### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE ATJAC KSON A ssi gne d onBrie f N ove m be r 10, 200 9 ST A TE OFTE N N ES SE E v . WI LL IE LE WIS
D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e C rim ina l C o u rt fo r S h elb y C o u n ty N o. 08- 01047 C hri s C raf t , Judge

N o. W 2008- 02636- C C A - R 3- C D - F i l ed M arch 31, 2010

A Shel byC ount y j ur y convi ct ed t he D efe ndant , W i l l i e L ew i s , of aggr avat ed r obbery . T he t r i al cour ts ent ence d t he D efe ndantas a ca r eeroffe ndert o t hi r tyy ear s i n t he Tennes s ee D epart m entof C or r ect i on ( “TD O C ”)

. O n appea l , t he D efe ndant cont ends : ( 1) t he evi dence i s i n su ff i ci entt o s us t ai n hi s convi ct i on; and ( 2) t he tr i al cour terr ed w hen i ti m pos ed an e x c e s s i v e s e n t e n c e . Af t e ra t h o r o u g h r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d a n d a p p l i c a b l e a u t h o r i t i e s , we a f f ir m th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t. T enn. R . A pp. P . 3 A ppeal as of R i ght ; Judgm ent of

t he C ri m i nal C ourt A f f i rm ed R OB ER T W. W EDE MEY ER , J

. , del i ver ed the opi ni on of t he C ou rt , i n w hi ch J OH N E VER ETT W I L L I AMS a n d J

. C. M C L IN , J J

. , j oi ned. D i ann e T hack ery(att ri al ), M em ph i s, T enn essee, and P hy l l i s A l uk o (on ap peal) , M em ph i s, T enn essee, for t he A pp el l ant, W i l l i e L ew i s. R o b e rt E

. C o o p e r, Jr., A tto rn e y G e n e ra l a n d R e p o rte r; M ich a e l E . M o o re , S o licito r G e n e ra l; L a c y W i l ber, A ssi st ant A t t orneyG eneral ; W i l l i am L

. G i bb on s, D i stri ctA t t orneyG ener a l; C ol i n C ampbel l , A s s i s t ant D i s t r i ct A t t or ney G ener al , for t he A ppel l ee, St at e of Tennes s ee.

OP I NI ON I. F a cts

A Shel b yC ount ygr and j ur yi ndi ct ed the D efe ndanton one countof aggr avat ed r o b b e r y . At t h e t r i a l o n t h i s c h a r g e , t h e f o l l o wi n g e v i d e n c e wa s p r e s e n t e d : Th e v i c t i m, S i ms W es by , J r . , t es t i fi ed t hat he arr i ved home on June 8, 2007, ar ound 4: 30 or5: 00 p. m . A ft er-2-

par ki ng hi s t ruck, he w al ked t o t he house next door t o t al k w i t h hi s fr i end “Sherr y , ” w ho w as s i tt ing o n the fr ontpor ch. T he tw o had s poken fora fe w m i nut es w hen the D efe ndant ap p roached the vi ct i m . T he vi ct i m des cr i bed the D efe ndantas a bl ack mal e w ho w as appr oxi m at el ys i x fee tt al l , w ear i ng bl ue j eans and a bl ue w i ndbr eake r w i t h t he hood pul l ed u p o v e r h is b a s e b a ll h a t. T h e v ictim tes tifie d th a t h e re c o g n ize d th e D e f e n d a n t b e c a u se th e D e f

e n d a n t li v e d in t he s ame nei ghbor hood as t he vi ct i m for t he pas t tw enty y ear s . T he vi ct i m r eca l l ed thatt he D efe ndantappr oache d t he vi ct i m and pul l ed a doubl e- barr el l ed, s aw ed off s hot

- gun outof a bag a nd demanded t he vi ct i m ’ s m oney . A tfi r st, t he vi ct i m t houghtt he D efe ndantw as j oki ng, butt he D efe ndantt hen fi r ed a s hot i nt o t he ground and agai n poi nt ed t he gun att he vi ct i m . T he vi ct i m t es t i fi ed t hat he w as ner vous and bega n t o l ook fors om ethi ng w i t h w hi ch to d e f e n d h im se lf

, b u t h e c o u ld f

in d n o th in g . T h e D e f

e n d a n t h it th e v ictim o n th e h e a d w ith t he gun tw i ce, s pl i t t i ng open the vi ct i m ’ s head, and the vi ct i m , fee l i ng he had no other choi ce, gr abbed the D efe ndant

. T he tw o “s cuff l ed, ” butt he vi ct i m w as u n ab le to t ake the D efe ndant ’ s gun. T he D efe ndantt ook t he vi ct i m ’ s w al l et , w hi ch cont ai ned$ 2 4 0 , a n d w al ked d o w n th e stre e t. T he vi ct i m t es t i fi ed that , due t o hi s injuries, an ambul ance t r ans por t ed hi m t o t he hos pi t al

. W hi l e i n t he ambul ance , t h e v ic t i m s aw t he D efe ndantw al k outfr om behi nd a bu i l ding, near t he v i ct i m ’s ho m e. T he v i ct i m po i nted the D efen dan t ou t t o the param edics , w ho t hen parked the ambul ance and pl ace d a ca l l forpol i ce a s s i s t ance . T he pol i ce br ought t he D efe ndant t o t he back of t he am bul ance , and the vi ct i m i dent i fi ed the D efe ndantas t he p e rp e tr a to r. O n cr os s - exami nat i on, t he vi ct i m t es t i fi ed t hat Sher r yl eftaft ert he D efe ndantpul l ed t he gun outof t he bag. T he vi ct i m s ai d t hathe r ece i ved st i t ches forhi s i nj ur i es att he hos pi t al a n d th a t h is w a lle t w a s n e v e r r e c o v e re d

. O ffi cerR egi nal d W al ker, w i t h t he M emphi s Pol i ce D epart m ent , t es t i fi ed thathe res po nd ed to a r ob beryreportw here he fo un d the vi ct i m bleedi ng du e to h e a d i njur i es. Par amedi cs arr i ved and tr ans por t ed the vi ct i m t o t he hos pi t al

. O ffi cerW al kers ai d t hatt he ambul ance s t opped att he cornerof B el l evue a nd Sm i t h, cal l ed the pol i ce, and r epor t ed that t he vi ct i m i ndi cat ed thatt he D efe ndantw as on t he corner of t he s t r eet
. O ffi cer W at s on dr ove t o t he i nt er s ect i on and, aft ers peaki ng w i t h t he v ic t i m , det ai ned the D efe ndant

. O ffi cer W at s on r eca l l ed thathe br oughtt he D efe ndantovert o t he bac k o f the am bul ance , and the vi ct i m i dent i fi ed the D efe ndantas t he perpetr at or . O ffi cerW al kert es t i fi ed thathe t r ans por t ed the D efe ndantt o j ai l and tur ned i n a bl ue j acke tt hatw as r ecovere d from t he s cene .-3-

O n c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n , O f f ice r W a lk e r te s tif

ied a b o u t th e in f

o rm a tio n th e v ictim p ro v id e d a t th e s c e n e , w h ic h w a s c o n s is te n t w ith th e v ic tim ’s tr ia l te s tim o n y . Ser geantE l ai ne Shel by , w i th the Shel byC ount ySher i ff’ s O ffi ce, t es t i fi ed thats he t ook a D N A s ampl e fr om t he D efe ndantand s enti t t o t he T ennes s ee B ur eau of I nves t i gat i on (“ T B I” ). S h e a lso tried to lo c a te “ S h e rry ,” b u t sh e w a s u n su c c e ss f u l. W i l l i am M at ti x test if

i ed thathe w as empl oy ed as a fi r e fi ght er/par amedi c fort he M emphi s Fi r e D epart m ent i n J une 2007 and r es ponded t o a r obberyr epor t
. M at t i x r eca l l ed t hatt he vi ct i m , w ho w as s t andi ng out s i de, had a l ar ge bum p on hi s head. M at t i x obs er ved t hat th e b u m p w as about t he s i ze of a bas ebal l , and M at t i x al s o s aw l ace r at i ons on t he vi ct i m ’ s hea d

. M att i x as s es s ed the i nj ur i es and det er m i ned the vi ct i m neede d t o go t o t he h o s p ita l. T h e y h a d n o t d ri v e n f a r w h e n th e v ic tim s c re a m e d , “ [ T ]h a t’ s th e m a n w h o h it m e .” M a ttix n o tif

ie d p o lic e o f

f ic e rs w h o d e ta in e d th e D e f e n d a n t. D o n n a N elso n , a S p ec ial A g en t F o ren sic S cien ti st w ith the T B I, test ifi ed as a n ex p ert w i t nes s i n t he fi el d of for ens i c s ci ence . N el s on cr eat ed a D N A p rof il e fort he D efe ndant fr om a s ampl e of hi s s al i va, and s he cr eat ed a D N A pr ofi l e o f the m at er i al fr om a s t ai n on a j acke tr ecove r ed att he s cene . She concl uded thatt he D N A pr ofi l e of the s t ai n on t he j acke t di d notm at ch the D efe ndant ’ s D N A pr ofi l e. N el s on al s o t ook a “c ut t i ng” fr om t he nec k and w r i s tar eas of t he j acke t for anal y s i s . N el s on w as abl e t o geta part i al D N A pr ofi l e i ndi cat i ng a mal e, buts he coul d m ake no f ur t herdet erm ination b ec aus e the nec k and w r i s tar eas c o n tain e d in su f

f icie n t m a ter ial to c o n stru c t a f u ll D N A p ro f

ile. N e lso n e x p lain e d th a t a s a m p le c o u ld b e d e g ra d e d f ro m e x p o s u re to s u n lig h t o r o th e r e le m e n ts , s u c h a s d ir t. P atri ck Jo nes t es t i fi ed thathe w as , att he t i m e of tr i al , i ncar cer at ed and ha d convi ct i ons forfourcount s of aggr avat ed bur gl aryand theft

. I n J une 2007, how ever , he l i ved dow n t he s t r eetfr om t he vi ct i m . J ones s aid tha the had know n t he vi ct i m foraboutei ght y ear s and dat ed the vi ct i m ’ s s i s t er . J ones r eca l l ed thaton t he dayof at t ack i n t hi s cas e, he w as s i t t i ng i n hi s l i vi ng r oom w atchi ng t el evi s i on. Fr om t hi s pos i t i on, J ones coul d l ook t hr ough t he fr ontw i ndow and s ee peopl e comi ng and goi ng on t he s t r eet
. J ones r eca l l ed t hat he hea r d a l oud boom , s o he s t epped outon hi s por ch. Seei ng not hi ng, he gues s ed the boom h a d b e e n c a u s e d b ya t ru c k b a c k f i r i n g a n d r e tu r n e d i n s i d e . J o n e s s a i d a n a mb u l a n c e c a me dow n t he s t r eeta fe w m i nut es l at er , so h e ag ain w entoutont o hi s por ch. H e s aw t hatt he am b u lanc e sto p p ed in f ron t of the v ict im ’s ho u se, so J o n es w alke d d o w n to the v ict im ’s hou se an d w at ched a s t heycarr i ed the vi ct i m outof hi s hous e and l oaded hi m i nt o t he ambul ance . J o n e s r e c a l l e d t h a th e s a w t h e D e f e n d a n tw i t h ya r d t o o l s i n h i s h a n d e a r l i e ri n t h e d a y. J ones s ai d t hatt he D efe ndant w ent t o t he s t or e t hat w as on t he cornerand w as dr i nki ng beer-4-

w i t h s om e otherpeopl e. A ft erJ ones hear d t he boom and w ent out on t he por ch, he s aw t he D efe ndant w as s t i l l dow n at t he corner dr i nki ng beer

. J ones r ecogni zed the D ef endant b e c a u s e h e h a d k n o w n h im f o r a b o u t tw e n ty-f

iv e y e a rs . J ones conce ded thathe neve rt ol d pol i ce thatt he D efe ndantw as att he cornerand, th u s, c o u ld n o t h a v e c o m m itt e d th e ro b b e ry b u t e x p lain e d th a t, b a se d o n h is e x p e rie n c e w ith p o li c e , h e th o u g h t itb e tter n o t to g e t in v o lv e d . A lth o u g h h e d id n o t tell p o lice , Jo n e s s a id th a t h e to ld th e v ictim ’s s iste r an d th e v ictim , a n d , w h e n h e d id so , the v ictim sa id , “[ Y ]a ’ll h a d s o m e th in g to d o w ith it. [ Y ]a ’l l g e t o u t o f m yy a rd .” T he D efe ndantt es t i fi ed thathe had pr i orconvi ct i ons fort w o count s of th ef t a nd att em p ted a g g rav ated b u rglary

. T h e D ef en d an t st ated that o n Ju n e 8 , 2 0 0 7 , h e g o t of f w o rk atM em ph i s A uto Part s atno on and w ent t o a fri end ’s ho use on B el l evu e t o t ri m his hed ges. W hen he f

i ni s hed w i t h t he hedges , he w ent t o t he s t or e for M s . T i pt on. B y t hi s t i m e i tw as al m os t2: 30 or3: 00 p. m . T he D efe ndant s ai d he t hen w ent t o t he cor ner s t or e atB el l evue a nd d ra n k a n d ta lk e d w ith f ri e n d s . T h e D e f

e n d a n t d e n ie d s e e in g o r r o b b in g th e v ic tim

. O n cr os s - exami nat i on, t he D efe ndant t es t i fi ed t hat he hear d t he same l oud boom t hat Jo n es h ea rd an d that h e loo k ed d o w n the s tr ee t bu t did n o t see a n y thing

. S h o rt lythere af ter, he s aw t he ambul ance s t op acr os s t he s t r eet , and t he pol i ce t ook hi m i nt o cus t ody

. T he D efe ndantdeni ed eve rbei ng t aken t o the bac k of t he ambul ance fort he vi ct i m t o i dent i fy h im . T h e D e f

e n d a n t a ls o d e n ie d o w n e rs h ip o f th e ja c k e t r e c o v e re d a t th e s c e n e . B a s e d u p o n t h i s e v i d e n c e , t h e j u r y c o n v i c t e d t h e D e f e n d a n to f

a g g r a v a t e d r o b b e r y. A tt he D efe ndant ’ s s ent enci ng hear i ng, t he S t at e ent er ed s even j udgm entfor m s t hr ough t he Shel byC ount yC r i m i nal C our tD eputyC our tC l er k as evi dence of pr i orfel onyconvi ct i ons forpurpos es of det er m i ni ng t he D efe ndant ’s range. T he tr i al cour tcons i der ed fi ve of the pr i or convi ct i ons , w hi ch w er e cl as s i fi ed as C l as s B fel oni es , w hen i ts ent ence d t he D efe ndant a s a C a re e r O f

f e n d e r. T h e trial co u rt se n ten c e d th e D e f e n d a n t as a C a re e r O f

f e n d e r to th irty y e a rs in th e T D O C . It is f ro m th is ju d g m e n t th a t th e D e f e n d a n t n o w a p p e a ls

. II . A n a ly sis T he D efe ndantpr es ent s t w o i s s ues forr evi ew : ( 1) w hethert h ere w as suffi ci ent ev iden ce to sustain his co n v ict ion fo r ag g rav ated rob b ery ; an d (2) w h ethe r t h e tr ia l co u rt e rr e d w h e n it c a te g o ri z e d th e D e f e n d a n t a s a C a re e r O f

f e n d e r. A . Suff i ci ency of t he E vi dence W hen an a ccus ed cha l l enges t he s uffi ci ency of t he evi dence , t hi s C our t ’ s s t andar d of-5-

r evi ew i s w hether , aft erconsi der i ng t he evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he St at e, “anyr ati o n al tri erof fa ctcoul d have f ound t he es s ent i al el ement s of t he cr i m e bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt

. ” J

a c k so n v . V irg in ia , 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 (1 9 7 9 ); s ee Ten n. R. A pp. P. 1 3 (e ), S ta te v . G o o dw in , 143 S. W

. 3d 771, 775 ( T enn. 2004) ( ci t i ng S ta te v . R e id , 91 S. W

. 3d 247, 276 ( T enn. 2002) )

. T hi s rul e appl i es t o fi ndi ngs of gui l tbas ed upon di r ectevi d ence , c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e , o r a c o m b in a tio n o f b o th d ir e c t a n d c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . S ta te v. P end ergrass , 13 S. W

. 3d 389, 3 9 2 -93 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1999)

. A convi ct i on m aybe bas ed e n t i r e l yo n c i r c u ms t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e whe r e t h e f a c t s a r e “ s o c l e a r l yi n t e r wov e n a nd connec t ed thatt he fi ngerof gui l ti s poi nt ed unerr i ngl yatt he D efe ndantand the D efe ndant al one. ” S ta te v . Sm ith , 8 6 8 S .W .2 d 5 6 1 , 5 6 9 (T e n n . 1 9 9 3 ). T h e ju ryd e c id e s th e w e ig h t to be gi ven t o ci r cumst ant i al evi dence , and “[ t ] he i nfer ence s t o be dr aw n fr om s uch evi dence , a n d th e e x ten t to w h ich th e c irc u m sta n c e s a r e c o n s iste n t w ith g u ilta n d in c o n sis ten t w ith i nnocenc e, ar e ques t i ons pr i m ar i l yfort he j ur y . ” St at e v. R i ce , 184 S. W

. 3d 646, 662 ( T enn. 2 0 0 6 ) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). In d e ter m in in g th e su f f icie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e , this C o u rt sh o u ld n o t r e -w e ig h o r r e -e v a lu a te th e e v id e n c e . S t a t e v . Ma t th e ws , 805 S. W

. 2d 776, 779 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1990)

. N or m ay t hi s C our ts ubs t i tut e i t s i nfer ence s fort hos e dr aw n byt he tr i er o f f a c t f ro m th e e v id e n c e . St at e v. B uggs , 9 9 5 S .W .2 d 1 0 2 , 1 0 5 (T e n n . 1 9 9 9 ); Li akas v. S ta te , 286 S. W

. 2d 856, 859 ( T enn. 1956). “Q u es t i ons conce r ni ng t he cr edi bi l i t yof t he w i t nes s es , t he w ei g h t an d val ue of the evi dence , as w el l as al l fac tual i s s ues r ai s ed byt he e v i d e n c e a r e r e s o l v e d b y t h e t r i e r o f fac t
. ” S tate v. B l and , 958 S. W

. 2d 651, 659 ( T enn. 1 9 9 7 ); Li akas , 286 S. W

. 2d at 859. “A gui l t y ver di ct by t he j ur y , appr oved by t he t r i al j udge, acc r edi t s t he t es t i m onyof t he w i t nes s es fort he St at e and r es ol ves al l confl i ct s i n favorof t he t heoryof t he St at e. ” St at e v. C abbage , 5 7 1 S .W .2 d 8 3 2 , 8 3 5 (T e n n . 1 9 7 8 ); St at e v. G r ace , 493 S. W

. 2d 474, 479 ( T enn. 1973)

. T he Tennes s ee Supr eme C our ts t at ed the r at i onal e for t hi s rul e: T h is w ell -sett led ru le re sts on a so u n d fo u n d ati o n . T h e tri al j u d g e a n d the ju ry s ee t he w i t nes s es fac e t o fac e, heart hei rt es t i m onyand obs er ve thei rdemeanor on t he s t and. T hus , t he t r i al j udge and j ur y ar e t he pri m ary i ns t rum ent al i t yof j us t i ce t o det er m i ne the w ei ghtand cr edi bi l i t yt o be gi ven t o t he t es t i m onyof w itn e ss e s. In th e trial f

o ru m a lo n e is th e re h u m a n a tm o sp h e re a n d th e to tality o f th e e v id e n c e c a n n o t b e re p ro d u c e d w ith a w ritten re c o rd in th is C o u rt. B o lin v . S ta te , 405 S. W

. 2d 768, 771 ( T enn. 1996) ( ci t i ng C a rr o ll v. S ta te , 370 S. W

. 2d 523 ( T enn. 1963) )

. T hi s C our tm us taff or d t he St at e of Tennes s ee the s t r onges t l egi t i m at e vi ew of t he evi dence cont ai n ed in the r ecor d, as w el l as al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s w hi ch maybe d ra w n f ro m th e e v id e n c e . G o o dw in , 143 S. W

. 3d at775 ( ci t i ng S ta te v . Sm ith , 24 S. W

. 3d 274, 279 ( T enn. 2000) )

. B eca us e a ve r di ctof gui l tagai ns ta de fenda ntr emoves the pr e s u m pt i on of i nnocenc e and r ai s es a pr es um pt i on of gui l t , t he convi ct ed cr i m i nal defe ndant b e a rs t he b urden o f show i ng t hat the ev i den ce w as l egall yi nsuff i ci ent t o sust ai n a g u ilt y-6-

v e rd ic t. Stat e v. C arrut hers , 3 5 S .W .3 d 5 1 6 , 5 5 7 -5 8 (T e n n . 2 0 0 0 ). T h e D ef en d an t i n this case w as c o n v ict ed o f a g g rav ated rob b ery , w h ich req u ir es a jury to f in d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t th e D e f e n d a n t e it h e r k n o w in g lyo r in ten tio n a lly comm i t t ed theftof pr oper t y , ei t herbyvi ol ence or b y p u tt ing t he vi ct i m i n fea rand a c c o m p lish e d th is w ith : (a ) a d e a d lyw e a p o n , (b ) dis p lay of a n a rticle th a t lea d th e v ictim to r eas onabl ybel i eve i tw as a d ea d l yw eapon, or( c) bycaus i ng s er i ous bodi l yi nj ur yt o t he v ict im

. T

. C

. A § § 3 9 -13 -40 1 an d -40 2 (20 0 6 ). T he D efe ndantcont ends t hatt he evi dence s uppor t i ng hi s i dent i t yas t he perpet r at or w as i ns uffi ci entfora r at i onal t r i erof fa ctt o fi nd he w as gui l t ybey o n d a r eas onabl e doubt of aggr avat ed r obbery . T he St at e r es ponds t hat t he vi ct i m ’ s i dent i fi cat i on of t he D efe ndant as t he per s on w ho r obbed hi m atgunpoi nti s s uffi ci entevi dence t hatt he D efe ndant c o m m itte d th is c ri m e . T he evi dence , cons i der ed in the li g h tm os tfavor abl e t o t he St at e, pr oves t hatt he D ef en d an t w as p rese n t atthe s ce n e o f t h e cri m e. T h e victi m w as st an d ing in his ne igh b o r’s f r o n tya r d w h e n t h e D e f e n d a n ta p p r o a c h e d w i t h a g u n a n d d e m a n d e d t h e v i c t i m ’ s m o n e y. Th e v i c t i m k n e w a n d r e c o g n i z e d t h e De f e n d a n tb e c a u s e t h e yh a d l i v e d i n t h e s a me nei ghbor hood fort w entyy ear s . W hen th e v ict im di d notr es pond, t he D efe ndantfi r ed the g u n in to th e g ro u n d n e a r t h e v ic tim a n d h i t th e v ic tim tw ic e in th e h e a d w ith th e g u n . A s t ruggl e ens ued betw een the tw o, w i t h t he D efe ndantul t i m at el yt aki ng t he victi m ’s w al l et t hat cont ai ned $240 and l eavi ng t he s cene . A s t he vi ct i m w as bei ng t r ans por ted to t he h o sp ital, h e sa w th e D e f e n d a n t n e a r th e sc e n e o f th e ro b b e rya n d id e n tifie d th e D e f e n d a n t to t he par amedi cs . Pol i ce de t ai ned t he D efe ndantand the vi ct i m agai n i dent i fi ed the D efe ndant a s th e p e rp e tr a to r. T he D efe ndantas s er t s t hatthe v ict im’ s i dent i fi cat i on of t he D efe ndant , al one, w as i ns uffi ci entt o s us t ai n hi s convi ct i on. W e di s agr ee . Fi r s t , i ti s w el l es t abl i s hed thatt he id e n tityo f

th e D e f e n d a n t as th e p e r p e tra to r o f th e c rim e is a q u e stio n o f f a c t, w h ich is det er m i ned byt he j ur y . St at e v. C r aw for d, 635 S. W

. 2d 704, 705 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1982) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). T h is C o u rt h a s a lso h e ld th a t v ictim tes tim o n ya lo n e is s u f f ic ien t to s uppor ta convi ct i on, and, i n t hi s cas e, t he vi ct i m i dent i fi ed the D efe ndantas t he perpet r at or of t he aggr avat ed r obbery . See, St at e v. W i l l i ams, 623 S. W

. 2d 118, 120 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1 9 8 1 ). T h u s , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D e f e n d a n t is n o t e n title d to re lie f o n th is is s u e . B. Se nt e nc i ng

W hen a de fenda ntchal l enges t he l ength, r ange, orm annerof s erv ic e of a s ent ence ,-7-

t hi s C our tm us tconducta de novo r evi ew on t he r ecor d w i th a pr es um pt i on t hat“t he det er m i nat i ons m ade byt he cour t fr om w hi ch the appe al i s t aken a r e corr ect
. ” T. C

. A

. § 40- 3 5 -4 0 1 (d ) ( 2 0 0 6 )

. T h e b u rd e n is o n th e a p p e a lin g p a rtyto sh o w th a t th e se n ten c in g is i m pr oper . T

. C

. A

. § 40- 35- 401, Sent enci ng C om m ’ n C m t s ( 2006)

. T hi s m eans tha t i f the tr ial co u rtfo ll o w ed the s tatu tory s e n tenc ing p roc ed u re, m ad e f ind ing s o f f

ac ts w h ich a re adequa t el ys uppor t ed i n t he recor d, and gave due cons i der at i on and pr operw ei ghtt o t he fac t or s and pri nci pl es r el evantt o s ent enci ng undert he Sent enci ng A ct , T ennes s ee Code A nnot at ed s ect i on 40- 35- 103 ( 2006) , t he appel l at e cour t m aynotdi s turb t he s ent ence even i f a d if f e re n t r e s u lt w a s p re f

e rr e d

. Stat e v. R oss , 4 9 S. W

. 3 d 8 3 3 , 8 4 7 ( Te n n. 2001)

. T he pr es um pt i on does notappl y t o t he l egal concl us i ons r eac hed byt he tr i al cour ti n s ent enci ng a de fe ndantort o t he det er m i nat i ons m ade byt he tr i al cour tw hi ch ar e pr edi cat ed upon u n c o n tr o v e rt e d f

a c ts
. St at e v. D ean , 7 6 S .W .3 d 3 5 2 , 3 7 7 (T e n n . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ); St at e v. B ut l er , 9 0 0 S

. W

. 2 d 3 0 5 , 3 1 1 (T en n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ); S ta te v . Sm ith , 891 S. W

. 2d 922, 929 (T en n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ). In c o n d u c tin g a d e n o v o re v iew o f a se n ten c e , w e m u st c o n sid e r: (1 ) th e e v id e n c e , if any , r ece i v ed at t he tr i al and the s ent enci ng hear i ng; ( 2) t he pr es ent ence r epor t ; ( 3) t he pr i nci pl es of s ent enci ng and ar gum ent s as t o s ent enci ng al t ernat i ves ; ( 4) t he natur e and char act er i s t i cs of t he cr i m i nal conduct i nvol ved; ( 5) evi dence and i nfor m at i on offe r ed byt he par t i es on t he m i t i gat i ng and enhanc ement fac t or s s et out i n T ennes s ee C o d e A nnot at ed s ect i ons 4- 35- 113 and

- 114; ( 6) any s t at i s t i cal i nfor m at i on pr ovi ded by the a d m i ni s t r at i ve offi ce of t he court s as t o s ent enci ng pr act i ces for s i m i l ar offe ns es i n T ennes s ee; and ( 7) any s ta te m e n t th e d e f

e n d a n t m a d e in th e d e f

e n d a n t’ s o w n b e h a lf a b o u t se n te n c in g . See T

. C. A. § 4 0 -35 -21 0 (20 0 6 ); St at e v. Tayl or , 63 S

. W

. 3d 40 0, 41 1 (Ten n. C ri m . A pp . 20 01 ). W e m ust al s o cons i der t he pot ent i al or l ack of pot ent i al for r ehabi l i t at i on ort r eatm entof t he def endant i n det er m i ni ng t he s ent ence al t ernat i ve orl ength of a t er m t o be i m pos ed. T

. C

. A

. § 40- 35- 1 0 3 (20 0 6 ). A . St at e ’ s N ot i c e of Enhanc e d Puni s hm e nt

T he D efe ndantcont ends t hat t he t r i al cour t err ed w hen i tcat egor i zed hi m as a C ar eer O ffe nderbeca us e the St at e fa i l ed t o gi ve ade quate n ot i ce thatt he St at e i nt ended t o s eek enhanc ed puni s hm ent
. Speci fi cal l y , t h e D efe ndantcompl ai ns t hatt he St at e’ s not i ce cont ai ned err or s i n t he fac tual det ai l s uppor t i ng t he convi ct i ons . T he St at e r es ponds t hatt he D efe ndantr ece i ved not i ce des pi t e t he N ot i ce of E nhance d Puni s hm ent ’ s fac tual err or s and, furt her, t hat the D efen dan thas fail ed to show anyprej ud i ce as a res ultof the err ors. T e n n e ss e e law re q u ire s th e S tate to p ro v id e w ritten n o tice to a d e f e n d a n t th a t th e S tate i nt ends t o s eek e nhance d puni s hm ent i f t he defe ndanti s convi ct ed. T

. C

. A

. § 40- 35- 202( a)-8-

(2 0 0 6 ). T h e n o tice m u st b e g iv e n a t lea st t e n d a y s b e f o re trial o r th e a c c e p tan c e o f a g u ilty pl ea a nd s houl d pr ovi de the types of convi ct i ons , dat es of convi ct ion s, an d i dent i t yof t he c o u rt s o f c o n v ic tio n . Id

. O urSupr eme C our t , i n S t a t e v . A da ms , expl ai ned t he purpos e of t hi s s t atut e: T h e p u rp o se o f

su b se c tio n (a ) is to p ro v id e f a ir n o tice to a n a c c u se d th a t h e is expos ed t o ot hert han s t andar d s ent en cing

. I ti s i nt ended t o or derpl eabar gai ni ng, t o i nfor m deci s i ons t o ent era gui l t ypl ea, and t o ai d t o s om e ext ent t r i al s t rateg y . N ot i ce i s i m por t antnotonl yi n pr epar at i on fora s ent enci ng h e a rin g , b u t in e v a lu a tin g th e risk s a n d c h a rtin g a c o u rse o f a c tio n b e f o re trial. S t a t e v . A da ms , 7 8 8 S. W

. 2 d 5 5 7 , 5 5 9 ( Te n n . 1 9 9 0 )

. W h e n a d e t a i l o f t h e r equi r ed in f o rm a tio n is o m itt e d o r in c o rre c t, th e in q u irysh o u ld b e w h e th e r th e n o tice w a s “ m a ter ially m i s l eadi ng. ” Id

. T h e su p re m e c o u rt sp e c if ica lly h e ld th a t “ w h e n th e S tate h a s s u b sta n tially compl i ed

. . . , an ac cus ed has a dutyt o i nqui r e aboutan ambi guous ori ncompl et e not i ce a nd m us ts how pr ej udi ce t o obt ai n r el i ef. ” Id

. W e c o n clude t hatt he St at e s ubs t ant i al l ycompl i ed w i t h T ennes s ee Code A nnot at ed se c tio n 4 0 -3 5 -2 0 2 (a ). T h e S tate f iled a n o tice o f in ten t to se e k e n h a n c e d p u n ish m e n t o n Ju ly 11, 2008, m or e than t en day s befor e t he D efe ndant ’ s t r i al t hatbegan on A ugus t18, 2008, and m or e t han t w o m ont hs befor e hi s s ent enci ng hear i ng. T he not i ce i n t he r ecor d cont ai ns t he St at e’ s i nt entt o s eek e nhance d puni s hm ent , s et s for t h t he pri or fel ony convi ct i ons , dat es , and the id en ti tyo f th e c o u rt s o f c o n v ict ion s. W e reco g n ize, as t h e D ef en d an t co n tend s, that there a re in a d e q u a c ies in th a t th e n o tice p ro v id e s c o n v ictio n d a tes f o r so m e o f

th e f e lo n ies a s A p ril 29, 1983 w hen, acc or di ng to t he j udgm entfor m s s ubm i t t ed att he s ent enci ng hear i ng, t he convi ct i on dat es w er e M ay3, 1983. T he D efe ndant al s o poi nt s out t hat , for t he fi ve fe l ony conv ict i ons us ed byt he tr i al cour tt o det er m i ne the D efe ndantw as a ca r eeroffe nder , t he i dent i t yof t he cour t s of convi ct i on ar e l i s t ed as t he cr i m i nal cour tforShel byC ount yw i t hout p ro v id in g th e s p e c if

ic d iv is io n . W her e, as her e, t he St at e has s ubs t ant i al l ycompl i ed w i t h t he s t atut e, t he ac cus ed has a d u tyto in q u ire a b o u t am b ig u o u s o r in c o m p lete n o tice a n d m u st s h o w p re ju d ice to o b tain re lie f

. A da ms , 7 7 8 S

. W

. 2 d at 5 5 9

. In this case , the S tat e’s n o ti ce m ad e the D ef en d an t aw are of i t s i nt entt o s eek an enhanced r ange of puni s hm ent
. H e w as pr ovi ded the convi ct i ons upon w hich t he S t at e w ou l d re ly in a d van ce of t ri al and , t hu s, w as i n a p osi t i on t o p l an case s t r at egy , i ncl udi ng det er m i ni ng w hether or not t he D efe ndant w as actual l y convi ct ed of the cr i m es l i s t ed i n the n o ti ce. T he D efe ndantal s o had s uffi ci entt i m e t o i nqui r e i nt o any ambi gui t i es orm i s t akes i n t he document , and he fai l ed t o do s o. N ei t herdi d he obj ectt o t he not i ce’ s ambi gui t i es or m i s t akes at t he sent enci ng hear i ng. T he D efe ndanthas fai l ed t o s how anypr ej udi ce a r i s i ng fr om t he e rror s i n dat es ort he omi s s i on of t he s peci fi c cr i m i nal-9-

d iv is io n s in w h ic h h e re c e iv e d th e c o n v ic tio n s . Si nce the D efe ndanthas notal l eged or show n anypr ej udi ce f r om t he as s er t ed sh o rtc o m in g s in th e n o tice , an d th e n o tice w a s s u f f icie n t to p ro v id e th e D e f e n d a n t w ith “ f

a ir not i ce, ” cont empl at ed byA da ms , tha t th e S tate in ten d e d to se e k e n h a n c e d p u n ish m e n t, he is n o t e n title d to re lie f

o n th is is s u e . 7 7 8 S .W .2 d a t 5 5 9

. B. Judg m e nt For m s f

or Pri or C onv i c t i ons A tt he D efe ndant ’ s s ent enci ng hear i ng, t he St at e intr oduced c er t i fi ed copi es of t he j udgm ent s fort he D efe ndant ’ s pri orconvi ct i ons . T he D efe ndantar gues t hes e j udgm ent for m s di d notcompl yw i t h t he r equi r ement s of Tennes s ee Code A nnot at ed s ect ion 40- 35- 202( a) , and, t hus , t he t r i al cour terr ed w hen i tr el i ed upon the j udgm entfor m s i n s ent enci ng t he D efe ndant

. A ddi t i onal l y , t he D efe ndantar gues t hatt he Stat e is notent i t l ed t o t he s t atut or ypr es um pt i on fort he not i ce of i nt entt o s eek e nhance d puni s hm ent l i s t ed i n s ect i on 4 0

- 3 5

- 2 0 2 ( a ) b e c a u s e t h e De f e n d a n t i s c h a r g e d u n d e r t h e n a me “ W i l l i e Le wi s ” a n d t h e n a me o n th e ju d g m e n t f

o rm s is “ W illie E a rl L e w is .” I n s ent enci ng, t he tr i al cour ti s t o i m pos e a s ent ence w i t hi n t he r ange of puni s hm ent a s d e ter m in e d b y th e D e f e n d a n t’s o f

f e n d e r statu s. T .C .A

. § 4 0 -3 5 -2 1 0 (c ) (2 0 0 6 ). In th is cas e, t he tr i al cour t found t hatt he D efe ndantw as a C ar eerO ffe nder

. T o qual i fyas a C ar eer O ffen der, t he st atute r equ i res on e of t he fol l ow i ng com binat i on s of pri or fel on ycon vict i on s: ( 1) Any c o mbi n a t i o n o f s i x ( 6 ) o r mor e Cl a s s A, B o r C p r i or fel ony co n vi ct i ons , and t he defe ndant ’ s convi ct i on offe ns e i s a C l as s A , B o r C f e l o n y; (2) A t l east t hree ( 3) C l ass A or anycom binat i on of f ou r ( 4) C l ass A or C l ass B fe lon yco n v ict io n s if the d ef en d an t’ s co n v ict ion o ff en se is a C lass A o r B fel ony ; or ( 3) A tl eas ts i x ( 6) p ri o r fel onyconvi ct i ons of anycl as s i fi cat i on i f t he d e f e n d a n t ’ s c o n v i c t i o n o f

f e n s e i s a C l a s s D o rE f e l o n y. T .C .A . § 4 0 -3 5 -1 0 8 (a ) ( 2 0 0 6 ). T h e D e f e n d a n t h a s f

i v e p r i o rc o n v i c t i o n s f

o ra g g r a v a t e d r o b b e r y, a C l a s s B f e l o n y. T he j udgm entfor m s des cr i be the D efe ndant ’ s aggr avat ed r obber ies as “R W D W

. ” A tt he sen tenc ing h ea ri n g , the tri al co u rt fo u n d that the D ef en d an t h ad fiv e co n v ict ion s fo r rob b ery w i t h a d eadlyw e a p o n an d, based u po n thi s fi nd i ng , deter m i ned t hat the D efen dan tw as a-10-

C a re e r O f

f e n d e r. See T

. C

. A

. § 40- 35- 118 ( 2 0 0 6 ). T h e D efe ndantar gues t he j udgm ent for m s ’ “R W D W ” not at i on w as an i ns uffi ci ent bas i s fort he courtt o fi nd t hatt he D efe ndant had bee n convi ct ed of r obberyw i t h a dea dl yw eapon. T he St at e’ s not i ce a nd t he pr es ent ence rep o rt , h o w ev er, bo th li st th e c o n v ict ion as ro b b eryw ith a d ea d ly w e a p o n . A s the S tat e’s not i ce pr ovi ded the natur e of the convi ct i on, r obberyw i t h a dea dl yw eapon, w e fi nd t he D efe ndan t h ad s uffi ci entnot i ce unde rt he s t atut e of the St at e’ s i nt entt o s eek e nhance d puni s hm ent bas ed upon hi s pr i or convi ct i ons for r obbery w i t h a deadl y w eapon. A s t o t he t r i al cour t ’ s r el i ance upon t he j udgm ent s thatdesc ri b e the D efe ndant ’ s convi ct i ons as “R W D W , ” w e conc l ude thatt he r ecor d ampl ys uppor t s t he tr i al cour t ’ s fi ndi ng t hatt he D efe ndanthad fi ve pr i orC l as s B fel onyconvi ct ion s bas ed upon the St at e’ s not i ce, t he p re se n ten c e re p o rt, an d th e ju d g m e n t f o rm s. T h e D e f

e n d a n t is n o t en tit led to re lief o n th is i s s ue. Fi nal ly , the D ef

en d an t argu es th at S tat e is n o t entit led to the s tatu toryp resu m p ti o n that he i s t he s ame defenda ntnamed i n t he j udgm entfor m s fort he pr i orconvicti o n s . T he rel evan tpo rt i on of the st atute s t at es: T he or i g i n a l o rc e r t i f

i e d c o p yo f

t h e c o u r tr e c o r d o f

a n yp r i o rf

e l o ny convi ct i on, bear i ng t he s ame nam e as t hatbyw hi ch the def endanti s char ged i n t he pr i m aryoffe ns e, i s pr i m a fa ci e evi dence t hatt he def endantnamed th e r e in is th e sa m e a s th e d e f e n d a n t b e f

o re th e c o u rt, an d is p rim a f a c ie e v id e n c e o f

th e f a c ts s e t o u t th e re in

. T .C .A . § 4 0 -3 5 -2 0 2 (a ). T h e D e f e n d a n t is c h a rg e d in th is c a se u n d e r th e n a m e “ W ill ie L ew is. ” T h e jud g m en t f o rm s fo r th e fiv e p ri o r f

elon yco n v ict ion s b ea r th e n am e “ W il li e E arl L ew i s . ” Even as s um i ng t hat“W i l l i e Lew i s ” and “ W i l l i e E ar l L ew i s ” ar e not s i m i l arenough t o s uffi ce unde rt he s t atut e, t he St at e does nothave t o r el yon t he s t atut or ypresu m pt i on. O t herevi dence m aybe us ed t o pr ove t hat t he def endanti s t he s ame defenda ntnamed i n t he p rio r c o n v ictio n s u p o n w h ich th e S tate re lies f o r e n h a n c e d p u n ish m e n t p u rp o se s. In th is ca se, t h e c o n v ict ion s, co n v ict ion d ates, an d co n v ict ion n u m b ers o n the ju d g m en t fo rm s are exac t l yt he s ame as t hos e l i s t ed on the D efe ndant ’ s pr es ent ence r epor t
. T hes e cons i s t enci es su p p o rt th e trial c o u rt’s f in d in g th a t th e D e f

e n d a n t, “ W ill ie L e w is,” is th e sa m e a s th e “ W ill ie E ar l L ew i s ” named i n t he j udgm entfor m s fort he pr i or fel ony convi ct i ons . T he D efe ndant is n o t e n title d to re lie f

o n th is is s u e . I I I . C oncl usi on A ft era thor ough r evi ew of t he re cor d and the appl i cabl e l aw , w e conc l ude that s uffi ci entevi dence w as pr es ent ed fora j ur yt o fi nd t he D efe ndantgui l t yo f aggr avat ed r obberybey ond a r eas onabl e do u b t, t hatt he D efe ndantr ece i ved s uffi ci entnot i ce of t he-11-

St at e’ s i nt entt o s eek enhanc ed puni s hm ent , and t hat t he t r i al cour t corr ect l y s ent ence d t he D e f e n d a n t. A s s u c h , w e a f f irm th e trial c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.

_________________________________ RO BE RT W. WEDE M E YE R, J UDGE