APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The appellant, Phillip Mangrum, pled guilty in the Criminal Court of Sumner County to aggravated burglary, a class C felony. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-403 (1991). The trial court sentenced the appellant as a multiple offender within range II to eight years incarceration in the Department of Correction. The appellant appeals from this sentence, contending, in essence, that (1) the appellant’s status as a multiple offender is not supported by the record; (2) the State’s notice of enhanced sentencing was inadequate under the Sentencing Act and Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12.3; and (2) his sentence is excessive.

This appeal represents three consolidated cases. The defendant pled guilty to three counts of forgery, one count of theft over one thousand dollars ($1000), two counts of passing a forged check, and one count of passing a worthless check. For each count of forgery and passing a forged check, the trial court sentenced the defendant to three years in the Department of Correction as a Range II multiple offender. For the theft offense, the trial court sentenced her to three years in the Department of Correction as a Range I standard offender. For passing a worthless check, the trial court sentenced her to eleven months and twenty-nine days at seventy-five percent (75%) to be served in the Sumner County jail. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The appellee, Graple Simpson, was indicted for possession of a schedule II narcotic with the intent to sell. Following a summary administrative forfeiture, the appellee moved the trial court to dismiss the criminal charge. She argued that the double jeopardy clause prohibited further criminal prosecution. The trial judge granted the appellee's motion and the state appealed. We reverse and remand.

The defendant, Derek C. Denton, appeals as of right from his convictions by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court for aggravated burglary and aggravated assault, Class C felonies, and criminally negligent homicide, a Class E felony. As a Range I, standard offender, he received six-year sentences and was fined $10,000 for each of the aggravated burglary and aggravated assault convictions and a two-year sentence and $2,500 fine for the criminally negligent homicide conviction. The defendant was ordered to serve each sentence consecutively, for an effective sentence of fourteen years, in the local workhouse. The defendant presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's convictions; (2) whether the trial court properly charged the jury on circumstantial evidence; (3) whether the trial court properly charged the jury on the prosecution's burden of proof; and (4) whether the defendant's sentence was excessive.  We conclude that the trial court erred in ordering the defendant to serve his sentences consecutively. The trial court did not make sufficient findings, and the record does not support consecutive sentences. There is no indication from the circumstances surrounding the offenses that consecutive sentencing is necessary to protect society from the defendant or that upon release he will be unwilling to lead a productive life and resort to criminal activity. See id; Gray v. State, 538 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tenn. 1976). In consideration of the foregoing, the defendant's convictions and sentences for aggravated burglary and criminally negligent homicide are affirmed. His conviction for aggravated assault is modified to assault, and a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days with a seventy-five percent release eligibility date imposed. All three sentences, though, shall be served concurrently to each other.

The appellant, Terry Bowen, was convicted of theft over $1,000, a Class D felony, by a jury of his peers. The trial court found that the appellant was a multiple offender and imposed a Range II sentence consisting of confinement for eight (8) years in the Department of Correction. This sentence is to be served consecutively with the sentences imposed in three prior cases.