State v. Gregory C. Young ( 2010 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
JUNE 1999 SESSION
Filed July 1, 1999
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) NO. 01C01-9810-CR-00388
Appellee, )
) SUMNER COUNTY
VS. )
) HON. JANE W. WHEATCRAFT,
GREGORY CHARLES YOUNG, ) JUDGE
)
Appellant. ) (Sentencing)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
DAVID ALLEN DOYLE PAUL G. SUMMERS
District Public Defender Attorney General and Reporter
DANA L. SCOTT ELIZABETH B. MARNEY
Assistant Public Defender Assistant Attorney General
117 East Main Street Cordell Hull Building, 2nd Floor
Gallatin, TN 37066-2801 425 Fifth Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
LAWRENCE RAY WHITLEY
District Attorney General
C. WAYNE HYATT
Assistant District Attorney General
113 West Main Street
Gallatin, TN 37066-2803
OPINION FILED:
AFFIRMED - RULE 20
JOE G. RILEY,
JUDGE
ORDER
Appellant, GREGORY CHARLES YOUNG, appeals the denial of alternative
sentencing by the trial court. On August 27, 1998, appellant pled guilty to robbery, a Class
C felony, and received a Range I sentence of four years. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the
trial court conducted a sentencing hearing to determine the manner of service at which it
denied appellant's request for placement in a community corrections program. We AFFIRM
the trial court's decision.
In determining if incarceration is appropriate, a trial court may consider the need to
protect society by restraining a defendant having a long history of criminal conduct, the need
to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense, whether confinement is particularly
appropriate to effectively deter others likely to commit similar offenses, and whether less
restrictive measures have often or recently been unsuccessfully applied to the defendant.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(1); see also State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn.
1991); State v. Grigsby, 957 S.W.2d 541, 545 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
Proof at the sentencing hearing1 showed that appellant has prior convictions in
Arkansas for burglary, forgery, and robbery. He was on probation or parole at the time he
committed the current offense. And, in spite of his successful completion of a drug and
alcohol rehabilitation program while on bond for the current offense, appellant failed a drug
and alcohol screen the day of sentencing.
The trial court determined that due to his poor social and criminal histories, the failed
drug screen, and the type of offenses he tends to commit, appellant is a threat to society and
not a good candidate for community corrections. The trial court also noted that appellant
received consideration for his plea in the form of a Range I sentence when he is, in fact, a
1
Appellant complains that the trial court improperly admitted testimony regarding
a pending theft charge against him. However, the trial court's findings show it did not
rely on that charge in making its sentencing determination.
2
Range II multiple offender. We note that less restrictive measures have been unsuccessful
in deterring defendant’s criminal activity.
The record supports the trial court’s findings and sentencing decision. The judgment
of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. It
appearing that the appellant is indigent, costs shall be taxed to the state.
SO ORDERED. Enter:
_______________________
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
CONCUR:
____________________________
JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE
____________________________
ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE
3