State v. Courtney Price/Robertson

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
JUNE 1997 SESSION
FILED
July 16, 1997
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
) Appellate C ourt Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) C.C.A. No. 02C01-9606-CC-00203
Appellee, )
) Gibson County
V. )
) Honorable Dick Jerman, Jr., Judge
)
COURTNEY PRICE, ) (Sentencing)
A.K.A. COURTNEY )
ROBERTSON, )
)
Appellant. )
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
Tom W. Crider Charles W. Burson
District Public Defender Attorney General & Reporter
J. Diane Stoots Deborah A. Tullis
Assistant Public Defender Assistant Attorney General
107 South Court Square 450 James Robertson Parkway
Trenton, TN 38382 Nashville, TN 37243-0493
Clayburn Peeples
District Attorney General
110 South College Street
Suite 200
Trenton, TN 38382
OPINION FILED: ___________________
REVERSED AND REMANDED
PAUL G. SUMMERS,
Judge
OPINION
The appellant, Courtney Price, a.k.a. Courtney Robertson, pled guilty to
two counts of the illegal sale of a controlled substance. He was sentenced as a
Range I offender and placed in the Community Corrections Program for four
years on each count, to be served concurrently. The trial court subsequently
ordered the appellant arrested because he had violated his community
corrections sentence by failing to obtain employment and by failing three drug
screening tests. Despite the appellant’s violation of his community corrections
sentence, the trial court ordered that he be reinstated to the Community
Corrections Program and that he find full-time employment by a certain date.
Shortly thereafter, the trial court ordered the appellant arrested because he failed
to appear at his hearing to show that he had obtained employment. The trial
court then revoked the appellant’s community corrections sentence and
resentenced him to six years in the Tennessee Department of Correction,
thereby increasing his original sentence from four years to six years.
On appeal, the appellant does not challenge the trial court’s finding that
he violated the conditions of his community corrections sentence. He does,
however, challenge the trial court’s decision to enhance his sentence from four
years to six years, after his initial sentence was revoked. We respectfully
reverse the trial court’s judgment.
The appellant argues that because “the trial court did not set out any
enhancement factors on the record and the State did not file an enhancement
notice, it can be presumed that the trial court found no enhancement factors.”
Therefore, he contends that the trial court erred by increasing his sentence; and
his original sentence should be reinstated based on the record before this Court.
-2-
The state argues that Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(e)(4) (Supp. 1994)
permits the trial court to “resentence the [accused] to any appropriate sentencing
alternative, including incarceration, for any period of time up to the maximum
sentence provided for the offense committed.” Also, the state acknowledges that
“the trial court failed to state the mitigating and enhancement factors relied upon
in the record, and that the presumption of correctness given to the trial court’s
decision on appeal is inappropriate in this case.” However, the state maintains
that a de novo review of the record indicates that enhancement factors exist
which justify the appellant’s new sentence.
Although a de novo review of the sparse record that exists in this case
certainly indicates that the appellant’s enhanced sentence is warranted, this
Court must follow the Tennessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989 and
the Community Corrections Act. When a trial court enhances a defendant’s
initial sentence, it “shall include specific findings of fact upon which application of
the sentencing principles were based” and must state on the record the reasons
for imposing a new sentence. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-209(c) and -210(f)-(g)
(Supp. 1994) (emphasis added). Although the review of sentences in this Court
is de novo, the trial court must still comply with procedures mandated by these
statutes during a sentencing hearing. State v. Ervin, 939 S.W.2d 581 (Tenn.
Crim. App. 1996); State v. Patterson, No. 02C01-9308-CC-00174 (Tenn. Crim.
App. at Jackson, May 25, 1994); State v. Batts, No. 01C01-9210-CR-00326
(Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Feb. 18, 1993); State v. Gauldin, 737 S.W.2d
795, 798 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987).
The transcript of the sentencing hearing is barely two pages. The trial court
summarily sentenced the appellant to six years, without indicating in the record
any legal basis for the increased sentence and without making any
findings of fact.
-3-
Consequently, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this
case for a new sentencing hearing that comports with the Tennessee Criminal
Sentencing Reform Act of 1989, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-101 et seq.
______________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge
CONCUR:
______________________________
DAVID H. WELLES, Judge
______________________________
JOE G. RILEY, Judge
-4-