# FILED July 23, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Ap pellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRI MINAL APPEA LS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVI LLE MARCH SESSION, 1997
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9606-CC-00255 ) Appell ee, ) ) PUTNAM COU NTY ) V. ) ) HON. LEON BURNS, JR. , JUDGE ROBERT KEVIN MOORE, ) ) Ap pella nt. ) (A GGRAVAT ED RAPE)
FOR THE APP ELLA NT : FOR THE APPELLEE : DAVI D NEA L BRA DY JOHN KNOX WALKUP Dist ri ct Publ ic Def ender Attor ney General & Reporter H. MARSHA LL JU DD RUTH THOMPSON Assist ant Publ ic Def ender Assist ant Attor ney General 215 Reagan Street 425 Fifth Avenue North Cookevil le, TN 38501 2nd Floor , Cordel l Hul l Bui ldi ng Nashvil le, TN 37243 WIL LI AM ED WARD GI BSON Dist ri ct Attor ney General BENJI MAN W. FA NN Assist ant Di str ictAtto rney Gener al LILLI E ANN SELLS Assist ant Di str ictAtto rney Gener al 145 South Jefferson Avenue Cookevil le, TN 38501-3424
OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFI RMED THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUD GE



# OPINION-2- T he Defendan t app eals as o f right from the trial c ourt’s imp osition of a twenty-five (25) yea r, Ran ge I sen tence for h is con vi cti on of aggravated rape, fol lowi ng a guil ty p lea i n the Putnam County Cri minal Court. In t his appeal , t he Defendant argues that : ( 1) The tr ial courterred by n ot re qu iring the Sta te to file a wri tt en noti ce of t he enhancement f actors itplanned t o use agai nst t he Defendantprior to t he sentenc ing hear ing; (2) the t ri al court er red i n apply ing enhancement factors found in Tennesse e Code An notated section 4 0-35-1 14(6), (7), and (10) ; and ( 3) t he tr ial courterred in notfi nding t hat the Defendant’s l ack of a c rimin al histo ry wa s a m itigating facto r. W e aff ir m the judgmentofthe t ri al cou rt.
The Defen da ntmett he v i ct i m a fe w w eeks before the i ncident . The victim ’s car st all ed at a store and t he De fen da nt, w ith h is wif e and chi ldr en, t ook the vi cti m and her childre n to h er ho use . On June 7, 1994, the Defendant broke into the victim ’s ho us e. T he De fen da nt th rea ten ed to kill th e vic tim wit h the knife thathe had broughtwit h hi m. He s tat ed thatifshe scre amed and woke her chil dren, he w ould cut h er thro at. He then force d the victim to perform more than one sexu al ac t. How ever, Defendantwas indi cted f or onl y one countof aggravat ed rape, committed whil e armed wit h a weapon, whi ch was the knif e.

I.-3- The De fen da nt’s first iss ue is thatthe t ri al court er red by not r equir ing t he Sta te to file, prior to the sentenci ng heari ng, a wr itten not ice ofthe enhance ment factors itint ended to relyupon in requesti ng an enhanced sentence wit hin Range I. The Defe nda nt cites T enn esse e Co de A nno tated se ction 40 -35-20 2 in sup port ofhis ar gum ent. T he re levan t portio ns o f Te nnessee Code Annotat ed secti on 40-35-20 2 read:

(a) If the dis trict a ttorney general beli eves t hat a def endant sh ou ld be sentenc ed as a multi ple, persi stentorcareer off ender , he sh all fi le a st atement t hereofwit h the court and def ense counsel not less than t en (10) days bef ore t ri al or acceptanc e of a gui lty pl ea . . . .” (b) In all cases foll owing a fi nding of guil t, t he co ur t may require that: (1) The dist ri ct attor ney gener al file a statem ent with the court sett ing forth anyenhancement or miti gati ng fact ors he bel iev es sho uld b e co nsid ered by the cou rt;” Te nn. C ode Ann . § 40-35 -202(a ) & (b) (em pha sis add ed).
The Defendantwas sentenc ed as a Rang e I St andard Off ender. The statu te requi res a st atement ofenhanced pun ish m en t on ly if the de fen da nt is going to be sen tenced as a multi ple offender , persist ent offenderor a career offende r. The Defendan t cl early was not being sentenced as o n e of these class if icat ions and therefor e, t his porti on of t he stat ute does not ap ply. Tennessee Code Annotated secti on 40-35- 202(b) goes on to stat e thata tr ial court ma y req uire th e S tate to file a statem ent of the e nha ncing fa ctors itint ends to rely o n. Th e t er m “ ma y” implies tha t such a statem ent is not a ma nda tory requ irem ent. In St at e v . Ad ams , 788 S. W .2d 557 ( Te nn. 19 90), ou r supre me court stat ed tha t Te nn es se e C od e A nn ota ted sec tion 40 -35 -20 2(a ), “is to provi de fair-4-

notice to an acc use d tha t he is e xpo sed to oth er tha n sta nda rd se nten cing .” Ad ams , 788 S.W .2d a t 559 . Th e co urt als o sta ted th at the state m ent o f ap plica ble enhancement or miti gat ing fact ors menti oned in Tennessee Code Annotat ed secti on 40-35- 202(b), “may be re quir ed at t he tr ial cou rt’ s disc ret ion aft erconviction.” Ad ams , 788 S. W .2d at558. I t i s clea r t hatthe t ri al courtdid not err i n not requir ing the Stat e to fi le a stat ement of enhancem ent fact ors.
Th is issu e is w ithou t me rit.
II.
The Defendant al so argues t hat t he tr ial courterred in appl yi ng the t hree en ha nc eme nt factors fou nd in T enn esse e Co de A nno tated se ction 40 -35-11 4(6), (7), and (1 0).
The State con ced es o n ap pea l that en han cem ent f actor(6) , t hat t he personal inj uri es inf li cted upon the v ict im was part icul arl y great , does not ap ply, and we a gree .
W hen an accused chal lenges t he lengt h, range, or t he manner of servi ce ofa se nten ce, th is cou rt has a du tyto conduct a de novo revi ew of the sentence with a p res um ptio n th at th e d ete rm ina tion s m ad e b y the trial c ourt are corre ct. Tenn. Code Ann . § 40- 35- 401 (d ). Th is p resumpti on is " condit ioned upon t he affirmative showing i n the record t hat t he tr ial courtconsi dered t he sentenc ing pri ncipl es and all rel evant fact s and circum stan ces ." State v. Ashby , 823 S. W .2d 166 , 169 (T enn . 1991 ).-5- In conducti ng a de novo revi ew of a sent ence, t his co urtmust consi der: (a) the evi dence, i f any , r eceiv ed at t he tr ial and the s entenci ng heari ng; ( b) t he presentence report; (c) the pr inc iples of se nten cing and argu m ents as to sentenci ng alt ernat iv es; ( d) t he nature and characteri sticsof the cr iminal conduct involved; (e) an y statutory miti gati ng or enhancement fact ors; (f ) any s tat ement that the de fen da nt m ad e o n h is ow n b eh alf; a nd (g) th e p ote ntia l o r lack o f potent ial for reh abilitatio n or tre atm ent. T enn . Co de A nn. §§ 40-35- 102, - 103, and -210 ; see Sta te v. Sm ith , 735 S .W .2d 85 9, 863 (Ten n. Crim . App. 1 987 ).
Ifour r evi ew ref lect s thatthe t ri al court f oll owed the st atut ory s entenci ng procedur e, imposed a lawf ul sent ence aft er havi ng giv en due consi derat ion and properweig ht to the f actors and pri ncipal s set ou t under the sent encing l aw, and thatthe trial c ou rt's fi ndings of factare adequat elysupport ed by t he record, t hen we may not modify th e s entence e ven i f we woul d have pr efer red a di ff erent resu lt. State v. Fl etcher , 805 S .W .2d 78 5, 789 (Ten n. Crim . App. 1 991 ).
We fi rstaddress enha ncement factor(7), thatthe offense i nvol ved a vic tim and was com m itted to gratify the d efen dan t’s des ire for p leas ure o r excite m ent. Tenn. Co de A nn. § 40-3 5-11 4(7)
. It ha s be en he ld thatthi s enhancement f actor can be applied t o a defendant who comm its rape because itis not inherent in t he off ense. St at e v . Ad ams , 864 S.W .2d 3 1, 35 (Te nn. 1 993 ). It w as als o h eld in Ad ams thatthe St ate has t he burden i n rape cases t o prove thatthe rape was se xua llymo tivated
. Ad ams , 864 S. W .2d at35. However , i n State v. Ki ssinger , 922 S.W .2d 482 ( Tenn. 1996), our supreme court agai n addressed t he app lication of en han cem ent fa ctor (7 ) to rap e ca ses . Kissi ngerstat ed:-6- The focus o f f actor

(7) is on de fenda nt’s motiv e forthe commission of t he off ense. The moti ve need notbe sing ular forthe fact orto apply, so long as d efe nd an t is m otiva ted by d efe nd an t’s desire for ple asu re or e xcitem ent. Thus, f actor (7) could be used to enhance a defendant ’s sen tence who raped an ex- lov erout o f spite and hatr ed and forthe pur pose ofsatisfying sexu al urges . Clearly, the state nee d no t prove a sing ular m otive fo r the o ffens e to rely on fact or (7) in t he appropr iat e case. Kissi nger , 922 S .W .2d at 49 0 (em pha sis in original).
We note that a trans cript o f the g uilty plea hear ing was notincl uded in t he record on app eal. Fro m a re view of th e se nte nc ing he arin g tra ns crip t, it is obvi ous that th e trial co urt, in sentenci ng the Def endant, rel ied upon proof i t had hea rd at the gu ilty plea hearing . Much of this was discus sed b y the lawy ers. Pe rti ne nt facts a rgue d by th e S tate a t the se nten cing hea ring b y refere nce to facts which w ere pr oven atthe gui lty pl ea heari ng, wer e unchall enged by t he De fend ant. It is the du ty of th e p arty wh o se ek s ap pe lla te re vie w to pr epare a record which conveysa fai r, accurat e, and compl ete accoun t ofwhat t ranspi red wit h respectto t he issue s for ming the b asis of the app eal. State v. B allard , 855 S.W .2d 557, 5 60 (T enn . 1993 ). W hen there is less than a n ade qua te record on ap pe al, th is courtmust presume t hat t he tr ial court ’s r uli ngs were supported by suff ici en t evi den ce. State v. Oody , 823 S. W .2d 554, 559 (Tenn. Crim. App. 199 1). In the case sub judice , t he record on appeal contai ns no evi dence, as that term is nor mallydefi ned, r egardi ng sent en cin g fact ors, other than t he presentence report. The tran s cri pt r efl ects s tat ements of c ounsel asto proof brought out during t he guilty plea heari ng. W e will address the issues raise d b y De fend ant, bu t with a p res um ptio n th at th e p roo f he ard by th e tria l c ourt a t th e guilty pleahea ring is a s wa s refle cted in the s tatem ents of coun sel and the cou rt at t he sentenc ing hear ing.-7- In t he case sub judice , the t ri al court was aware of t he vi cti m’s sta tement read by a p olice o fficer at th e gu iltyplea hear ing. The victi m’s sta tement rel ated thatthe Defendanttol d the v ict im, whi le she wasperf orming oral sex on hi m, that “sh e’d bett er sat isfy hi m or thathe w ould slit her th roat.” Th e rec ord a lso re flects thaton th e nig ht of th e offe nse , th e Defendantenter ed the v ict im’s ho use by coming throu gh a wind ow while arm ed w ith a kni fe
. The v i ct i m was asl eep . He perf ormed thr ee separat e acts of sex ual penet rat ion. During the course of t he aggravat ed rap e, th e D efe nd an t he ld a knife to th e vic tim ’s neck and breast , and thr eatened to cutoffher br east i f she di d notcoo pe rate . He also told the victim thathe w as aw are she had two li tt le gi rl s, t hat he knew t hey were i n the home, and if she s crea m ed a nd w oke them up, h e wo uld c ut he r throa t.
In Ma nnin g v. S tate , 883 S. W .2d 635 (Tenn. Crim . App. 1 994 ), this court he ld thatwhere t he Defendantmade the st atement, “do it li ke you do i t t o your m an,” and fondl ed and ki ssed the vi cti m’s breasts, f actor (7) app lied. Manning , 883 S.W .2d at 640. W e fi nd thatthe cas e sub judice is s imil ar and t he stat ement by De fe nda nt th at “ she’d bettersati sfyhim” meets t he Stat e’s burden of proof establ ishi ng thatthe De fen da nt c om m itted the offe ns e, a t lea st in part, to gratify his d esire for ple asu re or e xcitem ent. Regarding appli cati on of f actor (10), thatthe Def endanthad no hesi tat ion about committi ng a cri me when the ri sk to hu man li fe was hi gh, we not e thatthis court has previ ouslyheld t hat ou r ag gra vate d ra pe sta tute as u se d in De fen da nt’s case onl y r equi res thatthe def endantbe “a rmed” wi th t he we apon. Nei therthe statu te nor t he indi ctment i n Defendant ’s cas e requi red t hat t he weapon be ac tua llyemployed i n the commissi on of t he aggrav ated r ape . Manning , 883-8-

S.W .2d at64 0 ( Ten n. Cr i m. App. 1994) . I n Manning , t he defendantpressed a knife int o the v ict im’s s ide t hroughoutthe commissi on of aggra vated rape and aggravat ed kidnappi ng. Our courtheld t hat appl icat ion offact or(10) was proper as the use o f t he weap o n in t hat case inv olv ed a great er ri sk of ha rm than t hat requi red by t he standards of t he agg ravat ed o ffens es. Id
. See also State v. Richa rd J. Crossman , No. 01 C01-9311-CR-00394, Wil so n Co un t y ( Ten n. Cr i m. Ap p., N ash ville, filed O ctob er 6, 1 994 ), perm . to appeal denied , (Ten n. 199 5).
As stat ed above, in si tuat ions whe re a defendantis c harged as Def endant was in t his ca se, t he aggrav ated rape stat ute onl y requi res thatthe def endant be “armed with a weapon.”Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 13-502(a )(1) (Supp. 1996). The use and employment ofth e we apo n byDe fen dant in t his case demonstrates a culp ability “di sti nct f rom and appreci ablygreat er t han thatinci dent to t he offense forwhich h e wa s con victed.” See Sta te v. Jones , 883 S. W .2d 597, 603 (Tenn. 199 4). T here fore, u se o f enh anc em ent fa ctor (1 0) wa s pro per.
We note t he S tate arg ue s th at fa cto r (10 ) ap plie s be ca us e th e vic tim ’s chil dren were present i n the house duri ng the commissi on of t he cri me. In Sta te v. Makoka , 885 S. W .2d 366 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994), thi s courtstat ed that enhancing fac tor (1 0) c ou ld be used, even t hough itwas inherent in t he off ense, when ot her peo ple w ere p rese nt an d we re in d ang er. Makoka , 855 S. W .2d at 373. In Makoka , t he defendantwas fi ri ng a gun in f rontof a pol ice stati on when there was a shift chan ge. T herefo re, there w ere m any oth ers pre se nt w ho cou ld have been i njur ed or ki ll ed by t he gun.-9- In Sta te v. H ill , 885 S. W .2d 357 ( Tenn. Cri m. App. 1994) , t he defendant was convi cted of agg ravated assa ult for an incide nt whe re he atta cke d th e vic tim with a stra i ght razor. There was a l arge crowd gather ed in t he vi cini ty o f t he defendantand th e vi c tim . Th is co urt s tate d th at fa cto r (10 ) did no t ap ply because, “H ill’s wr ath an d vin dic tiv eness w as directed sol elyat Johns on [t he victim ]. The record is devoid ofany evi dence thatindividu als in c lose prox imity were in dang er of being injured.” Hill , 885 S. W .2d at363.
The same can be said forthe cas e sub judice . W hile the victim ’s chil dren were presentin t he house, t hey we re notin t he room where t he inci dent occurred. There is no evidence thatthe chi ldr en were i n imminent danger f rom the D efen dan t.
Enhancement factors (7 ) and (10) we re corr ectl y appl ied when t he tr ial court was deter mining t he De fen da nt’s sentence. Enhancement factor(6) does not appl y i n thi s case.
III.
The Defendan t’s fina l argument i s thatthe t ri al court er red i n not consider ing the Defendant’s l ack of a cri minal record as a miti gati ng fact or under Tennessee Code Annotat ed secti on 40-35- 113(13). Ithas been hel d thatthe lackof a cr iminal record can be a mitiga ting fac tor. State v. Dy kes , 803 S.W .2d 250, 258 (Ten n. Crim . App. 1 990 ). How ever, we c onc lude that it wa s ap prop riate forthe t ri al courtto refuse t o applythi s as a miti gati ng fact or. The Defendant was convi cted of p ub lic into xic ati on in 199 3. While i n the Navy , he was ac cused of-10-

molesti ng his chi ld which l ead to a suici de a tt empt and counsel ing. The Defendantwas dis charged f rom the Navyon a les s than honorable di scharge, but clai ms he was never co urtmarti aled. The Defendantmay not hav e a cri minal record, but it is clear that he has a crimina l history. W e find that the trial court was corre ct in no t app lying th is m itigating facto r. See State v. Ant honyAn ge lo Scales , No. 0 1C 01-93 10-C R -003 53, D avids on C oun ty (Te nn. C rim. A pp., Na shville, filed July 28, 199 4) perm . to appeal denied , (Te nn. 1 994 ).
The Defendant pled guil ty t o the off ense of aggravated rape. As a Range I off ende r t he sentenc ing range for thi s cri me is fi ft een (15) to twenty- fi ve (25) y ea rs. Th e trial co urt se nten ced the D efen dan t to twe nty-five (2 5) ye ars. W e have f ound thatone of t he thr ee enhancement f actors appli ed bythe trial court does not ap ply. The refore, there are two enhancement fa ctors and no miti gati ng factors. W e find t hat the t rial court’ s se nten ce o f t we nty- five ye ars (25 ) is supported by the two enhancem ent fact ors.
The sentence i mposed by the t ri al court i s aff ir med.

____________________________________ THO MAS T. W OOD ALL, Judge
CONCUR:

___________________________________ JOSEPH M. TIPTON, Judge

___________________________________ JOE G. RILEY, Judge