Carolyn J. Nobles pled guilty to three counts of check forgery, while a jury found her guilty of an additional sixty-eight counts, resulting in a total of seventy-one convictions, consisting of sixty-five class E felonies and six class D felonies. The trial court imposed a combined sentence of seventeen years and six months, as Nobles was classified as a Range I offender. On appeal, she argued the evidence was insufficient for her convictions and that the trial court improperly denied her alternative sentencing and mandated some sentences to run consecutively. The appellate court found no errors in the trial court's decisions and affirmed the convictions.
At trial, evidence presented included testimony from Susie Cartwright Johnson, who described her parents' health issues and their arrangement with Nobles, who was hired as a caregiver. Nobles was responsible for various tasks, including cooking and handling mail, but she lacked authorization to write or sign checks beyond those explicitly allowed. Concerns arose when Cindy Vanada from First Community Bank contacted Johnson about a check written by Nobles, which prompted Johnson to investigate, leading to the discovery of unauthorized transactions.
Johnson presented a check to Mrs. Cartwright, leading to a conversation that prompted Johnson to call the Defendant to their home for questioning. During this meeting, the Defendant admitted to cashing the check and expressed intent to repay the amount, claiming she could not be jailed due to her caregiving responsibilities for the Cartwrights. Johnson subsequently reviewed her parents' accounts for similar discrepancies, discovering 75 checks that bore a signature other than Mrs. Cartwright’s, noting that the signatures appeared too neat and inconsistent with Mrs. Cartwright’s writing, especially after her stroke. Johnson did not reconcile the accounts but acknowledged that the Defendant sometimes worked extra hours, although her pay was capped at one weekly check of $380.
Mrs. Cartwright, the Defendant’s employer, confirmed that the Defendant was paid $10 per hour and had no authorization to write checks from their accounts other than her designated paycheck. In June 2005, Mrs. Cartwright was shown a check from First Community Bank that she had not authorized, leading to the Defendant's admission of writing it. The Defendant later sent Mrs. Cartwright a letter apologizing for her actions and expressing a desire to repay the money, pleading for Mrs. Cartwright's intervention to prevent severe consequences from Johnson. The letter included a postscript about the Defendant's impending move.
Mrs. Cartwright was presented with checks purportedly forged, stating she could not confirm if she wrote any, noting discrepancies in her handwriting. She mentioned that the Defendant, who worked for her for over two years, was expected to earn $380 weekly but not significantly more. Mrs. Cartwright acknowledged the Defendant's assistance in maintaining her rental properties but denied payment for carpet work done with materials from her own properties. Although she offered to cover a medical bill after the Defendant injured her finger, she never received a bill for payment.
Sergeant Jason Williams from the Shelbyville Police Department investigated forgery allegations against the Defendant after a report was filed. During a videotaped interview, the Defendant admitted to improperly writing four checks but denied involvement with others, despite the sergeant revealing that total checks written since late January amounted to approximately $44,900. The Defendant noted that Mrs. Cartwright sometimes paid her extra for additional work but acknowledged that this did not explain the total amount of checks. She claimed some checks were written out of financial hardship, including medical bills totaling around $10,000. The Defendant expressed concerns that some checks might be legitimate and mentioned the Cartwrights' influence in the community. Following the investigation, Sergeant Williams charged the Defendant with multiple forgery counts, confirming no evidence of drug or gambling issues and that she consistently admitted to forging four checks.
The sergeant testified that he was present in court when the Defendant pled guilty to forging three checks. During redirect examination, he noted that the Defendant did not dispute his claim that there could be as many as 90 forged checks, nor did she contest the total amount of $45,000. The Defendant acknowledged forging four checks but denied forging any additional checks. She had worked for the Cartwrights for about two and a half years, during which she lived in a home they owned that she described as being in poor condition, and she performed renovation work that was compensated by Mrs. Cartwright.
The Defendant provided that checks were sometimes written for her by Mrs. Cartwright, who would sign them without dating, leading to the bank filling in the date when cashed. She claimed one forged check was legitimately written to her as a loan for a dryer, and another was for medical bills related to an injury sustained while employed by the Cartwrights. She offered to repay Mrs. Cartwright for the forged checks.
On cross-examination, the Defendant stated she moved into the rental house in late 2004 and detailed the work she did, including a kitchen floor costing $120. She clarified that reimbursements were not made on a one-for-one basis with checks. The prosecutor highlighted that the smallest check in question was for $280, and she could not specify which check covered the tile reimbursement. The Defendant explained that a check for $1,082.08 was for her medical bills, which she used to pay two doctors after an injury in August 2004. She noted that it took six months for Mrs. Cartwright to reimburse her for these bills. While acknowledging her income averaged $1,520 per month, she maintained that her work on the house and additional jobs justified the total of approximately $9,000 in checks written to her since January.
The Defendant acknowledged forging a check by intentionally misspelling her name to mimic Mrs. Cartwright's occasional misspellings, but denied forging any other checks. The jury convicted her of sixty-eight counts of check forgery, in addition to three counts she pled guilty to. During the sentencing hearing, the Defendant testified about her prior role as a caretaker for Mrs. Cartwright, her educational background (tenth grade completion), and expressed remorse, highlighting her family responsibilities and her first-time incarceration of nearly eight months. She claimed to have reformed spiritually in jail and sought leniency.
On cross-examination, she admitted to a prior conviction in 1998 related to a bad check and later acknowledged that a $150 check was written on Pam Sehorian's account, which she initially misunderstood. The court determined the sentencing range, classifying her as a Range I offender for D and E felonies. The judge identified several enhancing factors for her sentence: her prior theft conviction, the vulnerability of the victim due to age and health, the substantial financial loss exceeding $40,000, and the abuse of her caretaker position. Consequently, the sentence for the D felonies was increased from two years to three and a half years, and for the E felonies from one year to one and a half years.
The judge noted only one mitigating factor—that the crime did not cause serious bodily harm—but deemed it insufficient to reduce the sentence. The court also considered whether sentences should run consecutively or concurrently. It determined that the one prior theft conviction did not warrant a categorical classification for extensive criminal records, and it ruled that the earlier check forgeries could be considered part of a single scheme during sentencing.
The defense's position is unclear regarding applicable case law, prompting a request for counsel to brief the issue. In terms of alternative sentencing, the judge highlights the significant risk of reoffending based on the defendant's lack of remorse and attempts to shift blame during the trial. The judge notes the overwhelming evidence against the defendant, including perjury regarding a prior theft conviction.
The legal question revolves around whether the period of criminal activity from the trial should be considered in determining sentencing as consecutive or concurrent. The presumption favors concurrent sentencing unless specific factors are present, particularly the second factor concerning an extensive criminal record. The judge finds that the defendant forged checks over a four-month period, raising the issue of whether earlier forgeries can be considered when assessing her criminal record.
The defendant has a total of 71 convictions related to these forgeries, with 68 resulting from a jury verdict and three from pleas. Most checks are classified as E felonies except for six D felonies exceeding $1,000. For the first 35 checks forged in February and March, the judge concludes that the presumption for concurrent sentencing holds, resulting in a sentence of three and a half years. However, for 14 checks forged in April, the presumption is overcome, leading to those sentences being made consecutive to the earlier checks, totaling an additional three and a half years. The judge notes that the sentencing for 17 checks from May is yet to be determined.
A total of nine checks were issued in the first half of May, followed by eight in the second half. The court allows the first half's checks to be served concurrently but mandates that they run consecutively to prior sentences from February, March, and April. One check from the first half qualifies as a D felony, adding three and a half years to the sentence. The second half's eight checks will also be served concurrently with each other but consecutively to all previous checks, adding another three and a half years.
The presumption favoring concurrent sentences is overridden due to the defendant's prior theft conviction and previous forgeries. In June, five checks, including another D felony, will be served concurrently but consecutively to all prior sentences, adding an additional three and a half years. The total effective sentence amounts to 17 years and six months. The court finds the defendant unsuitable for alternative sentencing due to a low likelihood of rehabilitation, evidenced by dishonest testimony and problematic pre-trial statements reflecting a desire for an illicit lifestyle.
The sentencing aligns with the Sentencing Reform Act, deemed reasonable given the severity of the crime and the victim's vulnerability, who lost approximately $45,000. The defendant appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions, which were based on circumstantial evidence, and challenges the consecutive sentencing and denial of alternative sentencing.
When evaluating an accused's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the standard is whether any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence favorably to the prosecution. This applies to both direct and circumstantial evidence. If the evidence is entirely circumstantial, it must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence. The reviewing court does not re-weigh evidence or substitute its own inferences for those made by the trier of fact; issues regarding witness credibility and the weight of evidence are resolved at the trial level. The State is afforded the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it. A conviction shifts the presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt, placing the burden on the defendant to prove legal insufficiency of the evidence.
Under Tennessee law, forgery involves altering, making, or executing a writing to appear as if authorized by another. In this case, evidence indicated that the defendant accessed Mrs. Cartwright’s checkbooks and wrote checks to herself, totaling nearly $45,000, which were confirmed as forgeries based on witness testimony. The jury rejected the defendant's claims of legitimacy regarding the checks and convicted her on sixty-eight counts of check forgery, with sufficient evidence supporting these convictions.
Regarding sentencing, the defendant challenged the trial court's decision to impose consecutive sentences and to deny an alternative sentence. The appellate court is tasked with conducting a de novo review of the sentencing record, presuming the trial court's determinations are correct.
Tenn. Code Ann. 40-35-401(d) establishes that a presumption of correctness applies to sentencing determinations, contingent upon the trial court's documented consideration of sentencing principles and relevant circumstances. This presumption does not extend to legal conclusions or determinations based solely on uncontroverted facts. A de novo review of a sentence requires consideration of various factors, including evidence from the trial, presentence reports, sentencing principles, counsel arguments, offense characteristics, mitigating/enhancing factors, defendant statements, and rehabilitation potential. The burden of proof rests with the party challenging the sentence to show it is erroneous.
If the trial court adhered to statutory procedures, imposed a lawful sentence with appropriate consideration of factors, and made supported findings, the sentence cannot be modified despite personal preferences. In the reviewed case, the trial court effectively considered relevant sentencing principles, justifying the presumption of correctness for its determinations.
Regarding consecutive sentencing, while the defendant does not contest the court's discretion in this matter, she argues that the minimum sentence should apply due to her potential for rehabilitation. The court found no abuse of discretion in imposing consecutive sentences based on the defendant's extensive criminal history, which includes prior convictions relevant to the current sentence. Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b) allows for consecutive sentences if a defendant's criminal record is extensive, and this principle was upheld in State v. Cummings, where extensive criminal activity was found despite a lack of prior convictions.
Unpublished decisions by the court have supported trial court rulings, affirming discretion in ordering consecutive sentences, as seen in cases like State v. Brian Lee Cable and State v. Monsanto Undrez Cannon. The trial court determined that the defendant's sentence was appropriate, considering the severity of the crime—specifically, the theft of approximately $45,000 from a vulnerable victim—and the defendant's criminal history. The trial court asserted that the sentence was not oppressive and aligned with the goals of the sentencing reform act, concluding that the evidence supported its findings.
The defendant also argued against the denial of alternative sentencing, referencing Tennessee Code Annotated sections that prioritize incarceration for serious offenses and those with significant criminal histories. The court emphasized that a standard offender convicted of lesser felonies is presumed suitable for alternative sentencing unless evidence suggests otherwise. Factors for considering probation include the nature of the offense, criminal background, and the potential benefit to both the defendant and society. The burden of proof for proving suitability for probation lies with the defendant. Sentencing considerations must ensure confinement is justified to protect society, maintain the seriousness of the offense, or if less restrictive measures have failed. Furthermore, sentences should reflect the severity of the offense and be the least severe necessary for achieving sentencing goals, including the potential for rehabilitation.
Untruthfulness is a significant factor in assessing the appropriateness of probation, as established in multiple Tennessee cases, despite not being explicitly mentioned in Tenn. Code Ann. 40-35-103(1). The trial court exercised its discretion correctly in denying the Defendant alternative sentencing, concluding that the Defendant demonstrated a lack of potential for rehabilitation by denying her crimes and attempting to shift blame. The court also determined that the Defendant committed perjury regarding a prior conviction and showed no remorse, presenting a risk of reoffending. The findings of the trial court are well-supported by the record, leading to the affirmation of the Defendant's convictions and sentence.
