State v. Grandberry, 125
| Decision Date | 12 December 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 125,125 |
| Citation | 803 S.W.2d 706 |
| Parties | STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. Marcellas M. GRANDBERRY, Appellant. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
Andrew E. Bender, Memphis, for appellant.
Charles W. Burson, Atty. Gen. & Reporter, Joel W. Perry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, Hugh W. Stanton, Dist. Atty. Gen., P.T. Hoover, Asst. Dist. Atty. Gen., Memphis, for appellee.
This case is before us to review the action of the trial judge in overruling a petition to sentence the appellant to community corrections. The Honorable W. Fred Axley, Judge of the Shelby County Criminal Court, Division VI, presided. We find that the action of the trial judge was correct, and we affirm the convictions and the sentence as entered below.
The defendant, Marcellas Grandberry, entered a plea of guilty to one count of possession of cocaine with intent to sell and one count of possession of marijuana with intent to sell. At a guilty plea and sentencing hearing which occurred after November 1, 1989, the court sentenced the appellant on a recommended plea to four years confinement in the Shelby County Correctional Center and a fine of $500.00 on each count. The Court further ordered that the sentences be served concurrently. The appellant had filed a petition for a suspended sentence or in the alternative placement in the community corrections program. The appellant later abandoned the petition for suspended sentence and pursued the avenue of community corrections. At the sentencing phase of the hearing the trial court considered the following: testimony from the appellant; a witness for the appellant; the presentence report; police reports; letters from supporters of the appellant; and arguments of counsel.
When reviewing the issue of an allegedly incorrect sentence, this Court conducts a de novo review on the record with a presumption that the trial court's determinations are correct. T.C.A. Sec. 40-35-402(d). When a defendant contends that he should have been sentenced pursuant to the Community Corrections Act of 1985, this Court must consider whether or not he is eligible. The Community Corrections Act establishes a program of community based alternatives to incarceration for certain eligible offenders. See T.C.A. Secs. 40-36-101 et seq. An offender is eligible for participation in a community corrections program if the offender satisfies several minimum eligibility requirements. These requirements set forth the minimum standards an offender must meet in order to be placed in a community based corrections program; however, the statute does not provide that all offenders who meet these standards are entitled to such relief. State v. Taylor, 744 S.W.2d 919 (Tenn.Crim.App.1987).
T.C.A. Sec. 40-36-106(a)(4) sets forth one of the minimum criterion which, if the appellant fails to meet, renders him ineligible for community corrections. The language of the provision from the statute is as follows:
(4) Persons who are convicted of felony offenses in which the use or possession of a weapon was not involved;
It is our opinion that the appellant in the present case fails to meet this criterion, and he is ineligible for community corrections.
When the appellant was arrested in March 1989, he was maintaining two residences over which he had control. The officers of the Metro Narcotics Unit in Memphis executed a search warrant at the appellant's home on Parker Street. The record shows that the appellant lived there with a woman described as his common law wife and two children, and he had lived there for several years. At this residence officers found 8.4 grams of cocaine in a freezer; . 2 grams of cocaine in the bedroom; $29,900.00 in a drawer; $680.00 dollars in the headboard of a bed; and a .357 Magnum pistol in a closet. Marijuana was also found, and it appears that he was not charged with respect to this drug at that residence.
A search warrant was also issued for a house on East Trigg Street. The record shows that items found and seized at that location were 2.5 grams of cocaine inside a stereo speaker; 17 pounds of marijuana in a bedroom; a pair of triple beam scales in the bedroom closet; 732 grams of marijuana in the kitchen inside a stove;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Meeks, No. M2008-00556-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. 6/22/2009)
...of committing violent offenses; . . . . The trial court herein denied a community corrections sentence pursuant to State v. Grandberry, 803 S.W.2d 706 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990), because a weapon was involved in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section In Grandberry, this Court determined......
-
Galbreath v. State, No. M2003-02807-CCA-R3-PC (TN 1/19/2005)
...The Act does not provide that all offenders who meet these requirements are entitled to such relief. State v. Grandberry, 803 S.W.2d 706, 707 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). In determining if incarceration is appropriate, a trial court may consider the need to protect society by restraining a defe......
-
State v. Van Tucker
...requirements of the Community Correction Act, an offender is not automatically entitled to such relief. State v. Grandberry, 803 S.W.2d 706, 707 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990); see also State v. Taylor, 744 S.W.2d 919, 922 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). The trial court stated its reasons for denying Def......
-
State v. Davenport
...40-36-103. The Act does not provide that all offenders who meet these requirements are entitled to such relief. State v. Grandberry, 803 S.W.2d 706, 707 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). Indeed, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(d) provides that the eligibility criteria shall be interpreted as minimum sta......