State of Tennessee v. Sherman Dunlap ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •            IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
    AT NASHVILLE
    FEBRUARY 2000 Session
    STATE OF TENNESSEE v. SHERMAN DUNLAP
    Appeal as of Right from the Circuit Court for Coffee County
    No. 28, 329   John W. Rollins, Judge
    No. M1999-00325-CCA-R3-CD - Filed August 4, 2000
    Sherman Dunlap appeals his sentence after pleading guilty in the Coffee County Circuit Court to
    facilitation of theft over $10,000, a class D felony. The trial court sentenced the appellant, as a
    Range II multiple offender, to four years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of
    Correction, requiring the appellant to serve one year of his sentence in continuous confinement.
    On appeal, the appellant presents the following issue for review: whether the trial court erred in
    denying him full probation or, in the alternative, in denying him an opportunity to serve his
    sentence in periodic confinement. Following a review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we
    affirm the judgment of the trial court.
    Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court is Affirmed.
    NORMA MCGEE OGLE , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which DAVID G. HAYES, J.
    joined, Jerry L. Smith J., filed a concurring opinion.
    John E. Herbison, Nashville, Tennessee, and Charles S. Ramsey, Jr., Manchester, Tennessee, for
    the appellant, Sherman Dunlap.
    Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter, David H. Findley, Assistant Attorney General,
    C. Michael Layne, District Attorney General, and Kenneth J. Shelton, Assistant District Attorney
    General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
    OPINION
    I. Factual Background.
    The appellant, Sherman Dunlap, is the founder and pastor of the Temple
    Pentecostal Assembly Church in Nashville. In August 1996, church member Cassandra
    McKissack approached the appellant with a forged power of attorney purportedly signed by her
    eighty-six year-old uncle to grant Ms. McKissack control of her uncle’s money. Although the
    appellant did not see the elderly gentleman sign the papers, he notarized the documents.
    Additionally, the appellant drove Ms. McKissack to her uncle’s bank in Manchester, where she
    withdrew her uncle’s entire life savings, which totaled $39,892. The appellant then took Ms.
    McKissack to another bank, where she opened an account in both her and her uncle’s names.
    The appellant’s church received $2,100 from McKissack soon after the transfer of the funds.
    The victim’s caretaker noticed the missing money and reported the theft to the
    police. Ms. McKissack and the appellant were arrested and charged with theft over $10,000, a
    class C felony. Although the appellant denied any knowledge that the notarized documents were
    forged, he pled guilty to facilitation of theft of property over $10,000, a class D felony.
    The trial court sentenced the appellant, as a Range II multiple offender, to four
    years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The trial court required the
    appellant to serve one year in continuous confinement and placed the appellant on probation for
    the remainder of his sentence. In pronouncing sentence, the trial court noted the following
    sentencing considerations: incarceration was needed to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the
    offense, confinement was necessary to provide effective deterrence, and the appellant abused a
    position of public or private trust in commission of the offense. Tenn. Code Ann. §§40-35-
    103(1)(B),-114(15)(1997).
    II. Analysis.
    On appeal, the appellant does not challenge his classification as a Range II
    offender or the length of his sentence. The appellant does, however, object to the manner of
    service of his sentence. The appellant contends that he should have been granted full probation
    or, in the alternative, a sentence of periodic confinement. Appellate review of the manner of
    service of a sentence is de novo. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d) (1997). This court considers
    the following factors in conducting its de novo review: (1) the evidence, if any, received at the
    trial and the sentencing hearing; (2) the pre-sentence report; (3) the principles of sentencing and
    arguments as to sentencing alternatives; (4) the nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct
    involved; (5) evidence and information offered by the parties on enhancement and mitigating
    factors; (6) any statement by the defendant in his own behalf; and (7) the potential for
    rehabilitation or treatment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-102,-103,-210 (1997). See also State v.
    Ashby, 
    823 S.W.2d 166
    , 168 (Tenn. 1991). The trial court must also consider these factors when
    imposing a sentence involving confinement. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(1). If the record
    reveals that the trial court correctly considered sentencing principles and all relevant facts and
    circumstances, this court will grant the trial court’s determinations a presumption of correctness.
    Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d); Ashby, 823 S.W.2d at 169. In any case, the burden is on the
    appellant to demonstrate the impropriety of his sentence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401,
    Sentencing Commission Comments.
    A. Full Probation
    The appellant first contends that he should have been granted full probation. An
    appellant is eligible for probation if the sentence actually imposed is eight years or less. Tenn.
    Code Ann. § 40-35-303(a)(1997). An appellant who is an especially mitigated or standard
    offender convicted of a class C, D, or E felony is presumed to be a favorable candidate for
    alternative sentencing. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-102(6)(1997). Because the appellant is a
    Range II offender, he did not qualify for the presumption of alternative sentencing. See Tenn.
    Code Ann. § 40-35-105(a)(1)(1997). Even without the presumption, the trial court granted the
    appellant an alternative sentence of split confinement. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-306(a)
    (1997). Nonetheless, the burden rests with the appellant to show that he is entitled to full
    -2-
    probation. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-303(b); see State v. Bingham, 
    910 S.W.2d 448
    , 455 (Tenn.
    Crim. App. 1995). The appellant must demonstrate that probation will “subserve the ends of
    justice and the best interest of both the public and the [appellant]” in order to meet this burden.
    State v. Dykes, 
    803 S.W.2d 250
    , 259 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). In determining the appellant’s
    suitability for full probation, the trial court must consider (1) whether a sentence of full
    probation would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the offense; (2) the nature and
    circumstances of the criminal conduct involved; (3) whether a sentence other than full probation
    would provide an effective deterrent to others likely to commit similar crimes; and (4) the
    appellant’s potential or lack of potential for rehabilitation. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-
    210(b)(4),-103(5),-103(1)(B). See also State v. Grissom, 
    956 S.W.2d 514
    , 520 (Tenn. Crim. App.
    1997); Bingham, 910 S.W.2d at 456.
    The nature and circumstances of the underlying criminal conduct may alone give
    rise to the denial of full probation. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(b)(4). See State v. Fletcher,
    
    805 S.W.2d 785
    , 788-89 (Tenn. Crim. App.1991)(denial of probation may be justified solely
    upon the circumstances of the offense when they are of such a nature as to outweigh all other
    factors favoring probation). When making confinement decisions based upon the seriousness of
    the offense, a court should determine if "the circumstances of the offense as committed [are]
    especially violent, horrifying, shocking, reprehensible, offensive, or otherwise of an excessive or
    exaggerated degree.” See State v. Zeolia, 
    928 S.W.2d 457
    , 462 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996); see
    also Bingham, 910 S.W.2d at 454 (citing State v. Hartley, 
    818 S.W.2d 370
    , 374-375 (Tenn.
    Crim. App.1991)). In this case, the theft underlying the appellant’s conviction deprived an
    elderly gentleman of his entire life savings. Cf. State v. Bilbrey, 
    816 S.W.2d 71
    , 77 (Tenn. Crim.
    App.1991)(in considering the "circumstances of the offenses," the trial court properly
    acknowledged that the defendant's "total theft nearly destroyed the victim's business").
    Moreover, in facilitating the theft by notarizing the forged documents, the appellant abused a
    position of public trust. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114(15). See also Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-
    210(b)(5). Finally, even assuming that “the circumstances of this offense, as reprehensible as
    they are . . . are not enough to support a denial of probation,” additional factors support the denial
    of full probation. State v. McKissack, No. 01C01-9711-CC-00543, 
    1999 WL 135048
    , at *3
    (Tenn.Crim.App. at Nashville, March 15,1999).
    In denying the appellant full probation, the trial court, in a conclusory statement,
    found that confinement was necessary to provide effective deterrence. To deny full probation on
    the basis of deterrence, “there must be some evidence contained in the record that the sentence
    imposed will have a deterrent effect within the jurisdiction.” Bingham, 910 S.W.2d at 455; see
    also State v. Bonestel, 
    871 S.W.2d 163
    , 169 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). Mere conclusive
    statements regarding deterrence are generally not sufficient to support a trial court’s
    consideration of this factor; there must be specific findings of fact on the record. Bingham, 910
    S.W.2d at 455. However, this court has previously stated that “the punishment of certain
    offenses is particularly suited to provide an effective deterrent to others likely to commit similar
    offenses.” State v. Lutry, 
    938 S.W.2d 431
    , 435 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996); see also Tenn. Code
    Ann. § 40-35-103(1)(B). In other words, with respect to certain offenses, the State need not
    adduce extrinsic evidence in order to establish the deterrent value of punishment. See Lutry, 938
    -3-
    S.W.2d at 435, (citing State v. Millsaps,920 S.W.2d 267 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995)). An example
    of such an offense is fraud or forgery. Id. (citing State v. Willoughby, No. 03C01-9305-CR-
    00154, 
    1994 WL 247110
     (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, June 9, 1994). Although the appellant
    in this case pled guilty to facilitation of a felony, the felony involved a fraud or forgery.
    Accordingly, the trial court correctly considered deterrence in refusing to grant the appellant full
    probation.
    Moreover, “measures less restrictive than confinement have frequently or recently
    been applied unsuccessfully to the [appellant],” demonstrating his poor potential for
    rehabilitation. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-103(1)(C), -103(5). The appellant has a history of
    criminal conduct consisting of four convictions of passing worthless checks, one conviction of
    possession of marijuana, and one conviction of facilitating prostitution. The appellant received
    probation for three of his prior criminal convictions. Yet, the appellant is once again in court
    because of his criminal behavior. The appellant has clearly demonstrated his poor potential for
    rehabilitation.
    Based upon the circumstances of the offense, the deterrent effect of incarceration,
    and the appellant’s lack of potential for rehabilitation, we conclude that the trial court properly
    denied the appellant full probation.
    B. Alternative Sentencing Options
    The appellant alternatively argues that he should receive periodic confinement,
    instead of continuous confinement, in order to provide for his family. A period of confinement
    along with a period of probation may be justified when the circumstances of the case fall between
    complete denial of probation and a full grant of probation. See State v. Necessary, No 02C01-
    9307-CR-00131, 
    1994 WL 413482
    , at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, August 10, 1994).
    Again, the trial court in this case properly considered the circumstances of the appellant’s
    offense, including his abuse of a position of public trust, the deterrent effect of incarceration, the
    appellant’s previous criminal record, and his lack of potential for rehabilitation, in selecting the
    manner of service of the appellant’s sentence. Thus, notwithstanding the appellant’s strong
    family ties and his family’s need for his financial support, we cannot conclude that the trial court
    abused its discretion in requiring the appellant to serve one year of his four-year sentence in
    continuous confinement.
    III. Conclusion.
    Because the appellant has failed to demonstrate to this court the impropriety of the
    manner of service of his sentence, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
    Norma McGee Ogle, Judge
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: M1999-00325-CCA-R3-CD

Judges: Judge Norma McGee Ogle

Filed Date: 8/4/2000

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014