### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs F eb ru ar y 8, 200 5
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. DO NA LD SOLOM ON

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for F ranklin County

No. 15166 Bud dy D. P err y, Judge

No. M2004- 01264-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Jun e 7, 2005

The de fendan t , Do n al d Solomon, pl ed g uiltyto theft of prope rty valued at $1,000, but less than $10,000, a Class D fe lony . After conducting a sente ncing hearing, t h e t ri al court c lassified the defe ndant as a

Rang e I , standard of

fende r and se ntence d him to four y ear s in the Depa rtment of Cor re c tio n. Th e tr ia l c ou rt

or de re d th e de fe nd a nt to se rv e the se nte nc e c on se c uti ve to a se nte nc e in another case for whic h the def

endant wa s on p ro b at i o n at t he time. I n this direct appe al, the defe ndant pre sen t s the sing le issue of whe ther the tria l court er red in sente ncing . We affirm the judgme nt of the trial court. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

J.C. M C L IN , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined.

David O. Mc Gover n, Assistant Publ ic Def ender , for the a

ppellant, Donald Solomon. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; Eliz abeth B . Marne y , Senior Counsel Criminal Ju s ti c e D iv is io n ; J. M ic h a e l T a y lo r , D is tric t A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l; a n d St e v e n M

. B lo u n t, A s s is ta nt District Attorney

Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.

OP IN ION

F acts and P roce dural Hi story
The brie f re citation of t h e fa cts at the plea hearing to whic h the def endant a cquiesc ed
e sta bli sh e d th a t he ha d ta

ke n s ums of

mon e y fr om s e ve ra l in div idu a ls t o p ur c ha se a ll- terra in vehicles. Rathe r than purc hasing and delivering the vehicles t o t h e b uy ers, the de fenda nt misappropriate d the money to support hi s d ru g h ab i t s. The pre sentenc e re port reve aled that the defe ndant, at the time this offe nse wa s committed, was on fe lo n y p ro b at i o n in Coffee Countyfor passing worthless chec ks in a n amount more than $1,000 and for six counts of theft ov er $ 1 , 0 0 0.-2-

The pre sentenc e re port also showed a series of simil ar prior felony convictions, a pending probation violation, and twelve c ases pe nding in Coff ee County

that alleg e eig hteen a dditional thefts.

At the sentenc ing he aring , the def endant a dmitted that he had “ten prior convic tions for doing the same thing that [he was] convicted here for, taking money from people, pr omising them stuff a nd

. . . n ever deliver[ing] on [his ] promis e.” T he def endant f urther a cknowledg ed that he w as on probation at the time he co m m i t t ed this offense. A t the conclusion of the he aring , the trial court stated:

The ra ng e in the ca se is two to four y ear s.

I ’m g oing to trea t f

or the purpose of

mitigating fac tors the nonviolent nature and his ag e. I ’m g oing to f ind as enha ncing fac tors the prior c riminal co n d u ct and the fa ct that he was on probation at the time of the offe nse. I ’m g iving virtua lly no we ig ht t o e ith e r of the mit ig a tin g fa c tor s. I ’m re c og nizi ng the m a ndg ivi ng the m a ve ry min imu m a mou nt o f w e ig ht. I thi nk the e nh a nc ing fa c tor s si g nif ic a ntl y , in thi s case , particula

rly the cour se of prior crimina l conduct, significa ntly outweig h the mitig a ti n g f

a c to r s a n d I ’ m g o in g to s e t th e s e n te n c e a t f o u r y e ar s
. H e is p r e s umed
e nti tle d to a lte rn a tiv e se nte nc ing . H ow e ve r, in this c a se I thi nk he ’s de mon str a te d to the Court that alternative sentenc ing is not g oing to be sufficien t d eter rent . . . a nd I ’m g oing to r equire him for t h at re as o n to serve the four y ear sentenc e [in the] Depa rtment of Corre ctions [s ic].

I n just if y in g it s o r d e r th a t th e s e n te n c e b e s e r v e d c o n s e c u ti v e ly to th e s e n te n c e f o r w h ic h the defe ndant was on pr obation, the trial court state d , “the f act that [the defe ndant] went back to the scheme and did the same thing while on pr obation justifies this Court imposing a sentenc e that’s not simplya conc urre nt sentence .” Subsequently , the def endant f iled notice of this appe al.

Ana lys is

I n this appeal, the de fenda nt r elies on Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. - - - -, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), to ar g ue that his Six th A m en d m en t ri g ht to trial by jury was violated by

the trial court’s applica t i o n o f enha nceme nt fac tors neither a dmitted by him nor found by

a jury . Specifica lly , he contests the trial c ou rt ’s ap p l ication of e nhance ment fac tors (2), prior criminal conduc t, and (9), unwillingness to comply

with the conditions of a sente nce involving re lease into the communityon probation at the time of the offe nse. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114( 2), (9)

. Th e Sta te c on te nd s th a t th e de fe nd a nt h a s e ff e c tiv e ly wa ive d th is a

rg ume nt b y

fa ili ng to r a ise the ar g ument prior to a

ppeal. We a g ree
. I n the rec ent decision State v. Gomez, - - - S.W .3d - - - -, No. M2002-01209-SC-R11-CD (Te nn. April 15, 2005), t he Tennessee Supreme Court announc ed that Tenne ssee’ s sentencing structure does not violate the Six th A mendment. I d. at - - - -. The c ourt also determined that Blakely did not establish a new r ule of law

. I d

. at - - - -. As such, the defe ndant, who has f

ailed to assert this i ssue prior to appe al, has e ffe ctively waived the issue.-3-

Furthermore , the Gomez court c oncluded that a Tenne ssee trial judge ’s discretionary application of sentenc e enha nceme nt fac tors absent a n admission or jury finding does n o t amount to plain error

. I d

. at - - - -. I n ac co rd an ce wi t h t h i s re as o n i n g, we co n cl u d e t h at t h e d ef en d an t ’s Bl ak el y

ch al l en ge does not nec essitate the r ever sal of his sentenc e.
Conclusion

We affirm the judgme nt of the trial court.

___________________________________ J .C. McL I N, J UDGE