State of Tennessee v. Thomas H. Aldridge

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
DECEMBER 1996 SESSION
FILED
March 24, 2008
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) Appellate Court Clerk
)
APPELLEE, )
) No. 02-C-01-9512-CR-00393
)
) Shelby County
v. )
) Joseph B. Dailey, Judge
)
) (Sentencing)
THOMAS H. ALDRIDGE, )
)
APPELLANT. )
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
Marvin E. Ballin Charles W. Burson
Attorney at Law Attorney General & Reporter
200 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 1250 500 Charlotte Avenue
Memphis, TN 38103 Nashville, TN 37243-0497
Mark A. Mesler Clinton J. Morgan
Attorney at Law Assistant Attorney General
200 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 1250 450 James Robertson Parkway
Memphis, TN 38103 Nashville, TN 37243-0493
John W. Pierotti
District Attorney General
201 Poplar Avenue, Third Floor
Memphis, TN 38103
Terrell L. Harris
Assistant District Attorney General
201 Poplar Avenue, Third Floor
Memphis, TN 38103
OPINION FILED:______________________________
AFFIRMED
Joe B. Jones, Presiding Judge
OPINION
The appellant, Thomas H. Aldridge, was convicted of driving while under the
influence, a Class A misdemeanor, leaving the scene of an accident, a Class A
misdemeanor, and driving after having been declared a habitual vehicle offender, a Class
E felony, following his pleas of guilty to these offenses. The trial court imposed the
following sentences pursuant to the plea bargain agreement:
a.) Driving while intoxicated, a fine of $500 and confinement for thirty (30) days in
the Shelby County Correctional Center, twenty-eight days of the sentence was suspended;
b.) Leaving the scene of an accident, a fine of $500; and
c.) Driving after having been declared a habitual vehicle offender, a Range I,
standard offender sentence consisting of a $500 fine and confinement for one (1) year in
the Shelby County Correctional Center.
One issue is presented for review. The appellant contends the trial court abused
its discretion by refusing to sentence him pursuant to the Tennessee Community
Corrections Act. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-101, et. seq. After a thorough review of the
record, the briefs submitted by the parties, and the authorities which govern the issue
presented for review, it is the opinion of this Court that the judgment of the trial court
should be sustained.
The State of Tennessee contends the appellant has waived his right to appeal. The
fallacy in the State's argument is that the waiver of the right to appeal is limited to the
agreed sentences. In this case, the question of whether the appellant should be sentenced
pursuant to the Community Corrections Act was not part of the plea bargain agreement.
The agreement states: “Suspension of the Defendant's sentence is. . .[t]o be determined
by the Court, after a hearing." In short, the appellant was entitled to appeal as of right the
issue presented for review. The decisions cited by the State of Tennessee are factually
distinguishable.
Based upon a de novo review of the record pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-
401(d), the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to sentence the appellant
pursuant to the Community Corrections Act. The appellant candidly admitted he has been
2
addicted to drugs for twenty years. He has been in a methadone program for years.
The appellant has an extensive record. It spans a period of twenty years. He was
arrested for a theft-related offense in 1974. The present offenses occurred in 1994. He
has been convicted of theft under $500, reckless driving, leaving the scene of an accident,
driving while under the influence, driving while his license was either revoked or
suspended, possession of a controlled substance, two counts, possession of a legend
drug, and carrying a deadly weapon. The appellant admitted he had driven a motor vehicle
on numerous occasions after being declared a habitual motor offender. Each time he
drove a motor vehicle after the entry of the order constituted a separate criminal offense.
The appellant has been granted probation on several occasions. This largesse has
not helped the appellant to reform his proclivity to commit criminal offenses. If the
appellant is left in the community, the appellant will continue to commit criminal acts. The
appellant’s prior criminal history supports this conclusion.
The State of Tennessee overcame the presumption of suitability for an alternative
sentence. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
________________________________________
JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE
CONCUR:
___________________________________
JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE
___________________________________
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
3