### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ja nuary 26, 200 5
ST A TE OF TE N N ES SE E v
. M IC HA EL R IC A R D O M A R TI N
Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 2002-A- 587 Steve D ozier , Judge

No. M2004- 00455-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Jun e 24, 2005

On Ma rc h 2 5, 20 02 , th e de fe nd a nt, Mic ha e l Ric ard o Ma rt in, wa s ind ic te d by

the Da vid so n Co un ty Gra nd J ury

on two (2) counts of rape for an incident that oc curr ed on Nove mber 27, 2001. A jury trial was he ld and the def

endant wa s convicted of one (1) count of rape and one (1) count of sexual battery . The trial court sentenced the defe ndant t o concur rent sentences of ten (10) y ear s for the r ape conviction and two ( 2) y ear s for the sex ual battery conviction. On appeal the de fendant arg ues that the trial court erre d by

not gr anting his moti on for judg ment of ac quittal, by g rantin g the State’s motion in limine r eg arding evidenc e conce rning a prior hy menal injury sustained by

the victim and by sentenc ing the defe ndant to a ten (10) y ear eff ective se ntence . We affirm the judgme nts of the tr ia l c ou rt

. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Tr ial Co ur t i s A ffirm e d.

J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D H. W ELLES and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.

Michae l A. Colavecc hio, Nashville, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Michae l Ricardo Martin.

Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Gen eral & Re po rt e r; John H. B le ds oe , A ssi stant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Vic to r S. Jo h n s o n , D is tric t A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l, a n d D e rr ic k

Sc r e tc h e n , A s s is tan t D is tric t A tt o r n ey Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.It i s t he p o l i cy o f t his C o urt, t o refer t o t he m i no r victi m an d he r si b l i ng s b y t he i r i nit i als. 1

-2- OP IN ION

Fa ctual B ackg round

On Novembe r 27, 2001, fifte en-y ear -old T.T. came home from her job at Krog er and went 1 up stair s to he r be dr oo m to sle e p. He r fo urte e n- y e ar- oldbr oth e r, M. H. , w a s w a tc hin g te le vis ionin the living room when he hear d a knock on the door. M.H. answe red the door an d l et i n Michae l Martin, t h e d efe ndant. The de fendant is a former boy friend of

the childre n’s mother. T.T.’ s se ve nte e n- y e ar- old(1 7) sis te r, S.H ., wa s a sle e p on the c ou c h. S.H . w ok e up a ndsa w the de fe nd a nt. A short time later she woke up ag ain and asked M.H. w here the def endant wa s. M.H. told S.H. that the defe ndant had g one upstairs to use the bathroom. S.H. went upstairs to see what wa s taking the defe ndant so long . When she g ot upstairs, she turned the lights on in h er ro o m and saw the defe ndant “on top of [T.T.], and his penis was in her anus.” S.H. ran downstairs and we nt next door to a neig hbor’s house.

Cassandra

McCottery is the family ’s neighbor as well as the best friend of the m other. She
c a lle d T .T .’ s mo the r at work and to ld he r w hat ha d h app e ne d. T. T. ’s mothe r, P.H . c a me ho me i m m ed i at el y
. T h e d ef

en d an t wa s s t i l l at P

. H. ’s h o m e wh en s h e a rr i v ed

. He d en i ed an y wr o n gd o i n g. P.H. took T.T. and the other children to the h o s pital to be examined. The def endant f ollowed the famil y in h is o wn c ar. Th e famil y ini tia lly we nt to Va nd e rb ilt Me dic a l Cen te r an d we re re fe rr e d to the Our Kids Center of the N ashville Gene ral Hospital.

T.T. under went an e x amination by the staff at the Our

Kids Center. L isa Dupre e is on the staff at Our Kids Center. She ta kes a history

from the patients seen at t h e ce n t er. She collected ba c kg ro un d f

ro m T .T . th e nig ht o f h e r e xami natio n. T. T. tol d Ms. Du pr e e that “ [the de fe nd a nt’ s] private we nt i ns ide he r bo tto m a nd he r private .” T. T. a lso tol d M s. Du pr e e that th e de fe nd a nt d id not e jaculate

. J ulie Rosof-Will iams is a nurse pr actitioner w ith Our Kids Center. She c onducted the ph y sic a l e xami natio n o f T .T . Sh e fo un d a fi ss ure in T. T. ’s va g ina that w a s f

re sh a ndmos t li ke ly
occur red w ithin the twenty -four (24) hour s immediately

prec eding th e ex amination. Ms. RosofWil liams did not find any medical evidence that T.T. had been ana lly penetr ated, but it is unusual to find any injury afte r anal penetr ation. Ms. Rosof-Will iams took swabs during the examination, but these swabs did not show any signs of semen.
The de fendant was indicted on Marc h 25, 2002 for two counts of rape
. Following a jury trial held on Fe bruary

24 and 25, 2003, the defe ndant was convicted of one count of ra pe and one count of sexual battery . The de fendant was sentenc ed to ten (10) y ear s at 10 0 % for the rape involving vag inal penetr ation and an a dditional two (2) y ear s at 30% for sex ual battery . The sente nces w ere t o ru n c o n c u rr e n t l y.-3-

The de fendant filed a pro se motion for post-conviction relief on September 11, 2003, and that motion was la t er am en d ed by appointed counse l. A motion for new tria l had bee n filed on Marc h 12, 2003, but the trial court ha d never hear d the motion. The trial court allowed the de fenda nt to present his orig inal motion for new tria l because it had not been previously hear d. Following an evidentiary

hearing o n J anuar

y 23, 2004, the trial court denied the de fendant’s motion. The de fe nd a nt t ime ly

fi le d a no tic e of app e a l.
AN AL YSI S

The de fendant arg ues three (3) issues on a ppeal: (1) the trial court erre d in not gr anting the defe ndant’s Motion for Ju d gm en t o f Ac quittal at the conclusion of the State’ s proof; (2) the trial court e rre d in preve nting testimony as it relate d to the issue of an old hymenal injury ; and (3) the trial
c ou rt e rr e d inse nte nc ing the de fe nd a nt.
Thir te e nt h Jur orRul e
The de fendant arg ues that the tria l court er red in not g ranting his moti on for judg ment of acquittal at the c onclusion of the State’s pr o o f. However, upon r eviewing the re cord w e have d is c o v e r e d th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t d idn o t m o v e f

o r a ju d g me n t o f

a c q u itta l at th e c o n c lu s io n o f the State’s proof. In fac t, the defe ndant’s attorne y specific ally

states that he is not asking for a judgme nt of ac quittal but ins tead make s a motion with reg ard to the spe cifics of the jury char g e.
Ev e n th ou g h th e re wa s n o mo tio n f or jud g me nt o f a c qu itt a l, w e wi ll ne ve rthe le ss a dd re ss this issue on the merits of the tria l court’s pe rformance as thirteenth juror with r eg ard to the motion for new tria l. Rule 33(f) of

the Tenne ssee Rul es of Criminal Procedur e provides that “[t] he trial c ourt may g rant a new tria l f

ollowing a verdic t of g uiltyif it disagr ees w ith the jury about the we ight of the evidenc e.” T enn. R. Crim. P. 33(f). “This portion of the Rule is the m odern equivalent t o the ‘thirteenth juror rule,’ wher eby the trial court must we igh the evidenc e and g rant a new tria l if the evidenc e pre ponderates ag ainst the weig ht of the ver dict.” State v. B lanton, 926 S.W .2d 9 5 3 , 958 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) . The Te nnessee Supreme Court ha s held “that Rule 33(f) imposes upon a trial court judg e the mandatory duty to serve a s the thirteenth juror in e very criminal ca se.” State v. Carter , 896 S.W .2d 119, 122 (Tenn. 1995) . Moreove r, the “ approva l by the trial judg e of the jury ’s verdic t as the thirteenth juror is a nece ssary prer equisite to the imposit ion of a va lid judgment.” I d. Howeve r, “Rule 33( f) doe s not r equire the trial judge to make an e x plicit statement on the rec ord.” I d. “I nstead, whe n the trial judg e simply overr ules a motio n fo r n ew t rial, an a ppellate c ourt may presume that the trial judge has serve d as the thirteenth juror and approve d the jury ’s ver dict.” I d.

I n h is b ri e f the de fe nd a nt’ s a rg ume nt c on sis ts o f a

state me nt that “ the tr ia l c ourt f a ile d to exercise it’s duty as a 13 juror and dismiss the case , based on the evidenc e, or la ck ther eof, and the th fa c t that the State faile d to c arry it’ s bu rd e n to pr ov e the Ap pe lla nt g uil tybey on d a rea so na ble d o u b t

. ” W e dis ag ree . At the hea ring on the motion for new trial, the trial court summarized the proof. The t ri al co u rt s p ecifically stated that there was suff icient evidenc e to support a ve rdict of g uil t. A s st a te d a

bo ve , whe n a tria l judg e ov e rr ule s a motio n for ne w tri a l tha t is e no ug h to pr e su me-4-

that he has acted as thirteenth j uror. I n this case , the t rial court stated on the re cord that he found the proof to be suf

ficient. There fore , we conclude that the trial judg e ac ted prope rly as thirteenth juror

. Evi de nt iar y I ssu e Prior to trial, the S tate filed a mot ion in limine conce rning a previous hy menal injury to the victim. After the State’s offe r of proof throug h the testimony of Ms. Rosof-Wil liams, the trial court g rante d th e State ’s mot ion that the e vid e nc e of a pr e vio us hyme na l in

jury wa s ir re le va nt t o th e c a se ag ainst the defe ndant. The tria l court made the following ruling on the re cord:

All rig ht. On the issue conc erning the medica l ex am an d the proff er w e’ve hear d from Ms. Will iams, as I mentioned bef

ore o u r l u n ch bre ak, and - - [the de fe nd a nt’ s atto rn e y ] is co nf ir min g that his pur

po se fo r as kin g abo ut the se old , w e llheale d hy menal injury

(sic) - - how the W itness describe d it - - is - - his purpose f or doing that is for impeaching the victim about making a prior inc onsistent statement and not under

Four -twelve , which I mentioned before lunch that that wouldn’t be a n option, because he hadn’ t filed a motion.

And i t wouldn’t be the mec hanism for introducing it any way , since F ourtwelve deals with prior sexual activity . The a lleg ed victim here , [T.T.] , is, acc ording t o t h e m e d i c a l i n f

o r m a t i o n , s a yi n g t h a tt h e r e i s n o p r i o r s e x u a l a c t i v i t y. So, I ag ree with t h e S tate, in terms of - - and I don’t think [ defe ndant’s attorney ] was even a

rg uing this or hasn’t arg ued - - that - - that in any way can y ou u s e t h e i m p ea ch m en tru l es an d p u rp o s es t o getar o u n d Fo u r- t we l v e, ev en t h o u gh those issues of impeac hment addre ss potenti al Fo u r-twe lve ar eas; that is, if y ou - - if y o u l o o k ed at Ms. Willi ams’ testimony about it could be consistent with sexual
a c t i v i t y, t h i s o l d , h e a l e d i n j u r y; i tc o u l d b e c o n s i s t e n tw i t h a c c i d e n t a l i n j u r y. So, even Ms. Wil liams is say ing it may not be Four-twe lve-re lated. So, that’s
so rt of of f the ta ble , th e F ou r- tw e lve a sp e c t. When y ou look at impeachme nt and the purpose s for it, unde r Six -thirteen, t h a t ’ s o n l y f

o r j u d g i n g a w i t n e s s ’ c r e d i b i l i t y.
An d th e De fend a nt’ s a

rg ume nt i s, we ll, sh e sa y s sh e ha dn ’t be e n s e xua lly
a ssa ult e d b y my arg ume nt is, ba se d on the me dic a l pro of , ha t sh e ha s b e e n s e xua lly assaulted.

But that’s not e x actly

what the W itness is say ing. She c an’t say if it is or isn’t sexually -re lated or how that injury would’ve oc curr ed.-5- So, y ou kn ow , y ou c a n’ t us e that lin e of qu e sti on ing of the vic tim or bring it
ou t th ro ug h Ms

. W il li a ms, to e mba rr a ss o r s ome ho w p a int

T. T. a s so me loo se wo m an , th e wa y t h e ol d Fo u r- t we l v e cas es t al k ed ab o u t , j u s t t o get i t i n t h r o u gh imp e a c hme nt. So, the qu es tion is what is it impeaching ; what would that statement in the
me dic a l r e po rt , th a t sh e ha s n o p ri or se xua l a ssa

ult s a ndno bo dy ’s do ne thi s to me befor e - - what’s it inconsistent with.

An d, fr om w hat I ’v e he ard thu s f ar, it’ s n ot i nc on sis te nt w ith a nythi ng . M s. Wil liams say s she ca n’t say if there ’s past sexual penet ra t i o n , that it would be
a c c ide nta l. So, there’s nothing proving that it is an inconsistent statement and - - and thus
wo u l d n ’t b e i m p ea ch i n g an y t h i n g.
Th e n y ou c a n lo ok

a t it in t e rm s o f jus t g e ne ral r e le va nc y , w hic h is wh a t I keep coming back to, and how that Rule define s relevancy - - that Rule be ing F our-0-
one - - is any

piece of evide nce that has any tendenc y to pr ove a f

act that’ s material to the case

. And - - and, even w hen y ou look at it under F our-0- one, it doesn’t have any b e ar i n g o r a n y i m p a c t o n w h e t h e r [ T

. T

. ] w a s r ap e d , o n o r

ab o u tN o v e m b e r

t w e n t yseventh of ‘ 0-one, be cause the Wit ness say s that it - - from a medical standpoint - - oc c ur re d at le a st t wo we e ks prior to the e xam. So, ba sed on the issues and the evidenc e prese nted at this time, I don’t think it’ s r e le va nt, I

do n’t th in k it’s i mpe a c hme nt i nf orma tio n o f [T .T .], andit c e rt a inl y isn’t releva nt under F our-twe lve.

S o , u n l es s s o m et h i n g ch an ges , t h at wo u l d b e t h e C o u rt ’s ru l i n g.

Th e de fe nd a nt m a int a ins that th is e vid e nc e is b o thr e le va nt, a ndin the a lte rn a tiv e , is a va ila ble to be u s e d to imp e a c h th e v ic ti m b e c a u s e s h e “ li e d ab o u t a n y p r io r in ju r y to h e r hy men . . . .” Turning first to the question o f re levanc e, we acknow ledg e that evide nce must be r eleva nt and probative to a n issue at trial in order to be admissible. State v. McCary , 922 S.W .2d 511, 515 (Tenn. 1996); see a lso Tenn. R. Evid. 402. Evidence is releva nt if it has “any tendenc y t o m ake the
e xiste nc e of a ny fa c t tha t is of c on se qu e nc e to the de te rm inatio n of the a c tio n mor e pr ob able or le ss probable than it would be without the evidenc e.” T enn. R. Evid. 401. Howeve r, re levant evide nce may be ex cluded at trial if the probative value of that evidenc e “is substantially outweig hed by the dang er of unfair pr ejudice, c onfusion of the issues, or misleading the jury

. . . .” Tenn. R. Evid. 403. The de termination of re levanc y is left to the discre t i o n of the trial c ourt, and this Court will not-6-

ov e rturn a

tr ia l cou rt ’s de te rm inatio n in th is r e g ardin the abs e nc e of a n a bu se of dis c re tio n. Sta te v. Wil liamson, 919 S.W.2d 69, 78-79 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) ; State v. Forbe s, 918 S.W .2d 431, 449 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995)

. We ag ree with the t rial court that evidenc e of a previous well-he aled hymenal injury is not rele vant to the def

endant’ s trial. A pre vious hy menal injury does not make it more or less likely that the def endant r aped the victim on the night in question. We find that there was no a buse of dis c re tio n b y

the tr ia l c ou rt

. We also ag ree with the trial court r eg arding the admissibilit y of the e vidence for the pur poses of impeac hment. When the Our Kids Center staff aske d the victim if she had be en ra ped bef ore or eng ag ed in se x ual intercour se she said no. The nurse pr actitioner w ho examined T.T. and found the previous injury

testified that the injury

could have occur

red f rom an ac cidental injury

as we ll as sexual contact. The e vidence is too am b i gu o u s to show that the victim lied, as the defe ndant contends. The ref

ore, w e ag ree with t h e trial c ourt that this information is not proper for impeachme nt under Rule 613 of the Tenne ssee Rules of Evide nce.
Th is i ssu e is w ith ou t me ri t.
Se nt e nc ing

Th e de fe nd a nt’ s f

ina l arg ume nt is that

the tr ia l c ou rt

faile d to app ly

e no ug h w e ig ht t o mitigating fac tors found at Te nnessee Code Annotated section 40-25-113. He contends that if the trial court ha d applied any weig ht to the fac tors then the trial c ourt sh o u l d h ave se ntence d the defe ndant to an eig ht (8) y ear sentenc e so that the de fendant would have been eligible for probation.

“When re viewing sentenc ing issues . . . , the appellate court shall conduc t a de novo r eview on the re cord of

such issues. Such re view shall be c onducted with a pr esumption that the determinations made by

the court from which the appea l is taken are corr ect.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401( d). “Howe ver, the presumption of corr ectne ss w hich acc ompanies the trial court’s a ction is conditio n e d u p o n th e a f f irmati v e s h o w in g inth e r e c o r d th a t th e tria l c o u r t c o n s id e r e d the sentencing principles and a ll releva nt fac ts and circ umstances.” State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991) . I n conducting our re view, we must consider the de fendant’s potential for reha bilitation, t he trial a nd sentenc ing he aring evidenc e, the pr e-se ntence report, the senten cing principles, sente ncing alternative arg uments, the nature and cha rac ter of the offe nse, the e nhancing and mitigating fac tors, and the de fendant’s statements. Tenn. Code A nn. §§ 40-35-103( 5), -210( b); Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169. We are to also rec og nize that the defe ndant bea rs “the bu rden of demonstrating that the sentenc e is improper.” Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169.

I n balanc ing the se concerns, a trial court should s tart at the pr esumptive sentenc e, enhance the se nte nc e wi thi n th e rang e fo r e xistin g e nh a nc e me nt f a c tor s, a ndthe n r e du c e the se nte nc e wi thi n the ra ng e for

exis ting mitigating factors. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210( e). N o particula r we ight fo r e a c h f a c tor is p re sc ri be d by the statut e
. Se e State v. Sa nti a g o, 91 4 S. W.2 d 1 16 , 1 25 (T e nn . Crim.W e n ot e t hat t he T enn es s ee Supre me C our t ha s det er mi ned t hat des pi t e t he abi l i t y o f tri al j udges t o s et 2

s en t en ce s a bov e t h e pr es u mpt i v e s en t en ce ba s ed on t h e f i n di n g of

e n h an ce men t f ac t or s n ei t h er fou n d by a jur y n or adm i t t ed by a defendan t , T enn es s ee’ s sen t enc i ng st r uct ur e d oes not vi ol at e t he Si xt h Amendm ent an d do es not conf l i ct wi t h t h e h ol di n g s of

B l ak el y v
. W as h i n g t on , ___ U

. S. ___ , 124 S. C t

. 2531 ( 2004) , U n i t ed St at es v
. B ook er , ___ U

. S.

__ _, 125 S. Ct

. 738 ( 20 05 ) , or U ni t ed St at es v. FanFan , t he cas e c ons ol i dat ed wi t h B oo ker , becau s e “ t he R eform Act [of T enness ee] aut ho ri zes a di scr et i o nary , non-mand at o ry s ent enci ng p roce d ure and requir es t ri al judge s t o co nsi d er t he pri nci pl es of

s ent enc i ng an d t o eng age i n a qual i t at i ve ana l y s i s of enh anc ement and mi t i gat i ng f act ors
. . . al l of wh i ch
ser ve t o gui d e t ri al judges i n exerci si ng t hei r di scr et i o n t o s el ect a n a p p ro p ria te s e nt ence wit hi n t he range s et by t he Le gi sl at ure. ” Stat e v. G o m ez,

_ _ _ S.W

. 3 d

_ _ _ , N o
. M 2 0 0 2

- 0 1 2 0 9

- SC

- R 1 1

- C D , 2 0 0 5 W L 85 6 8 4 8 , at * 2 7 (T enn. A p r. 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 ).

-7- Ap p. 19 95 ). Th e we ig ht g ive n to e a c h f a c tor is le ft to the dis c re tio n o f the tr ia l c ou rt a s lo ng a s it comports with the sentenc ing principles and purpose s of our c ode and as l o n g as its findings ar e supported by

the re cord. I d. 2

The trial c ourt sentenc ed the defe ndant t o ten (10) year s at 100% for his rape c onviction and two (2) y ear s for his sexual battery conviction. These sentenc es we re to be serve d concur rently . The tri al co u rt m ad e t h e f

o l l o wi n g ru l i n g att h e c o n cl u s i o n o f t h e s en t en ci n g h ea ri n g:

I n te rm s o f en ha nc ing fa c tor s, I do thi nk the re are so me that are pr e se nt, tho se being - - a nd the i nitial one, I ’m placing minimal weig ht on, beca use t hat being the previous history

of criminal convictions, and in addition criminal behavior , i.e., the prior drug usag e; but that - - the r eason I ’m saying I ’m placing minimal weight on that is that occurr ed a numbe r of y ear s ag o.
T h e o th e r o n e th a t I th in k th o u g h is p r e s e n t is th a t th e D e f e n d a nt abused a positi o n o f

p r iv a te tr

u s t i n th is p ar ti c u la

r c a s e , inth a t h e w o u ld n ’ t’ v e b e e n inthe ho us e a nd wo uld n’ t’ ve be e n r oa min g thr ou g h th e ho us e , b ut f or his re la tio ns hip wi th the parties there, inc luding these children and the victim in this particula r ca se. So, I don’t think the event that the J ury ’s found oc curr ed would’ve occur red,
wo uld ’v e be e n a

ble to be a ccom pli sh e d, bu t f or his po sit ion that he ha d w ith thi s pa rt ic ula r f a mil y , in c lud ing the vic tim

. So, that enhance ment fac tor is prese nt; and the Court place s more we ight on that than the other

one.
I n terms of the mit igating factors, I don’t think the first one that wa s arg ued, about causing or

threatened serious bodily injury , is prese nt beca use of - - there’s not
a s er i o u s bodilyinjury , so there’ s - - it’s not caused; but I don’t think, where y ou appea r in someone’ s bedroom while the vic tim was asleep, and there was minimal
a t t e m p t s - - I m e a n , s h e w a s n ’ tab l e t o g e t h i m o f f o f h e r , a c c o r d i n g t o h e r

t e s t i m o n y - - but I don’t think that, when y ou appea r under those circ umstances a nd the minimal-8-

strug g le there was, be cause of the positioni ng , him on top of her, that that mea ns that there was not the potential thre at of something worse ha ppening than did.

I n te rm s o f the un us ua l c ir c ums ta nc e s a nd wh e the r or no t he ha d th e int e nt t o vio la te the la w, I

wo ulda g re e that th e reare un us ua l c ir c ums tanc e s. And, y ou know, there was mention in testimony about s melling alcohol and - - but there wasn’t much mor e proof than that, in terms of whethe r that’s what broug ht thi s c on du c t a

bo ut o r n ot.

But I don’t think that rises to the level of pr eventing Mr. Martin - - which the J ury ’s her e and f

ound that he commit ted t his particula r events (sic) - - that that shows that he - - was unlikely

that he sustained intent to violate the law

. I me a n, if y ou r - - g o u p th e stair s, se e k ou t thi s c hil d the re in the be dr oo m, and g et up on top of her with her pants down, then that (sic) pretty g ood indication that there was some intent to do something that was a g ainst the law.

I n terms of the c atch- all, I ’ve a lrea dy weighe d i n his mini mal rec ord. And
every one’s supposed to not violate the law. I understand his familysupport and that he ’s pr ov idi ng - - ha s in the pa st p ro vid e d c hil d s up po rt

. And, if that fa lls under the catch-a ll, I think that would be g iven m inimal weig ht, as well, beca

use, again, that’s something that should be done. And, may be, it’ s d ue so me min ima l w e ig ht; a ndI ’l l f a c tor that in , a s w e ll.

Ba sed on those fa ctors, the Court is g oing to impos e, as to Count One, a teny ear sentenc e; as to Count Two, a two-y ear sentenc e; to r un concur rent. There ’s no b a s i s f o r t h e s e t o b e ru n a n y o t h e r w a y. That would pre vent his elig ibilit y fo r p ro b ati on, which I ’m - - w ouldn’t be inclined to g rant a ny way , beca use of the se rious natur e o f t his offense , i.e., a persona l, violent assault, anal intercour se, and a battery - - se x ual battery on top of that.

I t is clear that the tr i al co u rt fol lowed the se ntencing proce dure se t out in the sentencing g uidelines. Ther ef

ore, the re is a pr esumption of corr ectne ss for the se ntence imposed by the trial court. The defe ndant was convicted of ra pe under Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 39-13-503. Rape is a Cla ss B fe lon y . T he se nte nc ing rang e is e ig ht (8 ) to twe lve (1 2) y e ars . Se xua l batte ry is found at Te nnessee Code Annotated se ction 39-13-505. It is a Class E felony that has a se ntencing rang e one ( 1) y ear s to two (2) y ear s for a Rang e I Standard Of

fende r.-9-

The trial c ourt applied two (2) enhance ment fac tors. Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40- 35-114(2) , the def

endant ha s a pre vious history of criminal convictions, and Tenne ssee Code Annotated se ction 40-35-114( 16), the de fendant abused a position of private trust. The tria l court specific ally

stated that it place d more we ight on e nhance ment fac tor (16) to e nhance the sentenc e. The trial c ourt then s t at ed t h at i t was a mitig ating fac tor that the crime occur red unde r unusual
c ir c ums ta nc e s a nd“ wh e the r o r n ot [the de fe nd a nt] h a d th e int e nt to v iol a te the la w, ” wh ic h w ou ld fall under Tenne ssee Code Annotated section 40-35-113( 3). The trial c ourt also applied the “ catc hall” mitigating factor found at Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-113(13) for the de fendant’s
su pp ort of his famil y

a ndc hil dr e n. Ho we ve r, the tr ia l cou rt state d tha t the se mit ig a tin g fa c tor s w ou ld b e gi v en m i n i m al we i gh ti n s en t en ci n g.
As stated above, the weig ht g iven to e ach fac tor is le ft to the discretion of the trial court a s lon g a s it c omp orts w iththe se nte nc ing princ ipl e s a ndpu rp os e s o f o ur c od e a nd as lo ng as its finding s are supported by the re cord. Santiag o, 914 S.W .2d at 125. We have r eviewe d the re cord in this case and fi n d t h at the re cord supports the trial court’s de termination as to the we ight to be
a ff or de d th e mit ig a tin g fa c tor s. F or thi s r e a so n, thi s is su e is w ith ou t me ri t.
CO NC LU SION

F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , w e a ff ir m th e jud g me nts of

the tr ia l c ou rt

.

___________________________________ J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE