WPC Cvѫru&Y4LDRzZ1<t1&J"tz$ "w9oOY3ZιbeDN#~aL !S c|gQaz,QY+yx m%@?sTfzlhZ=_enݪ H,0,!]es+-IUPp5u۪.k ۫PT_^&`ca>J ]!Y9xM gC⸟2.  a5:ELB(Ɉ< g;~|d4|L5ƆW D)}i?%X/2:ѹݎQ 5K4@*O YK}uCfHS#Ǯhry̻$5pb#\ % N# 0% UN 0D z?  ^ w 4    J N mEb 0 B 0  D5 D- 0K AS\ 0u 0D A]HP LaserJet 40500(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(#$  0   C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptb+ yG*\P3|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5U - -(|G2 $ !.8Cdd8         0  U d(|3$ !.8Cdd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Cdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Cdd8     _   C8XXdd8@ttElCINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#CEl #Ԉ &    @  @` AssignedonBriefsJuly25,2001 L XXC #CXX#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.ERICJONATHAN_BENEFIELD_XXC  J @@ AppealfromtheCriminalCourtforHamiltonCounty  J @@Nos.204842204851,228936,228938,228939DouglasA.Meyer,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200002565CCAR3CD   October2,_2001_Ԁ   AV) ` dE<|` A }     EricJonathan_Benefield_ԀappealstheHamiltonCountyCriminalCourtsimpositionofconsecutive x  sentencing.Intheproceedingsbelow,thetrialcourtincorrectlydeterminedthatbecausethe d defendantwasonprobationatthetimeofhisoffenses,consecutivesentencingwasrequiredby P TennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure32(c)(3).However,consecutivesentencingwasmerely < permissible,notmandatory.Wethereforereversethetrialcourtsconsecutivesentencing (x determinationandremandforfurtherconsiderationundertheapplicablelaw.#CXX#XXC d   Tenn.R.App.P.3;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtReversed.  <   #CX#XX.CJames_Curwood_Ԁ_Witt_,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichThomasT._Woodall_  andRobertW._Wedemeyer_,JJ.,joined.  JerryS.Sloan,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheAppellant,EricJonathan_Benefield_.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter;ElizabethB._Marney_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral; ` WilliamH.Cox,III,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andRodneyStrong,AssistantDistrictAttorney L  General,fortheAppellee,StateofTennessee. 8!  @@OO& OPINION #CXX#XXC #`" #CXX3 #  XXC   ` Thedefendantwasservinganeffectivefouryearprobationarysentenceforten $8 $ convictionsofobtainingprescriptiondrugsbyfraudwhenhecommittedthreeadditionalcrimesof %$!% thesamenature.Hepleadedguiltytothelatterthreeoffensesandagreedtoaneffectivetenyear &"& sentence.Thepleaagreementdidnotaddressthemannerofserviceofthesentenceordisposeof '"' thematterofconsecutiveversusconcurrentsentencing.Thetrialcourtimposed_incarcerative_ (#( consecutivesentencing,reasoningthatthedefendantmeritedconsecutivesentencingunder )$) TennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure32(c)(3).Thedefendanthasappealedtheconsecutive p*%* sentencingdetermination. \+&+   H,', _   ` ThiscaseturnsonthetrialcourtsinterpretationofTennesseeRuleofCriminal   Procedure32(c)(3).Thatruleprovides,  8  MandatoryConsecutiveSentences.Whereadefendantisconvictedofmultiple t offensesfromonetrialorwherethedefendanthasadditionalsentencesnotyetfully ` servedastheresultoftheconvictionsinthesameorothercourtandthelawrequires L  consecutivesentences,thesentenceshallbeconsecutivewhetherthejudgment 8  explicitlysoordersornot.Thisruleshallapply:$ t   8  (A)Toasentenceforafelonycommittedwhileonparoleforafelony; `   Ѐ  (B)Toasentenceforescapeorforafelonycommittedwhileonescape;  L  8  (C)Toasentenceforafelonywherethedefendantwasreleasedonbailandthe  8  defendantisconvictedofbothoffenses;and$    8  (D)Anyothergroundprovidedbylaw.    Tenn.R.Crim.P.32(c)(3).      ` Inthiscase,thetrialcourtheldthatRule32(c)(3)(A)mandatedthatthedefendant p receiveconsecutivesentencing.Whenthedefendantscounselstatedthatthetrialcourthadthe \ prerogativetodecidewhetherthesentencesshouldbeconcurrent,thetrialjudgestated H 8  Idontthinkso,becauseeventhoughthewording...[isthata]sentenceshallbe  p consecutivetoasentencewhereafelonyhasbeencommittedwhileonparole,and  \ itdoesntsay probationbutItreatthemasthesame,soIhavetoorderthesentence H consecutivebasedonhisprioroffenses....IthinkanydiscretionIhavemandates 4 thathereceivethesametreatmentashewouldifhewasonparole,theresnoreal   differenceinapersonbeingonparoleandapersonbeingonprobation.       ` Thus,thequestionbeforethecourtiswhetherRule32(c)(3)mandatesconsecutive  sentencingwhenanoffenseiscommittedbyadefendantwhoisservingaprobationarysentence.  Theanswer,simplyput,isno.See,e.g.,Statev.CharlesClayYoung,No.01C019605CC00195, l slipop.at15(Tenn.Crim.App.,Nashville,Aug.15,1997),perm.app.denied(Tenn.1998);State X  v.PhilWilkerson,No.03C019708CR00336,slipop.at7(Tenn.Crim.App.,Knoxville,July9, D! 1998);seealsoStatev.Pettus,986S.W.2d540,544n.9(Tenn.1999)(decliningtoexpandRule 0"  32(c)(3)beyonditsstatedtermsincaseinvolvingrevocationofcommunitycorrectionssentence). #l! Butcf.Statev.BernardMiguelWallace,No.02C019406CC00108,slipop.at5n.1(Tenn.Crim. $X" App.,Jackson,Dec.21,1994)( Becausehispresentconvictionisforamisdemeanor,asopposed $D # toafelony,thetrialcourtwasallowedto,butnotrequiredto,orderthesentencetobeserved %0!$ consecutivelytoothersentencespreviouslyimposedforwhichthedefendantwasonparoleor &"% probation.SeeTenn.R.Crim.P.32(c)(2)and(3).(emphasisadded));Statev.TimothyClaySneed, '#& No.490(Tenn.Crim.App.,Knoxville,Oct.16,1986)(defendantwhowason probationproperly (#' consecutivelysentencedunderRule32(c)(3)forfelonycommittedwhileon parole),perm.app. )$( denied(Tenn.1987).Thus,thetrialcourterredinconcludingthat,asamatteroflaw,thedefendant |*%) mustreceiveconsecutivesentences. h+&* Ї   ` Thequestionthenbecomeswhateffectmustbegiventhiserror.Thelawprovides  thatconsecutivesentencesarepermissiveinthesituationatbar.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035115  (1997)(consecutivesentencingformultipleconvictions);4035311(d)(1997)(consecutive  sentencinguponprobationrevocation);Tenn.R.Crim.P.32(c)(2)(consecutivesentencingwhen t defendanthaspriorunservedsentences);seegenerallyStatev.Moore,942S.W.2d570,57174 ` (Tenn.Crim.App.1996).Inpreviouscaseswhenthetrialcourthasmistakenlydeterminedthat L  consecutivesentencingwasmandatory,wehaveremandedthecasetoallowthetrialcourtto 8  exerciseitsdiscretionindeterminingwhetherthesentenceshouldrunconcurrentlywithor $ t consecutivelytothepriorsentence.See,e.g.,PhilWilkerson,slipop.at8;Statev.LarryG.Hart,  ` No.02C019406CC00111(Tenn.Crim.App.,Jackson,June28,1995),slipop.at12.Sucha  L  remandisappropriateinthiscase.  8     ` Indecidingonthiscourse,wehavenotoverlookedthestatesargumentthatthiscourt   shouldaffirmthetrialcourtsconsecutivesentencingorderonthebasisthatthedefendantmerited   consecutivesentencingbecausehecommittedtheseoffenseswhileonprobationandbecausehehad   anextensivepriorcriminalrecord.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035115(b)(2),(6)(1997).Because,   however,thetrialcourtmadeitsdecisionasamatteroflawandneverreachedthepointatwhich p itmadedeterminationsonthefactualissuesregardingtheproprietyofconsecutiveversusconcurrent \ sentencing,webelievearemandismoreappropriate.Weareparticularlycompelledtorejectthe H statesproposedresolutionbecauseofthetrialcourtsindicationsontherecordthatitmayhavebeen 4 inclinedtoruledifferentlybutbelieveditlackedthediscretiontodoso.  p    ` Finally,wehavenotoverlookedthedefendantscomplaintabouttheorderingofthe H sentences.Thatis,thedefendantcomplainsthatthetrialcourtimposedthesentencesforthenew 4 convictionsconsecutivelytothepriorsentences,ratherthantheoppositeorder.Ourreversalofthe   consecutivesentencingdeterminationrendersthisissuemootforthepresenttime.Ifthetrialcourt   ordersconsecutivesentencesonremand,itwillhavetheopportunitytoconsidertheproperordering  ofthesentences.Evenifthisissuewerenotpresentlymoot,wewouldholdthatithasbeenwaived.  Thedefendantfailedtociteanyauthoritysupportinghispositioninhisbrief.SeeTenn.R.Ct.Crim.  App.10(b). l    ` Forthesereasons,thetrialcourtsjudgmentimposingconsecutivesentencingis D! reversed.Thematterisremandedforadeterminationundertheapplicablelawoftheproprietyof 0"  consecutivesentencing. #l!    `     h     ___________________________________ &"%    `     h     JAMESCURWOODWITT,JR.,JUDGE