# FILED Ma rch 4, 1997 Cec il Cr ow son , Jr . Ap p e l l a te C o u rt C l e rk IN THE CO UR T OF CR IM IN AL AP PEALS OF TENN ESSEE

AT KN OXVILLE OC TOBER1996 SESSI ON
STATE OF TENN ESSEE , * * Appel lee , * VS. * * RI CK J. GO ULTR IE, * * Appel lan t. *

* C. C. A. #03C 01- 9512- CC -0 0406

BRAD L EY CO UNT Y Hon . M ay o L. Ma shbur n, J udg e (P ubl icInt ox ic ati on and Poss ess ion of Ma rijua na)
For Appel lan t: A. W ay ne C arter Ass is tant Publ icD efender P.0. Box 1453 Cl ev ela nd, TN 373 64- 1453 For Appel lee : Cha rl es W . Bu rs on Atto rn ey Gene ra l & R epor

ter Hu n tB ro wn Ass is tant Atto rn ey

Gene ra l Cr imi nal Ju sti ce Di v is ion 450 J ames R ober

tso n Par kw ay Nas hv il le, TN 37243- 0493 Joe Reh y ansky Ass is tant Di str ic t Attor ney Gene ra l P.O. Box 1351 Cl ev ela nd, TN 373 64- 1351

OPIN ION F ILED :

AFF IR ME D

GARYR . W AD E, J UD GE2 OPIN ION After a j ur

y tr ial , t he defendant, R ic k G oul tr ie, w as conv ic ted o f poss ess ion of marijua na and publ ici ntox ic ati on. The tr ial co urt i mposed cons ecut iv e s entenc es of elev en month s tw enty -n ine day s for the poss ess ion conv icti on and thi rty

day s for the publ ici ntox ic ati on c onv ic ti on. The defendant w as re q uired to se rv e s ev enty -fiv e percentof the s entenc es in the c ounty j ail
. In ad dit ion to his ch all eng e to the s uff ic ien cy of the e v ide nce, the d e fe n d a n tp re s e n t s t h e fo ll o win g i s s u e s fo r a p p e ll a t e re vie w:

(1 ) w hether

the tr ial j udg e er re d by deny ing a mot ion to re cus e; (2 ) w hether

the chai n of cus tody

for t he mar ij uana ev ide nce w as suffici entl y es tabl is hed; and (3 ) w hether

the sent ence w as ex ces si v e.
W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.
At a bout 3:30 A.M . on Dec ember 10th , 199 4, P atrolman Stev e Ty son of the C lev ela nd Pol ic e D epar tment noti ced a w oman tal ki ng to someone ins ide a par ked car . The c ar

w as on th e w ro ng si de of the street a nd th e motor w as ru nni ng . Mi ndful of recentco mplai nts aboutdr ug traff ic ki ng i n the area, O ff ic er Ty son approache d the v ehi cl e; he co uld smel l alc ohol throug h the open w ind ow s o f the c ar . After tal ki ng w it h the dr iv er , D anny M cC utc hen, Off ic er

Ty son deter mined that he had been dr ink ing , g av e hi m a fiel d s obr iety tes t, and t hen pl aced him under ar re st for dr iv ing under the influ ence (D UI ).
At t hat p oin t, Off ic er

Ty son' s r ide -a lon g st udent poi nted out t hat t he d e fe n d a n t , w h o w a s s e a t e d i n t h e fro n tp a s s e n g e r s e a t , w a s d u mp i n g a g re e n l e a fy3 m a te ria l o u t o f

a ci gar e tt e pa ck a ge, w h e re it was st o re d be twe e n th e pa p e r pa ck a ge and t he c ell ophane w ra pper . Off ic er Ty son deter mined that the s ubst ance w as marijua na w hen t he defendant ste pped ou t of the car . Off ic er Ty son re mov ed th e ci g arette pack ag e from hi s g ri p and pla ced iton t he roof of the ca r. W hen t he defendant w as handc uffed and in the c ar , O ff ic er Ty son pic ked up th e c ig arette pack ag e and pla ced iti nto h is patrol car .

The defendant refused to tak e any bl ood or breath alc ohol tes t. Of f icer Tyson seale d the cig arett e pa ckage in an en v elop e, initiale d it, and turned it ov er to his su per

v is or . Hi s s uper

v is or dropped t he env elo pe i nto t he ev ide nce ro om drop s lot
. Later , an ev ide nce off ic er unl ock ed th e room, remov ed al l of the s ecured evidence e nvelopes, and deliv ered them to the TB I crime lab in Cha ttan ooga. T his w as sta ndard procedu re . On t he day of tr ial , O ff ic er

Ty son pic ked up th e env elo pe from the ev ide nce off ic er and confir med hi s i nit ial s.
Defense w it ness Tracy M anus, i n the co mpany of the d efendant and Mc Cut chen on th e ni g ht of the ar re st, tes ti fied th at ne it her sh e nor her co mpanio ns drank that nig ht. She cont ended t hat t he c ig arette pack ag e w as nev er i n the poss ess ion of the d efendant.

Mc Cut chen admitted t hat h e had had "t oo muc h" to dr ink on t he ni g ht of his ar re st. H e tes ti fied th at he sa w Officer Ty son pic k s omethi ng up o ff the g ro und, but w as unabl e to see w hat i t w as.4 W hile ackn owl edging a "bu z z " f rom b eer, th e de fend antstrongly den ied th at he w as into x icated or had trou ble sta ndin g. He also de nied ow nersh ip of the mar ij uana.

On ap peal , of co urse, the sta te i s e nti tl ed to the strong estl eg it imat e v iew of the e v ide nce and al l re asona ble i nferenc es w hic h mi g ht be draw n the re from. Stat e v . C abbag e, 57 1 S. W .2d 8 32, 8 35 ( Tenn. 1978 ). The c re dib il ity of the w it ness es, the w eig ht t o be g iv en th eir tes ti mony , and the re conc il iat ion of confli cts in the p ro of are matters e ntr ust ed to the jur y as tr iers o f fact
. By rg e v . St ate, 575 S.W .2d 292 , 295 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p. 19 78). W hen the suf f iciency of

the evidence is chal len g ed, t he rele v ant q uest ion i s w hether , after rev iew ing the ev ide nce in the l ig ht most fav orabl e to the s tate, any rati onal tr ier

of fact c oul d hav e found the es sent ial ele ments of the c ri me bey ond a re asona ble doubt
. Stat e v . W il li ams, 657 S. W .2d 405, 410 ( Tenn. 1983 ); Tenn. R . Ap p. P . 13( e)
.

Pub lic i nto x ication occurs w hen a person "ap pea rs in a public place under the influ ence" of an "i ntox ic ati ng su bst ance to t he deg re e tha t: ( 1) The offender may be e ndang ered; ( 2) There i s e ndang er ment t o oth er persons or proper ty ; or ( 3) The offender unreason abl y annoy s p eopl e i n the v ic ini ty ." Tenn. Cod e. A nn. § 39- 17- 310( a)
. Off ic er Ty son tes ti fied th at t he defendant had a strong sme ll of alcoho l, had a gl azed look in his eye, w as un able to keep his balan ce w hile stan ding, and respon ded slow ly to com ma nds. The defend antw as un able to exit the c ar or st and w it hout hel p. Off ic er Ty son, w ho k new

the defendant from pr ior enco unt ers, had seen his sober be havior and be liev ed th at th e de fend antw as a dang er to hims elf bec ause of his l ev el of into x ic ati on.
In ou r v iew , t his w as adeq uate ev ide nce that the d efendant w as g uil ty5 of publi c i ntox ic ati on.

Si mple poss ess ion i s d efined as "kn ow ing ly pos ses s[i ng ] .
.. a cont ro ll ed s ubst ance unl ess the subs tanc e w as obtai ned" w it h a v ali d presc ri pti on. Tenn. C ode An n. § 39- 17- 418( a)
. Ma rijua na i s, of course, a c ontroll ed s ubst ance. Off ic er Ty son tes ti fied th at t he defendant w as hol din g a c ig arette pack ag e w it h a g re en l eafysu bst ance tuc ked ins ide
. The floor board of the pass eng er 's si de of the car w as li ttered w it h the sa me g re en s ubst ance. H av ing y ears o f ex per ien ce w it h the s ubst ance, the off ic er recog niz ed i t by

the loo k a nd s mell
. TBI l aborator y tes ts confir med thatthe subs tanc e w as marijua na. Cl ear ly , t he ev ide nce is su ff ic ien t t o suppo rta c onv icti on of pos ses si on of mar ij uana.
I T he d efend antargues thatthe trial judge sho uld ha v e granted his moti on for re cus al. Be caus e he had app eared before the tr ial j udg e on a number of prev iou s c harg es, the defendant c lai ms t he j udg e l ack ed i mpart ial ly
. The defendant insists tha t the judge had alw ays ruled againsthim an d imp osed lengthy sent ence s.

W hether recus al is nec ess ar

y rest s w it hin the dis creti on of the tr ial co u rt . Ca ru th e rs v. S ta te , 8 1 4 S. W .2 d 64 , 6 7 (T e n n . Cr im . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ). A ju d ge shou ld granta mo tion for recusal w hen ever his or her "im partia lity might reason ably be q uest ion ed." Cod e of Judi ci al Con duct , C anon 3( C) ; Tenn. Sup. Ct . R . 10; Sta te v . J immy D . D il li ng ham, N o. 03 C01 -9 110- CR -0 0319 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. , atKnoxv il le, Februa ry 3, 199 3). Th is court w ill notinterfere w ith the trial court's discretion un less cl ear abus e appea rs on t he face o f the record. Car uthers, 814 S. W .2d a t 67. Here, t he record s impl y does not suppo rtthe defendant' s c lai ms of prejud ice. Th ere w as no proof w hat soever that th e trial judge had acted impa rtially6 in any of the p ri or

ca ses or

had made c omments in thi s c ase ind ic ati v e of bi as.

II Next, the d efendant arg ues that the t ri al cour t er re d by

al low ing as ev i de nc e th e ma r i j ua na i n th e c el l op ha ne w rap pe r a nd t he rep or

t from t he TB I c r i me lab anal yz ing the subs tanc e. He ins is ts the s tate faile d to adeq uatel y es tabl is h the c h a in o f cu s t o d y.
T he issue of

the cha in of

custod y w as no t ma de in th e mo tion for a new tr ial
. "[I] n al l cas es tr ied by a j ur y , no is sue present ed for re v iew [t o an appel lat e c our

t] shal l be predi cat ed upon er ro r in the a dmis si on or ex cl usi on of evidence .. . unle ss the sam e w as spe cif ically state d in a mo tion for a new tr ial; oth erw ise such issue s w ill be trea ted as w aived." T enn . R. App. P. 3(e). Moreover, there i s n o transc ri pt of the hear ing on t he moti on. It is the duty of the a ppel lan t t o prepare a record w hic h c onv ey s a fair , ac curate, and c omplet e ac countof w hat transpi re d i n the tr ial co urt w it h respect t o the i ss ues w hic h form t he bas is of the appeal
. Tenn. R . Ap p. P . 24( b) ; St ate v . R hoden, 739 S. W .2d 6 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1 9 8 7 ); S t a t e v. Mi ll e r, 7 3 7 S
. W
. 2 d 5 5 6 , 5 5 8 (T e n n . Cr im
. A p p . 1 9 8 7 ). Ge n e ra ll y, thi s c our t i s p re cl uded fro m address ing an i ss ue on appeal w hen t he record fail s t o i nc l ud e rel ev an t do c um en ts
. S ee S ta te v . Be nn et t, 7 98 S .W .2 d 78 3 ( Ten n. C r i m. App . 199 0); T enn . R. App. P. 24. Becau se the hea ring on th e mo tion for new trial is not i n the record, t he i ss ue has been w aiv ed.7 III F in a ll y, t h e d e fe n d a n ta rg u e s t h a tt h e t ri a l c o u rtim p o s e d e xc e s s ive s e n t e n c e s . He a ls o co n t e n d s t h a tt h e t ri a l c o u rte rr e d b y im p o s in g c o n s e c u t ive sent ences . W hen t here i s a ch all eng e to the l eng th, ra ng e, or manner of ser v ic e of a s entenc e, i t i s t he duty of thi s c our

t t o c onduc t a de nov o rev iew w it h a presumpt ion thatthe deter minat ion s made by the tr ial co urt are c or re ct. Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 40- 35- 401( d)
. This presumpt ion i s "c ondi ti oned up on th e aff ir mati v e s how ing in the record tha t t he tr ial co urt c onsi dered th e s entenc ing pr inc ipl es and al l re lev ant facts and c ircums tanc es. " St ate v . As hby , 823 S.W .2d 1 66, 1 69 ( Tenn. 1991 ). The Senten ci ng C ommis si on C omments prov ide thatthe burden i s o n the defendant to show the impropr iety

of the s entenc e. Our rev iew req uires an anal y si s o f (l ) the e v ide nce, i f any , recei v ed at the t ri al and s entenc ing hear ing ; ( 2) the present ence re por t; (3 ) the p ri nci ple s o f sent enci ng and the a rg uments of couns el re lat iv e to sent enci ng al ter nati v es; ( 4) the nature and charact er is ti cs of the o ff ense; ( 5) any mit ig ati ng or

enhanc ing factors; (6 ) any statem ent s mad e by the def end antin his ow n be half ; and (7) the def end ant 's potent ial for rehabi li tati on or treatment. Tenn. Cod e Ann. §§ 4 0- 35- 102, -1 03, - 210; Sta te v. Smith, 7 35 S. W .2d 859 , 863 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p. 19 87).

In mi sdemeano r sent enci ng , a separate s entenc ing hear ing i s n ot ma nda tory butthe cou rt is required to provide the defend antw ith a reaso nab le oppor tuni ty to be heard as to the l eng th an d manner of the s entenc e. Tenn. C ode Ann . § 40-3 5-30 2(a). Misdeme ano r senten ces mu st be spe cif ic and in acco rdan ce w it h the pr inc ipl es, pur pose, and g oal s o f the C ri minal Sent enci ng R eform Ac t of8 1989. Tenn. C ode An n. §§ 40- 35- 104, -1 17, - 302; Stat e v . Pa lmer , 902 S.W .2d 391, 393 ( Tenn. 1995 ). The mi sdemeano r offender mustbe s entenc ed to an author iz ed det er minantse ntenc e w it h a p er cent ag e of thatse ntenc e des ig nated for eli g ibi li ty for rehabi li tati v e prog ra ms. Gene ra ll y , a percent ag e of not g re ater than 75% of the sen ten ce sho uld be f ix ed for a misde me ano r of fend er; howev er, a DUI offender may be req uired to se rv e the full 100% of his se ntenc e. Pal mer, 902 S.W .2d at 393 -94. In de term ining the pe rcenta ge of the sen ten ce, th e cou rt must cons ide r enhanc ement an d mi ti g ati ng factors a s w ell as the leg is lat iv e pur poses and pr inc ipl es re lat ed to se ntenc ing
. Id.

Upo n s er

v ic e of thatpercent ag e, t he admi nis trati v e ag ency g ov er nin g the rehab ilitativ e programs d ete rmine s w hich am ong the lawf ul programs available is appropr iat e. The tr ial co urt retai ns the a uthor ity to pla ce the d efendant on probati on eit her i mmediat ely

or after a pe ri od of per iod icor co nti nuous co nfinement. Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 40 -3 5- 302( e)
. The le g is lat ure has enc ourag ed c our ts to c onsi der publ ic or pr iv ate a g enci es for probati on s uper v is ion pr ior

to direct ing su per

v is ion by the D epar

tment of Cor re cti on. Tenn. C ode An n. § 40- 35- 302( f). The g ov er nin g statu te is designed to provide the trial cou rt w ith con tinuin g jurisdiction in mis demeanor

ca ses and a w ide l ati tude of f lex ibi li ty
. The mis demeanant, unl ik e the fe lo n , is n o te n t it le d t o t h e p re s u m p t io n o f a m in im u m se n t e n c e . St a t e v. Cr e a s y, 885 S.W .2d 829 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p. 19 94).

Pr ior to the e nact ment of the Cr imi nal Sent enci ng R eform Ac t of 1989, the limited classif ication s for the im positio n of conse cutive sente nces were set out in Gray v . Stat e, 53 8 S.W .2d 391 , 393 (Ten n. 19 76). In th at case our suprem e cou rt ru led thatag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ces mustbe p re sentbefore pla cementi n any one of the c las si ficat ion s. Late r, i n St ate v . Tay lor , 739 S.W .2d 2 27 ( Tenn. 1987 ), theT he f i r st f our cr i t er i a ar e f ound i n G r ay . A f i f t h cat egor y i n G r ay , base d on a speci f i c num ber 1 ofpr i or f el ony conv i ct i ons, m ay enh ance t he se nt ence r ange but i s no l ongera l i st ed cr i t er i on. See T enn. C ode Ann. § 40- 35- 115, Sent enci ng Com m i ssi on Com m ent s. 9 cour t es tabl is hed an addi ti onal ca teg or y for t hose defendants conv ic ted o f tw o or mo re statu tory of

fense s inv olvi ng sex ual ab use o f mino rs. The re w ere, ho w ever, addi ti onal w ords of cauti on: "[C ]ons ecut iv e s entenc es shoul d notrouti nel y be impos ed .. . and
.. . t he ag g re g ate max imum of c onsec uti v e ter ms mus t be re asona bly

rela ted t o the se v er ity

of the o ff enses i nv olv ed." Tay lor , 739 S.W .2d a t 230. The Sent enci ng C ommis si on C omments adopted the caut ion ar y l ang uag e. Tenn. C ode An n. § 40- 35- 115. The 1989 Acti s, in ess ence, the codi ficat ion of the hol din g s i n Gray

and Tay lor ; c onsec uti v e s entenc es maybe i mposed in the dis creti on of the tr ial co urt onl y upon a det er minat ion thatone or more of the follo w ing cr it er ia ex is t: 1 (1 ) The defendant i s a professi onal cr imi nal w ho has know ing ly

dev oted hims elf to cr imi nal ac ts as a maj or source of li v eli hood; (2 ) The defendant is an o ff ender w hose re cord of cr imi nal ac ti v ity

i s e xtens iv e; (3 ) The defendant i s a dang erous mental ly abnor mal person so decl ared by

a c ompetentps y chi atr is t w ho conc lud es as a resul t of an i nv est ig ati on pr ior to sent enci ng thatthe defendant' s c ri minal co nducthas been c haract er iz ed by

a pa tter n of repeti ti v e or compul si v e behav ior

w it h heedl ess i ndi ff erence to conse quence s; (4) The defend antis a dangerous o f fend er w hose behav ior i ndi cat es li ttl e or

no reg ard for human l ife, an d no h esitat ion ab outcomm itting a cri me in w hich th e risk to hu man l ife i s h ig h; (5) The defend antis conv icted o f tw o (2) or more sta tutor y offenses i nv olv ing se x ual abus e of a mi nor w it h cons ide ra ti on of the ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ces ar is ing f rom th e relation ship be tw een the de fend antand v ictim or v icti ms, the t ime span of defendant's undet ect ed sex ual ac ti v ity , t he nat ure and sc ope of the sex ual ac ts and t he extent of the resi dual , phy si cal and mental dam age to the v ictim or v ictims;1 0 (6) The defend antis senten ced for an of fense commi tted w hil e on probati on; (7 ) The defendant is se ntenc ed for cr imi nal co ntempt. T enn . Code Ann. § 40-35 -115 (b).

In St a te v. W ilk e rso n , 9 0 5 S. W .2 d 93 3 , 9 3 8 (T e n n . 1 9 9 5 ), ou r hi gh c ou rt he l d th atc on s ec ut i v e s en te nc es c an no t be req ui red "u nl es s t he t er ms reaso nab ly

relate to the severity

of the of fense s comm itted and are nece ssaryin order to protec t t he publ ic( soc iety ) from furth er cr imi nal ac ts by

thos e persons w ho re sor t t o ag g ra v ated cr imi nal co nduct ." The W il kerson deci si on, w hic h modi fied somew hat t he s tr ict factu al g uid eli nes for c onsec uti v e s entenc ing adopt ed i n St ate v . W oods, 814 S.W .2d 3 78, 3 80 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1991) , des cr ibe d s entenc ing as a "human proces s t hat n eit her ca n nor sh oul d be re duced to a s et of fix ed and mechani cal r ule s." W il kerson, 905 S.W .2d a t 938
.

T o sum ma riz e, in ad dition to f itting into one of the seven sta tuto rily mandated cl ass ific ati ons, the re cord mustal so est abl is h tha t t he ag g re g ate sent ence reason ably relate s to the sev erityof the of fense s and the to tal sen ten ce is nec ess ar

y for t he protec ti on of the publ icfrom furt her cr imes by

the defendants. W il kerson, 905 S.W .2d a t 938 ; G ra y , 538 S.W .2d a t 392
. The record mustsh ow tha t the sente ncing principles an d all relev antfacts an d circumst ance s w ere cons ide re d before the presumpt ion of cor re ctn ess appl ies
.1 1 In t his ca se, the tr ial co urt found one mit ig ati ng factor , t hat t he "o f fense neith er cause d or threa ten ed se rious bod ily injury ." T he trial cou rt also found tw o enhan cementfactors: the defendant had a prev iou s c ri minal record an d the d efendant had a "prev iou s h is tor y of unw il li ng ness to compl y w it h the co ndi ti ons wit h a se n t e n c e in vo lvi n g re le a s e in t o t h e co m m u n it y. " Aft e r we ig h in g t h e two enhanc ement fact ors a g ain st the o ne mi ti g ati ng factor , t he tr ial co urt s entenc ed th e defendant t o v er

y near the max imum po ss ibl e: thi rty day s for publ ici ntox ic ati on and el ev en month s tw enty -n ine day s for pos ses si on of mar ij uana.
The defendant ha d an extens iv e c ri minal record: tw o felony conv icti ons for l ar ceny

and burg lar

y , t hree c onv ic ti ons for D UI , and tw o c onv icti ons for dr iv ing on a rev oked li cens e, for a t otal of sev en pr ior

co nv ic ti ons. I n tha t regard, the defend antq ualif ies as "a n of fend er w hose record of criminal activity

is extens iv e." Tenn. C ode An n. § 40- 35- 115( b) (2 ). The c onsec uti v e s entenc ing w as appropr iat e. In a separate c ase, the defendant had appeal ed D UI and dr iv ing on a re v oked li cens e c onv icti ons to t his co urt. At the t ime of senten ci ng i n thi s p re sent cas e, t he defendant' s c onv ic ti ons had bee n c onfir med by thi s c our

t; y et he cont inu ed hi s c ri minal ac ti v ity . Thus, enhanc ed s entenc es w ere s uit abl e. In ou r v iew , the trial j udge imp osed app ropriate sente nces. The agg regate sen ten ces, in li g ht of hi s p ri or

record, be ar

a reason abl e rela ti onshi p to the s er iou snes s o f the cr imes
. Acc ordin g ly , t he j udg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

Gar y R . W ade, Judg e1 2 CONCUR:
Dav id H. W ell es, Ju dg e

Jer ry L. Smit h, J udg e