### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jun e 7, 200 5 STATE OF TENNESS EE v . CORTEZ D. HUBBARD Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty No. 03-07368 Ar thur T. Benn ett , Judge

No. W2004-01937-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Augu st 26, 2005

The Appe llant, Cortez D. Hubba rd, appea ls the sentenc ing decision of the Shelby CountyCriminal Court whi ch resulted in the imposition of an ef fec tive eig ht-y ear

sentenc e of inc arc eration. On appea l, Hubbard c halleng es t h e t ri al court’s de nial of alternative sente ncing . After revie w of the rec ord, we aff

irm the judg ment of the trial c ourt. Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed
D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON and T HOMAS T. W O O D A LL , J J ., joined.
Robert Wils on J ones, Chief Public Def ender ; and Phy llis Al u k o , Assistant Publ ic Def ender , Memphis, Tennesse e, for the Appellant, Cortez D. Hubba rd.
Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Se th P . K e stn e r, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Gen eral; Willi a m L . G ibb on s, Di stric t A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; an d L e e Cof fe e , A ssi stant D ist

ri c t A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l, for the A ppellee, State of Tenne ssee. OP IN ION

F ac tu al B ac kgr ound
I n October

2003, a Shelby

Countyg rand jury

returne d an indictment ag ainst the Appellant char g ing him with one c ount of espec ially ag g ravated burg lary , one count of agg ravated assault, and tw o c ou nts of

mis de me a no r a ssa

ult

. Th e ind ic tme nt r e su lte d f ro m of fe ns e s w hic h o c c ur

re d inAp ri l of 2003.
O n J u n e 2 , 2 0 0 4 , t h e A p p e l l a n te n t e r e d g u i l t y p l e a s t o e s p e c i a l l y a g g r a v a t e d b u r g l ar y, ag g ravated assault, and onecount of misdemea nor assault. The remaining c ount of misdemeanor assault was d is mi s s e d

. T h e te r ms o f th e p le a a g r e e me n t p r o v id e d th a t th e A p p e ll a n t w o u ldp le ad g uil ty a s a Ra ng e I of fe nd e r t o e sp e c ia lly

a g g ra vate d b ur g lary , a

Cla ss B fe lon y ; a g g ra vate d a ssa ult ,-2-

a Class C felony ; and misdemeanor assault and rece ive sentenc es of e ight y ear s, three y ear s, and e le ve n mo nth s a ndtw e nty -n ineday s r e sp e c tiv e ly fo r the se c on vic tio ns . A s p art of the a g re e me nt, the sentenc es wer e to be serve d concur rently , but the manner

of ser vice of

the sentenc es wa s to be determined by the trial court. At the g uiltyplea he aring , the State summarized the fa cts underlying the c on vic tio ns a s f

oll ow s: [O] n or about April the 1 of 20 0 3 , around 11:15 p.m., the de fendant and st codef endants broke into a n apartment loc ated at 2342 Dwig ht, apartment number 2. They broke into this apartment throug h the bac k door. . . . Then Corry J ones, Cortez Hubbar d and Mar cia Hubba rd ente red the apartment and attac ked L aQuinton and Reg inald T ay l o r. L aQuinton advised office rs that he and Reg inald ran to a back bedr o o m . The victim Reg inald Tay lor, the victim of the . . . ag g ravated assault, . .

. went out a window while being chase d by the three defe ndants. And whe n he we nt out the wi n d o w, he sustained a compound fra cture wher e the bone of his leg was jutting out throug h the skin. He we nt out the wi n d o w wit h that being the sec ond floor wi ndow. The othe r victim, L aQuinton, ac tually jumped out the second f

loor window and r an and g ot help.
Whil e Reg inald Tay lor was ly ing on the g round with a broken leg , he wa s repe atedly kicked by

the Appellant. Following a sente ncing hearing, the trial court de nied the Appe llant’s reque st for alternative sentenc ing. T his appea l follows.
Ana lys is
Whe n a n a c c us e d c ha lle ng e s th e le ng th, rang e , or ma nn e r of the se rv ic e of a se nte nc e , th is court ha s a duty

to conduct a de novo revie w of the sentenc e with a presumption t h at the de te rm inatio ns ma de by the tr ia l cou rt are c or re c t. Te nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 35 -4 01 (d ) ( 20 03 ); Sta te v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991)

. The court must c onsider the evidenc e rec eived at the trial and sente ncing hearing, the p re -s entenc e re port, the principles of sentenc ing, a

rg ument of c ou ns e l, the natur e a nd c ha ra c te ri sti c s of the of

fe ns e , mitig a tin g a nde nh a nc ing fa c tor s, state me nts made by the offe nder, and the potential for reha bilitation. Ashby , 8 23 S.W. 2da t 16 8; see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 2 1 0 (2003). The burden of showing that the sentenc e is improper is upon the appea ling pa

rty . Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-401(d) , Sentencing Commi ssion Com ments.
Th e Ap pe lla nt a

rg ue s th a t w e sh ou ld not e xten d the tr ia l cou rt a pr e su mpt ionof c or re c tne ss in our de novo revi ew. He contends that the tria l judge did not consider the se ntencing principles in conjunction with all rele vant facts and circumstance s by “nominally

acknow ledg [i ng ] evidence of [ his] mental i llness” and not considering his mother’s testimony

. See A shby, 823 S.W .2d at 169. The State c ontends that the t rial court’s denial of the Appellant’s re quest for a lternative se ntencing was wa rra nted base d upon the Appellant’ s leng thy criminal hi story , the nee d to avoid depre ciating-3-

the seriousne ss of his offense s, and unsucc essful applicatio n of mea sures less re strictive than confine ment in the past. The Appe llant in this case pled guilty to Class B and Class C felonies, as a Ra ng e I offe nder, and to a Class A misdemeanor. B ased upon his Class B f elony conviction, he r ece ives no presumption in favor of

alternative sentenc ing. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-102(5) (2003). There fore , t h e S t ate did not have the burde n of justify ing inc arc eration accor ding to statutory provisions. State v. Sheila Ann J ones , No. M2003-02776-CC A-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. at Kn o x v i l l e, De c. 9 , 2 0 0 4 ) ( ci t i n g State v. Mic hael W . Dinkins , No. E2001-01711

- CC A

- R3

- CD ( Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxvi lle, Apr. 26, 2002)) . Given this fact , along with the fac t that the trial court s pecif ically explained its reasoning behind its denial of alternative sente ncing , the trial court’s se nte nc ing de te rm inatio n is a ff or de d th e pr e su mpt ionof c or re c tne ss.
Th e pr oo f at the se nte nc ing he ari ng e sta bli sh e d tha t th e Ap pe llant w a s tw e nty -f ive y e ars old and lived with his mother. He dropped out of school in the eleve nth gr ade. T he Appe llant’s mother testified that her

son was ver y

immature for

his ag e and e x presse d conce rn about his “menta l stability .” She re lated that he had be en pre scribed me dication for his proble ms in the past but was not taking his medic ine on the date o f the c rimes. She ac knowledg ed that on the date the crimes wer e com mi tt e d , th e A p p e ll a n t w a s “ d r in k in g ” a n d th a t h e d o e s n o t m ak e g o o d d e c is io n s w h en drinking . A fore nsic mental evaluation of the Appe llant c onfirmed that the Appellant suffe red f rom a mental disorde r that re quired medic ation althoug h the eva luation o pined that the Appe llant understood the nature of the leg al process, the cha rg es ag ainst him, and the potential conseque nces of the c harg es. The e valuation conc luded that no mental def enses we re support ed an d that the Appellant wa s “compe tent to proce ed with the disposition of his charg es.” The pre -sentenc e re port ref lects onl y one brief period of employ ment during the Appellant’ s entire a dulthood when he wa s employ ed as a cook for a one- month period at Church’ s Frie d Chicken. The r epo rt also shows a pattern of c riminal activity that beg an at a g e eig hteen a nd continued to the pre sent cha rg es. The A p p ell ant’s criminal hist ory ref lects twenty -three prior convictions, i n cl u d ing onefelony conviction for a g g ravated assault and thirte en convic tions for simple assault, in addition to num erous ot h er m i s d emeanor convic tions. Additi onally , the pre

sentenc e re port indicates that the A ppellant had twice been f ound to be in violation of probation.
Our re view of the rec ord re veals that the t rial court found t hat t he Appellant’s conduct wa s “eg reg ious,” that the Appe llant had an e x ten s i v e h i s tory of assault convictions, some of which oc c ur re d w hil e he wa s in c arc e rate d, a ndthat he po se d a “ da ng e r t o th e c ommun ity .” F ro m th e se comments we disce rn t he holdi ng that “[c]onfinement is necessa ry to protect socie ty

by restraining a def endant who ha s a long history of criminal conduct.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103( 1)(A) (2 00 3) . M or e ov e r, theAp pe lla nt’ s p ri or pr ob a tio n v iol a tio ns de mon str a te that “[ m] easure s le ss restric tive than conf

inement have

. . . been applied unsucc essfully to the defe ndant.” See Tenn. Code An n. § 4 0- 35 -1 03 (1 )( C) . F ina lly , b e c aus e the Ap pe llant w a s c on vic te d o f a Cla ss B fe lon y , it

is h is burden to e stablish that his sentence of eig ht y ear s i n confine ment is improper. Afte r de novo revie w, we c onclude that the A ppellant has failed to car ry this burden.-4- CO NC LU SION
Ba sed upon the foreg oing, we affirm t he S helby County Criminal Court’s impos ition of an eff ective e ight- y ear

sentenc e of inc arc eration.

___________________________________ DAVID G. HAY ES, J UDGE