IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
JULY 1999 SESSION
FILED
August 27, 1999
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
Appellate Court Clerk
)
Appellee, ) No. 02C01-9812-CR-00372
)
) Shelby County
v. )
) Honorable Arthur T. Bennett, Judge
)
DARREN E. MATTHEWS, ) (Habitual Motor Vehicle Offender)
)
Appellant. )
For the Appellant: For the Appellee:
A. C. Wharton Paul G. Summers
Public Defender Attorney General of Tennessee
Criminal Justice Complex and
201 Poplar Avenue J. Ross Dyer
Memphis, TN 38103 Assistant Attorney General of Tennessee
(AT TRIAL) 425 Fifth Avenue North
2nd Floor, Cordell Hull Building
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
Walker Gwinn
Assistant Public Defender William L. Gibbons
201 Poplar Avenue, 2nd Floor District Attorney General
Memphis, TN 38103 and
(ON APPEAL) Lee Coffee
Assistant District Attorney General
Criminal Justice Complex, Suite 301
201 Poplar Avenue
Memphis, TN 38103
OPINION FILED:____________________
AFFIRMED
Joseph M. Tipton
Judge
OPINION
The defendant, Darren E. Matthews, appeals as of right from the Shelby
County Criminal Court’s denial of alternative sentencing for his conviction for violating
the Habitual Motor Vehicle Offenders (HMVO) Act, a Class E felony. The defendant
pled guilty pursuant to an agreement and received a sentence of one year as a Range
I, standard offender in the Shelby County Correctional Center with the issue of
alternative sentencing reserved for judicial determination. The defendant asserts on
appeal that the trial court erred in denying him a community corrections sentence. We
affirm the trial court.
The defendant was declared a habitual motor vehicle offender in June
1994. In August 1997, the defendant was stopped for speeding and arrested for
violating the HMVO order prohibiting him from driving. At the sentencing hearing, the
defendant testified that he had been driving to and from work at the time of his arrest.
He stated, however, that he was no longer driving and was getting to work by riding with
co-workers or taking the bus. He acknowledged five or six previous convictions for
driving while his license was suspended or revoked. He promised to abide by the court
order in the future. He also said he was paying child support for his two daughters.
The trial court denied alternative sentencing, stating that the defendant’s
continued driving in defiance of the order indicated that the previous cases did not get
the defendant’s attention. It also found that the defendant’s demeanor while testifying
indicated that the defendant was not taking the matter seriously.
The defendant contends that he should be placed in the community
corrections program in order to keep his employment and to continue timely child
2
support payments. He also asserts that the program is his best opportunity for
rehabilitation and his “best chance” either to obtain a driver’s license or to adapt to
earning a livelihood without driving. He argues that confinement is not the least severe
measure to achieve the purpose for which the sentence was imposed. See Tenn. Code
Ann. § 40-35-103(4).
As a Range I, standard, Class E felon, the defendant is presumed to be a
favorable candidate for alternative sentencing options in the absence of evidence to the
contrary. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-102(6). However, the record reflects that the
defendant continually disregarded both the driver’s licensing laws and the ultimate court
order barring him from driving. Also, the trial court found that the defendant showed a
poor attitude at the sentencing hearing. Obviously, one of the main purposes of
confinement is for the defendant to appreciate the seriousness of his repeated violation
of the driving law. In this respect, the record supports a conclusion that the statutory
presumption has been overcome. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
____________________________
Joseph M. Tipton, Judge
CONCUR:
____________________________
James Curwood W itt, Jr., Judge
____________________________
John Everett W illiams, Judge
3
State v. Darren Matthews
Combined Opinion