# FILED July 31, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Ap pellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE CO URT OF C RIMINAL A PPEA LS OF TENN ESSEE

AT NA SHVILLE JAN UA RY SESSION , 1997 STA TE OF TENN ESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9603-CC-00108 ) Appellee, ) ) ) BEDFORD COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. CHARLES LEE JOEY LEE SMITH, ) JUDGE ) Appellant. ) (Direct Appeal/Rape of a Child)

FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : ANDREW JACKSON DEARIN G, III JOHN KNOX WALK UP 117 South Main St reet Attorney Gen eral and Repor ter Suite 101 Shelbyville, TN 37160 MERRILYNFERRIMAN Assistant Attorney Gener al 500 Charlotte A

venue Nashvil le, TN 37243 M I K E M C C O WN Distric t Attorney General ROBERT G. CR IGLER GARY M. J ONES Assistant D istrict A

ttorney Bedford County Courthouse Shelbyville, TN 37160

OPINION FILE D ________________________ AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO R ULE 20 JERRY L. SMITH, JUDG E1 Itis t he pol icy of t his Court t o not reveal the name of minor v ict ims of sexual offenses. -2- 

## OPINION Ap pe llan t Jo ey L ee Sm ith w as fou nd gu ilty by a Be dfo rd C ou nty C ircu it Court j ury ofone count of rape of a c hil d, si x count s of aggravated sexual battery , one count of sex ual batt ery, and two counts of reckl ess endangerment. As a Range I st andard offender , Appel lantrecei ved a sente nce o f nineteen years im prisonm ent for rap e of a ch ild, nine years impriso nm ent for the first cou nt of agg ravated sexua l battery, nine yea rs impri sonment for

the sec ond count of

aggravat ed sexual batt ery, ten y ears f or each of t he remaini ng counts of aggravated sexual batt ery, one year impri sonment for

sexual batt ery, and one year impri sonment for

each countof reckl ess endangerment . The t ri al court ordered t he sentenc es to be s erved
concurrentl y fo r an effect iv e sentence of ni neteen y ears. On appeal, Appell ant alle ge s th at th e e vide nc e w as insu fficie nt, a s a m atte r of la w, to sup po rt his sexual off ense convicti ons.

After a review of the reco rd, we a ffirm the judg me nt of the trial court pursuantto Courtof Cri minal Appeal s Rule 20.

The evidence subm itt ed at tr ial and accredited by t he jury’ s verdict reveal s thatthe male v ict im of t he rape and aggravated sexual batt eri es was age eleven at t he time of t he crimes. 1 Appell ant, age twenty-f iv e, and t he vi cti m were fr iends. The vict im fi rstmet Appell ant when Appel lantwas the neig hbo rhoo d pa perb oy. In 1 993 , the victim beg an h is ow n pa per ro ute. Appell ant woul d help t he vi cti m with hi s paper route bydri vi ng him through the-3-

route. Around April 15, 1994, Appellant showed the vi ctim a document which he clai med was a wil l and t old t he vi cti m that he was leav ing ev eryt hing t o the victim wh en he die d. T he victim tes tified tha t the sex ua l ab us e b eg an in A pril and last ed unti l August . He expl ained t hat ev ery i nstance of misconductwas the sam e. A cco rdin g to the victim , he an d A pp ella nt w ou ld g o in to A pp ella nt’s bedroom and Appell ant woul d laydown a sheet or a t owel. Then Appell ant “wo uld tak e m y clo the s of f an d w ou ld sta rt pla ying with m e a nd tak e h is clot hes offand would s ti ck histhi ng between my l egs.”The victi m would lay on his s tom ach w hile App ellant lay on top of him. A ppe llant would m ove arou nd u ntil he e jacu lated . App ellan t testified to a to tal of six o ccu rren ces . In ad di t i on , i n J ul y, Ap pe l l an t r eq ui r ed t he v i ct i m t o p erf or m f el l at i o o n h i m.

The male vi cti m of the se xual batt ery s tat ed thathe was si xteen when he s pen t the n ight w ith Ap pella nt in Ja nua ry 19 93. B efore the vic tim w ent to bed, he saw a gun in Appel lant ’s handsand then obs erved t he gun on a dresser point ed in hi s directi on. Appel lantgot i nto bed wi th t he vi cti m and began runni ng his h ands up the vi cti m’s leg . Then Appel lantgrabbed t he vi cti m’s peni s and squeezed i t, at whi ch pointthe v ict im rol led ov er and away from Ap pella nt.
Rape of a chi ld i s “t he unlawf ul sex ual penet rat ion ofa vi cti m by the defendantor t he defendantby a vi cti m, ifsuch vi cti m is l ess than thi rte en (13) yea rs o f ag e.” T en n. C od e A nn . § 3 9-1 3-5 22 (Su pp . 19 96 ). Se xua l ba ttery is “unlaw ful sexua l contact w ith a victim by the defen dan t or the de fenda nt by a victim acc om pan ied b y any of the circum stan ces listed in § 39 -13- 503 (a).” O f-4-

the ci rcumstancesli sted i n Secti on 39-13- 503(a) the St ate r eli ed upon the circumstance f ound at subs ecti on (1) in i ts prosecuti on of Appel lantforsexual batte ry, i.e. force or co ercio n wa s us ed to acc om plish th e ac t.
Aggravat ed sexual batt ery i s defi ned at Tennessee Code Annot ated Secti on 39-13- 504 (Supp. 1996) as “ unlawf ul sex ual cont act wi th a v ict im by the def endant or

the def endant bya vi cti m accompanied by anyof t he foll owing circumstances:

(1) Force or coerci on is used to accomplish t he act and the def endant i s armed wit h a weapon or any art icl e used or fashioned i n a manner to l ead the vi cti m reasonablyto bel iev e itto be a weapon; ( 2) The de f en da ntca us es bo di l y i nj ury t o t he v i ct i m; (3) The def endant i s aided or abetted byone (1) or more otherpersons; and (A) F orce or co ercio n is us ed to accompli sh the act; or (B) The def endant knows or has reason to k no w th at th e vic tim is m en tally defect iv e, mental lyincapac it ated or physi call y hel pless; or (4) The v ict im is less t han thi rte en (13) yearsof age.
The State reli ed upon subsect ion ( 4) i n it s prosecut ion ofAppell ant f or agg ravated sexua l battery.

In hi s bri ef, Appell ant al leges t hat t he evi dence submitted attr ial was insuffi cient , as a matt er oflaw, to sustain hi s convi cti ons. However , he does not st ate whi ch convi cti on of t he ten he c hall enges. He si mply st ates t hat t he State fai led to prove that he act ed knowingly. Since a convict ion for reckless end ang erm ent d oes not re quire that A ppe llant ac t kno wing ly, we m ust-5-

assume thatAppell ant chal lenges onl y hi s sexual off ense convi cti ons on sufficie ncy g roun ds. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 13-103.
Appell ant was conv ict ed on one countof rape of a c hil d, si x count s of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of sexual battery. Each of these statu tes p rohib its unla wful s exu al pe netra tion o r unla wful s exu al co ntac t. Therefore, each of

the st atut es requi res a showi ng thatthe def endant act ed inten tiona lly or kno wing ly. See Te nn. C ode An n. § 3 9-11 -301 (c) (19 91). A person act s int enti onall y “wi th r espect t o the nat ure ofthe conduct orto a
resu lt of the c ond uct w hen it is the pe rson ’s con scio us o bjec tive or d esire to eng age in the c ond uct o r cau se th e res ult.” Te nn. C ode An n. § 3 9-11 -302 (a). The Sentenci ng Comm issi on Comm ents st ate “ [i ]nt enti onal condu ct or an intentiona l result occu rs whe n the d efend ant wa nts to do the act or a chieve the cri minal objecti ve.” A person acts knowingly “with respect to t he conduct or t o circumstances sur roundi ng the condu ct when t he person i s aware ofthe natur e of t he conductor t hat t he circumstances ex ist .” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 11-3 02(b ). Th e S ente ncin g C om m ission Co m m ents state “[a] de fend ant a cts kn ow ing ly . . . wh en he or s he is aw are of th e co nd uc t or is pra ctica lly ce rtain thatthe conduct wi ll cause t he resul t, ir respect iv e of hi s or her desire thatthe
con duc t or res ult will occ ur.”

Th e eviden ce pre sente d at trial revealed that in practica lly every inst ance of mi sconduct , Appel lantwould l ay a sheetor t owel down on t he fl oor of hi s bedroom, t ake offthe v ict im’s c lot hes, t ake offhis c lot hes, and t hen lay on top ofthe v ict im who would be on his stomach. Then Appella nt woul d-6-

move around unt il he ejac ulat ed. On one occasi on, Appel lantfor ced the vi cti m to perf orm fel lat io on hi m. The second vi cti m testi fi ed thatAppell ant got int o bed wit h him and began r unning hi s hand up hi s leg. Appell ant t hen squeezed t he vi cti m’s peni s. Based on the f oregoi ng evi dence, i t i s clea r t hat Ap pe llan t bo th in ten tion ally a nd kno win gly to uc he d o r pe ne trate d th e vic tim s in a sexual manner. Accordingl y, we aff ir m the convi cti ons and sent ences pursuantto Courtof Cri minal Appeal s Rule 20.

____________________________________ JER RY L
. SMI TH, JUD GE

CONCUR:

___________________________________ JOHN H. PEAY , JUD GE

___________________________________ JOE G. RI LEY , JUD GE