# FIL ED M arch 24 , 200 8 Cec il Crow son , Jr . A ppell ate Court Clerk IN T HE C OU RTOF C RI MI NA L A PPEA LS OF T EN NE SSEE A T J A CK SON O CT OB ER1996 SESSI ON

STA TE OF T EN NE SSEE, ) ) C. C. A. N o. 02 C01 -9 510- CR -0 0296 Appel lee , ) ) Shel by C ounty V. ) ) Ho n o ra b le Jo se p h B. Da ile y, Ju d ge ) DA RREN CA MPBELL, ) (F irst Deg re e M urder ; Attempted ) Secon d Degree Murder) Appel lan t. )

FO R THE A PPELLA NT: FO R THE A PPELLE E: Brett B. S tei n Cha rl es W . Bu rs on Atto rney at Law Atto rney General & Repo rter 100 N . M ain , Su it e 3102 Memp his, T N 3810 3 Ellen H. Pollack Ass is tant Atto rn ey

Gene ra l Ma ry Anne Queen Leg al Ass is tant Cr imi nal Ju sti ce Di v is ion 450 J ames R ober

tso n Par kway Nas hv il le, TN 37243- 0493 John W . Pi erotti Di str ict Attor ney

Gene ra l John Camp bell Ass t. Di st. Att or ney

Gene ra l 201 Po pla r, Third F loo r Me mphis , TN 38103
OPIN ION F ILED :

_________ _________

_ A FF IR ME D PA ULG. SU MM ER S, Ju d ge

O P I N I O NAtt ri al , t he a ppel l antat t em pt ed t o est abl i sh an i nsani t ydefense. T he d efen se was n ot 1 accept ed. T he a ppel l at e cou rt , however, fo und t hatdue t o t he a ppel l ant ' s m ent al hea l t h, t he p roo f was i nsuff i ci entt o est abl i sh de l i ber at i on. " W e ar e no tcom fort abl e . . . t hatt he d efen dantre fl ect ed abouthi s deci si on t o ki l l , si nce h i s t rou bl ed m i nd m aynever h ave been fre e f rom t he i nfl uence of e x c i t e me n to rp a s s i o n . " S t a t e v . C a mp b e l l , N o . 0 2 - C - 0 1 - 9 2 0 7 - C R - 0 0 1 5 0 , s l i p o p . a t1 0 ( Te n n . C r i m. App. Feb. 23, 199 6). -2- The appel lan t, Dar re n C ampbel l, w as conv icted b y a j ur y of firs t deg re e murde r. Thi s C our

t reduce d hi s c onv icti on to se cond deg re e murder and rema nde d to th e trial court for sente ncing. The app ellantw as sen ten ced a s a 1 Ran g e I offender

to 23 y ears i ncarcerati on. Hi s s ole i ss ue on appeal i s w hether his se ntenc e was ex ces si v e. W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt' s j udg ment. The appel lan t and three men were c onsumi ng al cohol icbev erag es at a ro oming hous e. The appel lan t and one of the men d ro v e to a l ocal rest aurant and pi ck ed up some c hic ken. W hen t he appe ll ant a nd th e man retur ned w it h the chi ck en, t he man refused to sh are hi s c hic ken w it h the appel lan t. The appel lan t g ot i ra te an d l eft the room. Approx imat ely four minut es lat er , t he appe ll ant re tur ned w it h a g un. He approache d the man w it h the ch ic ken and as ked, "W hat' s u p w it h the ch ic ken?" Apparentl y , t he man' s respon se w as unfav orabl e, so the a ppel lan t s hot h im. The man di ed of g unsho t wounds to the h ead and ches t. Anot her

v icti m w as shotbut li v ed. The thi rd person fled for his l ife.
T he a ppe llant argues th at th e trial judge abu sed h is discretion in ass ess ing the w eig ht t o be afforded eac h enhan ci ng and miti g ati ng factor
. It w as incum ben t upo n the app ellantto prep are a record thatinclude d all ma terials neces sar

y for d is posi ti on on appeal
. See S tate v . Be ech, 744 S.W .2d 5 85, 5 88 (Te nn. Cri m. App. 198 7) (holding "in the abse nce o f an ad equate record w e mu st presume that the t ri al cour t' s r uli ng w as adeq uatel y su ppor ted b y the ev ide nce. "). T he a ppe llant's prese nte nce rep ort is not a pa rt of the reco rd before us. Upon cond ucting a de n ovo rev iew , w e f ind f iv e en han cem entfacto rs appl ic abl e: (1 ) the a ppel lan t has a prev iou s h is tor y of cr imi nal acti v ity , Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 40 -3 5- 114( 1) ; ( 2) the offense involv ed more tha n one v icti m, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35 -114 (3); (3) the app ellantposse ssed a nd e mp loyed a f irearmAlt hough el em ent s of t he i ndi ct ed o ffe nse, fa ct ors (10 ), and (1 6) m aybe appl i cabl e i f t he 2 fact s dem onst rat e a cul pabi l i t ydi st i nctfr om and app reci abl ygr eat er t han t hati nci dentt o t he co nvict ed offense. St at e v. Jone s, 883 S. W
. 2d 5 96 ( T enn. 199 4). Separ at e an d di st i nctcul pabi l i t ym ayar i se when i ndi v i dual s ot hert han t he vi ct i m ar e pr esentand subj ectt o pe ri l
. See St at e v. M akoka, 885 S
. W
. 2 d 3 6 6 , 3 7 3 ( Te n n . C r i m. A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) ( h o l d i n g fa c t o r( 1 0 ) a p p l i c a b l e w h e n o t h e rp o s s i b l e v i c t i ms are pr esent ). T he r ecor d r eveals t hatot her s were pr esenti n t he r oom i ng h ouse. -3- dur ing the commi ss ion of the o ffense, Tenn. C ode An n. § 40- 35- 114( 9) ; ( 4) the a p p e l l a n th a d n o h e s i t a t i o n a b o u tc o mm i tt i n g a c r i me w h e n t h e r i s kt o h u ma n l i fe w as hig h, Tenn. C ode An n. § 40- 35- 114( 10) ; and ( 5) the cr ime w as commi tted under ci rc umstan ces under

w hic h the pote nti al for bodi ly i nju ry to a v icti m w as g re at, Tenn. C ode An n. § 40- 35- 114( 16)
. W e find one mi ti g ati ng factor 2 appl ic abl e: the a ppel lan t pos ses sed a l ack of subs tanti al jud g ment or i nabi li ty to app reciate the na ture of his condu ct. Te nn. Code An n. § 40 -35-11 3(6).
Th e a p p e l l a n ti s a R a n g e I s t a n d a rd o ffe n d e r . H e h a s b e e n c o n v i ct e d o f a Cl ass A fel ony . Hi s s entenc e rang e i s 1 5 to 25 y ears. In acc ordance w it h the p r i n c i p l e s o f

s e n t e n c i n g , w e a re t o b e g i n a tt h e m i n i m u m ra n g e s e n t e n c e . W e inc re ase for eac h enhan cementfactor and then re duce for eac h mi ti g ati ng factor
. The w eig ht afforded each factor i s d er iv ed from b ala nci ng the re lat iv e deg re e of cul pabi li ty

w it hin the total ity

of the c ircums tanc es. St ate v . Bi lbrey , 816 S.W .2d 71 (T enn . Crim. App . 199 1). The appel lan t' s s entenc e i s i ncreased by fiv e enhan cementfactors. Al thoug h we find appl ic ati on of one mi ti g ati ng factor , t he weig ht afforded that factor i s mi nimal as the appel lan t' s ment al maladi es w ere prev iou sl y co nsi dered in re duci ng hi s c onv icti on from first deg re e murder to sec ond deg re e murder
. See S tate v . M arti n, N o. 03C 01- 9412- CR -0 0448 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. Apr il 1, 1996)( hol din g al thoug h doubl e mi ti g ati on notprohi bit ed by st atute , w hether

to doubl e mi ti g ate i s w it hin se ntenc ing co urt' s d is creti on)
. Acc ordin g ly , t he appel lan t' s s entenc e s et at23 years i s a ppropr iat e. W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt.

_________

_________

_________

_______ PA UL G. SUM ME RS , J u d ge CONCUR:-4- _________

_________

_________

____ JO HN H. PE AY, Ju d ge

_________

_________

_________

____ DAVI D G. HAYE S, Ju d ge