### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs S ep te m be r 19, 200 7

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . WI LLI AM KEI TH G IL LUM

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty

No. 2005-D- 3312 Steve D ozier , Judge

No. M2006- 02734-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Fe bruary 7, 2008

Def endant, Wil liam Keith Gillum, was char g ed in count one of the indictment with first deg ree pr e me dit a te d mu

rd e r, and in co un t two wit

h ag g ra vate d ass a

ult . D e fe nd ant e nte re d a

be st i nte re st p l e a o f g u i l t y i nc o un t o n e t o t h e l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e o f v o l u n t ar

y m an s l a u g h t e r , a C l a s s C f

e l o n y, and the State dismissed count two of the indictment. F ollowing a sentenc ing he aring , the trial cour t sentenc ed Defenda

nt to seven y ear s. The trial court ordere d Def endant to serve three months in t he
c ounty wo rk ho us e , w ithDe fe nd ant p la c e d o n p ro batio n f or the ba lanc e of

his se nte nc e . O n a

pp e a l, Def endant c halleng es the leng th of his sentence , arguing that the trial court e rre d in the weig ht assig ned to the one enhanc ement fa ctor a nd the three mitigating fac tors. After a thoroug h revie w, we a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and J ERRY L. S MI TH , J J ., joined.

Gl e nn R. F un k, Na sh vil le , T e nn e sse e , f or the a pp e lla nt, Willi a m K e ithGi llum.
Rob e rt E. Co op e r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l and

Re po rt e r; L a c y

Wilb e r, As sis tant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Victor S. (Torr

y ) Johns on I I I , District Attorney Ge n er al ; and Pamela Sue A nderson, Assistant District Attorney

Gene ral, for

the appe llee, the State of Tenne ssee.
OP IN ION

I. Bac kgr ound

The tra nscript of the guilty plea submi ssion hear ing is not included in t he re cord. Se e Sta te
v . Keen , 996 S. W.2 d 8 42 , 8 44 (T e nn . Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ) ( ob se rv ingthat “ a tr ans c ri pt o f t

he g uil ty plea he aringis often (if n ot alway s) nee ded in orde r to conduc t a prope r re view of the sentenc e imposed”). None theless, we g leam fr om the rec ord that the off ense a rose out of a

n alterc ation on Aug ust 30, 2005, betwee n Def endant a nd the victim, J eff

ery Kevin R ay

ner, over Defenda

nt’s then-2-

fianc ee, N atalie Chipps. The victim died as a result of a

stab wound inflicted by

Def endant as the two men strug g led. On September

25, 2006, Def

endant e ntere d a best intere st plea of g uilty to the lesser included offe nse of voluntar

y manslaug hter, with the leng th a nd manner of service of his se ntence to be left to the trial court’ s determination. As part o f t h e p lea a g ree ment, Def endant wa ived the six -y ear se nte nc ingra

ng e lim it f

or a Rang e I , sta

nd ard of fe nd e r, c on vic te d of a Cla ss C f e lony , s e t f

or th i n Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40-35-112(a )(3)

. De fe n dant was thus subjec t to a term of imprisonment of betwee n three and fifte en y ear s. See T.C.A. § 40-35-111( b)(3)

.
II. Se nt e nc ing He ar ing First Serg eant Thoma s J . Lucas w ith the United States Army Reserve test i fi ed t h at he had been w ith the army

rese rve f or twenty -seve n y ear s. Serg eant L ucas said that the victim was assig ned to his unit in Septe mber 2004. The unit was de ploy ed to I raq in De cembe r 2004, and w as on leave in the United States at the time of the vic tim’s death in Aug ust 2005.

Se rg e ant L

uc a s des c ri be d the vic tim a s pro fe ssi on a l and a mbi tio us

. Th e un it w a s p la c e d in numerous stressf

ul situations whil e i n I ra q , and Serg eant L ucas sa id that the victim conducted himself in a profe ssional manner. Martin Ray

ner, the victim’s brother, testified that the vi ctim felt t hat i t was his duty to serve in I raq “ wi t h no questions, no qualms.” Mr. Ray ner’ s daug hter’s c lass exchang ed letter s with the members of

the victim’s unit, and Mr. Ray ner’ s son considere d the victim as his he ro. Mr. Ray ner said that he a

nd the victim spoke by

telephone in Jul y 2 0 0 5 , and discussed pla ns for the vic tim’s leave in Aug ust. All of the family was excited a bout the victim’s visit. Mr. Ray ner de scribed the devastating impac t the victim’s death had on the family , including the victim’s ten-y ear -old son. Dorothy Ray ner, the victim’s mother, testified that she met Ms. Chipps once in Dece mber 2004, befor e the victim was de ploy ed to I raq. Ms. Ray ner sa id that she and the vic tim corresponde d by e -m a i l w h i l e h e w a s i n I r a q , an d t h e v i c t i m “ w o u l d v e r y l i g h t l y t a l k a

b o u t ” M s

. C hip ps . M s. Ray ner sa id that on one occ asion, Ms. Ray ner took a

chec k to Ms. C h i p ps for re nt or some other
e x p e n s e a t t h e v i c t i m ’ s r e qu e s t

. M s

. R ayn e r s a i d t h e v i c t i m e
- m a i l e d h e r a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h r e e d a ys later a nd asked f

or the c heck numbe r and the n canc elled pay ment of the c heck.

Ms. Ra y ner said the victim e -mailed her that he would be in Na shville on Aug ust 29, 2005. On that day , t h e v i ct i m ca l led Ms. Ray ner at approxim ately

2:15 p.m. to get the dir ections to the Ray ners’ new house . Ms. Ray ner sa id that she did not hear f rom the victim ag ain, and a detec tive
w i t h t h e M e t r o N a s h v i l l e P o l i c e D e p art m e n t n o t i f i e d h e r o f t h e v i c t i m ’ s d e a t h o n t h e f o l l o w i n g d a y. Anita Ray

ner, the victim’s sister, rea d a letter from Willi am Keon Ra y ner, the victim’s son. Ke on wr ote that he mis se d h is f a the r a nd wi sh e d h e c ou ld s pe nd

tim e wi th him . K e on

wa nte d to te ll-3-

his father that he g ot a ll A’ s on his midterm examinations and score d twelve g oals during the socc er season. Ms. Ray

ner de scribed the impact the victim’s death had on her mother, Dorothy

Ray ner.
The de fense then put on its proof. L au ren Walker , Def endant’ s mother, testified that Def endant met Ms. Chipps at the end of J une 2005. Ms. Walker a nd De fe ndant discussed De fe nd ant’ s po ssi ble re la tio ns hip wi th M s. Chi pp s e ve n th ou g h M s. Chi pp s w a s o nly a pp ro xima te ly nineteen y ear s old. Ms. W alker said that Def

endant be g an datingMs. Ch i p p s o n J u l y 4, 2005. Def endant would stay

with Ms. Chi pps ever

y Monday night while Ms. Walker

watche d Def

endant’ s six- y e ar- old

dau g hte r. With in a

fe w w e e ks , D e fe nd ant a nd Ms. Chi pp s b e c a me e ng a g e d. Ms. Walker g ave he r approval t o her son’ s marria g e despite the ag e diffe renc e betwe en De fenda nt and Ms. Chipps. M s. Walker said that De fenda nt and M s. Chipps officially announce d their eng ag ement on Aug ust 27, 2005.

Ms. Walker said that she re ceive d a telephone call fr om Defe ndant on Aug ust 30, 2005, from the hospital. Defe ndant told her ab o u t h i s al t erc ation with the victim. Ms. W alker said that Def endant ha d a cut a cross his ey es an d bruises on his neck. Ms. Walker said that Def

endant returne d to work in his electr ical business af ter he was re lease d on bond.

Ms. Walker said that Def endant wa s in a ca

r ac cident in 1987 and sust ained injuries to the front of his forehea d. Def endant had surg ery to rec onstruct the bones in his fa ce a nd was told that he would be una

ble to sustain a sec ond fac ial i n j u ry . Ms. Walker ac knowledg ed the de pth of the Ray ners’ loss , b u t s h e said that Def endant wa s “a g ood person” who was ne eded by his daug hter. On cr oss-examination, Ms. Walker acknowledg ed that Def endant was separ ated, but not divorce d, fr om C hr ist ine Gi llum a t th e tim e he be c a me e ng a g e d to Ms. Chi pp s.
Wil liam Trac y

Har g rove, D efe ndan t ’s first cousin, testified that De fenda nt was a “ hard worke r” a nd had neve r see n him act violently towards a

nother pe rson.

Jame s L . Curt is, a Na sh vil le a tto rn e y , tes tif ie d tha t he r e c e ive d a

c a ll f ro m th e Gi llum f

a mil y a bo ut D e fe nd ant’ s arr e st. Mr . Cur tis we nt to the po lic e statio n to inte rv ie w D e fe nd ant. Mr . Curt is
sa id t hat D e fe nd ant h a d s ig nif ic ant b ru isi ngaro un d h is n e c k. On c ro ss- e xami natio n, Mr . Curt is acknow ledg ed that at the time of the incident he was repr esenting Def endant in his divorce and on
a pending ag g ravated assault char g e. On redire ct examination, Mr. Curtis said that the State entere d a nolo prosequi on the ag g ravated assault cha rg e. The State clar ified for the trial cour

t that the prior ag g ravated assault cha

rg e wa s dismis sed as pa

rt of De fenda

nt’s plea a g ree ment as t o t h e current
c ha rg e s.
Def enda n t t es t i fi ed in his own beha lf. He e x tended a n apolog y to the Ray

ner f amily and expressed his remorse over the victim’s death.

On cr oss-examination, Defenda nt said that the knife whic h was used in the killing be longe d to Ms. Chi pps. Ms. Chipps kept the k nife be tween the cushions of her couch f or protec tion. De fe nd ant s a id t

hat du ri ngthe a lte rc a tio n, the vic timpu sh e d h im a g a ins t the ba c k of the c ou c h w ith-4-

a stick held to his throat. De fenda nt said that he kept try

ing to br eathe and pulled out the knife

. Def endant wa ited a moment, but the victim did not relea se his hold. Defe ndant said that he swung the kni fe in a wide arc , demonstrating that the kni fe tra veled a cross the f

ront of his body

and over his sh ou lde r. De fe nd ant a c kn ow le dg e d that the kn if e ma de a te n- inc h sla sh on the vic tim ’s c he st. De fe nd ant d id n ot r e mem be r i nf lic tin g the fa

ta l st a b w ound to t he vic tim ’s c he st. De fe nd ant s a id that afte r the stabbing , he ca lled the 911 oper ator a nd admin i s t er ed C PR t o the victim until t he
emer g ency

medical pe rsonnel ar

rived.

I n r e sp on se to the tr ia l c ourt ’s qu e sti on s, De fe nd ant a c kn ow le dg e d th a t he wa s st ill le g a lly marrie d when he beca

me eng ag ed to Ms. Chipps bec ause Ms. Gillum would not come to Te nnessee to s ig n th e ne c e ssa

ry pa pe rs to f ina lize the div or c e . D e fe nd ant e xpla ine d that Ms. Chi pp s tol d h im that she had only met the vi ctim two or t hree times, and that she did not know why the victim kept
wr iti ngto h e r. De fe nd ant a c kn ow le dg e d th at fro m hi s p e rs pe c tiv e , th e re wa s n o r e la tio ns hip be tw e e n th e vic timand

Ms. Chi pp s.
At the c on c lus ion

of the se nte nc ing he ari ng , the tr ia l c ourt fo un d De fe nd ant’ s us e of a de a dly
wea pon during the commission of the offe nse as a n enhancement factor a

nd assig ned the f

actor

“ g r e at w e ig ht.” See T.C.A. § 40-35-114( 9). As mitigating f actor s, the trial cour

t found that Def endant a cted unde r strong provoca t i o n as evide nced by the testimony

conce rning his injuries immediately

afte r the a ltercation, and the fa ct that Def enda n t h ad ca lled the 911 oper ator a nd perf ormed CPR unti l help arr ived. Se e id . § 40-35-113( 2), (13)

. The trial c ourt also found that mit ig a tin g fa c tor

(1 1) , De fe nd ant c omm itt e d the c ri me un de r su c h unus ua l c ir c ums tanc e s that it is unlikely that a sustained intent to violate the law motivated the c riminal conduct, would a pply but fac tored this consideration in with factor (2)

. Se e id . § 40 -3 5- 11 3( 11 ). Th e tr ia l c ourt no te d th a t it
a lso “ pla c e d g re a t w e ig ht” on the tw o a pp lic a ble mit ig a tin g fa c tor s.
The trial court found t hat Defenda nt was a n appropr iate ca

ndidate for

alternative sentenc ing
a ft e r a pe ri od of c on fi ne me nt. Th e tr ia l c ourt fo un d th a t it

c ou ld n ot:

based on the proof before it, deter mine why the defendant and victim were a rg uing to the extent t h ey we re othe r than their mutual f riendship with Ms. Chipps. The Court mus t i m p ose a just sentenc e under the law a fter a

pply ing the pertinent sentenc ing fac tor. The Court pla ces g reat weig ht on the use of a wea pon. Wit hout the us e of a kn if

e , the re may no t hav e be e n a homi c ide

. Th e los s of a l if e wa s to ta lly
un c a l l e d f o r u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t an c e s

. T h e C o urti s o f t h e o p i n i o nt h a ta

s p lit confine ment sentenc e is nec essar y to avoid depre ciating the seriousne ss of the of fe ns e s. III. Sentencing Iss ues
Def endant a rg ues that his sentenc e of se ven y ear s is e x cessive beca use the trial cour

t failed to pr operly weig h the one enhanc ement fac tor and the three mitigating fac tors. Def endant c oncede s that the tri al court’s application of e nhance ment fac tor (2) w as prope r, but he submits that the-5-

applicable mitigating fac tors balanc e out the neg ative ef fec t of the one e nhance ment fac tor so that
a mo re ap p ro p ri ate se ntence would be thre e y ear s, or the minimum sentence f or a Class C felony
co n v i ct i o n. The State a rg ues that under

the 2005 amendme nts to the 1989 Sentencing Act, a defe ndant is prec luded from ap p el l ate review of the weig ht assigne d to any enhanc ement and mitigating fac tors deeme d appropr iate by the trial cour

t in its sentenc ing de terminations.

Th e Te nn e sse e Ge ne ra l A sse mbl y re c e ntl y a me nd e d t

h e 1 9 8 9 Se nte nc ingAc t, w hic h b e c a me eff ective on June 7, 2005, and a pplies to defe ndants who commi t a criminal offense on or af ter the eff ective date (the “ Amended A ct”) . 2005 Tenn. Pub. Ac ts ch. 353, § 18. The de termination of the leng th and manner of service of Def endant’ s sentenc e for the of fense committed on Aug ust 30, 2005, is thus subj ect to the 1989 Sentenc ing A ct as amended in 2005.

Whe n a de fe nd ant ch a lle ng e s the le ng th or the mann e r o f s e rv ic e of

his or he r s e nte nc e , th is Court must conduct a de novo revie w wit h a presumption that the determinations made by the trial
c ourt are c or

re c t. T. C.A . § 40 -3 5- 40 1( d) ; Sta te v . I mf e ld , 70 S.W. 3d 69 8, 70 4 (T e nn

. 20 02 ). Th is presumption, howeve r, is c ontinge nt upon an aff irmative showing in the rec ord that the trial cour t considere d the s entenc ing principles and all releva nt fac ts and circ umstances. State v. Pe ttus , 986 S.W .2d 540, 543-44 (Te nn. 1999). I f the re cord f ails to show such consider ation, the re view of the
s e n t e n c e i s p u r e l y de novo. State v . Shelton , 854 S.W .2d 116, 123 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992)

. The Ame nded Ac t require s the trial cour t to consider, but not be bound by , cer tain advisory g uidelines to arr ive at an a ppropriate sentenc e, which is then subjec t to appellate revie w. T.C.A. § 40-35-210( c). In making its sentencing deter minations the trial court m ust consider: (1) the evide nce prese nted at the se ntencinghear ing; (2) the prese ntence repor t; ( 3) the principles of sentenc ing a nd
argume nts a s to se nte nc inga lte rn a tiv e s; ( 4) the natur e and c ha ra c te ri sti c s o f t

he c ri min a l c on du c t; (5) any appropr iate enhance ment and mi tigating factors; (6) and statistical information provide d by the administrative off

ice of the cour ts as to sentenc ing pr actice s for similar off enses in Te nnessee ; and (7 ) a ny state me nts ma de by

De fe nd ant i n h is o wn

be ha lf . T .C. A. § 4 0- 35 -2 10 ; State v. W illiams , 92 0 S. W.2 d 247 , 258 (T e nn . Crim . App . 199 5) . The de fe nd ant b e ars the burd e n o f s ho wi ngthat hi s se nte nc e is i mpr op e r. T. C.A . § 40 -3 5- 40 1( d) , Se nte nc ingCom mis sio n Co mme nts ; State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991)

.
Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40-35-401(b)( 200 6 ) p ro v ides that a de fenda nt may
c ha lle ng e his or

he r s e nte nc e on

a pp e a l up on

the fo llo wi ngg ro un ds : (1) The sentenc e wa s not imposed in accor dance with this chapter; (2) The sentenc e is excessive under the sentenc ing considerations set out in §§ 40-35- 102 and 40-35- 210; or (3) The sentenc e is inconsistent with the purpose of sentenc ing set out in §§ 40-35- 102 and 40-35- 103.-6-

Prior t o 2005, Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40-35-401(b) ( 2003) stated, “ An appe al from a se ntence may

be on one ( 1) o r m o re o f the followingg rounds: (1) The sentenc e wa s not imposed in a ccor dance with this cha pter; or ( 2) The enhance ment and mitigating factors w ere not
we igh e d p ro

pe rly , and the se ntence is ex cessive unde r the sente ncing considerations set out in § 40- 35-103.” T.C.A. § 40- 35-401(b) (2003) ( emphasis adde d). The 2005 a mendment t h u s deleted appellate revie w of the w eig ht assigne d by th e t ri al cour

t to any applicable enhanc ement and mitigating fac tors. See State v . TerrencePatterson , N o

. W2 0 0 5

- 0 1 638-CCA- R3

- CD , 2 0 0 7 WL 27 00 16 0, a t *10 (T e nn . Crim . App ., a t J a c ks on , Sep t. 1 7, 20 07 ); perm. to appeal filed (Tenn. N ov. 16, 2007) (noting that “[t] he fa ct that the Ge nera l As s em b ly deleted the lang uag e re g ardingthe weig hing of

enhanc ement and mitigating f actor s demonstrates that the G ener al Assembly intended that a def endant may

no longe r alleg e as g rounds for r elief on a ppeal that the se ntencingcourt
e rr on e ou sly

we ig he d s e nte nc inge nh anc e me nt f a c tor s) ; see also State v. D evin Bank s , No. W2005- 02213-CCA-R3-CD, 2007 WL 1966039, at *48 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, J uly 6, 2007), perm. to appeal filed

(Tenn. July

17, 2007).
Thus, a cha lleng e to the we ighingproces s en gaged in by the trial cour

t in its sentenc ing deter minations will not affor d relief to the def

en d ant on appeal, unless the sente nce is e x cessive under the sentenc ing c onsiderations set forth in sections 40-35-102 and 40-35-210, or the sente nce is inconsistent with t he purpose of sentenc ing se t out in sections 40-35-102 and 40- 35-103. T.C.A. § 40-35-401( b). That is, the re cord must ref lect that the trial court c onsidered those enhanc ement and mitigating fac tors it de emed applicable , and the trial court, in dete rmining the specific sentenc e, considere d th e n at u re an d char acte ristics of the cr ime and the c hara cter and bac kg round of the defe ndant, a n d im

p o s e d a s e n te n c e w h ic h is n o t in c o n s is te n t w it h th e p r in c ip le s an d p u r

p o s es of sentenc ing. See T.C.A. § 40-35-210( b), (d)

. The re cord r evea ls that the trial court c onsidered the enhanc em en t and mitigating f actor s suppo rte d b y th e r e c o r d , an d p la c e d s ig n if ic an t w e ig h t o n th e u s e o f a d e a d ly w e a p o n d u ring the commission of the offe nse. Thus, the re cord r evea ls that the trial court co nsidered the nature and char acte ristics of the criminal conduct involved, Def endant’ s history and bac kg round, the mitigating and enhanc ement fa ctors adva nced by the par ties, and the princ iples of sentenc ing. See T.C.A. § 40- 35-210(b) , (d).

Def endant was convicted of a Class C felony with a sentenc ing r ang e of be tween thr ee a nd fifte en y e ars . T .C. A. § 4 0- 35 -1 11 (b )( 3) . B a se d o n o ur re vie w, a

se nte nc e of

se ve n y e a rs is
rea sonab le an d ju s ti f

ie d c o n s id e r in g th e r e le v an t p r in c ip le s o f s e n te n c in g , a s w e ll a s the circ umstances of

both Defe ndant and the of fense . Def

endant is not entitled to relief on this iss ue.
CO NC LU SION

After a thoroug h revie w, the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODAL L , J UDGE