State v. Samuel Carter ( 2010 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
MARCH 1998 SESSION
April 7, 1998
Cecil W. Crowson
Appellate Court Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) NO. 01C01-9705-CR-00173
Appellee, )
) DAVIDSON COUNTY
VS. )
) HON. SETH NORMAN,
SAMUEL MYRON CARTER, JR., ) JUDGE
)
Appellant. ) (Sentencing)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
THERESA W. DOYLE JOHN KNOX WALKUP
211 Printers Alley Building Attorney General and Reporter
Suite 400
Nashville, TN 37201-1414 DARYL J. BRAND
Assistant Attorney General
Cordell Hull Building, 2nd Floor
425 Fifth Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
VICTOR S. JOHNSON, III
District Attorney General
JAMES W. MILAM
Assistant District Attorney General
Washington Square, Suite 500
222 Second Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37201-1649
OPINION FILED:
AFFIRMED
JOE G. RILEY,
JUDGE
OPINION
The defendant appeals the trial court’s order imposing consecutive
sentences. The issue was previously remanded to the trial court for the limited
purpose of determining the statutory basis for consecutive sentencing. After a
brief hearing, the trial court again imposed consecutive sentences. The
judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The defendant was convicted of two (2) counts of selling .5 grams or more
of cocaine, Class B felonies. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a
Range II, Multiple Offender, to consecutive sixteen (16) year sentences. The
sentences were also ordered to be served consecutively to another sentence for
which the defendant was on parole at the time of the instant offenses.
The defendant appealed as of right to this Court. We affirmed the
convictions, but remanded to the trial court to decide the statutory basis for
consecutive sentencing. State v. Samuel Myron Carter, Jr., C.C.A. No. 01C01-
9412-CR-00411, Davidson County (Tenn. Crim. App. filed May 24, 1996, at
Nashville). Upon remand, the trial court again imposed consecutive sentences.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court’s review of the sentences imposed by the trial court is de novo
with a presumption of correctness. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d). This
presumption is conditioned upon an affirmative showing in the record that the
trial judge considered the sentencing principles and all relevant facts and
circumstances. State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991). If the trial
court fails to comply with the statutory directives, there is no presumption of
correctness and our review is de novo. State v. Poole, 945 S.W.2d 93, 96
2
(Tenn. 1997).
CONSECUTIVE SENTENCING
When a defendant is convicted of two (2) or more criminal offenses, the
trial court has the option of ordering the sentences be served consecutively if
statutory criteria are met. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115. In the instant
case, the trial court upon remand ruled consecutive sentences were warranted
as it found the defendant an offender whose record of criminal activity was
extensive. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115 (b)(2).
The trial court noted the numerous prior convictions of the defendant.
These included possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell, grand
theft, theft, a weapons violation, two (2) criminal trespass convictions, and
possession of cocaine. These convictions span a period of approximately ten
years. The defendant’s record of previous convictions is comparable to others
who have received consecutive sentences. See State v. Chrisman, 885 S.W.2d
834, 839 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)(finding two (2) drug convictions and two (2)
weapons convictions a sufficient record to support consecutive sentencing). We
find defendant’s record of criminal activity is extensive enough to satisfiy the
statutory provision for ordering consecutive sentences. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-
35-115 (b)(2).
The defendant raises the issue that he has already received an enhanced
sentence for his prior convictions. This Court has held repeatedly that using the
same convictions for both enhancement and consecutive sentencing purposes is
permissible. State v. Meeks, 867 S.W.2d 361, 377 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993);
State v. Davis, 825 S.W.2d 109, 113 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).
This Court further finds that the terms imposed by the trial court are
reasonably related to the severity of the offenses committed, they are necessary
to protect the public from further criminal acts by the defendant, and they are
congruent with the general principles of sentencing. State v. Wilkerson, 905
3
S.W.2d 933, 938 (Tenn. 1995). These offenses were committed while the
defendant was on parole. The instant offenses involved large sales of cocaine,
twelve (12) grams in one instance and thirteen (13) grams in another. Each sale
was preceded by the buyer paging the defendant. In common language, the
defendant was a drug dealer who practiced his trade while on parole. The
consecutive sentences are appropriate for the defendant.
For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
CONCUR:
_________________________
JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE
_________________________
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
4