### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE ATJAC KSON A ssi gne d onBrie fs N ove m be r 10, 200 9 STATE OF TENNESS EE v . DAVID F. HENNING
D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e C ircu it C o u rt fo r D y er C o u n ty N o. 08- C R
- 38 R uss el l L ee M oore, Jr. , Judge

N o. W 2009- 00758- C C A
- R 3- C D - F i l ed F ebruary 12, 2010

T h e d e f e n d a n t, D a v id F ra n k li n H e n n in g , w a s c o n v icte d b ya D y e r C o u n tyju ryo f sim p le po sses si on of co cai ne, a C l ass A m i sdem eano r, and t am peri ng w i t h ev i den c e , a C l ass C fel ony . H e w as s ubs equent l ys ent ence d as a car eeroffe ndert o concurr ents ent ence s of el even mont hs and tw enty - ni ne day s and fi ft een y ear s . O n appea l , he r ai s es t w o i s s ues for our r evi ew : ( 1) w hethert he evi dence w as s uffi ci entt o s uppor thi s convi ct i on fort amper i ng w ith ev iden ce ; and (2) w h ethe r he w a s in a p p ro p ri atelysen tenc ed as a ca ree r of fe n d er. F o llo w in g re v iew o f

th e re c o rd , w e f

in d n o e rro r a n d a f

f irm th e ju d g m e n ts of th e trial c o u rt.
T enn. R . A pp. P . 3 A ppeal as of R i ght ; Judgm ent s of

t he C i rcui t C ourt A f

f i rm ed
J OH N E VERETT W I L L I AMS , J

. , del i ver ed the opi ni on of the C our t , i n w hi ch R OB ER T W. W EDE MEY ERa n d J

. C. M C L IN , J J

. , j oi ned.
J ames E. L ani er , D i s t r i ctPubl i c D efe nder , and H

. T od T ay l or , A s s i s t ant Publ i c D efe nder , for th e a p p e lla n t, D a v id F . H e n n in g . R ober tE

. C ooper , J r . , A t t or neyG ener al and R epor t er ; C amer on L

. H y der , A s s i s t antA t t or ney G ener al ; C

. Phi l l i p Bi v e n s , D i s t r i ctA t t orneyG ener al ; and K ar en W

. B urns , A s s i s t antD i s tr i ct A t t or neyG ener al , fort he appe l l ee, St at e of Tennes s ee. OP I NI ON
Fac t ualBackg r ound O ffi cerShaw n C r ouch w i t h the D y er s bur g Pol i ce D epart m entw as on r out i ne patr ol i n an ar ea know n forhi gh drug act i vi t y w hen he obs erved t he def endant ’ s vehi cl e s t op i n the m i ddl e of the r oadw aynextt o anotherv eh i cl e. O ffi cerC r ouch furt herobs erved thatt he d r i v e r s o f

t h e t wo v e h i c l e s r e a c h e d t h r o u g h th e wi n d o ws a n d e x c h a n g e d s o me t h i n g . He-2-

pr ocee ded t o fol l ow the defe ndant ’ s vehi cl e and, upon obs ervi ng hi m r ol l t hr ough a s t op s i gn and det erm i ni ng t hatt he def endantw as t r avel i ng appr oxi m at el yfi ft een t o tw entym i l es per h o u r o v e r t h e p o s te d s p e e d lim it, a c tiv a te d h is b lu e lig h ts to in itia te a tr a f f ic s to p . O ff icer C rou ch ap p roa ch ed the v eh icl e an d saw the d ef en d an t l ea n o u t of

the d ri v er’s s i de w i ndow and pl ace hi s r i ght arm on the door , w hi l e kee pi ng hi s l eftarm i n the ca routof O ffi cerC r ouch’ s vi ew . W hi l e O ffi cerC r ouch w as sp ea ki ng w i t h the def endant , the defe ndantcont i nued t o keep hi s l eftarm “dow n t ow ar d t he s i de” o f t he s eat , w hi ch r ai s ed O f fi cerC r ouch’ s s us pi ci ons . U pon bei ng as ked t o pr oduce hi s dr i ver ’ s l i cens e, the def endant at t empt ed t o r etr i eve i tfr om hi s w al l et us i ng onl y hi s r i ghthand. B eca us e he obs erved that t he def endant ’ s l efthand w as cl enche d, O ffi cerC r ouch as ked hi m w hatw as i n hi s hand. T he d e f e n d a n t r e s p o n d e d tw ic e th a t h e h a d “ n o th in g ,” b u t ev e n tu a lly lif te d h is h a n d “ re a l q u ic k ,” and O ffi cerC r ouch s aw “a li ght erand a s m al l w hi t e r ock, ” w hi ch he be l i eved t o be cr ack c o c a i n e . T h e d e f

e n d a n td e n i e d t o Of

f i c e r Cr o u c h t h a t i t wa s c o c a i n e , b u th e r e a c h e d d o wn b e tw e e n h is le g s w ith h is le f t h a n d , th re w h is w a llet, th e n re a c h e d b e tw e e n h is le g s w ith h is r i ghthand, and appear ed t o be ei t her “gr abbi ng” or “crus hi ng” som ethi ng. O ffi cerC r ouch agai n as ked t o s ee the def endant ’ s hands , but t he defe ndantkepthol di ng them dow n. A tt hat poi nt , O ffi cerC r ouch gr abbed the def endant ’ s arm beca us e he di d notknow i f the def endant w as arm ed orw as t r y i ng t o des t r oyevi dence of cr ack c ocai ne i n the vehi cl e. W hen O ffi cer C ro u c h g ra b b e d th e d e f e n d a n t’ s h a n d s , th e d e f

e n d a n t “ c a m e c ra w lin g o u t o f th e w in d o w .” H e i ni t i al l yat t empt ed t o keep the def endanti ns i de the vehi cl e, butt he def enda n tw as in s is te n t u p o n g e ttin g o u t. A ft ert he def

endantw as out s i de the vehi cl e, he and O ffi cerC r ouch stru g g le d. T he d e f e n d a n t re a c h e d b a c k in sid e th e c a r to g ra b th e c o c a in e th a t w a s s itt in g o n th e d riv e r’s se a t. T h e s t ru g g l e c o n t i n u e d u n t i l O f f i c e rC r o u c h s u b d u e d t h e d e f e n d a n tw i t h p e p p e rs p r a y. A ft erw ar ds , offi cer s found . 08 gr ams of cr ack c ocai ne i ns i de the ca r . T he off i cer s s t at ed that m uch of i thad got t en out s i de t he vehi cl e and t hat t hey w er e unabl e t o col l ect i tbeca us e of th e w in d yc o n d itio n s . B as ed upon thes e ac t i ons , t he defe ndantw as i ndi ct ed bya D y erC ount ygr and j ur yfor p o sses si on of cocaine great er t han 0. 5 gram s w i t h i ntent t o s el l or deli ver, t am perin g w ith evi dence , and re s i s t i ng arr es t

. A t t he subs equent j ury t r i al , t he defenda nt t es t i fi ed t haton t he dayof the i nci dent , he w as i n pos s es s i on of crac k coca i ne val ued atappr oxi m at el yfi ve d o llars , b u t h e d e n ied th a t h e in ten d e d to se ll it. H e tes tifie d th a t h e h a d th e c o c a in e in h is hand unt i l O ffi cer C r ouch gr abbed hi m , at w hi ch poi nt i t fel l t o t he fl oor . T he def endantw as i ns i s t entt hathe di d nott amper w i t h anyevi dence

. H e furt heras s ert ed thatO ffi cerC r ouch w a s try in g to c a u se h im “ b o d ilyh a rm ” d u r in g th e e x c h a n g e a n d th a t h e w a s a ttem p tin g to retri eve h i s w al l etw hen he fe l l back i nto the car. A video t ape o f t he en t i re i ncidentw as al so a d m itte d in to e v id e n c e .-3-

A f ter h e a rin g th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted , the ju ryf o u n d th e d e f

e n d a n t g u iltyo f

sim p le pos s es s i on of coc ai ne and t amper i ng w i t h evi dence

. T he ch arge of r es i s t i ng arr es tw as di s m i s s ed af

t ert he j ur yw as unabl e t o r eac h a ver di ct

. A t t he subs equents ent enci ng hear i ng, t he pr e s e n t e n c e r e p o r twas a d mi t t e d wi t h o u ts p e c i f i c o b j e c t i o n b yth e d e f

e n d a n t , a l t hough t ri al cou nsel did note that the d efen dan tdid no t r e c a ll bei ng con vict ed o f cert ai n o ffen ses. T h e d e f e n d a n t w a s th e n se n ten c e d a s a c a re e r o f f e n d e r to f if tee n y e a rs f

o r th e tam p e rin g w ith e v i d e n c e c o n v i c t i o n a n d t o e l e v e n mon t h s a n d t wen t y - n i n e d a y s f o rt h e pos s es s i on convi ct i on. T he t r i al cour t fur t her or der ed t hat t he t w o s ent ence s w er e to b e se r ved c o n c u rre n tlyto e a c h o th e r b u t co n se c u tiv e lyto a p re v io u s c o n v ictio n f o r a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt. F o llo w in g th e d e n ial o f

h is m o tio n f

o r n e w trial, th e d e f

e n d a n t f iled th e in sta n t ti m e lya p p e a l.
A n a ly sis O n appea l , t he def

endanthas r ai s ed tw o i s s ues forour r evi ew . Fi r s t , he cont ends t hat th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted is n o t su f f ic ien t to su p p o rt h is c o n v ictio n f o r ta m p e rin g w ith evi dence

. Second, he as s er t s t hatt he tr i al cour ti m pos ed an e xces s i ve s ent ence bas ed upon th e f a c t th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t d id n o t q u a lif

yto b e s e n te n c e d a s a c a re e r o f f e n d e r. I . Suff i ci ency of t he E vi dence
F irst, th e d e f

e n d a n t co n ten d s th a t th e S tate f a iled to p re se n t su f

f icie n t ev id e n c e to s uppor thi s convi ct i on for t amper i ng w i t h evi dence

. Speci fi cal l y , he cont ends t hat“[i ] f the offi cer ’ s t es t i m ony[thatt he def endanthad a s i gni fi cantamount of co ca ine w hi ch he w as crum bl i ng betw een hi s l egs ] i s t o be bel i eved,

. . . ei t hercrum bs orr es i due, w oul d have be en f o u n d i n e i t h e rt h e f

r o n ts e a to rf

l o o rb o a r d i f

th e f a c t s we r e a s t h e o f

f i c e rd e s c r i b e d

. ” He fur t heras s er t s t hat “[t ] he onl y l ogi cal concl us i on t hat can be dra w n aft er s eei ng on t ape the amount of t i m e t hat t he D efe ndant w as abl e t o r eac h back i nt o t he cari s t hatt he D efe ndant h a d o n ly o n e sm a ll p iec e o f c ra c k c o c a in e f

o r h is p e rso n a l u se w h ich w a s k n o c k e d f ro m h is hand w hen the off

i cergr abbed hi m . ”
In co n side ri n g the i ssu e of su ff ici en cy o f th e ev iden ce , w e ap p ly the rule th at w h ere the s u ff ici en cy o f the ev iden ce is c h all en g ed , the re leva n t qu esti o n fo r th e re v iew ing co u rt is “ w h e th e r, a f

te r v ie w in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o ra b le to th e [ S ta te ], any r at i onal tr ie r o f f a c t co u ld h a v e f

o u n d th e e s s e n tia l e le m e n ts o f th e c ri m e b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t.” J a c k so n v . V irg in ia , 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 (1 9 7 9 ); see al so T en n . R

. A p p . P

. 1 3 (e). M o reo v er, th e S tate is e n tit led to th e stro n g e st le g iti m a te v iew o f th e e v id e n c e a n d a ll rea s o n a b le in f e re n c e s w h ic h m a yb e d ra w n th e re f ro m . S ta te v . H

a rr is , 8 3 9 S

. W

. 2 d 5 4 , 7 5 (T en n . 1 9 9 2 ). A l l q u esti o n s inv ol vi ng t he cr edi bi l i t yof w i t nes s es , t he w ei ghtand val ue t o be gi ven the e v id e n c e , a n d a ll f

a c tu a l is s u e s a re re s o lv e d b y th e tr ie r o f f a c t. Stat e v. P appas , 754 S. W

. 2d 620, 623 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1987)

. T hi s cour tw i l l notr ew ei gh orr eeva l uat e the evi dence-4-

p re s e n te d

. Stat e v. C abbage , 5 7 1 S

. W

. 2 d 8 3 2 , 8 3 5 (T en n . 1 9 7 8 ).
“A gui l t yver di ctbyt he j ur y , appr oved byt he tr i al j udge, acc r edi t s t he t es t i m onyof the w i t nes s es fort he St at e and r es ol ves al l confl i ct s i n favorof the theory o f t he St at e. ” S ta te v. G r ace , 493 S. W

. 2d 474, 476 ( T enn. 1973)

. A j uryconvi ct i on r emoves the pr es um pt i on of inno cence w i t h w hich a defen dan ti s i nit i al l y cl oak ed and r eplaces i tw i t h o ne o f gu i l tso th a t, on a p p e a l, a c o n v icte d d e f e n d a n t h a s th e b u rd e n o f d e m o n stra tin g th a t th e e v id e n c e is in s u f f ic ie n t. S ta te v . T

u g g le , 6 3 9 S .W .2 d 9 1 3 , 9 1 4 (T e n n . 1 9 8 2 ). T h e se ru les a re a p p lica b le to f in d in g s o f g u il t pred icated u p o n d ir ec t evid en ce , circu m stan ti al ev iden ce , o r a c o m b in a tio n o f

b o th

. S ta t e v . M

a t th e ws , 8 0 5 S

. W

. 2 d 7 7 6 , 7 7 9 (T en n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ).
T h e d e f e n d a n t w a s c o n v icte d o f tam p e rin g w ith e v id e n c e , w h ich is d e f in e d in T e n n e ss e e C o d e A n n o tate d se c tio n 3 9 -1 5 -5 0 3 (a ). T h e sta tu te, in re lev a n t p a rt, state s th a t:

I t i s unl aw ful foranyper s on, know i ng thatan i nves t i gat i on oroffi ci al p ro c e e d in g is p e n d in g o r in p ro g re ss , to: ( 1) A l t er , des t r oy , or conce al any r ecor d, documentort hi ng w ith in ten t to im p a ir its v e rity , leg ib ili ty , o r a v a ilab ili ty a s e v id e n c e in th e in v e s tig a tio n o r o f f ic ia l p ro c e e d in g [ .]
T .C .A . § 3 9 -1 5 -5 0 3 (a ) (2 0 0 6 ). A re a d in g o f th e d e f e n d a n t’s a rg u m e n t re v e a ls th a t h e is ch a ll en g ing the c red ibil ityo f O ff icer C rou ch ’s t esti m o n yb ase d u p o n the d ef en d an t’ s as s er t i on t hatt he off

i cer ’ s t es t i m onyw as notl ogi cal bas ed upon the evi dence found att he s cene . H ow ever , as not ed numer ous t i m es by t hi s cour t , i t i s not our pr ovi nce t o r ew ei gh or r eeva l uat e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i ons ma d e b ya j u r y . I n t hi s cas e, O ffi cerC r ouch’ s t es t i m ony w as p u t b ef

o r e the j ur y , w ho, bas ed upon thei rfi ndi ng of gui l t , obvi ous l yacc r edi t ed the te s tim o n yg iv e n , a d e c is io n w h ic h th is c o u rt w ill n o t d is tu rb

. B ase d u p o n the re co rd b ef o re u s, w e co n clud e that the e v iden ce p rese n ted w as m o re t han s uffi ci entt o s uppor tt he j ur y ’ s fi nding thatthe def endant , w hi l e aw ar e thatan in v e stig a tio n w a s b e in g c o n d u c ted , “ a ltere d , d e stro y e d , o r co n c e a led ” e v id e n c e w h ich c o u ld have be en us ed aga i ns thi m . O ffi cerC r ouch t es t i fi ed that , d u ri n g the cour s e of a pr oper tra f f ic s to p , h e a p p ro a c h e d th e d e f e n d a n t’s v e h icle a n d o b se rv e d th e d e f e n d a n t k e e p in g h is l eftarm dow n and i ns i de t he vehi cl e. U pon ques t i oni ng, t he defenda nt eventual l yr evea l ed a l i ght erand a r ock of c r ack c ocai ne i n hi s l eft h an d. T he off i cert es t i fi ed thathe then obs erved t he defe ndant l ow er hi s hands and begi n crus hi ng t he coc ai ne i ns i de the ca r . W hen th e o f f ice r g ra b b e d th e d e f

e n d a n t’s a r m , the d e f

e n d a n t b e g a n to stru g g le a n d e v e n tu a lly emer ged thr ough t he w i ndow of t he car

. D ur i ng t he al t er cat i on, the def endantr eac hed bac k i ns i de the ca rand gra bbed t he cocai ne w hi ch, acc or di ng t o the off i cer , fl ew outthe w i ndow-5-

d u e to w in d yc o n d iti o n s. B a se d u p o n th is te stim o n y , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e re c o rd su p p o rts th e c o n v ic tio n . I I . Se nt e nc i ng N ext , t he defenda nt cont ends t hat he re cei ved an exce s s i ve s ent ence bas ed upon the t r i al cour t ’ s cons i der at i on of hi m as a ca r eeroffe nder

. Speci fi cal l y , he cont ends t hatof the e ig h t to tal p rio r f

e lo n ies o n h is re c o rd , “th re e o f th e p rio r f

e lo n ies h a v e th e sa m e o f f e n se d a te and as s uch ar e cons i der ed one ( 1) fel ony ” and t hat a j udgm entof convi ct i on form forone o f th e re m a in in g f

e lo n ie s is n o t sig n e d b yth e ju d g e . A s s u c h , h e c o n ten d s th a t h e sh o u ld have be en s ent ence d as a R ange I I I offe nderbeca us e the St at e has fai l ed t o es t abl i s h thathe h a s th e re q u is ite s ix f

e lo n ie s re q u ir e d to b e s e n te n c e d a s a c a re e r o f f e n d e r. O n appea l , t he part ychal l engi ng t he s ent ence i m pos ed by t he t r i al courthas the bur den of es t abl i s hi ng t hatt he s ent ence i s err oneous . T

. C

. A

. § 40- 35- 401 ( 2006) , Sent encing C o m m ’n C o m m e n ts; se e a lso S ta te v . A rn e tt , 49 S. W

. 3d 250, 257 ( T enn. 2001)

. W hen a defe ndantchal l enges t he l ength, r ange, or m anner of s ervi ce of a s ent ence , i ti s the dutyof t hi s cour tt o conducta de novo r evi ew o n the rec or d w i t h a pr es um pt i on t hatt he det erm i nat i ons m ade by t he cour tfr om w hi ch the appe al i s t aken a r e corr ect

. T

. C

. A

. § 40- 35- 401( d)

. H ow ever , t hi s pr es um pt i on “i s condi t i oned upon the af fi r m at i ve s how i ng i n t he r ecor d t hatt he tr i al cour tcons i der ed the s ent enci ng pr i nci pl es and al l r el evantfac t s and ci r cumst ance s . ” S ta t e v . Pe t t us , 9 8 6 S .W .2 d 5 4 0 , 5 4 3 -4 4 (T e n n . 1 9 9 9 ); s ee al s o Stat e v. C ar t er , 2 5 4 S

. W

. 3 d 3 3 5 , 3 4 4 -4 5 (T en n . 2 0 0 8 ). If o u r rev iew ref lects th at th e tri al co u rt fai l ed t o cons i dert he s ent enci ng pr i nci pl es and al l r el evan tfac t s and ci r cumst ance s , t hen r e v i e w o f t h e c h a l l e n g e d s e n t e n c e i s p u r e l y de novo w i t ho ut the p res um pti on of co rr ect ness. Stat e v. A s hby , 8 2 3 S .W .2 d 1 6 6 , 1 6 9 (T e n n . 1 9 9 1 ); s ee al s o C ar t er , 254 S. W

. 3d at344- 45. I n conduct i ng a de novo r evi ew of a s ent ence , thi s cou rt m u st c ons i der : ( a) the evi dence adduce d at t he t r i al and t he sent enci ng hear i ng; ( b) t he pre s ent ence r epor t ; ( c) the pr i nci pl es of s ent enci ng and ar gum entas t o the s ent enci ng al t ernat i ves ; ( d) t he natur e and char act er i s t i cs of the cr i m i nal conducti nvol ved; ( e) evi dence and i nform at i on offe r ed byt he par t i es o n the enha ncementand mi t i gat i ng fac t or s s etfor t h i n T ennes s ee Code A nnot at ed s ect ion s 40- 35- 113 and 40- 35- 114; ( f) anys t at i s t i cal i nform at i on pr ovi ded byt he A dm i nis t rat i ve O ffi ce of t he C ou rt s as t o Te nn e s s e e s e nt e ncing pract i ces for si m i l ar offenses; and ( g) anys t at ement t he def endantw i s hes t o m ake i n t he def endant ’ s ow n behal f about s e n te n c in g . T .C .A . § 4 0 -3 5 -2 1 0 (b ) (2 0 0 6 ); s ee al s o C ar t er , 2 5 4 S .W .3 d a t 3 4 3 ; S ta t e v. Im feld , 7 0 S

. W

. 3 d 6 9 8 , 7 0 4 (T en n . 2 0 0 2 ).
T enn essee C od e A nn otat ed sect i on 40 -35-108 (2006 ) s t at es as fol l ow s: ( a) A “ca r eeroffe nder ” i s a def endantw ho has r ece i ved:-6- ( 1) A nycombi nat i on of s i x ( 6) orm or e C l as s A , B , orC pr i orfel ony c o n v ic tio n s , a n d th e d e f e n d a n t’ s c o n v ic tio n o f

f e n s e is a C la s s A , B o rC f e l o n y; (2) A tl eastt hree (3) C l ass A or anycom binat i on of f ou r ( 4) C l ass A orC l ass B fel onyconvi ct i ons i f the def endant ’ s convi ct i on offe ns e i s a C l as s A orB fel ony ; or (3 ) A t lea st s ix (6 ) p rio r fe lo n y c o n v ictio n s o f a n yc las sif

ica tio n if th e d e f e n d a n t’ s c o n v ic tio n o f

f e n s e is a C la s s D o r E f e lo n y . I n det erm i ni ng t he numberof pr i orconvi ct i ons a def endanthas r ece i ved: (1 ) “ P rio r c o n v ictio n ” m e a n s a c o n v ictio n f o r a n o f f e n se o c c u rrin g p rio r to t he comm i s s i on of the off ens e forw hich t he def endanti s bei ng s ent ence d: (2 ) A ll p rio r f

e lo n yc o n v ictio n s in c lu d in g th o se o c c u rrin g p rio r to N ovember1, 1989, ar e i ncl uded;

. . . . ( 4) E xce p t f

orconvi ct i ons forw hi ch the s t atut oryel ement s i ncl uded s er i ous bodi l y i nj ur y , bodi l y i nj ury , t hr eat ened s er i ous bodi l yi nj ury , or t hr eat ened bodi l yi nj ury to t he vi ct i m orvi ct i m s , convi ct i ons for m ul t i pl e fe l oni es comm i t t ed w i t hi n t he s ame tw enty - four

- hourper i od cons t i tut e one ( 1 ) c o nvi ct i on forthe purpos e of de t erm i ni ng pr i or c o n v ic tio n s [ .]. . . . Id . at (b ). T h e sta tu te g o e s o n to p ro v id e th a t a d e f e n d a n t f o u n d to b e a c a re e r o f

f e n d e r sh a ll re c e iv e th e m a x im u m s e n te n c e w ith in th e a p p lic a b le R a n g e II I r a n g e . Id . a t ( c ).
H e re th e d e f

e n d a n t w a s c o n v icte d o f C las s C f

e lo n ytam p e rin g w ith e v id e n c e . It i s undi s put ed that the tr i al cour tdet erm i ned thathe w as a ca r eeroffe nderbas ed upon ei ght pr i or fel ony convi ct i ons and s ent ence d the def endantt o fi ft een y ear s , t he maxi m um s ent ence al l ow abl e, fora R ange I I I offe nder

. T he rec o rd i ndi cat es t hatt he def endanthas pr i or convi ct i ons for : ( 1) C l as s C fel ony aggr avat ed as s aul t ; ( 2) C l as s C fel onys el l i ng coca i ne; ( 3) C l ass C f

e lo n y c o n spi racyt o sel l cocaine; (4) C l ass B fel on ysel l i ng cocaine; (5) C l ass C f e lo n yse lli n g c o c a in e ; (6 ) C las s C f e lo n y se lli n g a S c h e d u le I I d ru g ; (7 ) C las s C f e lo n ysa le of a Sche dul e I I drug; and (8) s i m pl e robbe r y . A s pr evi ous l ynot ed, beca us e the def endant-7-

w as convi ct ed of a C lass C fe lony , i n or dert o be cl as s i fi ed as a ca r eeroffe nder , s i x pr i or f e lo n yc o n v ic tio n s a re re q u ir e d

. W e agr ee w i t h t he def

endantthat , al t hough the re co rd ind i cat es ei ghtpr i orfel ony convi ct i ons , t hr ee of

t hos e convi ct ion s o cc u r r ed upon the s ame day

. T he r ecor d i ndi cat es th a t o n N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 1 9 9 0 , the d e f e n d a n t co m m itt e d th e o f f e n se s o f c o n sp ira c yto se ll coca i ne and t w o count s of s el l i ng coca i ne. B eca us e t he offe ns es w er e al l comm i t t ed on the s a m e d a ya n d th e s ta tu to ry e le m e n t o f th e s e c ri m e s d o n o t in c lu d e s e ri o u s b o d ily in ju ry, bodi l yi nj ur y , threa t ened s er i ous bodi l yi nj ury , ort hr eat ened bodi l yi nj ury , t hes e thr ee con vict i on s const i tute on l y on e con vict i on for t he purpose of det erm i ning pr i or conv i ct i on s. See T .C .A . § 3 9 -3 5 -1 0 8 (b )(4 ). T h e S tate c o n c e d e s th is p o in t o n a p p e a l. A s s u c h , o n lysix p ri o r f e lo n yc o n v ic tio n s a re a v a ila b le to e n h a n c e th e d e f e n d a n t to c a re e r o f

f e n d e r s ta tu s . T he def endantad d it ion all ych all en g es h is felon yco n v ict ion fo r si m p le rob b ery , w hi ch occurr ed i n 1982, and forw hi ch he rec eive d a sent ence of fi ve y ear s . H e as s ert s t hatt he j udgm entof convi ct i on, w hi ch i s i ncl uded i n t he r ecor d, i s voi d and cannot be us ed as pr oof of a pr i or convi ct i on beca us e i t i s not s i gned by t he t r i al cour t j udge. R el y i ng upon Stat e v. McJ u n k in , 815 S. W

. 2d 542, 543, for t he pr opos i t i on thatan uns i gned j udgm enti s voi d and cannotbe us ed as pr oof of a pr i orconvi ct i on fort he purpos e of e nhanci ng the s ent ence for a s ubs e q u e n t c o n v i c t i o n , t h e d e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t h i s s i mpl y r o b b e r y c o n v i c t i o n i s not a v a ila b le f

o r e n h a n c e m e n t p u rp o s e s . T he S t at e argues t h a t McJunk i n i s di s t i ngui s habl e as the ques t i on i n t hatcas e w as w hetheri n a tr i al s eeki ng t o conv i ctthe def endantas a s econd- t i m e D W I offe nder , t he pr os ecut i on coul d ut i l i ze, forenhanc ementpurpos es , a p r e v i o u s DW I c o nvi ct i on of j udgm ent w h ich , alth o u g h c e rtifie d , w a s n o t s ig n e d b y th e trial ju d g e . A d d iti o n a lly , the S tate a ss e rts t hatt he ca s e i s di s t i ngui s habl e bec aus e the u ns i gned j udgm enti n McJ u n k in wa s f

r o m a gener al s es s i ons cour t r athert han a c our tof r ecor d. T hi s cour thas pr evi ous l yhel d, r el y i ng on McJ u n k in , t hat “an uns i gned gener al s es s i ons cour t j udgm enti s voi d and ca nnotbe us ed as pr oof of a pr i or convi ct i on for enhanc ementpurpos es . ” Stat e v. Ji m my M

. Mi l l i can , N o. M 2000- 02298- C C A

- R 3- C D ( T enn. C ri m . A p p . at N ash v il le, Jan

. 3 1 , 2 0 0 2 ) ( ci t i ng M cJ u n kin , 8 1 5 S .W .2 d a t 5 4 3 ); s ee al s o Stat e v. Ti

pt on , 13 S. W

. 3d 397, 399- 400 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1999)

. T hus , w e agr ee w it h the St at e thatt he def endant ’ s r el i ance upon McJunki n is m i s pl ace d

. M or eover , w e w oul d not e thatw hi l e Tennes s ee Rul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 32( e) pr ovi des t hatt he tr i al j udge shoul d s i gn t he j udgm ent of convi ct i on, R ul e 36 fur t herpr ovi des t hat“[c ] l er i cal m i s take s in j udgm ent s . . . ar i s i ng fr om over s i ghtorom i s s i on m aybe corr ect ed byt he courtatanyt i m e. ” Fi nal l y , as al s o as s er t ed byt he St at e, T ennes s e e Cod e Annot at ed s ect i on 40- 35- 209( b) ( 2006) pr ovi des t hat“r el i abl e hea r s ayi ncl udi ng . . . cert i fi ed copi es of convi ct i ons . . . m ay-8-

be admi t t ed i f the oppos i ng par t yi s acc or ded a fai r oppor tuni t y t o r ebutanyhear s ayevi dence s o admi t t ed.

. . . ” T he copyof the ques t i oned j udgm enti n t hi s cas e w as a ce r t i fi ed copyof t he d efen dan t ’s 19 82 con vict i on for si m ple r ob bery

. A dd i t i on al l y , the inform at i on w as al so cont ai ned i n t he pr es ent ence r epor tw hi ch w as al s o admi t t ed at s ent enci ng, and i thas been pr evi ous l yhel d t hatt r i al cour t s ar e perm i t t ed t o r el yon t he pr es ent ence r epor ti n det erm i ni ng p ri o r c o n v ic tio n s . S e e S ta t e v . A da ms , 4 5 S .W .3 d 4 6 , 5 9 (T e n n . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ). P rio r to t he admi t t ance of the r epor t , t he def endantw as s peci fi cal l yques t i on ed if h e di s put ed the convi ct i ons and, des pi t e an i s s ue of unr el at ed dupl i cat i on b e twee n th e p r i o r s forenhanc ement a n d p r i o r s f

o r i mp e a c h me n t , t h e d e f e n d a n tma d e n o o b

j e c t i o n s t o th e l i s t e d c o n v i c t i o n s . As s uch, w e fi nd t hat he w as corr ect l ydet erm i ned t o be a c ar eeroffe nderand thatt he maxi m um s e n te n c e o f

f if te e n y e a rs w a s s ta tu to ri ly re q u ir e d

.

CO NC L US I ON
B ase d u p o n the f

o reg o ing , the ju d g m en ts of co n v ict ion an d resu lt ing sen tenc es a re a f f ir m e d a s im p o s e d

.

_________________________________ J OHN E VE RE T T WI L L I AM S , J UDGE