State v. Mattie Davis aka Mattie Hill ( 1998 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
DECEMBER 1997 SESSION
February 20, 1998
Cecil W. Crowson
Appellate Court Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
)
APPELLEE, )
) No. 01-C-01-9702-CC-00062
)
) Marshall County
v. )
) Charles Lee, Judge
)
) (Sentencing)
MATTIE MARCELLA DAVIS, )
aka MATTIE HILL, )
)
APPELLANT. )
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
Hershell D. Koger John Knox Walkup
Attorney at Law Attorney General & Reporter
P.O. Box 1148 425 Fifth Avenue, North
Pulaski, TN 38478 Nashville, TN 37243-0497
Georgia B. Felner
Counsel for the State
450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
W. Michael McCown
District Attorney General
P. O. Box 904
Fayetteville, TN 37334
Weakley E. Barnard
Assistant District Attorney General
Marshall County Courthouse, Fourth Floor
Lewisburg, TN 37091
OPINION FILED:________________________________
AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20
Joe B. Jones, Presiding Judge
OPINION
The appellant, Mattie Marcella Davis, also known as Mattie Hill (defendant), was
convicted of theft over the value of $1,000, a Class D felony, following her plea of guilty to
this offense. The trial court found the defendant was a standard offender and imposed a
Range I sentence consisting of confinement for twenty-five (25) months in the Department
of Correction pursuant to a plea agreement. In this court, the defendant contends the trial
court abused its discretion by refusing to impose an alternative sentence. After a thorough
review of the record, the briefs submitted by the parties, and the law governing the issue
presented for review, it is the opinion of this court that the judgment of the trial court should
be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.
This court has conducted a de novo review of the record pursuant to Tenn. Code
Ann. § 40-35-401(d). This task is difficult because the submission hearing proceedings
were not memorialized and included in the record. Nevertheless, this court can address
whether the trial court abused its discretion or violated the sentencing laws by refusing to
impose an alternative sentence in this case.
The defendant was entitled to the presumption she was a favorable candidate for
alternative sentencing. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-102(6). However, the State of
Tennessee rebutted this presumption.
The record reflects the defendant smoked crack cocaine and marijuana for an
extended period of time. Evidence was introduced which established the defendant was
guilty of shoplifting in Bedford County and she had either a shoplifting or theft offense in
Rutherford County. She has been convicted of assault, disorderly conduct, driving without
a license, criminal responsibility, and assaulting a minor. She has been given fines, a short
period of confinement, and probation. She has a prior revocation of probation and an
outstanding capias for her arrest in the Rutherford County case. The trial court found the
defendant was less than candid when she testified at the sentencing hearing and she
committed crimes after she was released on bail for the offense in question.
Confinement in this case is required for several reasons. First, the trial court found
the defendant would continue to engage in criminal conduct if an alternative sentence was
2
imposed and the defendant was released into the community. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-
103(1)(A). Second, confinement is required both to avoid depreciating the seriousness of
the offense and to provide an effective deterrent to the defendant and others likely to
commit similar offenses. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(1)(B). Third, measures less
restrictive than confinement have been applied unsuccessfully. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-
103(C). Fourth, the defendant was not truthful when she testified at the sentencing
hearing.
_______________________________________
JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE
CONCUR:
______________________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE
______________________________________
WILLIAM M. BARKER, JUDGE
3