FILED

March 24, 2008

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

 AT J A CKSON

 O CTOBER 1996 SESSION

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) 

) C.C.A. No. 02C01-9510-CR-00296 

Appellee, )

) Shelby County

V. )

) Honorable Joseph B. Dailey, Judge

)

DARREN CAMPBELL, ) (First Degree Murder; Attempted 

) Second Degree Murder) 

Appellant. )

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

Brett B. Stein Charles W. Burson

Attorney at Law Attorney General & Reporter 

100 N. Main, Suite 3102

Memphis, TN 38103 Ellen H. Pollack

Assistant Attorney General

Mary Anne Queen

Legal Assistant

Criminal Justice Division

450 James Robertson Parkway

Nashville, TN 37243-0493

John W. Pierotti

District Attorney General

John Campbell

Asst. Dist. Attorney General

201 Poplar, Third Floor

Memphis, TN 38103

OPINION FILED: ___________________

AFFIRMED

PAUL G. SUMMERS,

Judge

O P I N I O N
At trial, the appellant attempted to establish an insanity defense. The defense was not 1

accepted. The appellate court, however, found that due to the appellant's mental health, the proof

was insufficient to establish deliberation. "We are not comfortable . . . that the defendant reflected

about his decision to kill, since his troubled mind may never have been free from the influence of

excitement or passion." State v. Campbell, No. 02-C-01-9207-CR-00150, slip op. at 10 (Tenn. Crim.

App. Feb. 23, 1996).

-2-

The appellant, Darren Campbell, was convicted by a jury of first degree

murder. This Court reduced his conviction to second degree murder and

remanded to the trial court for sentencing. The appellant was sentenced as a 1

Range I offender to 23 years incarceration. His sole issue on appeal is whether

his sentence was excessive. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

The appellant and three men were consuming alcoholic beverages at a

rooming house. The appellant and one of the men drove to a local restaurant

and picked up some chicken. When the appellant and the man returned with the

chicken, the man refused to share his chicken with the appellant. The appellant

got irate and left the room. Approximately four minutes later, the appellant

returned with a gun. He approached the man with the chicken and asked,

"What's up with the chicken?" Apparently, the man's response was unfavorable,

so the appellant shot him. The man died of gunshot wounds to the head and

chest. Another victim was shot but lived. The third person fled for his life.

The appellant argues that the trial judge abused his discretion in

assessing the weight to be afforded each enhancing and mitigating factor. It was

incumbent upon the appellant to prepare a record that included all materials

necessary for disposition on appeal. See State v. Beech, 744 S.W.2d 585, 588

(Tenn. Crim. App. 1987) (holding "in the absence of an adequate record we must

presume that the trial court's ruling was adequately supported by the evidence.").

The appellant's presentence report is not a part of the record before us.

Upon conducting a de novo review, we find five enhancement factors

applicable: (1) the appellant has a previous history of criminal activity, Tenn.

Code Ann. § 40-35-114(1); (2) the offense involved more than one victim, Tenn.

Code Ann. § 40-35-114(3); (3) the appellant possessed and employed a firearm
Although elements of the indicted offense, factors (10), and (16) may be applicable if the 2

facts demonstrate a culpability distinct from and appreciably greater than that incident to the convicted

offense. State v. Jones, 883 S.W.2d 596 (Tenn. 1994). Separate and distinct culpability may arise

when individuals other than the victim are present and subject to peril. See State v. Makoka, 885

S.W.2d 366, 373 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (holding factor (10) applicable when other possible victims

are present). The record reveals that others were present in the rooming house.

-3-

during the commission of the offense, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114(9); (4) the

appellant had no hesitation about committing a crime when the risk to human life

was high, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114(10); and (5) the crime was committed

under circumstances under which the potential for bodily injury to a victim was

great, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114(16). We find one mitigating factor 2

applicable: the appellant possessed a lack of substantial judgment or inability to

appreciate the nature of his conduct. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(6).

The appellant is a Range I standard offender. He has been convicted of a

Class A felony. His sentence range is 15 to 25 years. In accordance with the

principles of sentencing, we are to begin at the minimum range sentence. We

increase for each enhancement factor and then reduce for each mitigating factor. 

The weight afforded each factor is derived from balancing the relative degree of

culpability within the totality of the circumstances. State v. Bilbrey, 816 S.W.2d

71 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).

The appellant's sentence is increased by five enhancement factors. 

Although we find application of one mitigating factor, the weight afforded that

factor is minimal as the appellant's mental maladies were previously considered

in reducing his conviction from first degree murder to second degree murder. 

See State v. Martin, No. 03C01-9412-CR-00448 (Tenn. Crim. App. April 1,

1996) (holding although double mitigation not prohibited by statute, whether to

double mitigate is within sentencing court's discretion). Accordingly, the

appellant's sentence set at 23 years is appropriate. We affirm the trial court.

__________________________________

PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge

CONCUR:
-4-

_______________________________

JOHN H. PEAY, Judge

_______________________________

DAVID G. HAYES, Judge