# FILED Sep te mb er 1 9, 19 95 Cec il Crow son , Jr . Ap p e l l a te C o u rt C l e rk IN T HE C OU RTOF C RI MI NA L A PPEA LS OF T EN NE SSEE

A T KNOXVILLE A PR ILSES SION , 199 5 STA TE OF T EN NE SSEE, ) C. C. A . N O. 03C 01- 9501- CR -0 0024 ) Appel lee , ) ) ) HA MBLEN C OUNTY V S . ) ) HO N. JA ME S ED WA RD B EC KN ER DE WA Y NE SM IT H, ) JUD GE ) Appel lan t. ) (D UI , R eck les s E ndang er ment) ON A PPE A L AS OF RIGHT FR OM THE JUDGMENT OF THE CRIMINA L COURTOF HA MBLEN C OUNTY FO R THE A PPELLA NT: FO R THE A PPELLE E: GR EG W . EI CH ELM AN CH AR LES W . BU RS ON Off ic e of the Publ icD efender Atto rn ey Gene ra l and R epor

ter T hird Judicial District 1609 C oll eg e Par k D ri v e, B ox 11 CY RI L V. F RA SER Mo rr is tow n, TN 378 13- 1618 Cou nsel for t he St ate 450 J ames R ober

tso n Par kway Nas hv il le, TN 37243- 0493 C. BER KELEY

BELL Di str ict Attor ney

Gene ra l JOH N DU GGER Ass is tant Di str ict Attor ney Gene ra l Cou nty Office C omplex 113 W . C hurch Street Greenev il le, TN 37743 OPIN ION F ILED ______ _________

_________ AFFIRMED IN PART; REV ERSED IN PART DA VID H . W ELLES, JU DG EW e n ote fr om t he rec ord t ha t t he D efe nd an t i s cu rr en t l y i nc arc era t ed i n t he pe ni t en t i ary on ot he r 1 unr el at ed ch ar ges. -2-



# OP IN ION
T he Defend anta ppe als as of right followi ng a judgmen t ent ered on a jury v erdict find i n g h i m g u i l ty

o f D U I , e v a d i n g a r re s t , re c k l e s s e n d a n g e r me n t , c o n t r i b u t i n g t o t he del inq u e n cy

o f a m i n o r , a n d d r i v i n g o n a s u s p e n d e d l i c e n s e . H e w a s s e n t e n c e d to con c u r re n ts e n t e n c e s o f e l e v e n m o n t h s a n d tw e n ty - n i n e d a y s fo r e a c h c o n v ic ti on ex ceptfor d ri v ing on a su spend ed l ic ense, for w hic h he w as sent enced to a conc ur re nt sen te n ce of

si x months
. The De fendant arg ues two i ss ues on appe al: ( 1) That t he evid en c e i nt rod uc ed at tr i al w as i ns uffi c i en t to c on v i ct hi m of ea c h of th e fi v e crimes; and ( 2) thatthe sent ences i m p o se d w ere er ro neous . W e rev erse the c onv icti on of cont ri buti ng to the d eli nq uency of a mi nor . In al l other respe ct s, the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med. 1
On A pr il 6, 1994, Off ic er M ar k McE lh a n ey

w as w ait ing on a traff icl ig ht atan interse ction when he saw a rose-colored Cama ro going down the hill at an extrem ely hig h rate o f speed. The dr iv er apparentl y

tr ied to sl ow

down a s he sa w

the off ic er

at th e in te rse ct io n , b u t th e ca r st a rt e d to sp in sid e ways a n d th e n co n ti n u e d o n a t a hi gh rate of sp eed
. A s t he car went by, th e of f icer ide ntif ied the passe nger as Jame s Carter. T he o f f icer then turned on his blue lig hts an d be gan to pursu e the ca r. Be fore he lost v isual con tact wi th th e car, he saw it go arou nd a truck w aiting a t a lig ht and then make a rig ht tu rn in f ront of

the truck.
A few min utes l ater , t h e c a r p u lle d i nto a Tex aco Food M art ata hi g h rate o f speed
. Theda C hr is ti an, a n empl oy ee atthe Tex aco, sa w three mal es, l ater

i denti fied as the Defend ant , Carter, and Glenn To w nsen d, get outof the car an d start runn ing i n different direct ion s. She lat e r id e n ti fied th e D efendant as the dr iv er of the c ar . After-3-

g oin g in to t h e s tore br iefly and tel li ng the employ ee notto cal l the p oli ce, the Defendant , al ong w it h C arter and Tow nsend , g ot ba ck i n to the c ar

and drov e to a b u il d in g a sh o rtd is t a n c e a wa y.
Anothe r off ic er

ar ri v ed s hor

tl y thereafter and saw the c ar par ked v er

y cl osel y to the b uil din g . He saw

the three s uspects w alk ing a s hor t di sta nce a w ay

and sto pped the m. All three app eare d to hav e be en d rinking. T he Defend antw as carry ing a police scann er. Each d enie d bein g the d riv er o f t he car. Af

ter bein g iden tif ied as th e driv er, the D efendant was g iv en a breathal yz er tes t i n w hic h he re g is tered .1 1 percent
. The firs t iss ue to be address ed is the suff ic ien cy of the ev ide nce to suppor t t he co n v i ct i o n . W h e n a n a c c u s e d c h a l l e n g e s t h e s u ffi c i e n cy o f t h e c o n v i ct i n g e v ide nce, thi s c our t mus t rev iew

the re cord to deter mine if the ev ide nce present ed dur ing the tr ial w as s uffi c i en t "t o s up po rt th e fi nd i ng o f t he t r i er o f fact of g ui l t be y on d a reaso nab le dou bt." T .R.A.P
. 13(e ). T his rule is a pplicab le to f indings of g uilt predica ted upo n direct ev ide nce, ci rc umstan ti al ev ide nce, or a c omb in a ti on of di re ct and c ircums tanti al evidence. State v . Matthe ws, 805 S.W .2d 776 , 779 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p. 19 90).
In de ter mini ng th e s u f

f ic ien cy of the e v ide nce, thi s c our t doe s n ot rew eig h or re ev alu ate t he ev ide nce. St ate v . C abbag e, 57 1 S. W .2d 8 32, 8 35 ( Tenn. 1978)
. N or may t h i s c o u rt s u b s t i t u t e i t s i n fe re n c e s fo r t h o s e d ra w n b y t h e t r i e r o f factfrom ci rc umstan ti al ev ide nce. Li akas v . St ate, 199 Tenn. 298, 3 05, 2 86 S. W .2d 8 56, 8 59 (1 956)
. This co urt is re q uired to afford the Stat e of Tennes see the strong estl eg it imat e v iew of t h e ev ide nce cont ain ed i n the record as well as al l re asona ble and leg it imat e inferences w hic h may be draw n from the ev ide nce. Sta te v . H er ro d, 75 4 S. W .2d 6 27, 632 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p. 19 88).-4- Ques ti ons conc er nin g the credi bil ity of the w it ness es, the w eig ht and v alu e to be g iv en th e ev ide n ce , as w ell as al l factual i ss ues ra is ed by the ev ide nce, are resol v ed by t he tr i er of fact, no t th i s c ou rt. St at e v . Pa pp as , 75 4 S. W .2 d 62 0, 6 23 ( Ten n. C r i m. Ap p. 1 98 7)
. I n St at e v . Grac e, 4 93 S .W .2 d 47 4 ( Ten n. 197 3) , t he Tenn es s ee S up rem e Cou rtsa id, "A g uil ty

v erdict by

the jur y , app ro v ed byt h e tr ial j udg e, ac credi ts the testim ony of

t he w itnesse s for t he Sta te and reso lv es all co nf licts in favor of the th eory of the St ate." Id. at 476. Beca use a v erdict of gu il t remov es the p re sumpti on of i nnoce nce and repl aces itw it h a p re sumpti on of g uil t, id. , the acc used has the b urden i n thi s c our t of i ll ust ra ti ng w hy the ev ide nce is insuffici ent to suppor t the v erdict retu rn ed bythe tr ier of fact. Stat e v . Tug g le, 639 S.W .2d 9 13, 9 14 ( Tenn. 1982 ). Thi s co u rtw il l not d is tur b a v erdict of g uil t due to the s uff ic ien cy of the e v ide nce unl ess the facts cont ain ed i n the record and t h e in fe re n c e s wh ic h m a y b e d ra wn f ro m t h e fa ct s a re in s u f f ic ie n t , a s a m a tt e r o f

la w, for a ra ti onal tr ier

of fact to find t he ac cus ed g uil ty beyond a re asona ble doubt
. Ma tthews, 805 S. W .2d a t 780
. E a c h co u n twil l b e a n a lyze d se p a ra t e ly b e lo w. The first cont enti on by

the Defendanti s t hat t he St a te fail ed to prov e tha t he w as the driv er of the car. Despite testim ony by Carter tha t he was the driv er of the car, the first off ic er

i denti fied Ca rt e r a s a pas seng er i n the ca r as itsp ed by hi m at t he int ers e ct i o n . T h u s , e i t h e r T o w n s e n d o r

t h e D e fe n d a n tw a s d r i v i n g a tt h e t i me , a ft er elu din g the firs t officer

and pul li ng i nto t he Tex aco sta ti on s hor tl y th e re a fter. As the three g ot ou t of

the car, th e T exac o e m p lo y ee ide ntif ied th e Defend antas the d riv er. This ev ide nce w as suffici ent t o s ust ain a find ing by the jur y that the Defendant was the driv er o f t he car f rom the t ime t hatO f f icer McElhane y

w itnesse d the car speed ing until itst opped a t t he Tex aco sta ti on.-5- The De fe ndant als o arg ues that becau se the a ctu al w ri tten pr int out o f the breathal yz er

tes t g iv en to the Defendantw as lo st , th e re w as ins uff ic ien t ev ide nce to prov e tha t he w as int ox ic ated. H ow ev er , t he readin g of the pr int out a ppeared i n the ar re st w ar ra nt, w hic h w as submi tted int o ev ide nce. O ff ic er M cEl haney , w ho admini ste re d the tes t, tes ti fied that the tes t readi ng w as .11 a nd th at t he D efendant had slurred spe ech, smelled strongly of alcoho l, and had red eyes.
Al so, the D e fe ndant arg ues that under U nit ed St ates v . Ag urs, 427 U .S. 97 (1 976) , the State' s fail ure to prov ide the act ual pri ntoutof the tes t is a s uppress ion of ev ide nce in v iol ati on of the Defendant 's r ig ht t o due proces s. H o wever, there is no p ro o f t h a tt h e S t a t e h a s s u p p re s s e d t h e p r i n t o u t
. A p p a re n t l y , t h e o f f i c e r l o s ti t
. W e c on c l ud e th ere w as s uffi c i en t ev i de nc e to s up po rt th e D efe nd an t' s c on v i cti on of DUI bey ond a re asona ble doubt
. Unde r Ten nesse e Code Anno tate d section 39-1 6-60 3(a)(1), it is unla wf ul for a perso n to inte ntion ally

f lee f rom a police of

f icer if th e pe rson kno ws the of f icer is attempt ing to ar re st the person. The firs t off ic er tes ti fied that as the c ar dr iv en by

the Defendantneared th e i ntersecti on w here he w as w ait ing , the car st arted to stop or sl ow dow n but , bec ause itw as g oin g too fast, i t s tar ted t o s ki d and tur n sideway s. Itthen contin u e d o n at a hi g h rate o f speed. F ro m thi s, a j ur y co uld co ncl ude t hat t he Defendantsa w

the off ic er and attempt ed to sl ow dow n, but then attempt ed to el ude t he off ic er w hen he re ali z ed hi s a ttemptto sto p woul d be futil e.
After tur nin g on his lig hts and sta rt ing to pursue the c ar , M cEl haney sa w the car g o around a tr uck

w ait ing at the next intersecti on and then make a r ig ht t ur n i n frontof it
. The ju ry

co uld reason abl y

hav e c oncl uded fro m thi s factthatthe Defendantkn ew he was bein g chased and w as attempt ing to elu de McE lha ney . W hen t he c ar ar ri v ed at t he Tex aco, the Defendanthur ri ed i n and tol d the st ore c ler k n ot t o c all the pol ic e.-6- Also, when the three su spect s w ere foun d w alking tow ard som e railroad tracks after hav ing par ked the c ar near the back si de of a bui ldi ng , Car

ter w as found car ry ing a po lice scann er. Re gardless o f who w as carry ing th e scann er while t he three w ere in the car , t h e j u r

y c o u l d h a v e i n fe r re d t h a tt h e D e fe n d a n tw a s l i s t e n i n g t o t h e sc anner w hil e dr iv ing the car

and knew

he w as bein g ch ased. W e c oncl ude t here w as suffici ent evidence to supp ort the De fend ant 's co nviction o f e v adin g arrest beyond a reason able doubt.
T enn essee Code An not ate d sectio n 39-1 3-10 3(a) ma kes it a crime to recklessly eng ag e in condu ct w hic h may pla ce another person in immi nent dang er of de ath o r ser iou s b odi ly

i nju ry . The De fendant was dr iv ing at a hig h ra te of s peed w hen nea ri ng the intersectio n w here the f irst of f icer w as w aiting and nea rly lost cont rol of the v ehicle as he tr ied to sto p. He then cont inu ed on at a hig h rate o f s p e e d , a n d s oon nea re d anothe r i n t e rs e ct i o n w h e re a t r u c kw a s w a i t i n g a ta s t o p - l i g h t
. T h e D e fe n d a n tp u l l ed arou nd th e truck and m ade a right turn in f ront of it. T he p olicem an te stif ied th at atthis poi nt he feared a bad acc ide nt w as g oin g to happen. W hen the Defendantpul led i nto the Tex aco , the s tore c ler k h eard "a n ois e l ik e s omeone was dr iv ing real ly fast," and then she saw the Defendant 's car "come fly ing in" to one of the pumps. I n v iew of the e vid e n c e sh o win g t h e De fe n d a n t ' s d ri vin g re c k le s s ly a n d a ta h ig h ra t e o f sp e e d , we conclu de th ere w as suf f icient evidence t o con v ict the Defend antof reckless endang er ment beyond a re asona ble doubt
. T he Defend antw as also con v icted o f cont ributing to the delinque ncy of a min or. Spec ific all y , the Defendant w as charg ed w it h prov idi ng al cohol to Gl enn Tow nsend , a min or, in v iolation of

Te nne ssee Cod e Ann ota ted se ction 37-1 -156 (a). Desp ite the fact there was proof that Towns e n d h ad been dr ink ing before the i nci dent, there i s n o ev ide nce in the rec ord to show that the Defendant had anythi ng to do w it h Tow nsend acq uir ing al cohol icbev erag es. The onl y rel ev ant test imony

came from T ow nsend , w ho-7-

st a t e d t h a t t h e D e fe n d a n t w a s n o t t h e o n e w h o h a d g i v e n h i m t h e a lc ohol
. W e conc lud e the re w as ins uff ic ien t ev ide nce to conv ict the Defendant of contr ibu ti ng to the del inq uency

of a minor

bey ond a re asona ble doubt. This co nv icti on i s rev ersed and t he charg e i s d is mis sed.
Beca use w e hav e conc lud ed that there was suffici ent e v ide nce for th e j ur y to find tha t the De fend antwas th e driv er of the car, th e proo f

thathe ha d a susp end ed licen se at t he ti me of the i nci dent is su ff ic ien t t o c onv ict hi m of the o f fe nse of dri v ing on a sus pended li cens e.
T he Defend antnext arg ues th at he w as errone ously senten ced. W hen there is a cha llenge to the le ngth, range or m ann er of serv ice of

a sente nce, it is the duty of this cour t t o c onduct a de novo rev iew w it h a p re sumpti on th at the det er minat ion s made by the trial court are co rrect. Te nn. Code An n. § 40 -35-40 1(d). Th is presum ption is "condi ti oned up on the aff ir mati v e show ing i n the record tha t t he tr ial co urt c onsi dered t h e se n t e n c in g p ri n c ip le s a n d a ll r e le va n tfa ct s a n d ci rc u m s t a n c e s . " St a t e v. A s h b y, 823 S. W .2d 1 66, 1 69 ( Tenn. 1991 ). The S entenc ing Commis si on Comments prov ide that the b urden i s o n the appel lan t t o s how the impropr iety

of the s entenc e. Our rev iew req uires an anal y si s o f (1)the ev ide nce, if any , rec eiv ed atthe tr ial and s entenc ing hear ing ; (2 ) the present ence re por t; (3 ) the pr inc ipl es of senten ci ng and the a rg uments of couns el re lat iv e to sent enci ng al ter nati v es; ( 4 ) th e n a ture and charact er is ti cs of the o ffense; ( 5) any mit ig ati ng or

enhanc ing factors; (6 ) any sta tements made by

the defendant in his ow n behalf; and (7 ) the d efendant's pote nti al for rehabi li tati on or

treatment. Tenn. Cod e Ann. §§ 4 0- 35- 102, -1 03 an d - 2 1 0 ; St ate v . Smi th, 735 S. W .2d 8 59, 8 63 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1987)
.-8- In mi sdemeano r sent enci ng , a separate s e n t e n c i ng hear ing i s n ot manda tor y but the court is req uired to provi de th e Defend antw ith a reaso nab le opp ortun ity to be h eard as to t he l eng th an d manner of the s entenc e. Tenn. C ode Ann. § 40- 35- 302( a)
. The sente n ce m ustbe s peci fic a nd c onsi ste nt w it h the pur poses and pr inc ipl es of the Cr imi nal Sent enci ng R eform Act of 1989. Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 40 -3 5- 302( b)
. The tr ial cour t retai ns the a uthor ity

to p la ce the D efendant on probati on ei ther i mmediat ely

or af ter a pe riod of

p eriodic or co ntinu ous conf inem ent
. T enn . Code A nn. § 40-35 -302 (e). Mi sdemeano r sent enci ng i s d esi gne d t o prov ide the tr ial co urt w it h c onti nui ng jur is dicti on and a g re at deal of flex ibi li ty
. One conv icted of a mis demeanor , unl ik e one conv icted o f a f e lo ny , i s n ot en ti tl ed to a presumpt ion of a mi nimum s entenc e. Stat e v . C re asy , 885 S.W .2d 8 29, 8 32 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. ), per m. to appeal deni ed, id. ( Tenn. 1994)
. F o ll owi ng his convi ction, the Defend antw as sen ten ced to eleven mo nth s, tw enty-n ine days, at 75 percentR .E.D ., for D UI , reckle ss endang er ment, ev adi ng ar re st, and cont ri buti ng to the del inq uency of a minor , and to s ix months at 75 percent R. E.D . for dr iv ing on a su spend ed l ic ense. Al l sent ences w ere ord e re d t o be ser v ed conc ur re ntl y . The sent ences of ele v en month s a nd tw enty-n ine day s are the max imum sent ence s for these misde me ano rs.
Fi rs t, the D efendant c ontends thatthe tr ial co urt i mprop er ly e nhanc ed th e sent ence for th e reck les s e ndang er ment c onv icti on by i ncl u din g enhanc ement fact or (1 6) under

Tenness ee C ode Annota ted secti on 40- 35- 114, w hic h all ows for el ev ati ng a s entenc e for a c ri me w here the cr ime w as commi tted under ci rc umstan ces w here the potent ial for b odi ly

i nju ry to another

person w as g re at.
T h e De fe n d a n tc o rre ct ly a rg u e s t h a ta se n t e n c e m a y n o tb e e n h a n c e d b y a factor w hic h w as neces sar

y for t he c ommis si on of the cr ime. S ta te v . Thomas, 755-9-

S.W .2d 838 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p.), pe rm . t o a p p e al den ied, id. ( T enn . 198 8). Th us, enh ance me nt facto r ( 16) can notbe ap p li e d t o a reckless end angerm entsente nce beca use it is one of

the ele me nts ne cessary for the comm ission of the crime
. How ever, the j udg e di d not appl y

enhanc ement fact or

( 16) to the reck les s e ndang er ment c ount: "the reck les s c ircums tanc es of the o f fense are s o g re at t hat i t doe s a cti v ate enhanc ement fact or

16 for c o n sid e ra ti on as to some o f the offenses , s uch as the dr iv ing of fenses, other than the rec kl ess endang er ment." T he Cour t did not app ly

factor (1 6) to the reck les s e ndang er ment c ount and no er ro r w as commi tted.
T he Defend antalso argues generally tha t the maximum sente nces giv en were inap prop riate in this case . In det ermin ing the sent ence for each c oun t, the court app lied en han cem entfacto r ( 16) to th e DUI and e v a d in g arrest cou nts. Facto r ( 1), prev iou s h is tor

y of cr imi nal co nv icti ons, and factor ( 8) , fail ure to compl y

w it h c ondi ti ons of rel ease on paro le , were consi dered as enhanc ement fact ors for the sent ences for all cr imes
. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 114. T he appli cat ion of fact or (1) w as appropr iat e becau se the D efe n d a n t h as a l ong hi sto ry of cr imi nal co nv icti ons, i ncl udi ng cr imi nal trespas s, cont ri buti ng to the d eli nq uency of a minor , larceny , tw o c onv icti ons for g ra nd larceny , tw o c onv icti ons for break ing and enter ing , escap e f ro m cus tody w hil e s er

v ing time for a felon y , pub lic i nto x ication , leaving the scene of an acciden t, failure to report an ac ci dent, and drivin g w it hout a l ic ense. Al so, enhanc ement fact or ( 8) w as appropr iat e bec ause the D efendant was on parole at the t ime of this i nci dent.
W it h the a p p lic a ti on of thes e two enhan cementfactors, espec ial ly the Defendant 's extens iv e cri minal record, an d no miti g ati ng factors, w e are unabl e to conc lud e tha t t he tr ial co urt er re d or abuse d it s dis creti on in sent enci ng the D efendant.-10- T he Defend ant 's con vic t io n o f contribu ting to the d elinquen cy of a mino r is re v ersed and t hat c harg e i s d is mis sed. I n al l other re spects, the jud g ment of t he tr ial cour t i s a ff ir med.

_________ _________

_________

_________ DA VID H . W ELLES, JU DG E
CONCUR:

_________

_________

_________

________ DA VID G. H AY ES, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

________ JOH N A. TU RN BU LL, S PEC IAL JU DG E