State v. Charlie Floyd

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: September 19, 1997
• Docket: 02C01-9611-CC-00434
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

SEPTEMBER 1997 SESSION FILED September 19, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr. STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) Appellate C ourt Clerk ) No. 02-C-01-9611-CC-00434 APPELLEE, ) ) Obion County v. ) ) William B. Acree, Jr., Judge CHARLIE MARSHALL FLOYD, ) ) (Sentencing) APPELLANT. )

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

Joseph P. Atnip John Knox Walkup District Public Defender Attorney General & Reporter 111 Main Street 500 Charlotte Avenue Dresden, TN 38225 Nashville, TN 37243-0497

Georgia Blythe Felner Assistant Attorney General 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, TN 38261

Thomas A. Thomas District Attorney General P. O. Box 218 Union City, TN 38261

OPINION FILED: _________________________________

AFFIRMED

Joe B. Jones, Presiding Judge OPINION

The appellant, Charlie Marshall Floyd (defendant), was convicted of selling cocaine,

a Class B felony, by a jury of his peers. The trial court found that the defendant was a

multiple offender and imposed a Range II sentence consisting of confinement for fifteen

(15) years in the Department of Correction. In this Court, the defendant contends the

sentence imposed by the trial court was excessive because the court failed to apply

mitigating factor (1), Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(1), namely, his criminal conduct neither

caused nor threatened serious bodily injury, when determining the length of the sentence

within the appropriate range. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs submitted

by the parties, and the law governing the issue presented for review, it is the opinion of this

Court that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

This Court has conducted a de novo review of the record as required by Tenn. Code

Ann. § 40-35-401(d). This Court has previously held that mitigating factor one (1) is not

applicable where the defendant is convicted of selling cocaine. State v. Keel, 882 S.W.2d

410, 422 (Tenn. Crim. App.), per. app. denied (Tenn. 1994); State v. Larry D. Jones,

Davidson County No. 01-C-01-9112-CR-00368, 1992 WL 146719 (Tenn. Crim. App.,

Nashville, June 30, 1992), per. app. denied (Tenn. October 26, 1992); State v. Charles

Fulkerson, Knox County No. 03-C-01-1101-CR-00032, 1992 WL 6881 (Tenn. Crim. App.,

Knoxville, January 21, 1992). However, assuming arguendo that this factor is applicable,

the weight which would be given to this factor would be negligible. It would not be sufficient

to cause the sentence to be reduced given the fact the defendant has sixteen prior

convictions, eight misdemeanor convictions, and eight felony convictions. Some of the

felony convictions are drug-related offenses. Furthermore, the offense was committed

while the defendant was on probation for prior convictions, and a prior community

corrections sentence had been revoked due to subsequent convictions.

The trial court found the defendant was a professional criminal and his employment

record was sketchy. The trial court reached this conclusion based upon the defendant’s

sixteen convictions. In addition, the defendant had a drug-related offense pending in

Obion County when the sentencing hearing was conducted.

2 The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to consider mitigating factor

(1). The court simply followed existing law.

________________________________________ JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE

CONCUR:

___________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE

___________________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE