State v. Gregory C. Young

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: December 1, 2010
• Docket: 01C01-9810-CR-00388
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

JUNE 1999 SESSION Filed July 1, 1999

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) NO. 01C01-9810-CR-00388 Appellee, ) ) SUMNER COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. JANE W. WHEATCRAFT, GREGORY CHARLES YOUNG, ) JUDGE ) Appellant. ) (Sentencing)

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

DAVID ALLEN DOYLE PAUL G. SUMMERS District Public Defender Attorney General and Reporter

DANA L. SCOTT ELIZABETH B. MARNEY Assistant Public Defender Assistant Attorney General 117 East Main Street Cordell Hull Building, 2nd Floor Gallatin, TN 37066-2801 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243-0493

LAWRENCE RAY WHITLEY District Attorney General

C. WAYNE HYATT Assistant District Attorney General 113 West Main Street Gallatin, TN 37066-2803

OPINION FILED:

AFFIRMED - RULE 20

JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE ORDER

Appellant, GREGORY CHARLES YOUNG, appeals the denial of alternative

sentencing by the trial court. On August 27, 1998, appellant pled guilty to robbery, a Class

C felony, and received a Range I sentence of four years. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the

trial court conducted a sentencing hearing to determine the manner of service at which it

denied appellant's request for placement in a community corrections program. We AFFIRM

the trial court's decision.

In determining if incarceration is appropriate, a trial court may consider the need to

protect society by restraining a defendant having a long history of criminal conduct, the need

to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense, whether confinement is particularly

appropriate to effectively deter others likely to commit similar offenses, and whether less

restrictive measures have often or recently been unsuccessfully applied to the defendant.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(1); see also State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn.

1991); State v. Grigsby, 957 S.W.2d 541, 545 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).

Proof at the sentencing hearing1 showed that appellant has prior convictions in

Arkansas for burglary, forgery, and robbery. He was on probation or parole at the time he

committed the current offense. And, in spite of his successful completion of a drug and

alcohol rehabilitation program while on bond for the current offense, appellant failed a drug

and alcohol screen the day of sentencing.

The trial court determined that due to his poor social and criminal histories, the failed

drug screen, and the type of offenses he tends to commit, appellant is a threat to society and

not a good candidate for community corrections. The trial court also noted that appellant

received consideration for his plea in the form of a Range I sentence when he is, in fact, a

1 Appellant complains that the trial court improperly admitted testimony regarding a pending theft charge against him. However, the trial court's findings show it did not rely on that charge in making its sentencing determination.

2 Range II multiple offender. We note that less restrictive measures have been unsuccessful

in deterring defendant’s criminal activity.

The record supports the trial court’s findings and sentencing decision. The judgment

of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. It

appearing that the appellant is indigent, costs shall be taxed to the state.

SO ORDERED. Enter:

_______________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE

CONCUR:

____________________________ JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE

____________________________ ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE