Randall McClure pled guilty to selling and delivering less than .5 grams of cocaine, with the two convictions merged. The trial court determined his five-year sentence, requested as an alternative sentence, would be served in incarceration. McClure appealed, claiming the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. Upon reviewing the record, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
During the plea hearing, the State summarized evidence against McClure, detailing a controlled drug purchase on February 17, 2005. Law enforcement agents, along with a confidential informant (CI), prepared for the operation by searching the CI and equipping them with funds and recording devices. The CI approached McClure, identified as a black male on a bicycle, to purchase crack cocaine. Officers witnessed the transaction, observing McClure exchange items with the CI.
A Confidential Informant (CI) was followed back to a staging location and found in possession of three pieces of suspected crack cocaine purchased from the Defendant. During the sentencing hearing, the State presented evidence of the Defendant's extensive criminal history, including a Class B felony for cocaine delivery in 1995, multiple misdemeanor convictions for marijuana possession, driving on a suspended license, possession of a controlled substance, theft, criminal trespassing, and assault, as well as several probation and parole violations. Deputy Billy Ostermann from the Madison County Drug Task Force testified about the CI's interaction with the Defendant, confirming that the Defendant approached the CI without being contacted. The Defendant did not call any witnesses but submitted a letter of support.
Despite being a candidate for alternative sentencing, the trial court found that the Defendant's significant criminal history overcame the presumption in favor of such sentencing. The court noted the Defendant’s history of juvenile commitment, lack of educational achievement (10th grade), and multiple probation and parole violations, concluding that previous attempts at alternative sentencing had been unsuccessful. The court emphasized the need for confinement to uphold the seriousness of the offense and deter similar conduct, ultimately denying alternative sentencing due to the Defendant's poor rehabilitation prospects.
The analysis section mentions that while the Sentencing Reform Act of 1989 was amended effective June 7, 2005, the Defendant's offense occurred prior to this date, and no waiver of ex post facto protections was indicated in the record. Therefore, the relevant statutes were those in effect at the time of the crime. The appellate review of the trial court's sentencing decision is de novo, with a presumption of correctness contingent upon evidence that the judge considered all relevant facts and principles.
Failure by the trial court to adhere to statutory requirements results in a de novo review, with the appealing party bearing the burden to demonstrate that the sentence is improper. In reviewing sentencing, the court must consider various factors including trial evidence, presentence reports, principles of sentencing, the nature of the criminal conduct, and any statements made by the defendant. Under the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989, trial judges are encouraged to consider alternatives to incarceration, particularly for standard or mitigated offenders convicted of lower-level felonies, unless there is contrary evidence.
When evaluating the appropriateness of incarceration, the court may assess the need to protect society, the seriousness of the offense, the effectiveness of deterrents, and the history of prior unsuccessful alternative measures. Additionally, the potential for the defendant's rehabilitation is a key consideration. Sentencing should be individualized, fitting both the crime and the offender.
In this case, the trial court articulated valid reasons for denying alternative sentencing, citing the defendant's poor rehabilitation prospects, previous failures on probation and parole, and the need to maintain the seriousness of the offense. The defendant's argument for Community Corrections was rejected, as their extensive criminal history and prior failures distinguished them from a precedent case, Cummings, where the defendant had no criminal record. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, denying any relief for the defendant.
