### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A ugus t 8, 200 6

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. RO NN IE R. CH AR LEST ON

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty

No. 2003-B-883 Steve Dozier , Judge

No. M2005- 02255-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Janu ary 5, 2007

The d e f e n d a n t, Ro n n ie R. Ch ar le s to n , w a s c o n v ic te d o f f e lo n y mu r d e r , e s p e c ia ll y

a g g r a v a te d robbery , and second deg ree murder. He was sentenc ed as a R ang e I I I
, persistent offender to a total eff ective se ntence of life imprisonment plus fifty -five y ear s. On appe al, he pr esents two issues for

our re view: (1) whether the evidence was sufficie nt to support his convictions; and (2) whethe r the trial court e rre d in determining the leng th and t he manner of service of his sentenc es. Upon re view,

we a ff ir m th e jud g me nts of

the tr ia l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nts of

the Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

J.C. M C L IN , J
., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R. and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined.

Jef fr e y A. De Va sh e r ( on app e a l) , J. Mi c ha e l E ng le a ndKatie Wei ss ( a t tria l) , A ssi sta nt P ub lic Def ender s, Nashville, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Ronnie R. Charleston.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; Re ne e W. Tur ne r, As sis ta nt Att or ne y Ge ne ra l; Vi c tor S. Joh ns on , I I I , Dis tr ic t Atto rn e y Ge ne ra l; a ndAm y Ei se nb e c k, Ra c he l So br e ro a ndPa me la Sue Ander son, Assistant District Attorney s Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

F AC TS

T h e d e f e n d a n t w a s i n d i c t e d o n o n e c o u n to f f e l o n y m u r d e r , e s p e c i a l l y a g g r a v a t e d r o b b e r y, and first de g ree preme ditated m urder

. The following evidence was presented a t trial. On Novembe r 17 , 2 00 2, the vic tim , I sra el El ba z wa s f ou ndde a d in his bake ry

loc a te d in the B e lle vu e Ma ll i n Nashville. The vic tim had been stabbe d multipl e times in his torso and arms. He also had seve ral blu nt- fo rc e inj ur ie s a ndabr a sio ns

.-2-

Gina Ry an testified that she was a n o ff i ce ma nag er f

or Cumberland L abor, a

temporary employ ment ag ency . She testified that she kne w the victim as a cl i en t wh o used Cumberland L abor’ s service s to procure temporary labore rs fo r h i s restaur ants. As she re called, the defe ndant
was sent to work for the vi ctim as a cook. Acc ording to Ms. Ry an, on the morning of Nove mber 17, 2002, the def

endant c ame into the employ ment office
, y elling. He was upset about hi s pay of $7.50 per hour and wa nted a pay raise. Ms. Ry an attempted to c alm the def endant down but told him there was nothing she could do on Sunday

. She promised, however, that she would t alk to the def endant’ s temporary

employ er a

bout a ra ise on Monday . After hearing this promise, the defendant calmed down. H o we v er, after

the def endant use d her phone to call someone, he ag ain bec ame a g itated, slammed the phone down, and walked out of her of fice . On cr oss-examination, Ms. R y an admitted that the def

endant thanke d her be fore leaving the offic e.

Kathry n D ill ardte sti fi e d th a t sh e wa s a n in de pe nd e nt a c c ou nta nt w ho met wi th the vic tim

on Sa tur da y , N ov e mbe r 1 6, 20 02 , to dis cus s th e book ke e pin g fo r the vic tim ’s re staur a nts . M s. Dillard testified that during the meeting the defe ndant approa ched the victim needing money for a
p a i n tb ru s h

. A tt h i s t i m e , t h e v i c t i m r e a c h e d i n t o h i s p o c k e ta n d p u l l e d o u ta “ b i g w a d o f

m o n e y” and g ave the defe ndant $5.00. Ms. Dillard stated that the de fenda nt was in a po s ition to s ee the

v i c t i m ’ s “ t h i c k

s t a c k ” o f m o n e y.

Ma zel El ba z, th e vic tim ’s daug hte r, te sti fi e d th a t he r f a mil y ow ne d a re staur a nt lo cat ed in the B ellevue Ma ll called the “ Fa milyCuisine.” Additionally , the fa milywas in the p ro cess of opening a bake ry in the m all called the “Swee t Tooth Café.” The ne w bake ry was located four store s down from the restaur ant. Ms. Elbaz stated that she worke d with her father a t the restaur ant. She also rec alled that her

fathe r would usually

leave the bac k door of the bakery propped ope n in order to move from re staurant to bake ry via the ser vice e ntranc e. Ac cording to Ms. Elbaz, her father ha d hired the de fenda nt about two wee ks befor e being killed. T he defe ndant was hire d to work in the kitchen.

Ms. El ba z te sti fi e d tha t her fathe r al way s carrie d a lo t of mon e y . H e c arrie d p e tty

c a sh in h is rig ht poc ket and a larg er amount in his left pocket. On Sunday , November 17, 2002, Ms. Elbaz and her f ather drove a Gre en Aer ostar van to the mall to ope n the re staurant f or bre akfa st. W hen they

arrived, t he defenda nt was waiting outsi de the mall entra nce. H e wa s to help with food prepa ration. Whil e prepa

ring the food, Ms. E lbaz obse rved the defe ndant using a spec ific re staurant knife to cut the lettuce a nd tomatoes. Acc ording to Ms. Elbaz, this specific knife wa s kept in the kitchen a rea of the res taur a nt b e hin d th e kit c he n d oo r, a ndno on e oth e r tha n h e rs e lf, h e r f a the r, the de fe nd a nt, and her brother ha d acc ess to this knife. The knife wa s identified at trial a s Ex hibit 10. Ms. El baz

re c ou nte d that thi s sp e c if

ic kn if e wa s th e kn if

e that th e de fe nd a nt t ypic a lly us e d to pr e pa

re fo od . M s. El ba z no te d th a t f

ro m he r p os iti on in the fr on t of the re staur a nt sh e did no t ob se rv e a ny on e g o in to the kitchen other

than the victim, the def

endant, a nd her br other.

Ms. Elbaz t est ified that her brother e ventually

arrived at the r estaura nt and took over he r fathe r’s kitche n duties

. At this ti me, she obser ved her fathe r, the de fenda nt, and a building

c on tr a c tor , M art y

Mu lle nn e x, he a d o ve r to the bake ry

. L a te r on, wh ile se rv ing the lun c h c ro wd , M s.-3-

Elbaz walked over to the bakery to ask her fathe r for help. As she approache d the servic e entr ance door to the bake ry , she noticed tha t the door wa s bare ly propped ope n. She opened t h e door and walked dow n the hallway of the bakery . As she wa lked, she n o t iced that the Coke machine w as

“ k in d o f h a l f

o f f t h e c o u n t e r

l i k e i tf e l l o v e r

. ” S h e s t ar t e d t o “ h o l l e r o u t , h e l l o , i s a n y

b o d y h e r e ?” When no one answe red, she proce eded to wa lk back to the bathroom are a whe re she saw he r father ly ing f ace down betwe en the toilet a nd the wall. There was “re d all over the wall.” After standing for a few minutes in shock, Ms. Elbaz ran to g et her brother. She the n told her brother to go ove r t o t h e b ak e r y.

On c ro ss- e xami na tio n, Ms. El ba z te sti fi e d that abo ut on e -h a lf ho ur be fo re sh e we nt o ve r t o the bake ry

to find her f

ather , she noticed the defe ndant walk in fr ont of the re staurant he aded f or the mall exi t. The def

endant a ppear ed to be in a hur

ry . At the time, she t h o u gh t i t u n u s u al for the defe ndant to leave work so ea rly . Ms. Elbaz stated that afte r the victim and the de fenda nt left the
restaur ant to g o to the bakery , her br other wor ked at the r estaura nt with her the e ntire time.

Jaso n E lba z , t h e v i c t i m ’ s s o n , t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e a n d h i s s i s t e r w o rk e d f o r t h e i r f a t h e r

. Hi s fathe r owne d a re staurant c alled the “ Fa milyCuisine” and wa s planning to open a bakery called the “Swee t Tooth Café.” Mr. Elbaz knew the de fenda n t , wh o had starte d working for his father two

wee ks befor e h is f

a th e r ’ s d e a th

. T h e d e f

e n d a n t h e lp e d o u t i n th e r e s ta u r a n t p r e p ar in g f

o o d a nd washing dishes. The de fenda nt also did minor construction work on the side. A ccor ding to Mr. Elbaz, one of the knives f ound at t he crime scene , identified as Ex hibit 10, was a specia liz ed knife

us e d in his fathe r’ s r e staur a nt f or c utt ing ve g e ta

ble s a ndme a t, a ndthe de fe nd a nt w ou ld o ft e n u se thi s particula r k n if e w h e n p r e p ar in g f

o o d

. F u r th e r mo r e , o n ly e mp lo y e e s o f th e r e s ta u r a n t w o u ldhave

a c c e ss t o th e kn if

e ra c k in the kit c he n ar e a of the re staur a nt. Mr . Elb a z a lso no te d tha t the un if or ms, consisting of a long whit e chef’s coat and blue apron, wer e worn while working at the re staurant, a nd the def endant was wea

ring this uniform on November 17, 2002. Mr . Elbaz stated that his father drove a For d Aer ostar van.

Mr. Elbaz described the fr ont of the bake ry as under renovation with black car dboard in fr ont of the ma ll en tr a nc e , whi c h pro hib ite d pe op le fr om s e e ing the ins ide of the bake ry . T he re wa s a lso a pull-down g ate, whic h blocked e ntranc e to t he publi c. At the ba ck of the bakery was a heavy metal door which ope ned to the ser vice a rea of the mall. The door could only be opene d from inside the bakery

.

Mr . E lba z te s t i f

i e d t h a t h e arr i v e d a t t h e r e s t a u r a n t a n d h a d b r e ak f a s t

. W h i l e h a v i n g his brea kfast, the de fenda nt sat down next t o him. T h e d ef en d an t appeare d anxious to go ove r to the bakery and st art painting. After Mr. Elbaz finished brea kfast, he took ove r his fathe r’s position on the g ri ll, a ndhis fathe r andthe de fe nd a nt wa lke d o ve r t o th e bake ry . L a te r, Mr . E lba z ne e de d h e lp
prepa ring food for the lunch cr owd, so he a sked his sister to g o g et their father to help. She lef t but immediately

returne d distraug ht. She told him that their father ha d fallen an d n ee d ed h el p . Mr. Elbaz left the restaur ant and went over to the bakery wher e he f

ound his father

ly ing in the bathroom with blood every wher e. He then ra n out to the m all are a to get help. Ac cording to Mr. Elbaz, about twenty minutes passed fr om when his fathe r and the defe ndant walked over to the ba kery and whe n-4-

he we nt to help his father. Mr . Elbaz stated that he g ot blood on himself trying to sa ve his fathe r. He a lso stated that the next day
, he went to pick up his father ’s van f rom the mall parking lot. After scouting the par

king lot and not f

inding the va n, he re ported the va n missing.

J oel Martin Mullennex testified that h e w a s a s e lf

- e mp lo y ed ca

rpente r doing some renovation work on the S wee t Tooth Café. On N ovember 17, 2002, he we nt to the Be llevue Mall to discuss the work with the victim. Upon arriving around 11:00 a .m., he went to the Fa mily Cuisine and met the victim and the def

endant. The three men then wa lked over to the Sweet Tooth C afé. Whil e Mr. Mullennex was discussing the remode ling repa irs with the victim, the victim noti ced the drain in the Coke machine was ove rflowing and aske d the def endant to cle an up the mess. As the defe ndant was clea ning up the mess, the victim a nd Mr. Mullennex wa lked to the hallway and the vi ct i m gave Mu lle nn e x $50 0 to pu rc ha se su pp lie s. Th e vic tim the n p la c e d th e re st o f the mon e y ba c k in to h is front pocke t. Mr. Mul l en n ex left to g o pick up the supplies. While en route to Home D epot, he le arn e d th a t so me thi ng ha d happ e ne d at the Swe e t Too th Ca fé

. As a re su lt, he dr ov e ba c k to the ma ll and talked w ith the police.

Bobby Fr eema n testified that he was clea ning the B ellevue Ma ll on November 17, 2002. A t

some point in the m orning
, he took a break and went outs ide t o a ser vice a rea known as “ Dock A.” Whil e stand ing ou tsi de , h e sa w the de fe nd a nt w a lki ng ra pid ly tow ard s th e Ma ll p arking lot

. Sho rt ly there afte r, Mr. Fr eema n rec eived a call that someone had bee n hurt at one of the re staurants in the food cou rt are a. Anna

Foster testified that she took a br eak w ith her co- worke r, B obby Fr eema n. Whil e standing outside near Dock A, she heard footsteps c oming f rom the ser vice ha llway

and saw the def endan t ru s h o u t the door. As he passed, Ms. F oster hea rd the de fenda nt mutter, “Oh shit.” L a te r, a ft e r g oin g ba c k insi de the ma ll, so me on e ra n up to her a nd a sk e d he r to ca ll fo r he lp b e c a us e someone ha d been “ hurt bad” . I n response , she ca lled security

.

J oe Perle n testified that he worked for a jeweler located in t he B ellevue Ma ll. On November 17, 2002, around 12:00 p.m., he observe d the victim, the defe ndant, and a nother man w alk into the bakery . Around 12:30 p.m., he saw J ason Elbaz, the victim’s son, running fra ntically throug hout the mall, y elling “ [m ]ydad has be en cut, my dad has be en cut.” As a result, Mr. Perlen w ent into the bakery to investiga te. J acque line Sudano testified similarly . She was a t the mall before it opened and saw J ason Elbaz running around sc rea ming f or help. She follow ed J ason i nto the bakery and

sa w the vic tim

ly ing in the ba thr oo m w ith “ blo oda ll ov e r the pla c e .” She a ndJaso n a tte mpt e d to

re su sc itate the vic tim to no a va il. Tw o oth e r wi tne sse s te sti fi e d sim ila rl y

. On e of the wit ness e s, Jame s B ox, a dd e d th a t he us e d a sma ll kn if e to c ut the sh irt of

f the vic tim wh e n try ing to r e su sc itate him. He left the knife wedg ed under the bathroom door.

L ewis Scrug g s tes tified that he wa s the owner of a ta vern a nd night c lub located on Murfre esboro Road. O n November 17, 2002, befor e the tave rn opene d, the def endant c ame into the
tavern and orde red a

beer . The de fenda nt had a rag tied around his hand and the ra g had some blood

on it. The defenda nt paid for the beer in ca sh taken fr om a roll of money . After Mr. Scrug g s serve d the def endant, Mr. Scr

ug g s went back to the kitchen. When he r eturne d, he obser ved the de fenda nt standing next t o the pool table. After talking to the defendant for a li ttle while, M r. S crug g s told the-5-

defe ndant the club wa s g oing to c lose. The de fenda nt then offe red Mr . Scrug g s ten dollars for a ride up the stree t. Mr. Scrug g s g ave the defe ndant a ride to a burg er pla ce w here the def endant or dere d some food, then Mr. Scr

ug g s dropped the de fenda nt off at the c orner of Murfr eesbor o Road and L e wi s Str e e t.

Mr . Sc ru g g s te sti fi e d th a t th e ne xt da y he le arn e d the po lic e we re loo kin g fo r the de fe nd a nt. Upon hea ring this ne ws, he beca me curious and walked over to the pool table wher e the de fenda nt had bee n standing . As a result, he found a billfold in one of the pocke ts of the pool table. He opened the wa lle t a ndsa w a

ph oto g ra ph of the vic tim . M r. Sc ru g g s e ve ntu a lly c a lle d p oli c e a ndta lke d w ith Detec tive Corcora n. The police then sea rche d Mr. Scrug g s’ van.

Detec tive Br ad Corcor an of the Metropolitan Police Depa rtment testified that he le d the investigation into t he victim’s hom icide. After he wa s called to the c rime sce ne located at the Swee t Tooth Café in the Be llevue Mall, he walked throug h a business which appea red under c onstruction. Her e, he obse rved the victim ly ing i n the middle of the floor . Detec tive Corcora n observe d considera ble amounts of bl o o d at the sce ne and sig ns of a strug g le. Afte r interview ing se vera l witnesses, the de fenda nt beca me the primary suspect.

Detec tive Corcora n testified that he attended the autopsy of the victim. He observe d sever al stab wounds to the vict i m ’s ch es t an d back. T here wer e a total of nine stab wounds. De tective Corcora n testified that a sa m p l e of the victim’s blood was c ollected a s part of the investigation. L ater on that afte rnoon, De tective Corc oran r ece ived a call from the vi ctim’s son, J ason Elbaz. Mr. Elbaz told hi m that a van was mi ssing. After talking with Mr. El baz, Detec tive Corcora n issued a Be -On-T he-L ook Out (B OL O) for the missing van.

Detec tive Corcora n testified that on November 19, 2002, he spoke w ith L ewis Scrug g s. Mr. Scrug g s was the owne r of a small tavern a nd believed he had information about the homicide. Afte r talking with Mr

. Scrug g s, Detec tive Corcora n prepa red a photogr aphic lineup. Upon revie w of the lineup, Mr. Scrug g s selecte d the defe ndant’s photogr aph and note d that the def endant ha d been at his tavern. Af

ter lea rning the def

endant wa s at the tave rn and tha t Mr. Scrug g s had g iven the defe ndant a ride in his va n, Detec tive Corcora n proce eded to e x amine the van. Detec tive Corcora n observe d what appe are d to be blood in the front sea t and seve ral c iga rette butts in the ashtra y . Blood samples wer e collec ted from t h e s ea t. Detec tive Corcora n also retrieved the vic tim’s wallet from Mr. Scrug g s, which also had what appea red to be blood on it. The victim’s social security car d and various cr edit and business ca rds wer e inside the wa llet but no cash wa s found in the wallet.

Detec tive Corcora n testified that when the defe ndant was taken into c ustody , he wa s wea ring dark- colore d pants, a white v- neck t- shirt, tennis shoes, and a ja cket. The re a ppear ed to be blood on the de fe nd a nt’s t- shir t a ndja c ke t. T he re a lso app e are d to be c uts on the de fe nd a nt’ s h a nd s. Eventually , a sample of

the def endant’ s blood was taken. T he blood sample, the de fenda nt’s clothing, a nd the re st of the collec ted evidenc e we re se nt to the Tennesse e B ureau of I nvestig ation (TB I ) for analy sis. On cross-examination, Detective Corcor an ac knowledg ed that ther e had be en-6-

three unsolved ag g ravated robbe ries ar ound the same month’s time and in the g ener al ar ea of wher e the victim was killed.

Police Offic er Christopher Br ennan te stified that on November 17, 2002, he investig ated the

c ri me sc e ne a t a

bake ry in the B e lle vu e Ma ll. Du ri ng his inv e sti g a tio n, he ob se rv e d the bake ry in disarray . He obse rved the victim ly ing on the floor nea r the ba throom are a of the bakery . He notice d “blood transf

er” on the door leading to the bathroom and on the walls of the bathroom. The re w as also blood on the floor of the bathroom. Off icer Br ennan a lso found “blood transf er” on the servic e

e ntr a nc e to the bake ry

. He c oll e c te d sev e ra l bloo d sample s fr om the c ri me sc e ne fo r f utu re a na ly sis

.

Offic er B renna n testified that he f ound a 6 1⁄2 inch knife with a black plastic ha ndle and a 3 inch blade w ith blood on it . The knife was wedg ed underne ath the door of the bathroom. He found another 11 1/4 inc h knife with a black plastic ha ndle and a 6 inch blade w ith blood on it . This knife was discove red in the bathroom near the toilet. This knife was identifie d at trial as E x hibit 10. Offic er B renna n also collec ted a da rk blue apron with blood on it from the bathroom floor . Offic er Br ennan f urther inve stiga ted the van owned by the victim and the van ow ned by Mr. Scrug g s. He noted t hat t here was “ blood transfe r” on the passeng er se at of Mr. Scr ug g s’ van a nd on the steering wh e e l c ov e r a ndpa sse ng e r s e a t of the vic tim ’s va n. Th e re wa s a lso a blo od -s ta ine d a

pr on fo un d in the victim’s van. Photogr aphs, collec ted by Offic er B rennan , were introduce d at trial including ph oto g ra ph s o f the “ blo odtr a ns fe r” e vid e nc e , th e kn ive s, a ndthe c uts to the de fe nd a nt’ s h a nd s.

Police Offic er Tim Matthews testified that he took photog raphs of the crime s ce n e, t he vic tim , a ndthe e vid e nc e c oll e c te d a t the c ri me sc e ne

. Th e ph oto g ra ph s he too k we re int

ro du c e d in to evidenc e at tria l. Detec tive J ames B ledsoe testified tha t he was called to the crime scene and took
state me nts of

wi tne sse s. He no te d th a t $1 80 0 in c a shwa s re mov e d fr om the vic tim ’s le ft fr on t pa nts pocket, a nd $418 in cash, a $9.00 chec k, and som e chang e was removed f rom the victim’s rig ht front
pa nts po c ke t. He de sc ri be d th e mon e y fo un d o n th e vic tim

a s f old e d u p in a

pr e tty thi c k w a d o f b ill s. He a lso interviewed some individuals at Cumberland L abor inc luding Gina R y an and c ollected evidenc e fr om that office . Other police officers testified similarly as to their investig ation and collection of the evidenc e at the c rime sce ne. One office r, Wil liam Kirby
, testified that a cook’s shirt fo un d a t th e c ri me sc e ne ha d a pa y stu b b e lon g ing to the de fe nd a nt i n o ne of its po c ke ts.

Special Ag ent Michae l Turbeville, a T B I f o r e n s ic s c ie n ti st, testified that he re ceive d evidenc e in th e fo rm of clothing , blood samples collecte d at the cr ime scene , a wa llet, two knives, blood samples an d p hy sical evide nce c ollected f rom the victim’s van, a nd blood samples and evide nce collecte d from L ewis Scruggs ’ v an

. He a lso rece ived blood samples from the vic tim and the defe ndant. Upon re ceipt of the evidenc e, Ag ent Turbe ville conducted D NA compa rison analy sis on the e v id e n c e

. A c c o r d in g to A g e n t T u r b e v il le
, th e b lo o d o n th e d e f e n d a n t’ s t- s h ir t and jacke t matched the defe ndant’s DNA profile, but the blood on the de fenda nt’s shoes matche d the victim’s DNA pr ofile. The blood on the e leven inch r estaura nt knife matche d the victim’s DNA pr ofile. A small amount of blood found inside the victim’s wallet matche d the defendant’s DNA profile. The blood found on the seat a nd steering whee l c over in the victim’s van matche d the def endant’ s DNA profile. The blood fo u n d on items in L ewis Scrug g s’ van matc hed the de fenda nt’s DNA pr ofile.-7-

The blood on a blue apron and white chef ’s shirt retrie ved fr om the g ener al crime scene matched the victim’s DNA prof

ile. On cr oss-examination, Age nt Turbeville ac knowledg ed that he only tested the e vid e nc e su bmi tte d to him

.

Dr. B uce L evy , the county medical e x aminer, te stified that the victim’s autopsy reve aled that he died f rom multipl e shar

p-for ce injurie s, primarily to his torso and arms. Dr. L evy ruled the victim’s death a homicide

. Phy netta Ta y lor, the defe ndant’s fianc ée, testified that she dropped the defe ndant off at work at the B el l ev u e M al l around 9:30 a.m. Prior to that time the def endant ha d g one to Cumberland L abor to pick up his pay chec k. Tay lor stated that the de fenda nt did not call he r to pic k him up that day

.

Ba sed on the e vidence prese nted, the jury found the de fenda nt guilty of fe lony

murder, second de g ree murder, a nd espec ially ag g ravated robbery

. The trial c ourt merg ed the de fenda nt’s

con v ic ti o n f

o r s e c o n d d e g r e e mu r d e r in to h is c o n v ic ti o n f o r f e lo n y mu r d e r

. T h e d e f

e n d a n t was sentenc ed as a

Rang e I I I , persistent off ender . He r ece ived conse cutive sente nces of life imprisonment for his felony murder c o n v i cti on and fifty -five y ear s for his espe cially ag g ravated robbery conviction.

AN AL YSI S

I. Su ff iciency of the Evid ence
On appe al, the def

endant f irst challeng es the su fficie ncy of the c onvicting e vidence

. Specifica lly , he submits that the circumstantial evide nce in t h i s ca s e does not e x clude e very

rea sonable hy

pothesis except guilt. Moreover
, h e s u bmits t hat the evide nce did not esta blish he intended to commit the alleg ed under ly ing f elony at the time of the murde r.

U p o n r e v i e w , w e r e i t e r a t e t h e w e l l

- e s t ab l i s h e d ru l e t h a to n c e a j u r y f i n d s a d e f e n d a n tg u i l t y, his or her pr esumption of innocenc e is remove d and re place d with a pre sumption of guilt. State v. Evans , 838 S.W .2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992) . There fore , on appea l, the convicted de fenda nt has the burden of demonstrating to this court w hy the evidenc e will not support the jury ’s ver dict. State v. Car ru the rs , 3 5 S. W.3 d 5 16 , 5 57 -5 8 ( Te nn . 2 00 0) ; Sta te v . Tu gg le , 639 S.W .2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). To meet this burde n, the defe ndant must e stablish that no “rational trier of fa ct” c ould have found the e ssential elements of the crime be y ond a re asonable doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 4 43 U. S. 30 7, 31 9 ( 19 79 ); State v. Ev ans , 1 08 S.W. 3d23 1, 23 6 ( Te nn . 2 00 3) ; see T e n n

. R

. A p p

. P

. 1 3 ( e )

. In
contra s t , t h e jury ’s ver dict approve d by the trial judg e ac cre dits the state’s witnesses a nd resolves all conflicts in fa vor of the sta te. Sta te v . H ar ris , 8 39 S.W. 2d

54 , 7 5 ( Te nn

. 19 92 ). Th e state is entitled to the strong est leg itimate vie w of the evidenc e and all rea sonable infere nces which may be draw n from that evide nce. Car ru the rs , 35 S.W .3d at 558. Questions conce rning the credibilityof the wi tne ss e s , c o n f

l i c t s i n t r i a l t e s t i m o n y , t h e w e i g h t a n d v a l u e t o b e g i v e n t h e e v i d e n c e , a nd a ll fac tual is s u e s r a is e d b y th e e v id e n c e ar e r e s o lv e d b y th e trie r o f f a c t a n d n o t th is c o u r t. State v.-8-

Bland , 958 S.W .2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 19 97). We do not attempt to re-w eig h or re -eva luate the evidenc e. Sta te v . R e id , 91 S.W .3d 247, 277 (Tenn. 2002). L ikewise, we do not replac e the jury ’s infere nces dr awn f

rom the circ umstantial evidence with our own infer ence s. Id

.

Relevant to this c ase, felony murder is the killing of a nother c ommitt ed in the per petra tion of or attempted perpe tration of a r obbery . Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202( a)( 2). A murde r qualifies as fe lony murder if the underly ing felony is closely connec ted to the killing in time, place , causation, and continuity

of ac tion. State v. Pierc e , 23 S.W .3d 289, 295 (Tenn. 2000). Proof of the intention to commit the underly ing f elony and at what point it exis ted i s a question of fa ct to be dec ided by the jury afte r consideration of all the fa cts and c ircumstance s. State v. Buggs
, 995 S.W .2d 102, 107 (Tenn. 1999) . Robbery

is the “intentional or knowing theft of property from the person of another by violence or

pu t t i ng the per son in fear .” Te nn. Code Ann. § 39-13- 401(a) . To convict for

e sp e c ia lly a g g ra va te d r ob be ry , th e e vid e nc e mus t e sta bli sh that the de fe nd a nt r ob be d th e vic tim wi th a dea dly wea pon and the victim suffe red se rious bodily injury

. Id . § 39-13-403( a). To c onvict for

se c on d d e g re e mur de r, the e vid e nc e mus t est abli sh that the de fe nd a nt kno wi ng ly kil le d th e vic tim

. Id . § 39-13-210( a)( 1). A person acts knowing ly with r espec t to a result of the per son’s conduc t when the per son is awar e that the c onduct is rea sonably certain to cause the re sult. Id. § 39-11-302( b).

I nitially , we note that the g uilt of the defe ndant as we ll as any fac t require d to be prove d may be established by direc t e vidence
, by circ umstantial e vidence
, or by a combination ther eof. Se e Sta te

v . P e nd e rg ra ss , 13 S.W .3d 389, 392-93 (Te nn. Crim. App. 1999). I n fac t, a criminal offense may be esta blished exclusivelyby ci rc u m s tantial evidenc e so long as the e vidence excludes all other

rea sonable theories except that of the de fenda nt’s g uilt. See Sta te v . Cr awf or d , 470 S.W .2d 610, 612 (Tenn. 1971). On appeal, t his court must presume that the j ury resolved all conflicts in the testimony and dre w all re as o nable infe renc es in favor of the state. Sta te v . S he ffi e ld , 676 S.W .2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984)

.

I n the ca se her ein, we c onclude that both the d i re ct and mostly circ umstantial evidence
pr e s e n t e d a t t r i a l w a s s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e d e f

e n d a n t ’ s c o n v i c t i o n s

. T ak e n i n t h e l i g ht m os t favor able to t h e s tate, the e vidence established that the victim died fr om multi ple stab wounds on November

17, 2002. About two wee ks prior to the victim’s dea th, the defe ndant was hire d to work in the victim’s restaur ant and do some minor c onstruction i n h i s b ak er y . During the def endant’ s employ ment, he pre pare d food in the kitchen are a of the re staurant with a spe cific kitche n knife. No one, other

than the def

endant, the vic tim, and the victim’s s on and daug hter, ha d acc ess to the kitchen whe re the knife wa s kept. On at least one occa sion, the defe ndant was pr esent to see that the vic tim c arrie d a larg e a mou nt o f m on e y

on him . O n N ov e mb er 1 7, 20 02 , th e de fe nd a nt w e nt t o L abor Ser vices a ng ry

and dissatisfied with the amount of money the victim was paying him. Af ter leaving L abor Ser vices, the de fenda nt went to work a t the restaur ant i n the B ellevue Ma ll and was seen in the c ompany

of the victim shortly

befor e the vict i m ’s death. I n fac t, minutes before the victim was discovered stabbed t o death, the defe ndant was seen hastily leaving the mall when he was supposed to be wor

king. A fter the victim was discovered, it was determined that the victim’s wallet and van w ere missing. Also, found at the c rime sce ne was the spec ific kitchen knife the def endant ty pic a lly us e d to pr e pa

re fo od . T he kn if

e ha d th e vic tim ’s blo od on it. L a te r, the de fe nd a nt we nt t o-9-

a tave rn, took out a roll of money , and purc hased a beer

. The defenda nt then walked ove r to a pool table and disc arde d the victim’s wallet. The defe ndant had cuts on his ha nds and blood on his shirt and jac ket. The vic tim’s b l o o d wa s found on the de fenda nt’s shoes. The de fenda nt’s blood was found on the victim’s wa llet and i n the vi ctim’s van. Also, a shirt, found at the crime sc ene, ha d a
pay stub belong ing to the defe ndant. Acc ording ly
, based upon the direc t and circ umstantial evidence
prese nted, we c onclude that the jury could find the de fenda nt guilty of t he off enses of felony murder, second de g ree murder, a nd espec ially ag g ravated robbe ry

bey ond a re asonable doubt.

II. Se nt e nc ing

The de fenda nt next challeng es the leng t h an d m an n er of service of his sentenc es. The defe ndant was ulti m atelysentenc ed to fifty -five y ear s for his espe cially ag g ravated robbe ry conviction, six ty

y ear s for his sec ond deg ree murder conviction, and life imprisonment for his felony

mur de r c on vic tio n. Th e c ou rt me rg e d the d efen da nt’ s se c on d d e g re e mur de r c on vic tio n in to h is fe lon y mur de r c on vic tio n a ndor de re d th e de fe nd a nt’ s e sp e c ia lly a g g ra va te d rob be ry

c on vic tio n to

run conse cutively

to his li fe se ntence for f elony murder, f

or a n ef fe ct ive sentenc e of life imprisonment plus fifty -five y ear s.
Appellate r eview of

a cha lleng ed sente nce is a de novo rev i ew o f t he re cord w ith a
pr e su mpt ion that th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s de te rm inatio ns are c or re c t. Te nn . Code An n. § 4 0- 35 -4 01 . T his presumption of corr ectne ss is conditioned upon the aff irmative showing in the rec ord that the trial court considered the sentencing principles and a ll releva nt fac ts and circ umstances. State v. Pe ttus , 98 6 S. W.2 d 5 40
, 54 3- 44 (T e nn . 1 99 9) . H ow e ve r, if the re c or d s ho ws that th e tr ia l c ou rt fa ile d to consider the sentenc i n g principles and a ll releva nt fac ts and circ umstances, then r eview of the challeng ed sente nce is pur ely de novo without the presumption of corr ectne ss. State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (T en n

. 1 9 9 1 ). On appeal, the de fenda nt has the burde n of showing that the

se n te n c e imp o s e d b y

th e tria l c o u r t i s imp r o p e r

. T e n n

. Co d e A n n

. § 4 0

- 3 5

- 4 0 1 ( d )
, Se n te ncing Commi ssion Comments. We w ill uphold the sentenc e imposed by the trial court if (1) the se ntence complies with our sentenc ing sta tutes, and (2) the trial court’s finding s are adequately supported by the re cord. See S ta t e v

. Ar ne tt , 4 9 S. W.3 d 2 50 , 2 57 (T e nn . 2 00 1) ; see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210( f).

Be fore a trial c ourt sentenc es a c onvicted def endant, it m u s t co n sider: (1) the evidenc e

rec eived at the trial and sente ncing hearing; ( 2) the pre sen t en ce report; (3) the princ iples of
sentenc ing; ( 4) the a

rg ument s of counse l relative to sente ncing alternatives; (5) the na ture a nd char acte ristics of the criminal c onduct involved; ( 6) any mitigating or enhanc ement fa ctors; (7) a ny statements made by the defe ndant in his or her own beha lf; and (8) the def endant’ s potential or lack of potential for

reha bilitation or treatment. Id . § § 4 0- 35 -1 03 , - 21 0; Sta te v . I mf e ld , 70 S.W .3d 698, 704 (Tenn. 2002). To fac ilitate appellate r eview, the trial court is also re quired to plac e on the r ecor d its reasons for

i m p o s i n g t h e spec ific sentenc e, including the identifica tion of the mitigating and enhanc ement fa ctors found, the s p ec i fi c facts supporting eac h enhanc ement fa ctor found, a nd the meth o d b y w h ic h th e mi ti g a ti n g a n d e n h a n c e me n t f a c to r s h a v e b e e n e v a lu a te d in d e te r mi n ing the
sentenc e. Id . at 704-05.-10- A. Range III, P ersiste nt Of fend er

I n challeng ing his sente nces, the defe ndant first conte nds that t h e trial c ourt err ed by

c on du c tin g its ow n in ve sti g a tio n in to the de fe nd a nt’ s p rior con vic tio ns a ndse nte nc ing him a s a pe rs ist e nt o ff

e nd e r d e sp ite the fa c t th e state on ly re qu e ste d th e de fe nd a nt b e se nte nc e d a s a mul tip le offe nder. The defe ndant submits that without the procur ement of the additional convictions by the trial court, he would have be en sente nced a s a Rang e I I , multipl e off ender

.

The re cord ref

lects that the state filed a notice of intent to seek enha nced punishment, whic h lis te d th e de fe nd a nt’ s p ri or c on vic tio ns a s f

oll ow s:

a) Bur g lary , Secon d De gre e, Da v i d s o n C ri m i n al C o u rt , ca s e n u m ber C-8586, N ovember 6, 1981; b) Robbery

and Ag g ravated Assault, Davidson Criminal Court, case number C-8739, No ve mbe r 6 , 1 98 1; c) Gra nd L arc eny , Davidson Criminal Court, case number 87-S-1454, N ovember 20, 19 87 ; d) Robbery , Davidson Criminal Court, case number 87-S-1460, November 20, 1987; e) Robbery , Davidson Criminal Court, case numbe r 87-F -1518, Nove mber 20, 1987; f) Robbery , Davidson Criminal Court, case numbe r 91-W-30, Jul y 18, 1991;
g ) Mail Theft and For g ery , United States District Court, Middle District of Tenne ssee, May 28, 1987; and h) Escape , Uni ted States District Court, Middle District of Tenne ssee, Nove mber 16, 1990.

At the sentenc ing he aring , the s tate advised the t rial court that it was off ering certified copies of four robbery convictions incurr ed by

the def endant. At this time, the trial co u rt q uestioned the
state a s to the oth e r c on vic tio ns lis te d on the state ’s “ No tic e of En ha nc e d Puni sh me nt. ” Th e state responde d that it was not co n t en d i ng that the def endant wa s “anything other than a Rang e Two Offe nder.” Howeve r, upon further que stioning by th e co u rt , the state a cknowledg ed it made a mistake and c ontended that the de fenda nt’s additional convictions place d him as a “Rang e Thre e [O] ffe nder.” The court paused the proce eding s in order to procur e certified copies of the a dditional

c on vic tio ns that w e re lis te d o n th e stat e’s no tic e . A ft e r o bta ini ng the c op ie s o f the se c on vic tio ns , t h e c o u rt fo u n d t h at t h e de fe n d an t h ad fi v e pr i o r C fe l o n i es ; an d t h er ef o re , t h e de fe n d an t wa s a R an ge I I I , persistent off

ender

. Upon re view, we note that Tenne ssee Code A nnotated s ection 40-35- 202(a) provides that “[i] f the district a t t o rn ey gener al believe s that a def endant should be se ntence d as a multiple, persistent or car eer offe nder, the district attorney g ener al shall file a state ment there of with the court and def ense c ou n sel not less than ten (10) day s befor e trial.” Se e als o T e n n

. R

. C r i m

. P

. 1 2

. 3

. If

no tic e is f ile d late or

is f ile d ti me ly

bu t is otherwise defec tive , the de fe n dant must show prejudice befor e the n o t i ce wi l l be re ndere d ineffe ctive. See State v . Carter
, 121 S.W .3d 579, 585 (Tenn.T h e d e fen d a n t wa s c o n v ic te d a n d se n te n c e d p rio r to the J u n e 2 0 0 5 re v isio n s to the se n te n c ing a c t. 1

-11- 2 0 0 3 ) ( ci t i n g State v. Stephe nson , 7 52 S.W. 2d80 , 8 1 ( Te nn . 1 98 8) ); Sta te v . D e bro , 787 S.W .2d 932, 933-34 (Te nn. Crim. App. 1989). The pur poses of the notice require ment are satisfied whe n the defe ndant is not misl ed or sur prised by the st at e’ s decision to seek e nhance d sentenc ing. State v. Cha se , 873 S.W .2d 7, 9 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993)

.

Whil e the d e f

e n d a n t c o rr e c tl y p o in ts o u t th a t th e s tate d id n o t s p e c if y in it s n o ti c e wha t offe nder status it was se eking , the evidenc e in the rec ord clea rly establishes that the def endant ha d notice of the state’s intent to seek e nhance d punishment. The r ec o rd s h o ws that the state f iled a

“ No tic e of

En ha nc e d Pu nis hme nt” lis tin g e no ug h p ri or c on vic tio ns to q ua lif

y th e defe nda nt a s a Rang e I I I , persistent off

ender . The re cord a lso indicates that the trial c ourt’s inquiries we re ma de
reg arding the convictions l i s t ed on the state’s notice . As such, the c ourt’s ac tion in requesting

certified copies of some of the defe ndant’s convictions listed on the state’s enhanc ement notice wa s not only pro per but c ommendable. Clea rly , the def

endant ha s failed to show pre judice, and there fore , he is not entitled to relief on this issue.

B. Sentence Length

The de fenda nt next contends that t h e t ri al court improper ly enhanc ed his sentenc es for
espec ially ag g ravated robbe ry

and sec ond deg ree murder. Spec ifically , the def endant submits that the trial court improperly considere d enhanc ement fac tors: ( 6), (10), and (14). See Tenn. Code Ann. § 4 0- 35 -1 14 . A s a n a sid e , the d efe nd a nt a lso su bmi ts tha t th e tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d in app ly ing the se enhanc ement fa ctors contr ary to the ruling of Blakely v. W ashington , 542 U.S. 296 (2004).

Especia lly

ag g ravated robbe ry

and sec ond deg ree murder are Class A felonies. Te nn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-403( b), -210( c). The s en t en ci n g rang e for a Rang e I I I , persistent off ender who commits a C lass A felony is forty to six ty y ear s. Id. § 4 0- 35 -1 12 (c )( 1) . St art ing a t th e mid po int in the ra ng e, the tria l court should adjust the s entenc e length withi n the ra ng e as a ppropriate based upon the pre sence or a b s en ce of mitigating and enha nceme nt fac tors set out in sections 40-35-113 a nd 40-35-114. Id . § 40-35-210( c). The weig ht t o b e af forde d an existi ng fac tor is left to the trial 1

c ou rt ’s dis c re tio n s o lo ng a s th e c ou rt c omp lie s w ith the statut ory se nte nc ing g uid e lin e s a ndits finding s are adequately supported by the re cord. See State v. Souder , 105 S.W .3d 602, 606 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002).

I n th e ins ta nt c a se , th e c ou rt fo un d th e fo llo wi ng e nh a nc e me nt f a c tor s a pp lic able :

(1) The defe ndant has a

previous history

of crimin a l c o n victions or criminal beha vior, in addition to thos e nec essary to establish the appropriate ra ng e; (6 ) T he pe rs on a l in

jurie s in fl ic te d u po n .

. . the vic tim wa s p art ic ula

rl y g re a t; (1 0) Th e de fe nd a nt ha d no he sit a tio n abo ut c omm itt ing a c ri me wh e n the risk to human life wa s high;-12-

(14) The defe ndant abuse d a position of public or private trust . . . .

See Tenn. Code Ann § 40- 35-1 1 4. The c ourt specif ically limit ed its application of e nhance ment fa c tor s ( 6) a nd(1 0) to the de fe nd a nt’ s c on vic tio n f or e sp e c ia lly a g g ra va te d rob be ry

. With re g ardto fac tor (1), the court found that the def en d an t h ad additional g rand la rce ny convictions, fede ral

esca pe, fe dera l mail theft, and “at least, six misdemeanor convictions for assault, theft, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, [ and] multipl e shopl iftings.” Wit h reg ard to fac tor (6), the c ourt found that the victim’s bodily

i n j u ri es resulted in his death; ther efor e, the f actor was a pplicable be cause the injuries went bey ond those injuries nec essary to establish the defe ndant’s espe cially ag g ravated

ro bb ery con vict ion . A pp lying fa c tor (1 0) , th e c ou rt

fo un d th a t th e de fe nd a nt h a d n o h e sit a tio n in committing the crime of espe cially ag g ravated robbe ry

when the risk to human life wa s high. The

c ou rt fu rthe r fo un d tha t the de fe nd a nt ab us e d a posi tio n o f p ri va te tr us t a s a n e mpl oy e e of

the vic tim

. The c ourt finally noted t hat i t place d g reat weig ht on enhanc ement fa ctor (1) , the def endant’ s history of criminal convictions.

E n h a n ce me n t

F a ct o r s (6) a n d (10 )

I t is well-settled that statutory enhanc ement fa ctors may not be applied if they

are essential elements of the offe nse, or if the y are inhere nt with i n t h e o ff en se. See Im

fe ld , 70 S.W .3d at 704. Previously , this court has expressly held that s en t ence enhanc ement base d upon particula rly g reat inj ur ie s c a nn ot b e app lie d to the of fe ns e of e sp e c ia lly

a g g ra va te d robbe ry

be c a us e se ri ou s b od ily injury is an essential e lement of this offe nse. Se e Sta te v . Ni x , 922 S.W. 2d 89 4, 90 3 ( Te nn . Crim. App. 1995). I n other wor ds, proof of se rious bodily injury will alway s co n s t i t ute proof of particula rly g reat injury

. See State v . Jones , 8 83 S.W. 2d59 7, 60 2 ( Te nn . 1 99 4)

. F or sim ila r r e a so ns , this court has also held that se ntence enhanc ement based upon the hi g h risk to human life ca nnot be

app lie d to e sp e c ia lly a g g ra va te d ro bb e ry be c a us e hig h ri sk to hu ma n lif e e xists wh e ne ve r a

de a dly

wea pon is used. See Nix , 922 S.W .2d at 903. Thus, t he trial c ourt improperly applied enha nceme nt fac tors (6) a nd (10).

Enhance ment Fac tor ( 14)

Th e app lic a tio n o f the pr ivate trus t fa c tor “ is a ta sk that mus t be un de rt ake n on a c a se by c a se basis.” Sta te v . P oo le
, 945 S.W .2d 93, 96 (Tenn. 1997). The sente ncing court is direc ted to examine “the nature of the rela tionship” a nd whether that rela tionship “pr omoted confide nce, r eliability , or faith.” State v. Kissinger , 9 22 S.W. 2d48 2, 48 8 ( Te nn . 1 99 6). “I f su ch a re la tio ns hip or

‘p ri va te trust’ is shown, the State must then prove that the per petra tor abused that relationship in committi ng the crime.” State v. Gutierrez , 5 S.W .3d 641, 646 (Tenn. 1999)

.

I nitially , we r ecog nize that a rela tionship of p ri v at e trust m ay exis t betwee n employ er a nd employ ee. See
, e.g., State v. G rissom , 956 S.W. 2d 51 4, 51 8 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 97 ). Of te n, thi s fa c tor is a pp lie d w he n a n e mpl oy e r e ntr us ts the e mpl oy e e wi th a c c e ss t o mo ne y (i .e . pa yro ll, bu sin e ss

rec ords, bank a ccounts), and t he employ ee ste als from the e mploy er. See, e .g., State v. Elizabeth M. Cla rk , No. E2002-01592- CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 22843171, *3 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knox ville,-13-

Dec . 1, 2003) (noting that defe ndant exploit ed her position as the bookkeepe r to steal money from he r e mpl oy e r) ; State v. Kavious L. Newsom, No. 02C01-9806-CR-00166, 1999 WL 588155, at *5 (T e n n

. Crim

. A p p

. , a t Ja c k s o n , A u g

. 6
, 1 9 9 9 ) ( n o ti n g th a t s to r e ma n a g e r le t o th e r s c o me in to the
store and steal). Moreove r, we note “that the employ ee’ s prese nce on the employ er’ s premises or

wo rk sit e wh e n th e of

fe ns e is c omm itt e d ma y be a str on g ind ic a tor of a n abu se of trus t, e sp e c ia lly when the status a s employ ee e nabled or fac ilitated the offe nse.” See State v. Antonio D. Richardson
, No. M2005-01161-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 1173168, *10 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, May 4, 2006). None theless, base d upon our revie w of the r ecor d, we c onclude that e nhance ment fac tor (14), abuse of private trust, wa s improperly applied in this case. He re , the re cord e stablishes that the de fe nd a nt h a d be e n e mpl oy e d a s a te mpo ra ry e mpl oy e e fo r a

bo ut t wo we e ks . T he de fe nd a nt’ s o nly duties consisted of food pr eparat i o n in the restaur ant and some minor c onstruction work in the bake ry . O f c ou rs e , s ome e le me nt o f t ru st wa s in he re nt i n th is r e la tio ns hip a s in a ll

e mpl oy e r/ e mpl oy e e re la tio ns hip s. Ho we ve r, be y on d est abli sh ing the fa c t tha t the de fe nd a nt w a s a temporary

employ ee w ho worke d in the vi ct i m ’s re staurant a nd used a kitche n knife to stab the victim, the evidence in the rec ord neither established a r elationsh i p which promoted c onfidenc e, reliabi li ty , o r f

a ith
, n o r th e ab u s e o f s u c h a r e lati o n s h ip b y th e d e f e n d a n t w h e n c o mm it ting the offe nses of e specia lly ag g ravated robbery and second deg ree murder. Acc ording ly , we c onclude that this enhance ment fac tor does not apply to the defe ndant’s convic tions.

I n sum, the rec ord ref

lects that the court improperly applied enha nceme nt fac tors (6), ( 10), and (14)
, but proper ly applied enhance ment fac tor (1). The im proper application of e nhance ment fac tors, howeve r, does not nec essarily lead to a r eduction in a de fen d an t ’s s entence. State v. W inf ie ld , 23 S.W .3d 279, 284 (Tenn. 2000). Given the fac t that the court proper ly considere d and place d g reat weig ht on enhanc ement fa ctor (1) , we c onclude that the court did not err in sentencing the de f e n d a n t a s a

p e r s is te n t o f

f e n d e r to f if ty

- f iv e y e ar s f

o r h is e s p e c ia ll y

a g g r a v a te d r o b b e ry conviction, and sixt y

y ear s for his sec ond deg ree murder c on viction. See State v . Gomez , 163 S.W .3d 632, 659 (Tenn. 2005) (upon the finding of eve n one enhance ment fac tor, the “statute a ffor ds to the judge discretion to choose an appr opriate se ntence an y whe re within the statutory rang e”) (empha sis added). A ccor dingly , the def endant is not entitled to relief on this iss ue.
Blakely v. W

ashington

I n State v. Gome z , 16 3 S.W. 3d63 2 ( Te nn . 2 00 5) , o ur su pr e me c ou rt

c on c lud e d th a t Bl ake ly v. W ashington neither a nnounced a new rule of constitutional law nor invalidate d Tenne ssee’ s sentenc ing sc heme, by

which a trial court is permitted, rather tha n require d, to e nhance a sente nce within the statutory

rang e base d on its finding of r eleva nt enhanc ement fa ctors. Gomezis binding authority . Acc ording ly , the def endant is not entitled to relief on this iss ue.

C. Co nse c ut ive Se nt e nc ing

As his final issue, the def endan t ch alleng es the trial c ourt’s imposition of consecutive
sentenc ing. Spec ifical l y , the def endant a rg ues that the imposition of consecutive se ntencing was-14-

improper be cause there was insuffic ient evidenc e to support t he court’s finding that the def endant

was a dang erous of

fende r or that he had a r ecor d of extensive criminal ac tivity

.

A trial court may

impose consec utive sentenc ing upon a determination by a pre pondera nce of the e vidence that one or more of the c riteria se t forth in Tenne ssee Code Annot ated se ction 40-35-115( b) exists . There fore , pursuant to this code sec tion, a trial court may impose consec utive

se nte nc ing if

it d e te rm ine s a ny

on e of the fo llo wi ng c ri te ri a

app lie s:

(1) The defe ndant is a prof essional criminal who has knowing ly d ev oted such defe ndant’s life to c riminal acts as a major sourc e of livelihood; (2) The defe ndant is an off ender whose re cord of

criminal ac tivityis ex tensive; ( 3 ) T h e d e f

e n d a n ti s a

d a n g e r o u s m e n t a l l y ab n o r m a l p e r s o n s o d e c l ar e d b y a

c omp e te nt ps y c hiatr ist

wh o c on c lud e s a s a

re su lt o f a n in ve sti g a tio n p ri or to sentenc ing that the defendant' s criminal conduc t has bee n char acte rized by a pattern of re pe tit ive or

c omp uls ive be ha vio r w ith he e dle ss i nd if fe re nc e to c on se qu e nc e s; (4) The defe ndant is a dang erous offende r whose behavior indicates li ttle or no reg ard fo r h uman life , a ndno he sit a tio n a bo ut c omm itt ing a

c ri me in w hic h th e ri sk

to human life is hig h; (5) The defe ndant is c onvicted of two (2) or more statutory offe nses involving se x ual abuse of a minor with considerat ion of the ag g ravating c ircumstance s arising from the re lationship between the defe ndant and victim or vic t i m s , t h e time span of defe nd an t ’s u n d etected sexual activity , the nature and scope of the sexual acts a nd the e xten t of

the re sid ua l, p hy sic a l a ndme nta l da ma g e to the vic tim or vic tim s; (6) The defe ndant is sentence d for a n offe nse committed while on probation; or (7 ) T he de fe nd a nt i s se nte nc e d f or c ri min a l c on te mpt

.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-115(b) . The criteria are stated in the alternative; theref ore, only one nee d exis t to support t h e im position of consecutive se ntencing . Howeve r, if the tria l court imposes

consec utive sentenc ing ba sed solely upon a finding that the de fenda nt is a dang erous of fende r, the court must also determine whether the sentenc es imposed are rea sonably rela ted to the severity of the offe nses and ne cessa

ry to pro t ec t t h e publi c fr om further criminal ac tivityby

the def endant. State v. W ilkerson , 905 S.W .2d 933, 939 (Tenn. 1995) . Additionally , the trial court should consider
g e ne ra l se nte nc ing pr inc ipl e s inc lud ing wh e the r or no t the le ng th of a se nte nc e is j us tly de se rv e d in rela tion to the seriousness of the of fense

. See Im

fe ld , 70 S.W .3d at 708. I t is withi n the sound discretion of the trial court whether or not to impose consec utive or conc urre nt sentence s. Se e Sta te v. Adams , 973 S.W .2d 224, 230-31 (Te nn. Crim. App. 1997).

As previously noted, the trial court order ed the defe ndant’s fifty -five- y ear sentenc e for

the
espec ially ag g ravated robbe ry

conviction be se rved c onsec utively to the defe ndant’s life se ntence for his fe lony

murder c onviction. The court imposed consecutive se ntence s aft er fi n ding that the defe ndant was a dang erous offe nder and had a rec ord of extensive c riminal activity

. See Tenn Code Ann. § 40-35-115 ( b)(2) , -(4) . I n imposing conse cutive sente ncing , the court made the f ollowing
state me nts :-15- The Co u rt d o es fi n d
, u n d er[ 4 0 -3 5 -1 1 5 ]
, i n t er m s o f m u l t i p l e c o n v i ct i o n s , that the Def endant

. . . is a n offe nder w hose re cord of criminal ac tivity

is ex tensive, and that he is a dang erous offe nder whose behavior indicates little or no re g ard f or human life, and ha s no hesitation about commi tting thi s crime or crimes in the past, in which the risk to human life is hig h. I understand, unde r [ State v. W ilkerson ], Iha ve to .

. . c on sid e r[] th e a g g re g a te term. I understand that [t he De fenda nt] alre ady has a life sentenc e, as to Count One. But, hope fully , those sentenc es will stand and he w ill serve out t hat Count One sentenc e. But, to ma

ke sure of that and, bec ause of

the seve rity

of these of

fense s

a ndin o rd e r t o p ro te c t th e pu bli c fr om f urthe r s e ri ou s cri mi nal c on du c t by thi s Def endant, the Court doe s find that consec utive sentenc ing i s n ec essary , based on those fac tors and that ca se law a nd that statute. [Th e De fe nd a nt], a c c or din g to the pr e se nte nc e re po rt , h a s p ri or pa ro le

re vo c a tio ns , mu lti ple pr ior pr ob a tio n r e vo c a tio ns; has this v olu me of c on vic tio ns , many of which a

re pe rsonal, assaultive, violent offense s on his recor d. So, it’s appare nt to me that consec utive sentenc ing is - - althoug h not require d

- - i s n e c e s s ar y.

I n our view, the se finding s ref lect that the trial court consider ed the se ntencing principles and all rele vant fac ts a nd circ umstances require d for the imposit ion of consec utive sentenc es. Her e, the

re c o r d c le ar ly s u p p o r ts th e c o u r t’ s f in d in g o f e xte n s iv e c r im in a l h is to r y

. M o r e o v e r , the violent
nature of the de fenda nt’s action in stabbing the victim multi ple time s wi t h a k i tchen knife befor e takin g the victim’s wallet and va n support a finding that the conse cutive sente nces imposed

rea sonably

rela te to the se serious crimes and are nece ssary to pr otect the public from further c riminal activity by the def endant. Ac cording ly , the def endant is not entitled to relief on this iss ue.

CO NC LU SION

Following our re view of the rec ord and t h e p ar t i es’ briefs, we aff irm the judg ments of the
tr ia l c ou rt

.

___________________________________ J .C. McL I N, J UDGE