State v. Chris Wilson a/k/a Calvin Clark

Citation: Not availableDocket: M1998-00395-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; September 28, 2000; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Chris Wilson, also known as Calvin Clark, pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary in Montgomery County, resulting in a five-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. He appeals the sentence length and the total confinement decision. The appellate court, after reviewing the case, affirms the trial court's sentencing decision. The appellant's criminal history includes a range of juvenile adjudications for theft and vandalism, as well as subsequent adult convictions in Tennessee for evading arrest and joy riding, with sentences including probation. The court notes that the appellant did not provide sufficient records for a comprehensive review of the circumstances surrounding the offense, leading to a presumption that the trial court acted correctly in its ruling.

The defendant has a history of criminal conduct and was previously convicted in Davidson County of two felonies: reckless endangerment and fraudulent use of a credit card, resulting in a three-year sentence effective April 26, 1995. The aggravated burglary for which he is currently being sentenced occurred in February 1997, during this three-year period, indicating he was on probation or work release at that time. The court evaluated whether confinement is necessary for public safety, deterrence, and the potential for rehabilitation, ultimately determining that the defendant's extensive criminal history warranted confinement. The court classified the defendant as a range one standard offender, affirming that subsection 13 applies since the crime was committed while he was on release from a prior felony. The defendant's claims regarding mitigating factors, including a justification for his actions and a minor role in the crime, were found unsupported by evidence. Therefore, the presumptive sentence for a range one, class C felony of aggravated burglary was set at three years, but after considering enhancing and mitigating factors, the court imposed a five-year sentence to be served at the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC). The appellate review process for the sentence is de novo, with a presumption of correctness for the sentencing court's determinations, provided that proper sentencing principles were applied.

In State v. Ashby, the court upheld the application of a presumption regarding sentencing, placing the burden on the appellant to demonstrate that the five-year sentence for aggravated burglary was improper. The trial court considered three enhancement factors: (1) the defendant's prior criminal history, (13) commission of the felony while on release status from a prior felony, and (20) adjudication for delinquent acts as a juvenile that would qualify as felonies if committed by an adult. The appellant conceded the application of factor (1) but contested factors (13) and (20). The court noted that the appellant failed to provide evidence contradicting the trial court's findings, which are presumed correct.

Regarding factor (20), the appellant argued that his Louisiana juvenile adjudications (vandalism, unauthorized use of a vehicle, and theft) should not count as felonies under Tennessee law, as they occurred in another state. However, the court found that the offenses matched Tennessee classifications, specifically that vandalism between $500-$1000 is a class E felony, thus supporting the application of enhancement factor (20).

Additionally, the appellant claimed the trial court did not consider mitigating factors (3) and (4), which pertain to the existence of substantial grounds justifying the conduct and the defendant's minor role in the offense, respectively.

The absence of a guilty plea transcript leaves the appellant's claims unsupported regarding substantial grounds for excusing or justifying his criminal conduct (Tenn. Code Ann. 40-35-113(3)) and his minor role in the offense (Tenn. Code Ann. 40-35-113(4)). The appellant argues that his guilty plea should invoke mitigating factor (13) due to steps towards rehabilitation and saving the State trial costs. However, the legislature does not authorize mitigation solely based on a guilty plea, leading to the rejection of this factor. The trial court, better positioned to assess the motivations behind the plea, noted the plea was likely influenced by favorable plea terms rather than a genuine desire for rehabilitation. The appellant, classified as a range I offender, was convicted of aggravated burglary, with a sentencing range of three to six years (Tenn. Code Ann. 40-35-112(a)(3)). The trial court imposed a five-year sentence after considering enhancing and mitigating factors, and this decision was deemed not excessive upon review. 

Regarding total confinement, the trial court found it necessary to protect society, given the appellant’s history of six adult convictions and six juvenile adjudications, alongside failed rehabilitation attempts. The presentence report highlighted the appellant's 'escape' status, lack of educational achievements, and minimal work experience. These factors justified the trial court's decision against alternative sentencing, affirming that the State provided sufficient evidence to counter the presumption favoring alternatives. Consequently, the trial court's sentencing decision was upheld.