WPC5 roklP-nN Q-Ihtף{_Ⱦ|mqac4h7™)۞y0c0ePKtR^6΢nH>KjQ~Ac;hX琮:bGkM]͠x?`)$IvzrRNdraC8 d5);BB ,,yǯz/.!?e- xhb %\^ b 0nUNwD4H\ zk m # U>   c) 0N 0 0o2E 01h 0n  0Byyyyyy 0C*b(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 00000 B 08 D5 D- 0K>> AS 0 0DF Aī1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularb.:i+003|x 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.wptU\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK3,,,,0\  `&Times New RomanLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 564 '4Heading 1XXX       XXX68 (4Heading 2 X         X 6 4Heading 3      6 4Body Text    < :Footnote TexXXX<:Footnote Ref($      R$      1     _ԀBecauseJudgeMillerwasapotentialwitnessintheperjuryproceedings,thematterwastransferredtoand  heardbeforeJudgeR.JerryBeck.- -(|G2$ !.8dd8         0    d(|3~$ !.8dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3~$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _   8^qXXdd8@ttxINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#x #Ԉ &    @  @` September28,2004Session L X^qX #XX^q#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.DIONA.RUSSELL J X^qX @@ DirectAppealfromtheCriminalCourtforSullivanCounty  J @@No.S45067PhyllisH.Miller,Judge  6 ЀNo.S48064R.JerryBeck,Judge  " @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200302346CCAR3CDFiledDecember15,_2004_   AV) ` dE<h` A i      X^qXXX^qOnthisconsolidatedappeal,thedefendantchallengesthemannerandconsecutivenatureofhis d sentences.Afteranalyzingtheissuesproperlybeforeus,weconcludethatthetrialcourtdidnoterr P inrevokingthedefendantsprobationontheformersentenceorindenyinghimprobationonthe < latter.Further,weholdtheconsecutivesentencestobewarrantedandproperinthisinstance. (x Therefore,weaffirm. d #X^qXX X^qO##XX^q#X^qXC Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtAffirmed  <   #X^q#X^qX.JohnEverettWilliams,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJosephM._Tipton_and  DavidH.Welles,JJ.,joined.  A.Philip_Lomonaco_,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,DionA.Russell.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter,andBrentC.Cherry,AssistantAttorneyGeneral, ` fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. L  W@@OO& OPINION #XX^q#X^qX $"t! #XX^q #  X^qX  X^qXXX^q  Facts #L#  V l<`          Thisappealconsolidatestwocases:oneinvolvingdrugpossessionchargesandtraffic %$!% violations,andtheother,aggravatedperjury.OnSeptember25,2001,thedefendant,DionRussell, &"& wasindictedononecounteachofpossessionofaScheduleIIIcontrolledsubstance '"' (_Dihydrocodenone_)forresale,possessionofaScheduleVIcontrolledsubstance(marijuana), (#( possessionofdrugparaphernalia,failuretogiveapropersignal,andviolationofthelightlaw. )$) FollowingajurytrialbeforeJudgePhyllisH.Miller,thedefendantwasfoundguiltyofthelesser p*%* includedoffenseofpossessionofacontrolledsubstance,aClassAmisdemeanor;possessionof \+&+ marijuana,aClassAmisdemeanor;possessionofdrugparaphernalia,aClassAmisdemeanor;and H,', violationofthelightlaw,aClassCmisdemeanor.Hewassentencedtotwoconsecutivesentences 4-(- _ofelevenmonths,twentyninedaysonthedrugpossessioncharges,withtheremainingsentences  runningconcurrently.ThejudgmentswerefiledonDecember6,2002.OnJanuary3,2003,the  defendantstrialcounselfiledaMotionforNewTrialbasedprimarilyonwhatcounselallegedwas  hisownineffectiveassistanceattrial.  р5$  Shortlythereafter,thedefendantretainednewcounselwho t filedaMotiontoReconsiderSentenceand/orAmend[ed]MotionforNewTrialonFebruary28, ` 2003. E ݌ L  Ќ          ݌̌        R    OnApril11,2003,JudgeMillergrantedthedefendantsmotionandreconsideredthe $ t previouslyissuedsentence.Followingahearing,thecourtplacedthedefendantonsupervised  ` probationandallowedhimtoservehisconsecutivesentencesintheBrownAnnex,analternative  L  sentencingprogram.Additionally,theminutesofthecourtreflectthatthedefendantorallywithdrew  8  hisMotionforNewTrialatthattime.OnApril22,2003,amendedjudgmentswerefiled,reflecting $  thegrantofprobationandalternativesentencing.Approximatelytwomonthslater,theStatefiled   aMotiontoRevokeProbationortoReconsiderSentence,claimingthatthedefendanthadperjured   himselfattheresentencinghearingbyansweringnegativelywhenaskedifhehadusedmarijuana   intheprecedingmonths.Insupportofthemotion,theStatesubmittedthepositiveresultsofadrug   screenadministeredonthedayofthehearing.R݌ p Ќ        p  p݌̌            OnSeptember12,2003,thedefendantpledguilty,beforeJudgeR.JerryBeck,toaggravated H perjury,aClassDfelony,stemmingfromthetestimonygivenattheresentencinghearing.$   1        $  ݀Atthat 4 time,thecourtissuedasentenceoftwoyearsincarceration,consecutivetotheprevioussentences  p issuedbyJudgeMiller.Onthesameday,thedefensefiledaNoticeofAppealchallengingthe  \ perjurysentence,whichwasamendedonOctober13,2003.Thejudgmentwasenteredandfiledon H September24,2003.g݌ 4 Ќ          ݀%݌̌            OnSeptember26,2003,JudgeMillerrevokedthedefendantsprobationontheinitial   chargesandreinstatedtheoriginaleffectivesentenceoftwentythreemonths,twentyeightdays  confinement,atseventyfivepercentreleaseeligibility;contemporaneously,thedefensefileda  NoticeofAppeal.TherevocationorderissuedbyJudgeMillerwasfiledonOctober20,2003.݌  Ќ        !  !R!݌̌        !    Onappeal,thedefendantarguesthatthesentencesforallchargesshouldbeservedon X  probationor,inthealternative,thatthesentencesshouldbeconcurrentratherthanconsecutive.!!݌ D! Ќ        N#  N##݌̌        #     `     h   Analysis#E$݌ #l! Ќ        %  %Y%݌̌        %    Initially,wenotethatthecourtsfindingsattheinitialsentencinghearing,conductedon $D # December6,2002,arenotproperlybeforeusbecausenotimelynoticeofappealwasfiledto %0!$ preservethisissueforourreview.Generally,anappealasofrightiscommencedbythefilingofa &"% noticeofappealwithinthirtydaysoftheentryofthejudgmentbeingappealed.Tenn.R.App.P. '#& 4(a).However,ifamotionfornewtrialispending,thetimeforappealistolleduntilthedisposition (#' ofthemotion.Tenn.R.App.P.4(c).Althoughthedefendantinthepresentcasefiledatimely )$( MotionforNewTrial,therecordreflectsthatthismotionwasorallywithdrawnatthedefendants  resentencinghearing,thuscommencingthetimeforfilingthenoticeofappeal.Therecordfurther  reflectsthatthedefendantdidnotfileanoticeofappealwithintherequisitetimeperiodthereafter;  thus,wewillnotentertainachallengeoftheoriginalsentenceoftwentythreemonthsandtwenty t eightdaysissuedbyJudgeMillerinDecember2002.%&݌ ` Ќ        n+  n++݌̌        ,    Thatbeingstated,wedofindthatthedefendantdid,infact,filetimelynoticesofappealwith 8  regardstotherevocationofhisprobationonthedrugpossessionchargesandastothemannerand $ t consecutivenatureofhissentenceforaggravatedperjury.Assuch,theseissuesareproperlybefore  ` us,andouranalysiswillbeconfinedtothem.,e,݌  L  Ќ           &  .  DrugPossessionCharges..  .Ԍ $  Ќ        '. XAtrialcourtmayrevokeprobationandordertheimpositionoftheoriginalsentenceupona   findingbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethatthepersonhasviolatedaconditionofprobation.   Tenn.CodeAnn.4035310,311(2004).Moreover,thedecisiontorevokeprobationrests   withinthesounddiscretionofthetrialcourt.Statev.Mitchell,810S.W.2d733,735(Tenn.Crim. p App.1991).Thus,revocationofprobationandacommunitycorrectionssentenceissubjecttoan \ abuseofdiscretionstandardofreviewratherthanadenovostandard.Statev.Harkins,811S.W.2d H 79,82(Tenn.1991).Discretionisabusedonlyiftherecordcontainsnosubstantialevidenceto 4 supporttheconclusionofthetrialcourtthataviolationofprobationorcommunitycorrection  p sentencehasoccurred.Id.;Statev.Gregory,946S.W.2d829,832(Tenn.Crim.App.1997).Proof  \ ofaviolationneednotbeestablishedbeyondareasonabledoubt,andtheevidenceneedonlyshow H thatthetrialjudgeexercisedaconscientiousandintelligentjudgment,ratherthanactedarbitrarily. 4 Gregory,946S.W.2dat832;Statev.Leach,914S.W.2d104,106(Tenn.Crim.App.1995).      Inthepresentcase,thetrialcourtgrantedthedefendantsMotiontoReconsiderSentenceby  placinghimonsupervisedprobationandallowinghimtoservehisconsecutivesentencesinan  alternativesentencingprogram.However,thisattemptatrehabilitationfailed,inessence,beforeit  beganwhenthedefendantcommittedperjuryattheresentencinghearingbytestifyingthathehad l notrecentlyusedmarijuanawhen,infact,hetestedpositivefordrugsthatveryday.CEUS.,Atthe X  revocationhearing,tUS.,CE.,7hecourtinitiallynotedthatthedefendantsrecordwas amilelong,andthat, D! althoughhehadtheabilitytodoso,thedefendanthadfailedtocompletehisGEDwhileon 0"  probation.Thecourtfurthernotedthatthetruthis themostbasicthingandthatthedefendant #l! disregardedthisfundamentalpremiseofourcriminaljusticesystemwhenhecommittedperjury. $X" Insum,thecourtfoundthatthedefendantsextensiverecord,aswellashislackofcandor,justified $D # therevocationofhisprobation. %0!$  &"% Weholdthatthetrialcourtsdecisiontorevokeprobationwasamplysupportedintherecord. '#& Becausethecourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretioninrevokingthedefendantsprobationandreinstating (#' thesentencesonthedrugpossessioncharges,weaffirm. )$(  |*%)  h+&*  X  AggravatedPerjury  < X<  Next,weaddressthemannerofsentenceintheperjurycase.Anespeciallymitigatedor  standardoffenderconvictedofaClassC,D,orEfelonyispresumedtobeafavorablecandidatefor t alternativesentencingintheabsenceofevidencetothecontrary.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035102(6) ` (2004).Atrialcourtmustpresumethatadefendantsentencedtoeightyearsorless,andforwhom L  incarcerationisnotapriority,issubjecttoalternativesentencing.Statev.Byrd,861S.W.2d377, 8  37980(Tenn.Crim.App.1993).Itisfurtherpresumedthatasentenceotherthanincarceration $ t wouldresultinsuccessfulrehabilitationunlessrebuttedbysufficientevidenceintherecord.Id.at  ` 380.However,althoughadefendantmaybepresumedtobeafavorablecandidateforalternative  L  sentencing,thedefendanthastheburdenofestablishingsuitabilityfortotalprobation.Tenn.Code  8  Ann.4035303(b)(2004);Statev.Boggs,932S.W.2d467,477(Tenn.Crim.App.1996).Even $  thoughprobationmustbeautomaticallyconsidered, thedefendantisnotautomaticallyentitledto   probationasamatteroflaw.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035303(b),SentencingCommission   Comments;Statev.Hartley,818S.W.2d370,373(Tenn.Crim.App.1991).Adefendantseeking   fullprobationbearstheburdenonappealofshowingthatthesentenceimposedisimproperandthat   fullprobationwillbeinthebestinterestofthedefendantandthepublic.Statev.Baker,966S.W.2d p 429,434(Tenn.Crim.App.1997). \  H Indeterminingwhethertograntordenyprobation,atrialcourtshouldconsiderthe 4 circumstancesoftheoffense,thedefendantscriminalrecord,thedefendantssocialhistoryand  p presentcondition,theneedfordeterrence,andthebestinterestofthedefendantandthepublic.State  \ v.Grear,568S.W.2d285,286(Tenn.1978);Statev.Boyd,925S.W.2d237,244(Tenn.Crim.App. H 1995).Thedefendantslackofcredibilityisalsoanappropriateconsiderationandreflectsona 4 defendantspotentialforrehabilitation.Statev.Nunley,22S.W.3d282,289(Tenn.Crim.App.   1999).Insummary,sentencingmustbedeterminedonacasebycasebasis,tailoringeachsentence   tothatparticulardefendantbaseduponthefactsofthatcaseandthecircumstancesofthatdefendant.  Statev.Moss,727S.W.2d229,235(Tenn.1986).    Ourreviewofthedefendantssentenceisdenovoontherecordwithapresumptionthatthe l trialcourtsdeterminationsarecorrect.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035401(d)(2004).Whenthetrial X  courtfollowsthestatutorysentencingprocedureandgivesdueconsiderationandproperweightto D! thefactorsandprinciplesrelevanttosentencing,thisCourtmaynotdisturbthesentence.Statev. 0"  Fletcher,805S.W.2d785,789(Tenn.Crim.App.1991). #l!  $X" Intheinstantmatter,thetrialcourtconsideredtheapplicablesentencingprinciplesand $D # initiallynotedthatitwas [r]equiredtoputthegoodfactorsonascaleandweighthemagainstany %0!$ badfactors.Infirstaddressingthefactorsfavoringthedefendant,thecourtfoundthathewas &"% employed,paidchildsupport,wasworkingtowardaGED,andhaddone okayonprobation. '#& However,inassessingthefactorsweighingagainstprobation,thecourtagaingavegreatweightto (#' thedefendantsextensivecriminalrecord,whichincluded [a]seriousrecordasajuvenile,andno )$( lessthanfourteenprioroccasionsinwhichthedefendantreceivedasuspendedsentenceor |*%) probation.Further,thecourtfoundthatthepriorviolentfelonyofaggravatedassaultandthepresent h+&* felonychargeofaggravatedperjuryadditionallyweighedagainstgrantingprobationtothedefendant.  Insum,thetrialcourtfoundthat [t]heunfavorablefactorsheavilyoutweigh[ed]anyfavorable  factorsandthusdeniedthedefendantprobation.   t Weconcludethatthedefendantspriorrecord,alongwithhisadmittedlackofcandorbefore ` thecourt,morethanjustifythetrialcourtsdenialofprobation.Therefore,wearepersuadedthat L  thetrialcourtproperlyorderedconfinementontheaggravatedperjurycharge,andwewillnot 8  disturbitsdecision. $ t   ` Alternatively,thedefendantarguesthatthesentencesshouldbeconcurrentratherthan  L  consecutive.However,therecordshowsthatthedefendantsignedaRequestforAcceptanceofPlea  8  ofGuiltyandWaiverofRightswhichstatedthattheperjurysentencewouldbeconsecutivetothe $  sentencespreviouslyissued.Thedefendantcannotnowcomplainaboutasentencetowhichhehad   agreedaspartofhispleabargainagreementwiththeState.Moreover,itappearsthatthedefendant   wasonbailatthetimehecommittedaggravatedperjury.Therefore,TennesseeRuleofCriminal   Procedure32(c)(3)(C)applies,mandatingaconsecutivesentence forafelonywherethedefendant   wasreleasedonbailandthedefendantisconvictedofbothoffenses.Thus,weconcludethatthe p trialcourtproperlyissuedaconsecutivesentence. \  H  X^qXX X^q         B.h` hp x (#XB&  U  ConclusionUU  ]UԌ 4 Ќ   X^qXX X^q    p      X  V    Basedontheforegoingandtherecordasawhole,thesentencesimposedbythetrialcourt X areaffirmed.'4UVV݌ D Ќ    X 0  X#X^qXX X^q #   `     h     ___________________________________ |    `     h     JOHNEVERETTWILLIAMS,JUDGE