### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE ATJAC KSON A ssi gne d onBrie fs April 13, 201 0 STA TE OFTEN NES SEE v. AB RONSP RA GGINS
D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e C rim ina l C o u rt fo r S h elb y C o u n ty N o. 08- 02312 P aul a Skah an, Judge

N o. W 2009- 01073- C C A
- R 3- C D - F i l ed M ay 7, 2010

T he def endant , A br on Spr aggi ns , w as convi ct ed by a Shel by C ount y C r i m i nal C our tj ur y of a g g ra v a te d a s s a u lt, a C la s s C fe lo n y , a n d r e c k le s s e n d a n g e rm e n t w ith a d e a d ly w e a p o n , a C las s E fe lo n y , a n d w a s se n ten c e d b y th e trial co u rt to a n e ffe c tiv e ter m o f th irtee n y e a rs in t he D epar t m entof

C or r ecti on. T he def

endant r ai s es t hr ee i s s ues on appea l : ( 1) w hetherthe tr ial cour tcom m i t t ed pl ai n err orby i ns tr uct i ng t he j ur y t hatfel ony r eckl es s endange r m ent w as a l es s er - i ncl uded off ens e of aggr avat ed ass aul t as char ged i n the i ndi ct m ent ; ( 2) w hether t he evi dence w as s uf

f i ci entt o s us t ai n t he convi ct i ons ; and (3) w hether t he tr i al cour terr ed by enhanc i ng t he defendant ’ s aggr avat ed ass aul t s ent ence and orde r i ng thatt he aggr avat ed a s s a u l ta n d r e c k l e s s e n d a n g e r me n ts e n t e n c e s b e s e r v e d c o n s e c u t i v e l y . F o l l o wi n g o u rr e v i e w, w e a ffirm th e ju d g m e n ts o f 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 ri m i nal C ourt A f f i rm ed A L AN E. G L ENN , J

. , del i ver ed the opi ni on of the C our t , i n w hi ch J OHN E VERETT W I L L I AMS and N ORMA M C G EE O G LE , J J

. , j oi ned. Phy l l i s A l uko ( on appea l ) a n d M i chel e Lynn ( attr i al ) , A s s i s t antPubl i c D efe nder s , forthe app el l ant, A bron S praggins. R obert E

. C ooper , J r . , A t t orney G ener al and R eport er ; R ache l E

. W i l l i s , A s s i s t antA t t orney G ener al ; W i l l i am L

. G i bbons , D i s tr i ctA t t orneyG ener al; and A l exi a Ful gham, A s s i s t ant D i s tr i ctA t t orneyG ener al , forthe appe l l ee, St at e of Tennes s ee. OP I NI ON FACTS T hi s cas e ar i s es outof

t he def endant ’ s acti ons on O ct ober12, 2 0 07, i n w hi ch heThis victim ’s first n ame is listed as “C harlesett” in theindic tment, but at trial sh e stated and spe lled 1 her first name as “Ch arlesetta,”which is the name w e hav e ch osen to us e in this opinion

. -2- th re a ten e d w ith a g u n th e m o th e r a n d y o u n g sib lin g s o f h is e x -g irlfrien d , w h o h a d re c e n tly gi ven bi r t h t o hi s chi l d. H e w as s ubs equent l y i ndi ct ed by t he Shel by C ount y G r and J ur y for four coun t s of aggravat ed assaultbased o n his use or di spl ay o f a deadly w eapo n to cause C h a rle se tta P a tters o n , C a m ia P a tters o n , C h a rle s P a tters o n , a n d T ro y P a tters o n to re a so n a b ly 1 fe a r i m m in e n t b o d ily in ju ry . T h e S tate ’s first w itn e ss a t th e d e fe n d a n t’s M a rc h 2 0 0 9 trial w a s C h a rle se tta Pat t er s on, w ho t es t i f

i ed on di r ectexam i nat i on as fol l ow s . H er daught er , A s hl ey B at t l e, had gi ven bi r t h on Sept em ber6, 2007, t o a son, I s aac , w ho had pre s um abl y been father ed by the d e fe n d a n t. O n O c to b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 , Isa a c w a s liv in g in P a tt e rso n ’s M e m p h is h o m e w ith Pat t er s on and s om e of

Pat t er son’ s chi l dr en, i ncl udi ng C am i a, w ho w as s even a tt he t i m e, C har l es , w ho w as ei ght , and Troy, w ho w as t en. A ts om e poi ntt hatday, Pat t er s on w as aw ay f r om hom e w hen herdaught er , A ndr i a, t el ephoned a nd r el at ed s om e i nfor m at i on s he had l ear ned f r om C am i a, C har l es , and T r oy. I n r es pons e, Pat t er s on cal l ed the pol i ce a nd r etur ned h o m e to fin d th e d e fe n d a n t p a rk e d in h is tru c k b e h in d h e r a p a rtm e n t. H opi ng t o s t al l t he def endantunt i l t he pol i ce a rr i ved, Pat t er so n w alke d t o the def endant ’ s tr uck, w her e t he def endant t ol d her t hathe w ant ed t o s ee hi s s on. She r ef us ed, and an a r gum ent bet w een t he t w o ens ued i n w hi ch t he defendant i ns i s t ed thatnei t hers he nor t he pol i ce w oul d be abl e t o s t op hi m f r om s eei ng hi s s on, and s he r epea t edl y told h i m that s he w oul d notal l ow hi m t o s ee the ch il d. D ur i ng t he cour s e of thatverbal al t er cati on, the defend ant r eache d u nd er hi s seat , pu l l ed o ut a gun, and p oint ed itather. T he defend ant al so sa id , “ B itc h , I a m g o ing to k il l yo u , ” w h ich frigh tene d h er. A t abo u t th at t im e, ho w ev er, th re e p o lic e c a rs p u lle d u p a n d th e d e fe n d a n t “ to o k o ff a n d a lm o s t r a n in to th e p o lic e c a r.” O n cro ss-ex am ination , P att e rs o n ac k n o w ledg ed h av ing test if ied a t th e p reli m inary hear i ng t hat s he w as i ns i de t he house w hen the def endantcam e t o herhom e. She expl ai ned, how ever , t hatt he def

endant had com e t o herhom e on m or e than one oc cas i on and thats he h a d b e e n r e fe r r i n g t o a d i f fe r e n ti n c i d e n td u r i n g h e r p r e l i mi n a r y h e a r i n g t e s t i mo n y . On r edi r ectexam i nat i on, s he t es t i f i ed thats he had c us t ody of I s aac beca us e hi s m otherl ef t“the day af t erhe ca m e hom e. ” O f f i cer Sam uel St ew ar t of t he M em phi s Pol i ce D epar t m ent , w ho r es po n d ed to the O ct ober12 di s t urbance cal l , t es t i f i ed thatPat t er s on, w ho appea r ed ver y f r i ght ened, i nfor m ed hi m t hatt he def

endanthad t hr eat ened her w i t h a gun, t el l i ng herthathe w as goi ng t o ki l l her a n d h e r c h ild re n if sh e d id n o t g iv e h im h is c h ild . O ffic e r S tew a rt sta ted th a t h e a n d h is p a rt n e r c h e c k e d th e a re a b u t w e re u n a b le to lo c a te th e d e fe n d a n t.-3-

T w el ve- year - ol d T r oy Pat t er s o n t e s t i f i ed thaton O ct ober12, 2007, he and hi s younger b ro th e r, C h a rle s, w e re w a lk in g h o m e fro m sc h o o l to g e th e r w h e n th e d e fe n d a n t p u lled o u t a bl ack gun, poi nt ed i t at hi m and hi s br other , t ol d t hem he w ant ed hi s chi l d, and s ai d t hathe w as goi ng t o ki l l hi m , hi s br ot her s , and thei rm other

. T he w i t nes s t es t i f ie d t hathe and C h a rle s ra n to th e M e m p h is H o u sin g A u th o rity o ffic e , w h e re th e y re m a in e d u n til th e ir m ot h e r c a m e t o g e t t h e m . On c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , h e t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e d e fe n d a n t , w ho had b e e n s lo w ly fo llo w in g th e m d o w n th e s tr e e t in h is tr u c k , n e v e r g o t o u t o f t h e v e h ic le

. T en- year - ol d C har l es Pat t er s on t es t i f i ed thathe and Tr oy w er e w alkin g hom e f r om s chool t ogether on O ct ober 12, 2007, w hen the def endantbegan f

ol l ow i ng t hem

. H e s t at ed t hatt he def

endants ai d s om ethi ng t o T r oy, w hi ch he di d no t he ar , and thathe and Tr oy rea cted b y run n ing to the M em p h is H o u sing A u tho ri ty o ffi ce to h ide b ec au s e th e y w ere a fra id o f th e d e fe n d a n t. T h e w itn e ss tes tified th a t th e d e fe n d a n t d id n o t sa y a n y th in g to h im a n d d id n o t p o in t a g u n a t h im

. A tt he conc l us i on of

t he St at e’ s pr oof , t he tr i al cour tgr ant ed the def endant ’ s m ot i on for j udgm e n to f

a c q u i t t a l wi t h r e s p e c tt o c o u n t s t wo a n d t h r e e o f t h e i n d i c t m e n t , w hi ch char ged the def

endantw i t h t he aggrav ated as s aul t s of C am i a and Char l es Pat t er s on. T he d efe n d an t th en elec ted n o t t o test if y an d rested h is case w ith o u t prese n tin g a n y p roo f. F oll ow i ng deli berat i on s, t he jur y co nv i ct ed h i m of the les ser -i ncluded off ens e o f r eckles s endange r m entof

C har l es et t a Pat t er s on and of t he i ndi ct ed off ens e of a ggr avat ed as s aul tof T ro y P a tte rs o n . T he onl y evi dence i ntr oduced a tt he def endant ’ s A pr i l 7, 2009 s ent enci ng hear i ng w as t he def endant ’ s pr es ent ence r epor t , w hi ch re f l ect ed t hat t he t w ent y- ni ne- year - ol d def endant h a d a l e n g t h y c r i mi n a l h i s t o r y c o n s i s t i n g o f s e v e n t e e n p r i o rc o n v i c t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g t wo fel oni es . A t t he conc l us i on of t he hea r i ng, the tr i al cour tfound one enha ncem entfact or app l i cable, t hat the d efendan thad a his t ory of cri m i nal conv i ct i on s i n ad diti on t o those nece s s ar y t o es t abl i s h hi s r ange, s ee Tenn. C ode A nn. § 40- 35- 114( 1) ( Supp. 2009) , and no appl i cabl e m i t i gat i ng fact or s . T he tr i al cour t f ur t her found t hat t he def endant m et t hr ee of t he cr i t er i a forcons ecuti ve s ent enci ng, i n thathe w as an of fender w hos e r ecor d of

cr i m i nal hi s t or y w as ext ens i ve, bas ed on hi s l engthy crim inal recor d; thathe w as a pr ofes s i onal cr i m i nal w ho had know i ngl y dedi cat ed hi s l i fe t o cr i m e as a m aj or s our ce of hi s l i vel i hood, bas ed on hi s convi ct i on fort he s al e of coca i ne, hi s l i m i t ed and uns ubs t ant i at ed w or k hi s t or y, and the factt hathe r epor t ed no hi s t or y of dr ug us e; and thathe w as a dange r ous of fender w hos e beha vi ori ndi cat ed l i t t l e or no r egar d forhum an l i fe and no he s i t at i on about com m i t t i ng a cri m e i n w hich the ri sk t o h u m a n life w as hi gh , based o n h i s “outr ageo us” a c tio n s in p o in tin g a g u n a t a c h ild a n d late r a t h is m o th e r. A p p ly in g g re a t w e ig h t to th e so le e n h a n c e m e n t fa c to r , th e trial c o u rt se n ten c e d th e d e fe n d a n t as a R a n g e II o ffe n d e r to cons ecuti ve t er m s of

t hr ee ye ar s forthe r eckl es s endange r m entconvi ct i on and t en yea r s for t he aggr avat ed as s aul tconvi ct i on, foran ef fecti ve s ent ence of

t hi r t een year s att hi r t y- f i ve-4-

p e rc e n t in th e D e p a rt m e n t o f C o rr e c tio n . A N A L Y S IS I . Les s e r - I nc l ude d O f f e ns e I ns t r uc t i on A s hi s f i r s ti s s ue, t he def

endantcont ends t hatthe tr i al cour tcom m i t t ed pl ai n err orby i ns tr uct i ng t he j ur y t hatr eckl es s endange r m ent w as a l es s er - i ncl uded off ens e of aggr avat ed as s aul tas char ged i n t he i ndi ct m ent
. T he def endantconce des t hat he di d notr ai s e the i s s ue in h is m o tio n fo r n e w tr ia l, b u t a rg u e s th a t itc o n stitu ted p lain e rro r th a t affe c ted h is s ubs t ant i al r i ght s . I n s uppor t , he poi nt s outthatours upr em e cour thel d i n St at e v. M oor e, 77 S. W

. 3d 132, 135 ( T enn. 2002) , t hat fel ony r eckl es s endange r m ent i s nota l es s er - i ncl uded of fens e of an aggr avat ed as s aul tt hati s com m i t t ed by i nt ent i onal l y orkno w ing ly c aus i ng anothert o r eas onabl y fear i m m i nent bodi l y i nj ur y by t he us e or di s pl ay of a dea dl y w eapon. T he St at e ci t es D em o n b reun v. B el l , 226 S. W

. 3d 321 ( T enn. 2007) , t o ar gue thatthe def endanti s notent i t l ed t o pl ai n err orr evi ew beca us e he r eques t ed the l es s er - i ncl uded in s tr u c tio n a t tr ia l a n d th e re b y e ffe c tiv e ly c o n s e n te d to a n a m e n d m e n t o f th e in d ic tm e n t. W e a g re e w ith th e S ta te
. T he doctr i ne of pl ai n err orpr ovi des t hatan appe l l at e courtm ay t ake noti ce of an err or af fecti ng a s ubs t ant i al r i ghtof t he def endant , even i f not r ai s ed attr i al ori n t he m ot i on for n e w trial, if th e e r ro r m o re p ro b a b ly th a n n o t affe c ted th e ju d g m e n t o r w o u ld re su lt i n p rejud ice to the jud ici al pro ce ss. T en n . R

. A p p . P

. 3 6 (b). In ord er fo r us to fi n d p lai n erro r, “( a) t he r ecor d m us tcl ear l y es t abl i s h w h at o cc u rred i n the tr i al cour t ; ( b) a cl earand un equ i vo cal rul e of l aw m usthav e been breached ; (c) a subst anti al ri gh t of t he accused m ust have be en adve r s el y af

fect ed; ( d) t he ac cus ed di d notw ai ve the i s s ue fort acti cal r eas ons ; and ( e ) c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e e r r o r i s ‘ n e c e s s a r y t o d o s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i c e . ’ ” St a t e v . Smi t h, 24 S. W

. 3d 274, 282 ( T enn. 2000) ( quot i ng St at e v. A dki s s on, 899 S. W

. 2d 626, 641- 42 ( T enn. C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ))

. A c o u rt ’s d is c re tio n to n o tic e p la in e rr o r i s to b e “ s p a ri n g ly e x e rc is e d .” St at e v. B l eds oe, 226 S. W

. 3d 349, 354 ( T enn. 2007)

. Fur t her m or e, cons i der at i on of al l f i ve fact or s i s unnece s s ar y w hen i ti s cl earf r om t h e rec o rd thatatl eas tone of t hem cannotbe s at i s f i ed. I d. at355. I n D em onbr eun, ours upr em e cour tr ever s ed thi s cour t ’ s gr ant i ng of h abeas corpus r el i ef t o t he peti t i oner , concl udi ng thatal t hough t he peti t i onerhad be en convi ct ed of aggr avat ed as s aul t , w hi ch w as nota l es s er - i ncl uded of fens e of t he c h ar ged of

fens e of at t em pt ed f

i r s tdegr ee m ur der , he had e f fecti vel y cons ent ed t o the am endm ent of the ind ict m en t by ac ti v ely s ee k ing a n in s tr u cti o n o n the lesse r-i n clud ed o ffen se. T h e c o u rt w ro te: W e conti nue t o fol l ow t he rul e s etfor t h i n [ St at e v. ] D avenpor t , 980-5-

S

. W

. 2 d [40 7 , ] 4 0 9 [(T en n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 )], an d rea ffi rm ed in [ S tat e v .] St okes , 24 S. W

. 3d [ 303, ] 306 [ ( T enn. 2000) ] , t hatw e w i l l notpr es um e cons ent t o an am endm entt o an i ndi ct m entm er el y f r o m the def

endant ’ s s i l ent acqu i escence to a j ury i nstruct i on based on an i nco rr ectbeli ef that an off ense i s a l es s eri ncl uded of

fens e. H ow ever , w e f

i nd nothi ng i n St okes t o pr eventt he cour tf r om f i ndi ng an ef

fecti ve am endm entt o an i nd ict m en t w her e the d e fe n d a n t a c tiv e ly s e e k s th e ju ry in s tr u c tio n o n th e u n c h a r g e d o ffe n s e . A defend ant s ho uld not be able t o “‘com plai n ab ou tcon victi on s on an offense w hi ch, w i t hout hi s ow n couns el ’ s i nt er vent i on, w oul d not have been c har ged t o t he j ur y. ’ ” [ St at e v. ] E aley , 9 59 S. W

. 2d [ 605, ] 612 [ ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1 9 9 7 )] (q u o tin g [S ta te v . R o b e rtW .] B e n tle y , [N o . 0 2 C 0 1 -9 6 0 1 -C R -0 0 0 3 8 ,] 1 9 9 6 W L 5 9 4 0 7 6 , at *2 [(T en n . C ri m . A p p . O ct. 1 7 , 1 9 9 6 )]. 2 2 6 S .W .3 d a t 3 2 6

. W hil e i ti s true that f

el on y reckl ess endan germ ent w as not a l esser -i ncluded offense of t he agg rav ated assaul t s as char ged i n the i ndi ct m ent , s ee M oor e, 77 S. W

. 3d at135, the r ecor d r e v e a l s t h a t i t was d e fe n s e c o u n s e l who r e q u e s t e d t h e i n s tr u c t i o n , e x p r e s s i ng t he err oneous bel i ef

t hat i tw as an “opti onal l es s eri ncl uded. ” The fol l ow i ng excha nge bet w een th e trial c o u rt a n d d e fe n se c o u n se l to o k p lac e a t trial:

T H E C O U R T : A n y sp e c ial in stru c tio n s re q u e st? [D E F E N S E C O U N S E L ]: I ha d e a rlier p u lled re c k les s e n d a n g e rm e n t. T H E C O U R T : W hi ch one? I nvol vi ng a gun? [D E F E N S E C O U N S E L ]: Y es. T H E C OU RT: I d o n ’ th a v e a n y p r o b l e m wi t h t h a t
. Th e “ E” fe l o n y. T h a t’ s a le s s e r i n c lu d e d

. [ D E FE N SE C O U N SE L ] : I t hi nk thati t ’ s l i ke an opti onal lesser in c lu d e d , m a y b e . T H E C O U R T : W el l , I don’ tthi nk i t ’ s an opt i onal , if there i s a gun a lle g e d , b u t w e ’l l c h e c k it. [D E F E N S E C O U N S E L ]: T h a t is th e o n ly th in g th a t ju st s to o d o u t to m e th a t I h a d g la n c e d a t e a rl ie r t o s e e .-6- T H E C O U R T : N o, i f

ther e’ s nota gun then i t ’ s nots uppos ed t o be c h a rg e d , is m y u n d e rsta n d in g , o n a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt. B u t, I th in k th a t itw o u ld be appr opr i at e i n t hi s s i t uat i on. B utanyw ay w e’ l l g o thro ugh w hatt he l aw re q u ir e s to d o . Be c a u s e t h e e r r o n e o u s j u r y i n s tr u c t i o n r e s u l t e d f r o m d e fe n s e c o u n s e l ’ s a c t i o n s , we agr ee w i t h t he St at e t hat t he def endant cannot s how t hat a cl ear and unequi vocal r ul e of l aw w a s b re a c h e d

. A c c o rd in g ly , w e c o n c lu d e th a t h e is n o t en tit led to p lain e rro r re v iew o n th is is s u e . I I . Suff i ci ency of

t he E vi dence T h e d e fe n d a n t n e x t co n ten d s th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s in su ffic ien t to su sta in h is convi ct i ons beca us e ther e w as i ns uf f i ci ent pr oof t hat ei t her vi ct i m face d i m m i nentdangeror t hr eatof har m . I n cons i der i ng t hi s i s s ue, w e appl y t he rul e thatw her e s uf f i ci ency of

the co n v ict ing ev iden ce is ch all en g ed , the re leva n t qu esti o n o f th e re v iew ing co u rtis “w h ethe r, a ft e 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 fa v o ra b le to th e p ro s e c u tio n , any r at i onal tr i er o f fa c t co u ld h av e fo u n d the e ssen ti al elem en ts of the c ri m e b ey o n d a re aso n ab le do u b t.” J acks on v. V i r gi ni a, 443 U

. S. 307, 319 ( 1979) ; s ee al s o T enn. R

. A pp. P. 13( e) ( “Fi ndi ngs of gui l ti n cr i m i nal acti ons w hether by t he tr i al court or j ur y s hal l be s et as i de i f the evi dence is in su ffic ien t to su p p o rt th e fin d in g s b y th e trier o f fa c t o f g u il t b e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubt

. ”) ; St at e v. E vans , 838 S. W

. 2d 185, 190- 92 ( T enn. 1992) ; St at e v. A nder s on, 835 S .W .2 d 6 0 0 , 6 0 4 (T e n n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ). A l l ques t i ons i nvol vi ng t he cr edi bi l i t y of w i t nes s es , t he w ei ght and val ue t o be gi ven t he evi dence , and al l factual i s s ues ar e r es ol ved by the tr i erof fact
. See St at e v. Pappas , 754 S. W

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

. “A gui l t y ver di ct by t he j ur y, appr oved by the trial ju d g e , ac c re d its th e tes tim o n y o f th e w itn e ss e s fo r th e S tate a n d re so lv e s a ll co n flicts in favorof t he theor y of

t he St at e.” S t at e v. G r ace , 493 S. W

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

. O ur s upr em e cour ts t at ed the r at i onal e forthi s r ul e:

T hi s w el l

- s et t l ed rul e re s t s on a s ound foundat i on. T he tr i al j udge and th e ju ry se e th e w itn e ss e s fa c e to fa c e , h e a r th e ir tes tim o n y a n d o b se rv e th e ir d e m e an o r on the s tand

. T h u s the tr ial jud g e a n d jury are the p ri m ary i ns tr um ent al i t y of

j us t i ce t o det er m i ne the w ei ghtand cr edi bi l i t y t o be gi ven t o t he t es t i m ony of

w i t nes s es . I n the tr i al for um al one i s t her e hum an at m os pher e and the t ot al i t y of t he evi dence cannotbe r epr oduced w it h a w ritten re c o rd in th is C o u rt. B ol i n v. St at e, 219 T enn. 4, 11, 405 S

. W

. 2 d 7 6 8 , 771 ( 1966) ( ci t i ng C arr ol l v. St at e, 212 T e n n . 4 6 4 , 3 7 0 S .W .2 d 5 2 3 (1 9 6 3 ))

.-7-

A ju ry c o n v ictio n re m o v e s th e p re su m p tio n o f in n o c e n c e w ith w h ich a d e fe n d a n t is i ni t i al l y cl oaked a nd r epl ace s it w it h one of gui l t , s o t haton appea l , a convi ct ed def endant has t he bur den of

dem ons tr at i ng t hatthe evi dence i s i ns uf f i ci ent
. See St at e v. T uggl e, 639 S

. W

. 2 d 9 1 3 , 9 1 4 (T en n . 1 9 8 2 ). A . A gg r av at e d A s s aul tC onv i c t i on Fort he purpos es of

t hi s cas e, an aggr avat ed assa u l ti s com m i t t ed w hen a pe r s on i nt ent i onal l y or know i ngl y com m i t s an as s aul tas def i ned i n s ecti on 39- 13- 101 and us es or di s pl ays a d e a d l y wea p o n . Te n n . Cod e Ann

. § 3 9

- 1 3

- 1 0 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B) ( 2 0 0 6 )

. A pe r s on com m i t s an as s aul tw ho i nt ent i onal l y orknow i ngl y caus es anoth er to r eas onabl y fear i m m i nent bodi l y i nj ur y. I d. §§ 39- 13- 101( a) ( 2) ; - 102( a) ( 1) ( B )

. A deadl y w eapon i ncl udes “[ a] f i r ear m oranythi ng m ani fes t l y des i gned, m ade or adapt ed for t he purpos e of i nf l i ct i ng death or s er i ous bodi l y i nj ur y. ” I d. § 39- 11- 106( a) ( 5) ( A )

. T hus , t o s us t ain th e c o nvi ct i on foraggr avat ed as s aul t , t he St at e had t o pr ove beyond ar eas onabl e doubtt hat t he def endant inten ti o n all y o r k n o w ing ly ca u sed T roy P att erso n to rea so n ab ly fea r i m m inen t bo d il y injury b y h is d is p la y o f h is g u n . T he def endantas s er t s t hat h is t hr eat s s houl d be vi ew ed as “condi t i onal t hr eat s of pos s i bl e f

ut ur e har m r ather t han i m m i nent har m ” becaus e t hey “w er e l i nked t o a conti nuat i on of t he def endantnotbei ng al l ow ed t o s ee hi s purpor t ed s on. ” H e al s o char act er i zes T r oy Pat t er s on’ s test i m ony t hatt he def endantdi s pl ayed a gun as “pr obl em at i c” gi ven C har l es Pat t er s on’ s t es t i m ony t o t he contr ar y. A s s uch, t he def endantar gues t hatt he f eart hatT r oy Pat t er s on exper i ence d as a re s ul tof “the al l eged e ncount erw i t h the def endantw as notcaus ed by a r eas onabl y i m m i nentt hr eatof bodi l y i nj ur y. ” W e r es pect f

ul l y di s agr ee. V i ew ed i n t he l i ghtm o st fav o rabl e t o t he St at e, the evi dence es t abl i s hed thatt he def endant , w ho w as obvi ous l y i n a vol at i l e em ot i onal s t at e, d ro v e slo w ly d o w n th e stre e t b e sid e th e v ictim a n d h is br o th e r, p o in ted a g u n a t h im , an d sa id t hathe w as g oi ng t o ki l l t he vi ct i m , hi s br other s , and the vi ct i m ’ s m other

. T hes e ac t i ons w er e ce r t ai nl y s uf

f i ci entfort he vi ct i m t o r eas onabl y fear i m m i nent bodi l y i nj ur y ordeath at t he hands of

t he def endant

. W e conc l ude, t her efor e, t hatt he evi dence w as m or e than s u ffic ie n t to s u s ta in th e d e fe n d a n t’ s c o n v ic tio n fo r a g g ra v a te d a s s a u lt.

B . F el ony R eckl es s E ndan germ entC onvi ct i on T he d efendan tcon t end s that the ev i den ce w as i nsufficie n t to sust ai n h i s r eckles s e n d a n g e rm e n t co n v ictio n b e c a u se th e re w a s n o p ro o f th a t h e “ d id a n y th in g th a t ac tu a lly p la c ed [C h arlesetta P att erso n ] i n im m inen t dan g er o f de ath o r seriou s b o d il y injury

. ” In s uppor t , he poi nt s outt hatt her e w as no t es t i m ony thathi s w eapon w as f i r ed, l oaded, oreven oper at i onal

. H e al s o ar gues t hatC har l es ett a Pat t er s on’ s conf l i ct i ng prel i m i nar y hear i ng-8-

tes tim o n y c a sts d o u b t o n w h e th e r th e in c id e n t sh e d e sc ri b e d a t tr ia l o c c u rre d o n th e d a te al l eged i n t he i ndi ct m ent
. T he St at e ar gues th at th e ev idence w as s uf f i ci entt o s us t ai n the c o n v ic tio n , a n d w e a g re e . A p e rso n c o m m its th e o ffe n se o f re c k les s e n d a n g e rm e n t “w h o re c k les sly e n g a g e s in conductt hatpl ace s orm ay pl ace ano ther p er s on i n i m m i nentdangerof death ors er i ous bodi l y i n j u ry . ” Te n n . C ode. A nn. § 39- 13- 103( a) ( 2006)

. R eckl es s endange r m entcom m i t t ed w i t h a deadl y w eapon i s a C l as s E fel ony. I d. § 39- 13- 103( b)

. T o dem ons tr at e an i m m i nent d a n g e r o f d e a th o r se rio u s b o d ily in ju ry , the S tate m u st s h o w th a t th e v ictim w a s “ p lac e d in r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t y of dangeras oppos ed t o a m er e pos s i bi l i t y of danger

. ” St at e v. Payne, 7 S .W .3 d 2 5 , 2 8 (T e n n . 1 9 9 9 ). V i ew e d i n t h e l i g h t m o s t fa v o r a b l e t o t h e St a t e , t h e e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t i n t he cour s e of a hea t ed ar gum entw i t h t he vi ct i m , t he def endantpul l ed a gun outf r om underthe se a t o f h is v e h icle , p o in ted it d ire c tly a t th e v ictim , a n d a n n o u n c e d th a t h e w a s g o in g to k ill her. A l t ho ug h ther e w as no ev i den ce t hat the gun w as l oad ed or op erat i on al , t here w as al so n o e v id e n c e th a t itw a s n o t. T h u s, a ra tio n a l ju ry c o u ld re a so n a b ly c o n c lu d e th a t th e v ictim w as pl ace d i n i m m i nentdangerof death or s er i ous bodi l y i nj ur y by t he def endant ’ s acti ons i n poi nt i ng a gun atherd u ri n g t he hea t ed exc hange. W e conc l ude, ther efor e, thatthe evi dence w as s uf

f i ci entt o s us t ai n t he defendant ’ s fel ony r eckl es s endange r m entconvi ct i on.

I I I . Se nt e nc i ng A s h is fin a l issu e , the d e fe n d a n t c o n ten d s th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d b y e n h a n c in g h is agg rav ated a s s aul ts ent ence t o t he m axi m um s ent ence i n the r ange a nd or der i ng t hatthe aggr avat ed as s aul tand r eckl es s endange r m ent s ent ence s be s er ved cons ecuti vel y. W hen an ac cu sed ch all en g es th e len g th an d m an n er o f se rvice o f a sen tenc e, it is th e d u ty o f th is co u rt t o conducta de novo r evi ew on t he re cor d “w i t h a pre s um pt i on thatt he det er m i nat i ons m ade by t he cour tf

r om w hi ch the appe al i s t aken a r e corr ect
. ” Tenn. C ode A nn. § 40- 35- 401( d) ( 2006)

. T hi s pr es um pt i on i s “con d it ion ed upon t he af f i r m at i ve s how i ng i n t he r ecor d that th e tr ia l c o u rt c o n s id e re d th e s e n te n c in g p ri n c ip le s a n d a ll re le v a n t fa c ts a n d c ir c u m s ta n c e s .” St at e v. A s hby, 823 S. W

. 2d 166, 169 ( T enn. 1991)

. T he pr es um pt i on does not appl y t o the l egal concl us i ons r eac hed by the tr i al cour ti n s ent enci ng t he ac cus ed ort o the det er m i nat i ons m ade by the tr i al cour tw hi ch ar e pr edi cat ed upon uncontr over t ed fact s . St at e v. B ut l er , 900 S. W

. 2d 305, 311 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1994) ; St at e v. Sm i t h, 891 S. W

. 2d 922, 9 2 9 ( T enn. C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ); S tat e v . B o n estel, 8 7 1 S

. W

. 2 d 1 6 3 , 1 6 6 (T en n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ), o v erru led o n o ther g rou n d s b y S tat e v . H o o p er, 29 S

. W

. 3 d 1 , 9 (T en n . 2 0 0 0 ). I n conducti ng a de novo r evi ew of a s ent ence , this c our tm us tcons i der( a) any evi dence r ece i ved att he tr i al and/ orsen tenc ing he ar i ng, ( b) the pr es ent ence r epor t , ( c) the pr i nci pl es of

s ent enci ng, ( d) t he ar gum ent s of couns el r el at i ve t o s ent enci ng al t er nat i ves , ( e)-9-

t he natur e and char act er i s t i cs of t he of fens e, ( f) any m i t i gat i ng orenhanc em entfact or s , ( g) any s t ati s t i cal i nfor m at i on pr ovi ded by the adm i ni s tr at i ve of f i ce of t he cour t s as t o T ennes s ee s e n t e n c i n g p r a c t i c e s fo rs i mi l a r o f fe n s e s ; ( h ) a n y s t a t e me n t s ma d e b y t h e a c c u s e d i n h i s o wn b e h a lf ; a n d (i) th e a c c u se d ’s p o ten tial o r la c k o f p o ten tial fo r re h a b ili tatio n o r tre a tm e n t. T enn. C ode A nn. § § 4 0 -35 -103, - 210 ( 2006) ; St at e v. T ayl or , 63 S. W

. 3d 400, 411 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 2001)

. T he par t y chal l engi ng the s ent ence i m pos ed by the tr i al court has the b u rde n o f estab li sh ing that the s en tenc e is erro n eo u s. T en n . C o d e A n n . § 4 0 -35 -40 1 (20 0 6 ), Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on C m t s . ; A s hby, 823 S. W

. 2d at169.

A . E nhan cem entof

A ggravat ed A s s aul tSent ence T he def endan t con tend s tha t th e tri al co u rterro n eo u sly se n tenc ed h im to the m axi m um s ent ence i n t he r ange f

orhi s aggr avat ed as s aul tconvi ct i on, ar gui ng t hatth e s o l e e nhance m ent fa c to r fo u n d a p p li c a b le b y th e trial c o u rt d id n o t ju stify th e fo u r-y e a r e n h a n c e m e n t o f h is s ent ence . I n s uppor t , he not es t hatt he tr i al cour tenhanc ed hi s r eckl es s endange r m ent s ent ence , bas ed on the s am e enha ncem entfact or , by onl y one year . W e r es pect f ul l y di s agr ee. In im p o sin g a sp e c ific s e n ten c e w ith in th e a p p ro p ria te r a n g e o f p u n ish m e n t: [T ]he co u rtsh all co n side r, b u t i s n o t bo u n d b y , the fo llo w ing ad v isory sent encing g uidel i nes: ( 1) T he m i ni m um s ent enc e w it h i n t he r ange of puni s hm enti s the s ent ence t hat s houl d be i m pos ed, beca us e t he gener al as s em bl y set t he m i ni m um l ength of

s ent ence foreac h fel ony cl as s t o r ef l ectthe r elati ve s er i ous nes s of

eac h cr i m i nal of

fens e i n t he f

el ony cl as s i f

i cati ons ; and ( 2) T he s ent ence leng th w i t hi n the r ange s houl d be adj us t ed, as ap p rop ri ate, by the pre sen ce o r ab sen ce o f m itigating an d en h an ce m en t fac tors s e t o u t in § § 4 0 -3 5 -1 1 3 a n d 4 0 -3 5 -1 1 4

. T enn. C ode A nn. § 40- 35- 210( c)

. Fur t her m or e, t he w ei ghi ng of t he var i ous m i t i gat i ng and enhanc em ent fact or s i s “l ef t t o t he tr i al cour t ’ s s ound di s cr et i on. ” St at e v. C art er, 254 S .W .3 d 3 3 5 , 3 4 5 (T e n n . 2 0 0 8 ). A s t he St at e poi nt s out , t he tr i al cour tpr oper l y consi der ed the r el evants ent enci ng pr i nci pl es , s t at ed i t s r eas ons forenhanc ing the s ent ence , and i m pos ed a s ent ence t hatw as w ith in th e a p p lic a b le ra n g e fo r a R a n g e II o ffe n d e r s e n te n c e d fo r a C la s s C fe lo n y . W e c o n c lu d e , th e re fo re , th a t th e d e fe n d a n t is n o t e n title d to re lie f o n th e b a s is o f t h is is s u e . B. C ons e c ut i ve Se nt e nc i ng-10-

L as t l y, t he def

endantcont ends thatthe tr i al cour terr ed by or der i ng thathi s s ent ence s b e s e rv e d c o n s e c u tiv e ly . W e re s p e c tf u lly d is a g re e . T e n n e ss e e C o d e A n n o tate d se c tio n 4 0 -3 5 -1 1 5 (b ) p ro v id e s th a t a tr ial c o u rt m a y , in its d isc re tio n , o rd e r se n ten c e s to ru n c o n se c u tiv e ly if it find s a n y o n e o f n u m b e r o f c riter ia b y a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e , inc lu d in g th e fo llo w in g th re e fo u n d b y th e trial c o u rt in t hi s cas e: (1 ) T h e d e fe n d a n t is a p ro fe ss io n a l cr im in a l w h o h a s k n o w in g ly devot ed the def

endant ’ s l i fe t o cr i m i nal act s as a m aj ors our ce of l i vel i hood; ( 2) T he def

endanti s an of

fenderw hos e r ecor d of

cr i m i nal acti vi t y i s ext ens i ve;

. . . . ( 4) T he de fen d anti s a dange r ous of fenderw hos e beha vi ori ndi cat es l i t t l e o r n o r e g a r d fo rh u ma n l i fe , a n d n o h e s i t a t i o n a b o u tc o mmi t t i n g a c r i me in w h ic h th e ri s k to h u m a n life is h ig h [.] T enn. C ode A nn. § 40- 3 5 -115(b) ( 2006)

. T hes e cr i t er i a ar e s t at ed i n t he al t er nat i ve; t her efor e, onl y on e need exi s tt o s uppor tt he appr opr i at enes s of cons ecuti ve s ent enci ng. W hen a tr i al co ur tbas es cons ecuti ve s ent enci ng upon i t s cl as s i f i cati on of

the def endantas a dange r ous of

fender , i t i s r equi r ed t o m ake f ur t her f i ndi ngs t hatt he aggr egat e l ength of the d e fe n d a n t’s s e n ten c e re a so n a b ly re late s to th e se v e rity o f h is o ffe n se s a n d is n e c e s s a ry to pr ot ectt he publ i c fr om f ur t her cr i m i nal conduct of t he defendant

. St at e v. L ane, 3 S. W

. 3d 4 5 6 , 4 6 0 -61 (T en n . 1 9 9 9 ); S tat e v . W il k erso n , 9 0 5 S

. W

. 2 d 9 3 3 , 9 3 7 -38 (T en n . 1 9 9 5 ). T he defendantar gues t hatt he pr ofes s i onal cr i m i nal cr i t er i on s houl d nothave be en app l i ed b ecause, w i t h the excep t i on of a fel on y d rug con victi on , “t he record fai l s to sugg est t h a t[ h e ] r e c e i v e d a n y f i n a n c i a l r e m u n e r a t i o n f r o m a n y c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y ” ; t h e e x t e n s i ve of fendercr i t er i on s houl d nothave bee n appl i ed bec aus e m os tof hi s pr evi ous convi ct i ons w er e m i s dem eanorof

fens es ; and the dange r ous of fender cr i t er i on s houl d nothave be en a p p lied b e c a u se th e re w a s n o p ro o f th a t h is gu n w a s o p e ra tio n a l a n d th e trial co u r t m e r e ly r eci t ed the W i l ker s on fact or s w i t houts peci f i cal l y s t at i ng on t he r ecor d the r eas ons behi nd its im p o s itio n o f c o n s e c u tiv e s e n te n c e s u n d e r t h is c ri te ri o n . W e conc l ude thatt he r ecor ds s uppor t s t he tr i al court’s im pos i t i on of cons ecuti ve s ent enci ng underany one of t he thr ee c r i t er i a found by t he tr i al cour t
. A ccor di ng t o t he tr i al t es t i m ony, t he enr aged de fendantfol l ow ed t w o young boys hom e f r om s chool , poi nt ed a gun a t th e m a n d th re a ten e d to k ill th e m , p a rk e d b e h in d th e ir h o m e , an d th e n p o in ted a g u n a t th e ir m o ther w h il e threa tenin g h er li fe. M o reo v er, the crim inal h ist o ry se cti o n o f th e d efe n d an t’ s-11-

pre s e nt e nc e r e po r t , w hi c h i nc l ud e s no ton l y the s e ve nt e e n c r i m i na l c on vi c t i on s bu tal so num er ous arr es t s i n cas es i n w hi ch the cha r ges w er e nol l e pr os equi ed, cover s al m os ts even fu ll p a g e s o f th e re p o rt. F u rth e rm o re , the o n ly e m p lo y m e n t h isto ry th e tw e n ty -n in e -y e a r-o ld def endantr epor t ed, w hi ch w as unver i f i ed, cons i s t ed of

a s i ngl e yea rw or ki n g as a gener al l abor erfort w o di f

fer entt em por ar y em p loy m ents er vi ces . A ccor di ngl y, w e af f i r m the e ffe c tiv e th ir te e n -y e a r s e n te n c e im p o s e d b y th e tr ia l c o u rt
. CO NC L US I ON B as ed on the for egoi ng author i t i es and r eas oni ng, w e af f i r m t he j udgm ent s of t he tr i al c o u rt
.

_________________________________ AL AN E

. GL E NN, J UDGE