ÿWPCÍ …UBV %˜U.žÌnXÜ 0P4 4„ ˜ 0”˜ 0D, w p 0Jz 0TÄ 0^ 0hv 0rÞ 0|P 0†Ì 0R 1uâ U,W 0dƒU,çU6 BIB)fDC AMÒEv~d D3âvÓ 0@è AO(Æw 0D= D/ B°<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|X8«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  Óà~| (D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó-Ó€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New d% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ;Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òAprilÏ15,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@$$$$'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ X ÑÑ7€’XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÔ€ÔÙ€€ÙßL€'(&;+'h|` 81 `€€Lß›à àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÓ  Óà@ àJANUARY€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.ÏNO.€œ03C01›„9507„CR„00186ó óÌà àà àAppellee,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHAMILTON€COUNTYó óÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.ÏSTEPHEN€M.€œBEVIL,›ÌRONALD€S.€AUSTIN,à àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óAppellant.ò òà àà àà à)à àó ó(GuiltyÏplea;€sentence)ò òÌó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THEÏAPPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òLLOYD€A.ÏœLEVITT›à àà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.ÏBURSONÌó ó312€Vine€St.à àà àà àà àà àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€&€Reporterò òÌó óChattanooga,€TN€€€37403ò òÌó ó€€€€€€€€(On€Appeal)à àà àà àò òà àà àMICHAELÏJ.€œFAHEY›,€IIó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœAsst›.ÏAttorney€GeneralÌò òW.€GERALD€œTIDWELL›,€JR.ó óà àà àà à450€JamesÏRobertson€Pkwy.à àÌ600€Dome€œBldg›.à àà àà àà àà àNashville,ÍTN€€37243„0493ÌChattanooga,€TN€€€37402Ì(At€Plea€and€Sentencing€Hearing)à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àGARY€D.€œGERBITZ›ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àDEE€ANNE€IRWINó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à„and„Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òTHOMAS€J.€EVANSó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœAsst›.€District€Attorneys€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHamilton€County„ChattanoogaÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€Courts€œBldg›.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€€€37402Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÌJudgeÌÇÑ ° Ñà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌó óóóÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àThe€defendant€was€indicted€for€theft€of€property€and€forgery.€€He€pledÏguilty€to€both€counts.€€After€a€hearing,€the€court€below€sentenced€the€defendant€as€aÏRange€II€offender€to€the€maximum€of€eight€years€for€each€offense,€to€be€servedÏconcurrently.€€Approximately€one€week€after€the€hearing,€the€defendant€filed€a€òòproóó€òòœse›óóÏmotion€to€withdraw€his€guilty€pleas,€which€the€lower€court€denied€after€an€evidentiaryÏhearing.€€The€defendant€now€appeals€as€of€right,€claiming€the€trial€court€erred€inÏdenying€his€motion€to€withdraw€his€pleas,€and€that€his€sentence€is€excessive.€€AfterÏour€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€below.Ìà àà àœÌà àà àThe€State€contends€that€the€defendant€failed€to€file€a€notice€of€appealÏwith€respect€to€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€motion,€resulting€in€a€waiver€of€this€issue.€ÏWe€find€the€notice€of€appeal€was€premature€and€choose€to€treat€it€as€having€beenÏfiled€after€entry€of€the€judgment.€€òòSeeóó€T.R.A.P.€4(d).€€Even€so,€we€find€this€issue€to€beÏwithout€merit.›Ìà àà àœÌà àà àThe›€defendant€contends€that€he€should€have€been€allowed€to€withdrawÏhis€guilty€plea€after€sentence€had€been€pronounced€because€he€ð ðdid€not€receive€theÏsentence€concession€contemplated€by€the€Attorney€of€record€in€said€case€as€wasÍagreed€to€in€the€Judge€Chamber€conference€that€was€had€outside€of€Defendant,ðð€andÏthat€he€will€suffer€a€ð ðmanifest€injusticeðð€unless€he€is€permitted€to€withdraw€his€plea.Ìœà àà à›Ìà àà àThe€defendant€was€initially€represented€by€Philip€L.€œDuval›,€anÏappointed€lawyer.€€During€Mr.€œDuval›ððs€tenure,€the€defendant€received€a€plea€bargainÏoffer€of€six€years.€€The€defendant€did€not€accept€that€offer,€and€the€State€laterÏincreased€it€to€seven€years.€€The€defendant€then€changed€lawyers,€retaining€Mr.€W.ÏGerald€Tidwell,€Jr.€to€represent€him.€€Mr.€Tidwell€subsequently€went€œto€court›€toÏrequest€the€substitution€of€counsel€and€to€request€a€thirty€day€continuance€on€theÏdefendantððs€settlement€date.€€Mr.€Tidwell€testified€that€he€and€Mr.€Duval€and€theÏprosecuting€attorney€met€briefly€in€the€judgeððs€chambers€to€discuss€the€status€of€theÏcase.€€According€to€Mr.€Tidwellððs€testimony,€ð ðThe€Judge€inquired€as€to€whether€or€notÏhe€thought€that€„„€we€thought€the€case€was€going€to€be€tried,€and€I€believe€it€wasÏeither€me€or€[Mr.€Duval],€or€both€of€us,€that€said,€ððAs€I€understand€it,€.€.€.€I€donððt€thinkÏthereððs€a€factual€dispute€over€whether€he€committed€the€offenses,€itððs€more€of€anÏargument€over€the€sentence,€as€I€understand€it.ðð€.€.€.€I€recall€the€Judge€making€someÏstatement€to€the€effect,€well,€surely,€or€something€like€that,€reasonable€minds€canÏcome€to€some€agreement,€which€I€took€to€œbe›€a€fairly€innocuous€statement€at€the€time.ððÌÌà àà àMr.€Tidwell€testified€that,€following€this€conference€in€chambers,€he€hadÍrepeated€the€conversation€to€his€client€and€advised€him€that€he€thought€ð ðit€would€be€aÏmistake€to€try€a€case€where€you€have€no€defense,ðð€because€the€defendant€hadÏalready€confessed€to€the€crimes.€€He€also€advised€his€client€that€he€didnððt€think€heÏwould€be€given€more€than€seven€years€after€a€sentencing€hearing,€because,€at€thatÏpoint,€he€ð ðhad€never€had€a€client€in€state€court€sentenced€to€a€maximum€sentence€byÏa€judge.ðð€€Based€on€his€counselððs€advice,€the€defendant€decided€to€make€a€ð ðblindððÏplea€in€hopes€that€he€would€be€sentenced€to€no€more,€and€possibly€less,€than€sevenÏyears.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€recalled€his€conversation€with€Mr.€Tidwell€differently.€€€AtÏthe€hearing€on€his€motion€to€withdraw€his€plea,€the€defendant€testified€that€Mr.ÏTidwell€had€told€him€that,€during€the€in„chambers€conference,€the€judge€had€told€theÏprosecuting€attorney€that€ð ðthey€should€re„think€their€offer,€because€they€was€[sic]Ïbeing€a€bit€excessive.ðð€€Accordingly,€he€claims,€he€was€led€to€believe€that€the€judgeÏwas€inclined€to€sentence€him€to€less€than€seven€years.ÌÌà àà àWhether€to€grant€a€motion€to€withdraw€a€guilty€plea€rests€within€theÏsound€discretion€of€the€trial€œcourt.€€òòState€v.€Haynesóó,€696€S.W.2d€26,€29€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1985).€€›œIn€order€for€us€to€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€decision,€the€defendant€mustÏdemonstrate€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€denying€his€motion.€€òòState€v.ÍDavisóó,€823€S.W.2d€217,€220€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€€Because€the€defendant€hasÏnot€done€so,€we€affirm€the€judgment€below.ÌÌà àà àAfter€reviewing€the€record€of€the€defendantððs€guilty€plea,€the€trial€courtÏdetermined€that€his€plea€had€been€entered€knowingly€and€voluntarily.€€Our€review€ofÏthe€record€results€in€the€same€conclusion.€€With€respect€to€the€defendantððs€sentence,Ïthe€court€specifically€asked€ð ðHas€anybody€promised€you€any€particular€sentence€atÏ[the€sentencing]€hearing?ðð€€The€defendant€replied,€ð ðNo,€sir.ðð€€The€court€also€asked€theÏdefendant,€ð ðYou€understand,€Mr.€Austin,€that€whatever€sentence€you€get€in€this€caseÏwill€be€up€to€the€Court€to€set€at€that€sentencing€hearing,€and€how€much€of€this€timeÏyou€serve,€whether€you€serve€the€balance€of€the€sentence€or€part€of€the€sentence€orÏno€more€of€the€sentence€is€a€decision€this€Court€will€make,€based€on€that€sentencingÏhearing,€based€on€a€pre„sentence€investigation,€and€any€testimony€thatððs€offered€atÏthat€time?ðð€€Again,€the€defendant€replied,€ð ðYes,€sir.ððÌÌà àà àA€defendant€is€permitted€to€withdraw€a€guilty€plea€after€the€sentenceÏhas€been€imposed,€but€before€the€judgment€becomes€final,€only€ð ðto€correct€manifestÏinjustice.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€32(f).€€An€example€of€ð ðmanifest€injusticeðð€is€the€StateððsÏfailure€to€furnish€exculpatory€evidence€in€violation€of€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83Ï(1963),€and€the€defendantððs€resulting€conclusion€to€plead€guilty.€€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€823ÍS.W.2d€at€220.€€That€is,€a€denial€of€due€process€constitutes€a€manifest€injustice.€€òòIdóó.€Ïð ðThe€plea€will€not€be€set€aside,€however,€merely€because€the€defendant€experiencesÏa€change€of€heart.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€here€tries€to€argue€that€a€manifest€injustice€occurredÏwhen€the€trial€judge€engaged€in€his€discussion€with€Mr.€Tidwell€and€the€prosecutingÏattorney,€and€that€his€alleged€remark€to€the€State€violated€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€11(e),Ïwhich€provides€that€ð ðThe€court€shall€not€participate€in€any€such€[plea€agreement]Ïdiscussions.ðð€€We€disagree.€€First,€the€record€does€not€convince€us€that€the€trial€courtÏð ðparticipatedðð€in€any€plea€agreement€discussions.€€Thus,€we€find€that€no€violation€ofÏRule€11(e)€occurred.€€Second,€even€if€the€trial€court€did€violate€Rule€11(e),€such€aÏviolation€does€not€rise€to€the€level€of€a€due€process€violation€sufficient€to€meet€theÏmeaning€of€ð ðmanifest€injustice.ððÌÌà àà àNor€did€a€manifest€injustice€occur€when€the€defendant€received€aÏgreater€sentence€than€he€alleges€he€thought€he€was€going€to€receive.€€Whether€orÏnot€the€defendant€actually€believed€that€the€judge€would€sentence€him€to€no€moreÏthan€seven€years,€and€whether€or€not€he€was€justified€in€believing€so€(if€he€did),€theÏdefendant€was€clearly€and€plainly€advised€during€his€guilty€plea€of€the€minimum€andÏmaximum€sentences€possible€on€his€convictions,€that€no€sentence€had€beenÍpromised,€and€that€his€sentence€would€be€determined€by€the€court€following€aÏsentencing€hearing€at€which€evidence€relevant€to€his€sentence€would€be€introduced.€ÏThe€defendant€raised€no€objection,€asked€no€questions,€and€simply€responded€thatÏhe€understood€the€judge.€€He€will€not€be€heard€to€complain€now.ÌÌà àà àWith€respect€to€the€defendantððs€second€issue,€that€his€sentence€isÏexcessive,€we€disagree.€€When€a€defendant€complains€of€his€or€her€sentence,€weÏmust€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€The€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€the€appealingÏparty.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€This€presumption,Ïhowever,€"is€conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÏconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€ÏòòState€v.€Ashby›óó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).Ìà àà àÌà àà àThe€record€of€the€sentencing€hearing€in€this€matter€affirmatively€showsÏthat€the€trial€court€considered€all€of€the€appropriate€principles,€facts€andÏcircumstances.€€Accordingly,€the€presumption€of€correctness€attaches.€€The€court€Ïfurther€found€that€four€enhancement€factors€applied:€a€previous€history€of€criminalÏconvictions€in€excess€of€those€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range;€theÏdefendant€was€the€leader€in€the€commission€of€the€offenses;€the€defendant€had€aÍprevious€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentenceÏinvolving€release€in€the€community;€and€these€offenses€were€committed€while€theÏdefendant€was€on€parole.€€œT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(2),€(8),€(13)(B).€€The›€court€alsoÏfound€as€a€mitigating€factor€that€the€offenses€neither€caused€nor€threatened€seriousÏbodily€œinjury.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„113(1).›ÌÌà àà àThe€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€provides€that€the€minimumÏsentence€within€the€range€is€the€presumptive€sentence€for€Class€B,€C,€D€and€EÏfelonies.€€T.C.A.€ðð40„35„210.€€The€defendantððs€offenses€were€Class€D€felonies.ÏHowever,€where€there€are€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors,€the€court€must€start€atÏthe€minimum€sentence€in€the€range€and€enhance€the€sentence€as€appropriate€for€theÏenhancement€factors€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€òòas€appropriateóóÏfor€the€mitigating€factors.€€òòIdóó.€(emphasis€added).€The€weight€to€be€given€each€factor€isÏleft€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòState€v.€œShelton›óó,€854€S.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1992).ÌÌà àà àThe€court€sentenced€the€defendant€to€the€maximum€sentence€for€eachÏoffense,€stating,€ð ðBased€on€the€number€of€enhancement€factors€and€the€quality€ofÏthose€enhancement€factors,€the€fact€that€„„€the€number€of€prior€convictions€that€theÏdefendant€has,€the€fact€that€he€has€been€on€release€status€before€and€has€failed€toÍcomply€with€those€conditions,€and€the€fact€that€he€was€on€parole€while€committingÏthis€œoffense[sic›],€this€Court€finds€that€the€appropriate€sentence€in€his€case€would€beÏeight€years€in€the€state€penitentiary.ðð€€Thus,€the€trial€court€did€not€reduce€theÏdefendantððs€sentences€based€on€the€single€mitigating€factor€found.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€has€not€carried€his€burden€of€showing€that€his€sentenceÏis€improper.€€While€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€found€andÏapplied€additional€non„statutory€mitigating€factors,€the€trial€court€was€not€required€toÏdo€so€and€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€courtððs€decision€not€to€doÏso.€€Moreover,€the€trial€court€was€entitled€to€give€the€sole€mitigating€factor€little€weightÏin€assessing€the€defendantððs€sentence,€and€was€entitled€to€find€that€no€reductionÏfrom€the€enhanced€sentence€was€appropriate.€€œAs€to€the€defendantððs€argument€thatÏthe€trial€court€erred€in€applying€both€the€defendantððs€previous€unwillingness€toÏcomply€with€conditions€of€release,€and€his€parole€status€at€the€time€of€the€instantÏoffenses,€we€find€this€argument€to€be€without€merit.€€Nothing€in€the€statute€settingÏforth€the€enhancement€factors,€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114,€indicates€that€these€two€particularÏfactors€should€be€applied€in€the€alternative.€€Nor€does€the€defendant€cite€anyÏauthority€in€support€of€his€position.€€The€trial€courtððs€application€of€both€factors€wasÏcorrect.ÌÌà àà àFor€the€reasons€set€forth€above,€we€affirm€the€judgment€below.›€€€€ÌÓÓà àà à€€ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌJOE€B.€JONES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€Judge€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€