State v. Scott

Full title: STATE OF TENNESSEE, Appellee v. JACK WHITFIELD SCOTT, Appellant

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee. at Jackson

Date published: Dec 19, 1996

No. 02C01-9510-CC-00310 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 19, 1996)

Opinion

No. 02C01-9510-CC-00310.

December 19, 1996.

Appeal from Carroll County, Hon. Julian P. Guinn, Judge, (Sentencing).

FOR THE APPELLANT

Guy T. Wilkins, District Public Defender, Billy R. Roe, Jr., Assistant District Public Defender.

FOR THE APPELLEE

Charles W. Burson, Attorney General and Reporter, Robin L. Harris, Assistant Attorney General, G. Robert Radford, District Attorney General, Eleanor Cahill, Assistant District Attorney General.

AFFIRMED — RULE 20 ORDER.

BARKER, Judge

Order

The Appellant, Jack W. Scott, appeals as of right his sentences for one count of sale of more than 0.5 grams of cocaine and one count of sale of less than 0.5 grams of cocaine. On two separate occasions, November 12, 1993, and January 8, 1994, the Appellant sold cocaine to undercover police officers. On March 28, 1995, the Appellant plead guilty to both charges. The trial judge sentenced the Appellant to eight years imprisonment for sale of more than 0.5 grams of cocaine and three years imprisonment for sale of less than 0.5 grams of cocaine, both sentences to be served concurrently. The trial judge then ordered split confinement where the Appellant would serve the first year in prison and the remaining seven years on supervised probation.

The Appellant complains that the trial judge failed to sentence him in accordance with the 1989 Sentencing Reform Act and the 1985 Community Corrections Act. It is our opinion that the record contains ample evidence that the trial judge properly considered both the Sentencing Reform Act and the Community Corrections Act. The trial judge, at the sentencing hearing, stated that the Appellant's sentence was motivated by considerations such as the need for punishment and personal deterrence, the interest of justice, and that confinement would be necessary to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense. Moreover, the trial judge ordered alternative sentencing in the form of split confinement. When the trial judge ordered split confinement he stated that he had considered other forms of alternative sentencing, but that he found them unsuitable for the Appellant. In the absence of any proof to the contrary, we will presume that the Community Corrections Act was included in those considerations.

It is the opinion of this Court that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20 of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

______________________________________ WILLIAM M. BARKER, JUDGE

CONCUR:

______________________________________ GARY R. WADE, JUDGE

______________________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE