Opinion ID: 1058625
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trial Court's Sentencing Determination

Text: The appealing party has the burden of showing that a sentence is improper. Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d) (Sentencing Commission Comments) (2003). Our review of the trial court's sentence is de novo with a presumption of correctness. Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d) (2003). 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). If the trial court fails to comply with statutory sentencing directives, there is no presumption of correctness, and our review is simply de novo. State v. Poole, 945 S.W.2d 93, 93 (Tenn.1997). In this instance, we review the trial court's sentencing decision de novo. Although the trial court erred in considering the results of the polygraph test, a de novo review of the record in this case reveals that Pierce is not a suitable candidate for probation. Because attempted rape of a child is a Class B felony, there is no presumption in this case that the defendant is a favorable candidate for alternative sentencing. Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 39-12-207(a), 39-13-522(b), 40-35-102(6) (2003). The factors to be considered in sentencing are: 1) the evidence, if any, received at the trial and the sentencing hearing; 2) the pre-sentence report; 3) the principles of sentencing and arguments as to sentencing alternatives; 4) the nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct involved; 5) evidence and information offered by the parties on the enhancement and mitigating factors in §§ 40-35-113 and 40-35-114; 6) any statement the defendant wishes to make in the defendant's own behalf about sentencing. Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-210(b) (2003). In addition, a court should consider the potential or lack of potential for the rehabilitation or treatment of the defendant. Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-103(5) (2003). We agree with the State that the initial risk assessment report submitted by Dr. Adler was properly considered by the trial court. The trial judge was mistaken when he stated in his order denying alternative sentencing that the opinion of moderate or fair is intertwined with the polygraph. The report noted, as did Dr. Adler in his testimony, that Pierce had not taken a polygraph examination at the time Dr. Adler assessed Pierce as a fair to moderate risk to re-offend. Dr. Adler also qualified his conclusion that Pierce presented a moderate risk to re-offend by noting that his conclusion might be changed by the results of a polygraph examination. However, the risk assessment report was prepared without any polygraph examination having been administered, and the conclusions in it were based entirely on other information gathered in the evaluation. Nothing in the report or in Dr. Adler's testimony suggested that Dr. Adler's initial conclusions were influenced by the fact that Pierce had not taken a polygraph examination. In fact, Dr. Adler stated that even without a polygraph examination he would stand on his determination that Pierce posed a moderate risk to re-offend. The information contained in the risk assessment, the conclusions drawn in it, and Dr. Adler's testimony at the sentencing hearing were not tainted by the later polygraph examination. Thus, the initial risk assessment and Dr. Adler's testimony are appropriate sentencing considerations. This report and testimony clearly support a denial of probation. In particular, the report concluded that Pierce was a moderate risk for re-offending, that he showed minimal empathy for his victim, that he had a poor work history, and that he was socially isolated and emotionally constricted. Other factors also supporting the trial court's denial of probation include: (1) the defendant's instances of untruthfulness; (2) the defendant's sexual attraction to minors, as documented in his risk assessment; and (3) the facts of his case, which indicate that the defendant committed the greater offense of rape of a child, an offense for which he would not have been eligible to receive probation. The record contains evidence demonstrating the defendant's untruthfulness. The defendant denied past drug use, while his pre-sentence report indicated that he had been observed using marijuana. The defendant claimed that he had been so intoxicated on the night that he impregnated the victim that he could not remember the encounter. However, during his probation hearing, the defendant claimed that the victim had consented to the act. On another occasion, the defendant stated that after committing this sexual offense against the victim, he abstained from further sexual contact with her, even though he continued to date her for several weeks after their initial encounter. However, this claim is dubious given that the pre-sentence report reflects that the victim spent the night with the defendant on several occasions after the incident resulting in his conviction. Also supporting a denial of probation is the defendant's sexual preference for minors, which was documented by the risk assessment report and in particular the results of the PPG, which indicated that the defendant exhibited significant arousal responses to all females from infant to 17 years old, male infants, males 2-5 years old, and males 12-17 years old, but that he exhibited no clinical significant arousal to adult women, the age group he purports to prefer. Dr. Adler testified that the results of his PPG were consistent with those of repetitive offenders. Finally, the facts and circumstances surrounding the defendant's crime also support the denial of probation. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-210(b)(4) (2003). When determining whether probation is appropriate it is proper to look behind the plea bargain and consider the true nature of the offenses committed. State v. Hollingsworth, 647 S.W.2d 937, 939 (Tenn.1983). Although the defendant pleaded guilty to attempted rape of a child, it is clear that the defendant actually committed the offense of rape of a child as he admitted to impregnating his twelve-year-old victim. Had the defendant been convicted of rape of a child, he would have been ineligible for probation and required to serve one hundred percent of a fifteen- to twenty-five-year sentence. See Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 39-13-522(b), 40-35-112(a)(1), 39-13-532(b) (2003). Instead, the defendant pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of attempted rape of a child and received an eight-year sentence, the minimum sentence for which he was eligible. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-112(a)(2) (2003). As a Range I standard offender, he will become eligible for parole after serving only thirty percent of his eight-year sentence. Accordingly, the circumstances of the offense support the denial of probation.