State v. Macarthur Coffey ( 2010 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE FILED
NOVEMBER SESSIONS, 1999 December 1, 1999
Cecil CROWS ON, Jr.
Appellate Court Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE )
)
APPELLEE )
)
VS. ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9908-CR-00293
) CAMPBELL CO. CRIMINAL NO. 9653
MACARTHUR COFFEY ) HON. E. SHAYNE SEXTON, JUDGE
)
APPELLANT )
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
JULIE A. RICE PAUL G. SUMMERS
P.O. Box 426 Attorney General & Reporter
Knoxville, Tennessee 37901
CLINTON J. MORGAN
CHARLES HERMAN 425 Fifth Avenue North
P.O. Box 337 Nashville, Tennessee 37243
Jacksboro, Tennessee 37757
MIKE RIPLEY
Assistant District Attorney
P.O. Box 326
Jacksboro, Tennessee 37757
OPINION FILED:____________________
AFFIRMED:
JOE H. WALKER, Sp. JUDGE
OPINION
Appellant appeals the judgment of the trial court with regard to the manner of
service of sentence.
Appellant entered a plea of guilty to three counts of burglary of a vehicle, and one
count of theft of over $1,000.00, with agreed sentences of two years as a Range I offender
for each of the three auto-burglary charges, and four years as a Range I offender for the D
felony of theft, with the further agreement that the sentences would run concurrently. The
trial court determined the manner of service of his sentences.
The trial court ordered incarceration, and appellant appeals, assigning as error
whether the trial court erred by failing to sentence appellant to an alternate sentence of
split confinement.
A review of the record reveals that the defendant was granted bond pending appeal
to this court. That while on bond he was arrested and charged on May 26, 1999, with a
felony offense of burglary, and misdemeanor theft. On July 15, 1999, appellant was again
arrested and charged with the offenses of domestic violence, resisting arrest, and evading
arrest. The trial court revoked bond pending appeal.
The defendant entered a plea of guilty to the charges in this case on June 19, 1998.
He was arrested June 29, 1998, and charged with two counts of assault. He was arrested
June 30, 1998, and charged with cultivating marijuana on his premises, and domestic
violence by assault.
At the sentencing hearing the court heard testimony from a deputy sheriff about the
charges on which appellant was accused after the entry of the plea. The court also heard
testimony from the officer that prepared the presentence report, and the report was
submitted by agreement.
The report reveals that appellant has other misdemeanor convictions in 1995, 1993,
and 1990. It showed that appellant was unemployed, currently used alcohol, and used
marijuana within four months.
The burden of establishing suitability for probation rests with the person seeking
probation. T.C.A. 40-35-303(b). The testimony heard by the trial court did not show any
reason for appellant to receive probation. Appellant did not offer any proof. The trial
court made its decision on the proof presented by the state and the pre-sentence report. In
State v. Galloway, 696 S.W.2d 364 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1985), the court found that inasmuch
as the defendant had failed to testify or offer any proof, he failed to carry his burden of
proving his worthiness for probation. See, State v. Bell, 832 S.W.2d 583 (Tenn.Crim.App.
1991).
When considering the issue of probation, the trial court as well as this Court
considers the nature and circumstances of the offense or offenses, the defendant’s criminal
record, the defendant’s social history, the defendant’s present mental and physical
condition, the deterrent effect upon other criminal activity, and the likelihood that
probation will serve both the public and the defendant’s best interests. State v. Biggs, 769
S.W.2d 506 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1988); T.C.A. 40-35-303.
The trial court stated that appellant was not suitable for probation, finding that the
previous history of appellant indicated that he could not abide by the terms of probation.
The conduct of appellant since the guilty plea was entered further indicated his inability to
abide by probation. The trial court further found that he was not suitable for community
corrections, and determined his sentence should be served with the Department of
Corrections.
This court finds that the record on appeal is sufficient to determine that the trial
court did not err in sentencing the defendant to prison rather than probation or
community corrections. A felon’s rehabilitation potential and the risk of repeating
criminal conduct are fundamental in determining whether he is suited for alternate
sentencing. T.C.A. 40-35-103(5). The conduct of appellant both before entry of his guilty
plea and after entry of his guilty plea demonstrated poor potential for rehabilitation, which
is sufficient reason to justify a term of incarceration rather than probation or alternative
sentencing. State v. Zeolia, 928 S.W.2d 457 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1996).
This court can not say that the trial court abused it’s discretion in denying appellant
probation, or alternate sentencing.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
_____________________________
JOE H. WALKER, Sp. JUDGE
CONCUR:
________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
________________________
ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
NOVEMBER SESSIONS, 1999
STATE OF TENNESSEE )
)
APPELLEE )
)
VS. ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9908-CR-00293
) CAMPBELL CO. CRIMINAL NO. 9653
MACARTHUR COFFEY ) HON. E. SHAYNE SEXTON, JUDGE
)
APPELLANT )
JUDGMENT
Came the appellant, Macarthur Coffey by counsel, and the state, by the Attorney
General, and this case was heard on the record on appeal from the Criminal Court of
Campbell County; and upon consideration thereof, this Court is of the opinion that there is
no reversible error in the judgment of the trial court.
Our opinion is hereby incorporated in this judgment as if set out verbatim.
It is, therefore, ordered and adjudged by this Court that the judgment of the trial
court is AFFIRMED, and the case is remanded to the Criminal Court of Campbell County
for execution of the judgment of that court and for collection of costs accrued below.
It appears that appellant is indigent. Costs of appeal will be paid by the State of
Tennessee.
PER CURIAM
DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE
JOE H. WALKER, III, Sp. JUDGE