 8 6 S

. W .2d 540, 543 (T e nn . 1 99 9) ); Sta te v. As hb y , 823 S.W. 2d16 6, 16 9 ( Te nn . 1 99 1) . T he pr e su mpt iondo e s n ot a pp ly to the leg al conc lusions reac hed by the t rial court in sentencing a def endant or to the determinations made by the tri al court which ar e pre dicated upon unc ontroverte d fac ts. St ate v. De an, 76 S.W.3d 352, 377 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001); State v. Butler
, 900 S.W .2d 305, 311 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) ; State v. Smit h 891 S.W .2d 922, 929 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). I n conducting a de novo revie w of a sente nce, w e must consider: (a ) any evidenc e re ceive d at the trial a nd /or sentenc ing he aring ; (b) the pr e se nte nc e re po rt ; ( c ) the pri nci pl es of se nte nc ing ; ( d) the arg ume nts of c ou ns e l r e la tiv e to

sen te n c in g a lt e r n a ti v e s ; ( e ) th e n a tu r e a n d c h ar a c te r is ti c s o f th e o f f e n s e ; ( f ) a n y mi tiga ting or statutory enhanc ement fa ctors; (g ) any statements made by the def endant on his or he r own be half; and (h) the def

endant’ s potential or lack of potential for reha

bilitation or treatment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 4 0- 35 -2 10 (2 00 3) ; State v. Tay lor , 6 3 S. W.3 d 4 00 , 4 11 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 20 01 ). Th e pa rt y
c ha lle ng ing a

se nte nc e imp os e d b y the tr ia l c ou rt ha s th e bu rd e n o f e sta

bli sh ing that th e se nte nc e is

e rr on e ou s. Te nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 35 -4 01 (d ), Se nte nc ing Com m’ n Cm ts.

I n the ca se under

submissi on, we c onclude that the re is ample evidenc e that the tria l court considere d the sentenc ing principles and a ll releva nt fac ts and circ umstances. Theref ore, w e re view its decision de novo with a pre sump t i o n o f co rr ec tness. Acc ording ly , so long a s the trial court complied with the purposes a nd proce dures of the 1989 Sent en ci n g Ac t and its findings a re supported by

the fa ctual re cord, this Court may not disturb this sentenc e eve n if we w ould have pref err ed a dif

fer ent re sult. S ee T enn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-210, Sentenc ing Comm’n Cmts; S tate v. Fletc her, 805 S.W.2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).

I n calc ulating the sentenc e for a C lass E felony conviction, t he presumptive sentenc e is the statutory minimum for a

Rang e I I offe nder if there are no enhanc ement or mitigating f actor s. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-210 (c ). I f there are enhanc ement but no mitigating fac tors, the trial court may set the sentenc e above the minimum
, b u t s t i l l wi thin the rang e. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 210(d). A se ntence involving both enhanc ement and mitigating fac tors require s an assig nment of relative weig ht for the en h an ce m ent fa ctors as a means of inc rea sing the sentenc e. Te nn. Code Ann.§ 40-35-210( e). The sentenc e must then be re duced w ithin the rang e by any weig ht assigne dA ltho u g h the D e fen d a n t’s b rie f o n a p p e a l t o this C o u rt d o e s n o t sp e c ifi c a lly a rg u e tha t t h e D e fen d a n t’s 1

sent ence vi o l at es t he U ni t ed Stat es Sup rem e C o urt m and at e i n B l akel y v. W ashi ngt o n, 12 4 S.Ct. 25 3 1 (20 0 4 ), t hi s C o urt h as pr ev i ou s l y e mpl oy ed a B l ak el y a n al y s i s u n der f ac t s s i mi l ar t o t h os e i n t h e ca s e at bar

. W e do n ot , h owe v er , e mpl oy a B l ake l y an al y s i s i n t hi s ca s e i n l i gh t of t he T enn es s ee Supre me C our t ’ s r ece nt opi ni on i n t he cas e of St at e v

. G om ez,

__ S. W

. 3d _

__ _ (T enn

. 200 5) ( hol di ng t hat t he s ent enc i ng s che me provi ded by T enn es s ee’ s Sent enc i ng R eform Act

o f 19 8 9 i s a no n- m and at o ry , dis cret i o nary s ent enci ng s chem e and
, i n t urn, d o es no t vi o l at e t he Sixt h A m end m ent ri ght
to a ju ry tria l).

-8- t o t h e m i t i gat i n g fa ct o rs p re s en t

. T en n

. C o d e A n n

. § 4 0 -3 5 -2 1 0 (e ). T h e s en t en ce ra n ge f o r a R an ge I I offe nder f

or a class E felony

is not less than two y ear s or more tha n four y ear s. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-112( b)(5) (2003).

I n this case, the r ecor d clea rly supports the trial court ’s enha nceme nt of the De fenda nt’s sentenc e by

one y ear and s i x m o n t h s . The re cord de monstrates that the De fendant has numerous criminal co n v i ctions, and has ha d his probation or par ole re voked on two sepa rate occa sions for subsequent criminal convictions. The trial court thor oug hly analy zed and consider ed the r eleva nt enhanc ing and mitigating fac tors and followe d the statutory g uidelines in imposing the De fenda nt’s sentenc e. The trial court c oncluded:

The c ourt in this case, ba sed on the sente ncing law that I just stated and base d

on the we ig ht that I ha ve g ive n to the e nh a nc ing fa c tor s, I sta rt a t the e ndof

the sc a le

o r t h e b o t t o m o f t h e s c a l e i n a c l a s s E f e l o n y a n d I’ ml o o k i n g f

i r s tt o a c l a s s E f e l o n y, it’s a ra ng e two beg inning at two y ear s and going to four y ear s and it ’s a thirty -five perc ent sentenc e. When I g o to the bot tom of that ra ng e, coming up then, working up wi th e nh a nc ing fa c tor s, the e nh a nc ing fa c tor s w hic h th is c ou rt ha s fou nd , th a t th is [D] efe ndant has e x tensive crimin al history , that he’s pr eviously been pla ced in the community and has not be en able to c onform to the community
, the re quirements, .

. . t h i s c o u r th a s c o n s i d e r e d a l l t h a ta n d p l a c e s a g r e a td e a l o f

w e i g h ti n thi s sentenc ing hear [i ng ] today , as I think I should under the statute . . . . A nd due to the extensiveness of this recor d, there ’s just nothing else the court c an do.

We conclude that the t rial court did not err when it sentenc ed the Def endant. The Def

endant’ s prior criminal history

clea rly supports the sentenc e enhanceme nt in this case

. 1

Further, the c ourt did not err in imposing c onsecutive se ntence s. Pursuant to Tennes s e e Code Annotated se ction 40-35-115( a) ( 2003), if a de fendant is convicted of more than one c riminal offe nse, th e c o u r t s h a ll o r d e r th e s e n te n c e s to ru n e ith e r c o n s e c u ti v e ly

o r c o n c u rr e n tl y

. T h e tria l court may order sentenc es to run conse cutively if the court finds by

a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e that one or more of the seve n cri teria enumer ated in Te nnessee Code Annotated se ction 40-35-115( b) apply

. I f n o ne of the criteria in subsection (b) a pply , the “[s] entenc es shall be or dere d to run

con c u rr e n tl y

. . . . ” T e n n

. Co d e A n n

. § 4 0

- 3 5

- 1 1 5 ( d )

. O n e c r it e r io n li s te d in T e n n e s s e e Code Annotated se ction 40-35-115( b) is that the “de fendant is an offe nder w hose rec ord of c riminal

a c tiv ity is e xt ensive .” Te nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 35 -1 15 (b )( 2) . T he tr ia l c ou rt fo un d, a ndre pe a te dly stated, that the Def

endant had an extensive c riminal history . The c ourt also found that the D efe ndant-9-

was a car eer criminal, anothe r fa ct o r that supports the impositi on of conse cutive sente nces. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-3 5 -1 1 5(b)( 1). The D efe ndant has failed to prove that the e vidence preponde rate s ag ainst these finding s. Acc ording ly
, we find no err or in the consec utive nature of the De fe nd a nt’ s se nte nc e s. Th is i ssu e is w ith ou t me ri t.

III

. Conclusion

We n o te th a t th e r e ar e s o me c le r ic a l e rr o r s in th e ju d g me n t f o r c o u n t o n e , in case number 5504, for the D efe ndant’s burg lary of an automobile conviction. There fore , we r emand f or entry by the trial court of an a mended judg ment ref lecting the following : that the Def endant wa s repr esente d by appointed counsel, not reta ined counsel, and that the Defenda nt was convicted and sentence d as a Rang e I I

multipl e off

ender , with a re lease eli gi b i l ity of 35%. In acc ordanc e with the for eg oing

rea soning a nd authorities, we a ffirm the judg ments of the trial c ourt.

___________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE