### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs D ec em be r 7, 200 4

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . STEVEN NEL ORN HAMPTON, J R.

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Marshall County

No. 15680 Charles Lee , Judge

No. M2004- 00704-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Marc h 24, 2005

Following a jury

trial, Def endant, Steven N elorn Hampton, J r. , wa s fo u n d g uiltyin count one of espec ially ag g rav at ed robbe ry , a Class A fe lony , and in count two of bur g lary of an automobile, a Class E felony . The trial c ourt sentenc ed Def endant to concur

rent sente nces of

twenty y ear s for the

es p ec i al l y aggr av at ed ro b b er y

co n v i c t i o n an d o n e y ea r f o r t h e b u rgl ar y

co n v i ct i o n

. Fo l l o wi n g a hearing on D efe ndant’s motion for new trial, the trial court, acting in its capac ity as thirteenth juror , found that the jury ’s ver dict of g uiltyon the automobile burg lary char g e wa s contrary

to the weig ht of the e vidence and set a side Def endant’ s convi ct i o n for this offe nse. The trial court de nied De fe nd a nt’ s mo tio n f

or a ne w tri al on the e sp e c ia lly a g g ra vate d r ob be ry

c on vic tio n. On app e a l, De fe nd a nt c ha lle ng e s th e su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e su pp ortin g his c on vic tio n o f e sp e cia lly ag gra v ated r obbery

and the leng th of his sentence . After a re view of the rec ord in this matter, we

a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Affirm ed

T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J ., delivere d the opinion of the co u rt , i n wh i ch D AVI D H. W ELLES and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.

J ohn H. Richardson, Jr., Fay etteville, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Steven Ne lorn Hampton, Jr.

Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ral and Re po rt e r; Pr e sto n Sh ipp , A ssi stant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil liam Michael McCown, District Attorney Gene ral; and Weakley E. Ba rnar d, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, the State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

I. Bac kgr ound

Shanna Mora les, an a ssistant manag er at a Papa John’s Pi zz a in L ewisburg , answe red the telephone at work at approximately 10:10 p.m. on April 26, 2003. The c aller ide ntified himself as “Mr. W allace ” and place d an order for two pizz as. Ms . Morales a sked the c aller f or his telephone-2-

number. Another individual came on the line and said that he did not have a telephone. Ms. Mora les said that she thoug ht the caller s were y oung by the sound of their voic es.

Ms. Mor ales g ave the two pizz as to the victim, Thoma s Harpe r, and told him to deliver them to 720 Park in L ewisburg as re quested by the ca ller. Ms. Morale s said that she fe lt uneasy about the situation and told Mr. H arpe r to be car eful. As a pre caution, Mr. Ha rper left all but fifty

dollars of the mon e y

he ha d c oll e c te d that nig ht fr om c us tom e rs a t th e re staur a nt. Mr . H arp e r s a id that he a lso had about thirty

dollars in cash of

his own money and a cell phone. Mr. H arpe r re ache d Park Ave nue about one minute af

ter he left the store but could not find number 720. He drove to the end of the street a nd turned a

round. When he drove back up the stree t , a y o u n g m an wave d him down, and po int e d to a

tw o- sto ry

ho us e wh ic h s a t a

bo ut t we nty

fe e t ba c k f

ro m th e str e e t. T he re we re no lig hts on in the house.
The y oung man told Mr. Har per that his f

ather was on the front porch with the money to pay for the pizzas. Mr. Harper approa ched the man on the front porch and observe d that he wa s much bigg er tha n the first y oung man. Mr. Ha rper pulled the pi z z as out of the de livery bag and hande d the m to thesma lle r m a n. He he ard a sh arp so un d “ lik e a ri fl e ha d g on e of

f” a ndthe n lo st consciousness. Mr. H arpe r woke up three or four minutes later, ly ing f ace down in the g rass in fr ont of the house. Mr . Har

per’ s wallet and c ell phone we re gone , and his car had been “rifled throug h.” Th e fi fty do llar s f

ro m th e c us tom e r p ro c e e ds wa s st ill in h is f ro nt p a nts po c ke t. M r. Ha rp e r f e lt blood running d o wn h i s fa ce and thought he had be en shot. He ma nag ed to drive ba ck to Papa J ohn’s wher e he c ollapsed. Ms

. Morales called 911. Mr. Har per sa id that the doctor at the hospital later told him he had be en struck ove r t he head by something simi lar to a base ball bat. Mr. Ha rper
wa s st ill su ff

e ri ng fr om the a ft e re ff

e c ts o f h is i nju ry

a t th e tim e of

the tr ia l.
Serg eant Steven Woodward and Detec tive Kevin Patin with the L ewisb u rg P olice Dep ar t m en t investigated the off ense. Ser g eant Woodwar d said that there wer e two or thre e abandone d houses at the beg inning of Park Stree t, including the house wher e the of fense occur

red. Serg eant Woodwar d found a f ire poke r with a broken handle and an empty Papa John’s piz za bag

n e xt d o o r a t 7 2 4 Pa rk Str e e t. T h e v ic ti m’ s w a ll e t w a s f o u n d ab o u t f

o r ty to f if ty f e e t f r o m th e p iz za b ag.

Detec ti v e Pati n , a c ti n g o n in f o r mati o n r e c e iv e d f

r o m th e s c h o o l r e s o u r c e s o f f ic e r f o r the L e wi sb u r g M i d d l e S c h o o l , i n t e r v i e w e d t h i r t e e n

- y e ar

- o l d M ar c u s C r o s s w h o c o n f e s s e d t o his participation in the r obbery

. Ba sed on Mr. Cross’ state ment, Serg eant Patin interview ed eig hteeny ear -old J onathan Ha

rris, thirteen- y ear -old J osh Bailey , sevente en-y ear -old J ordan F itz g era ld, and D e f e n d a n t , w h o w a s n i n e t e e n ye ar s o l d

. A l l f i v e a d m i t t e d t o s o m e p ar t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e r o b b e r y. Se rg e a nt P a tin sa id that D e fe nd a nt a dmi tte d th a t he pla c e d th e c a ll t o Pa pa John ’s ; Mr . H arris

a dmi tte d th a t he str

uc k M r. Ha

rp e r i n th e he a d w ith a fi re pla c e po ke r an d the n sea rc he d h is c lothe s; Mr. B ailey

said that he fla g g ed down Mr. H arpe r and g rabbe d the pizz as bef ore Mr . Har

per w as struck; and Mr. Cross sa id that he sea rc h ed throug h Mr. Har per’ s car . After

the robbe ry , the five perpe trators we nt to a friend’ s house and share d the pi zz a. Mr. Harris g ave eac h of the men a few d o l l ar s a n d t h e n b o u g h tm ar i j u a n a w i t h t h e r e m a i n d e r

o f M r

. H arp e r ’ s m o n e y.-3-

De fe nd a nt’ s st a te me nt t o D e te c tiv e Pa tin wa s r e a d to the jury a s f oll ow s: On April 26, 2003, me a nd J ohnathan [sic] [ Har ris], J ody [Fitz g era ld ], Marcus [C ross], J osh [Bailey ], S hane [Gre er] and some other s were shooting ba ll at the kid die pa rk . T he n w e we nt t o Sh a ne ’s hous e to w a tc h th e ba ll g a me , Sa c rame nto King s vs. Utah. Marc us said something a bout ordering some pizz a. Mar cus aske d me to g o with him to call in the pi zz a. We went across t he stree t to use the phone. I dia le d th e ph on e be c aus e I kn e w the nu mbe r. Th e n g a ve it t o M arc us . H e sa id h is

name was “Wallace .” He kept messing up the order so I g ot on the phone. The lady asked f or my first name so I made up the name Tim. Marcus told me wher e to have the pi zz a sent to. I

order ed, then we went bac k to Shane Gre er’ s house. Marc us said,

we didit, we or de re d it . Wil l be he re in thirty to f orty min ute s. We w a ite d a

lit tle bit

. Th e n we le ft a nd fo llo we d Ma rc us to wh e re the pizza wa s to be de liv e re d. Josh

we nt t o th e ro a d to fl a g him do wn (p izza ma n) . Joh nathan w a s si tti ng on the ste ps

. Marc us was hiding in the building. I was hidin g b eh i n d t h e house. I don’t know wher e Jody wa s hiding. When the pizza man pulled in, J ohnathan hit him in the head, and he fe ll to the gr ound, and Josh r an o ff with the pizza’s [ sic]. After J ohnathan hit him, I

stepped t owar d him in shock that he hit him. J ohnathan

sear ch[ed] him . Marc us went to the pizz a man’ s car . I don’t know what J ody did but he wa s there close. We ran a cross the pa rk bac k to Shane’s house. We a ll ate pizz a. I a te t wo sl ic e s, the n Joh nathan g a ve me $5 .0 0 [be ]caus e I wa s w ith him

wh e n it ha pp e ne d. I do n’ t kn ow ho w m uc h mo ne y e ve ry bo dy e lse g ot.

J onathan Ha

rris testified that Mr. Cross a sked him if he wanted to r ob a pizz a delivery driver. Mr. Har ris said they

should w ait and see w hat the other s said. The g roup g ather ed at Shane Gre er’ s house that eve ning to watch a basketball g ame on television. Mr. C ross posed hi s plan to the g roup, and eve ry one ag ree d to participate

. Mr. C ross, Mr. Bailey , and Defenda nt went to another friend’ s house and c alled P apa J ohn’s t o order some pizz a. The men continued to watch baske tball for about twenty -five minutes, a nd then went ove r to 720 Park S tree t, the address g iven t o Papa J ohn’s. As the y le ft Mr

. Gr e e r’ s ho us e , M r. Ha rris s a id that he g ra

bb e d th e fi re pla c e po ke r andpu t it do wn his pants leg . Mr. Har

ris said that Def

endant sa w him take the poke r.

Mr . H arris s a id that Mr . C ros s, Defenda nt andMr . F itzg e ra ld h id i n th e aba nd on e d h ou se next door. After Mr. B ailey took the pizz as fr om the victi m , M r. Ha rris swung the poke r at Mr. Har per’ s head. Mr. Har

ris said he took Mr. Ha

rper ’s wallet, Mr. F itz g era ld took the cell phone, a nd Mr. Cross sear ched Mr . Har per’ s car . Mr. Har

ris said that Def

endant wa s standing ne x t to him. M r. Har ris told Defe ndant that he did not have to searc h Mr. Har per be cause h e h ad al re adytaken the vic tim ’s wa lle t.

Mr. Har ris said that no o n e ch ec k ed t o see if Mr . Har per w as alive be fore they left. Mr. Har ris admitted that the men enjoy ed the pizz as. He g ave Mr . Cross and Mr. B ailey eac h one dollar,

a nd g a v e M r

. F i t z g e r a l d a n d D e f e n d a n t f i v e d o l l ar s e a c h

. M r

. H arr i s s a i d t h a t h e b o u g h t so me
m ar i j u a n a w i t h t h e r e s to f

M r

. H arp e r ’ s m o n e y.-4-

On cr oss-examination, Mr. Har ris said that he ag ree d to testify ag ainst Defe ndant as pa

rt of his ple a a g re e me nt t o the c ha

rg e of e sp e c ia lly a g g ra vate d r ob be ry . M r. Ha rris s a id that he lie d inhis first statement t o the pol ice when he said that Def endant hit Mr. Harper and t ook his money

. Mr. Har ris said that Def

endant’ s role wa s limi ted to calling in the order for pizza. Mr. Harris was not sure if D efe ndant saw him t ake the fire poker to 720 Park S tree t, but said that Def endant pa rticipated in the plan to rob the de livery driver.

Mr. B ailey

said that he, Defendant, Mr. Har ris, Mr. Cross, Mr. B ailey

and Mr. F itz g era ld met at Mr. Gr eer ’s house be fore the robbe ry , and that eve ry one participated in the discussion about

ro bb ing the pizza

de liv e ry drive r. Mr . Baile y sa id that De fe nd a nt w a s su pp os e d to wait i n th e ho us e next door unti l Mr. Har

ri s called out to him. He said initially Def endant wa s supposed to hit the victim, but Mr. Harris e nded up doing it. Mr. Ba iley said that he did not know Mr. Ha rris wa s armed with a fire poker.

II. Su ff iciency of the Evid ence Rely ing on this Court’s decision in State v. Box ley , 76 S.W .3d 381 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) , De fe nd a nt a

rg ue s th a t th e a c c omp lic e s’ te sti mon y wa s in su ff

ic ie ntl y c orrob orate d to su pp ort hi s conviction. That is, none of the witnesses other

than the ac complices c ould identify Def endant a s
a p ar t i c i p a n ti n t h e r o b b e r y.

I t is well settled that “‘a conviction may

not be base d solely

upon the unco rroborated testimonyof an a ccomplice .’” Boxley , 7 6 S

. W

. 3 d at3 8 6 (q u o t i n g State v. Shaw , 37 S.W .3d 900, 903 (T e nn . 200 1)

. Th e pr oo f n e c e ssa ry to c or ro bo ra te the a c c omp lic e ’s te sti mon y mus t in c lud e “ so me fa c t te sti fi e d to , e nti re ly

ind e pe nd e nt o f the a c c omp lic e ’s te sti mon y , whi c h, take n b y its e lf, le a ds to the inf e re nc e , n ot o nly

that a cr ime ha s bee n co mmi tte d, bu t als o th a t th e de fe nd a nt i s impli c a te d in it; a n d th is in d e p e n d e n t c o rr o b o r a ti v e te s ti mo n y mu s t a ls o in c lu d e s o me f a c t e s ta b li shing the defe ndant’s identity .” Shaw , 3 7 S

. W

. 3 d at 9 0 3 (q u o t i n g State v. Bigbee , 885 S.W .2d 797, 803 (Tenn. 1994)).

I n Boxley , three men wer e involved in an attempted robbe ry which re sulted in the shooting death o f o n e o f th e v ic ti ms

. T w o o f th e me n c o n f e s s e d to th e ir in v o lv e me n t in the crime a nd implicated the def

endant a s a participa nt in the aborted r obbery . Although the State’s witnesses

c ou ld c or ro bo rate the a c c omp lic e s’ te sti mon y a s t o “th e tim e the c ri me oc c ur re d, the ty

pe ve hic le used, the manne r in which the of fense was c ommitt ed, and the number and rac e of pe rsons prese nt,” none of the State’s evidenc e “r elate[d] to t he identity of the de fendant.” Boxley , 76 S.W .3d at 387. “It is not enoug h to simply corr oborate that a crime has bee n committed in a manner described by the ac complices.” Id

. (c i t i n g Shaw , 37 S.W .3d at 903). Ba sed on the fac ts pr esente d in Boxley , th is Cou rt c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e w a s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o c o rr o b o r a t e t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s p ar t i c i p a t i o n in the crime.

I n th e pr e se nt ca se , non e of the Sta te ’s wi tne sse s othe r tha n D e fe nd a nt’ s a c c omp lic e s c ou ld provide e y ewitness testimony that Def endant wa s a participa nt in Mr. Har per’ s robbery . Mr. Har

per-5-

testified that a y oung man flag g ed him down after he passed 720 Park S tree t and that a lar g er ma n
wa s si tti ng on the fr on t st e ps of the aba nd on e d h ou se . M r. Ha rp e r s a id that he ha nd e d th e pizza s to the sma lle r ma n an d the n wa s struc k ove r the he a d. He c ou ld not ide nti fy a ny of the pe rp e tr a tor s. I n this case, howe ver, unlike Boxley , Def endant’ s statement to the police, which was rea d into the evidenc e by

Offic er Patin, suffic iently corr oborate d the ac complices’ te stim ony reg arding Def endant’ s involvement in the offe nse. See State v . Anderson , 98 5 S.W. 2d 9, 16 -1 7 ( Te nn . Crim. App. 1997).

Th e Sta te pr oc e e de d und e r a the ory of c ri min a l r e sp on sib ili ty

to e sta bli sh De fe nd a nt’ s g uil t. Se e Sta te v . H

ill , 1 18 S.W. 3d380, 38 4 ( Te nn . Cr im. Ap p. 20 02 ). An a c c us e d may be c ri min a lly responsible for an offense committ ed by another when, “[a] cting with intent to promote or assist the

c omm iss ionof

the of fe ns e , o r t o b e ne fi t in the pr oc e e ds or re su lts of the of fe ns e , th e pe rs on so lic its , direc ts, aids or attempts to aid another person to commit the offe nse.” Te nn. Code Ann. § 39-11- 402(2). “ Criminal responsibilit y is not a separ ate or

distinct crime but a theory by which a defe ndant’s guilt may

be esta blished based upon the c onduct of a nother.” Hi ll , 118 S.W .3d at 384 (c i t i n g State v. Lemac ks , 966 S.W .2d 166, 170 (Tenn. 1999) ).

D e f e n d a n t a d mi tt e d th a t h e s h ar e d in th e p r o c e e d s o f th e r o b bery

. See St ate v . H ar ris , 30 S.W .3d 345, 354 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). I n addition, D efe ndant was prese nt at the scene of the crime, and was with the g roup of y oung men both be fore and afte r the c ommissi on of the c rime. See Sta te v . B all , 973 S.W .2d 288, 293 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) . Def endant a dmitted that he place d the telephone c all that lured Mr. Har per to the abandoned house on Park S tree t. Defe ndant’s theory of defe nse at trial was based on his ig noranc e that a crime was g oing to be committed. The re solution of thi s is su e , h ow e ve r, de pe nd e d u po n th e jury ’s a sse ssm e nt o f the c re dibil it y of th e wi tne sse s. Viewing the ev id e n c e inth e li g h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e St a te , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e e v id e n c e w as sufficie nt for a rational jury to find bey ond a re asonable doubt that Defe ndant knew that the g roup intended to commit a robbe ry , and that De fendant acted w ith the intent to promote the commission of the off ense a nd knowing ly furnished substantial assistance

. Def endant is notentitled to relief on this iss ue.

De fe nd a nt a

rg ue s f or the fi rs t ti me on app e a l th a t hi s in dic tme nt w a s f a ta lly de fe c ti v ebe c aus e it failed to cha

rg e the f acts supporting the enhanc ement fa ctors which w ere used by the trial court in determining the leng th of his sentenc e. See W yatt v. State, 24 S.W .3d 319, 325 (Tenn. 2000) (“A defe ndant may

make jurisdictional cha lleng es to an indi ctment at any stag e of the proce eding , Tenn. R. C ri m. P . 1 2( b)

. . .” ). De fe nd a nt b a se s h is a rg ume nt o n Just ic e B rey er’s di ss enting op ini on in Blakely v. W

ashington , 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 2561, 159 L . Ed. 2d 403 (2004) ( Br ey er, J., dissenting)

. As discussed i n g reater detail below, the Bl ake ly court c oncluded that “ ‘[o] ther than the fac t of a prior

conviction, any

fact t h at i ncre ases the pe nalty for a crime be y ond the pre scribed statutory maxi mum must be submitted to a jury , and proved bey ond a re asonable doubt,’” whe ther the State terms the f

act a n element or

a sente ncing fac tor. Bl ake ly , 124 S. C t . at 2536 ( quoting Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 2362-63, 147 L . Ed. 2d 435 (2000))

. I n his dissenting opinion, J ustice B rey er w arne d in dicta t hat t he majority ’s opi nion had the potential eff ect of forc ing the State to char g e in an indictment not only the fa cts supporting the eleme nts of-6-

the crime, but also all the rele vant fa cts supporting sentenc ing e nhance ment fac tors, resulting in what J ustice B rey er te rmed the “ 17-ele ment” crime. Bl ake ly , 1 2 4 S

. C t

. a t 2 5 5 5

- 2 5 6 2

. B e t h a ta s i tm a y, althoug h Blakely calls into question certain aspec ts of our sentenc ing scheme, the decision ca nnot be re ad to re quire the State to charg e the fac ts supporting application of possible sentencing fac tors in an indictment in addition to the elements of the of fense . Our Supreme Court rec ently reiter ated that th e F ou rt e e nthAm e nd me nt h a s n ot b e e n c on str ue d to imp os e the Fi fth A me nd me nt rig ht t o prese ntment or gra nd jury indictment upon the states. Sta te v . B e rry , 141 S.W .3d 549, 560 (Tenn. 2 0 0 4 ) ( q u o t i n g Ring v. Arizona , 536 U.S. 584, 597 n.4, 122 S. Ct . 2428, 153 L . Ed. 2d 556 (2002)) ;
see also State v

. Ho l ton , 1 26 S.W. 3d84 5, 86 3 ( Te nn . 2 00 4) . D e fe nd a nt d oe s n ot o the rw ise

c ha lle ng e the fo rm

or su ff ic ie nc y of the ind ic tme nt ag a ins t him, a ndis n ot e nti tle d to re lie f o n th is issue.
III. Sentencing Iss ues

At the sentenc ing he aring , Def endant testified that he did not have any previous history

of criminal beha vior and did not use drug s or alcohol. De fendant continued to deny that he knew that a robbe ry was g oing to occur

that night. On c ross-examination, Defe ndant conc eded that he knew

so me thi ng wa s g oin g to h app e n bu t sti ll ma int a ine d that he did no t kn ow wh a t th a t “ so me thi ng ” wa s. De fe nd a nt s a id that th e pr e -s e nte nc e re po rt e rr on e ou sly

re fl e c te d th a t he ha d use d dru g s “up un til thi s y ear .” De fendant also said that his statement was wr ong about his involvement in the offe nse. Def endant de nied t hat he did anything other than pl ace the t elephone call to Papa J ohn’s and that he ate two sli ce s o f p i z z a af ter the r obbery . He maintaine d that Mr. Har ris lied when he said that he dis c us se d th e ro bb e ry

wi th D e fe nd a nt.

Def endant c o n c e d e d th a t h e h a d b e e n arr e s te d f o r d o me s ti c v io le n c e in 2 0 0 2 in A la b a ma

. He sa id that he wa s p la c e d o n prob ati on for eig hte e n mo nth s a s a re su lt o f h is c on vic tio n f or thi s offe nse.

B on ita Whe e le r, De fe nd ant’ s m ot her, sai d t hat Defen dan t m ov ed t o T enn ess ee fr om A la ba ma in O c tob e r, 20 02 , to liv e a ndwo rk wi th h is f

a the r. She sa id that D efen da nt w a s c ha rg e d w ith do me sti c vio le nc e fo llo wi ng a n alt e rc a tio n w ith his ste p- fathe r i n A ug us t or Se pte mbe r, 20 02 . M s. Whe e le r s a id that D e fe nd a nt p le d g uil ty a ndwa s p la c e d o n p ro batio n f or e ig hte e n mo nth s.

At the conc lusion of the testimony , the trial court found that De fendant was a le ader in the commis s ion of the off

ense unde r enhanceme nt fac tor (3). Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 114(3). The trial court a lso considere d Def endant’ s prior dom es t i c violence c onviction and the extent of the victim’s injurie s, but assigne d these e nhance ment fac tors littl e we ight. See id. §§ 40-35-114( 3) and (7). The trial court a lso considere d enhanc ement fa ctor (9) , the def endant ha s a pre vious historyof unwillingness to comply

with the terms of a

sentenc e involving r elea se into the community , based on Def endant’ s and Ms. Wheeler ’s testimony that Def endant wa s on probation when the offe nse wa s committed. Id. § 40-35-114( 9).-7-

We n ot e ini tia lly

that e nh a nc e me nt f

a c tor (9 ) i s a pp lic able on ly

up on a fi nd ing that a defe ndant has, prior

to the commission of the crime f or which he is being sentenc ed, shown a n unwillingness to c omply with the terms of a sentenc e involving re lease into the communityand does not apply mere ly upon a finding that the def endant w as o n probation at the time of the curr ent offe nses. State v. Adams , 45 S.W .3d 46, 62 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000)

.
The trial c ourt found as a mitigating fac tor t h at De fe n d an t , beca use of his y outh, lacke d substantial judg ment in committi ng the offe nse. Id

. § 40-35-113( 6). The trial court found that the mitigating fac tor outweig hed the a pplicable e nhance ment fac tors and sente nced De fendant to the pr e su mpt ive se nte nc e fo r a Cla ss Afe lon y , tw e nty

y e ars

.
When a def

endant c halleng es the length, rang e, or manner of service of a sente nce, this Court conducts a de novo revie w with a pre sumption t hat the dete rminations made by the trial court are
corr ect. Id. § 40-35-401( d). This presumption is “conditioned upon the a ffirmative showing in the

rec ord that the trial c ourt consider ed t h e sentenc ing principles and a ll releva nt fac ts and circ umstances.” S ta te v . Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991) . “I f the trial c ourt applies inappropriate fa ctors or othe rwise f ails to follow the 1989 Sentencing Act, the pr es u m p t ion of

corr ectne ss falls.” State v. Shelton , 854 S.W .2d 116, 123 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992)

.
The Sentencing Commi ssion Comments provide that the burden is on the defe ndant to show the imp ro prie ty of the se nte nc e

. Te nn

. Cod e An n. § 40 -3 5- 40 1, Se nte nc ing Com mis sio n Co mme nts

. Our revie w require s an analy sis of (1) the evidenc e, if any , rec eived at the trial and se n t en cing hear ing; ( 2 ) th e p r e

- s e n te n c e r e p o r t; ( 3 ) th e p rin c ip le s o f s e n te n c in g a n d ar g u me n ts o f c o unsel relative to sentencing alternatives; (4) the nature and char acte ristics of the offe nse; (5) any mitigating or enhancing fac tors; (6) any statements made by

the def endant in his own beha lf; and (7) the defe ndant’s potential for r ehabilitation or treatment. Id

. §§ 40 -3 5- 10 2, -1 03 , a nd-2 10 ; Sta te v . S mi th , 735 S.W .2d 859, 863 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987)

. As a Rang e I

offe nder c onvicted of a

Class A felony , Def

endant is subj ect to a se ntence of betwee n fiftee n an d twenty -five y ear s. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-112(a )(2) . I n calc ulating the sentenc e for

a Class A fe lony

convic t i o n , t h e p resumpti ve sente nce is the midpoint of the rang e, twenty y ear s, if there are no enhanc ement or mitig ating fac tors. Id. § 40-35-210( c). I f there are enhanc ement but no mitigating fac tors, the trial court may set the s entenc e above t he mi dpoint of the rang e, but still within the rang e. Id. § 40-35-201( d). I f both enha ncing and mitigating f actor s are p re s en t , t h e t ri al co u rt m u s t s t ar tatt h e m i d p o i n to f t h e r an ge, en h an ce t h e s en t en ce wi t h i n t h e r an ge as appr opriate f

or the e nhancing fa ct o rs , and then r educe the sentenc e as a ppropriate for the mitigating fac tors. Id. § 40 -3 5- 21 0( e ). I f the re are mit ig a tin g bu t no e nh a nc e me nt f a c tor s p re se nt, then the trial c ourt may

set the sentenc e either at the midpoint of the sentenc ing rang e, or below the mid po int

.
Def endant a rg ues that the trial c ourt err ed under Blakely when it applied e nhance ment fac tor (3) in dete rmining the leng th of his sentence . Def end an t co n tends that the maxim um sentence he-8-

c a n r e c eived unde r Bl ake ly is fifteen y ear s, or the bottom of the sentenc ing r ang e applica ble for a R a n g e I s t a n d ar d o f

f e n d e r o f a C l a s s A f e l o n y.

I n Apprendi v. New Je rsey , the S upreme Court conclude d that a trial court may not enhanc e a def endant’ s sentence above the statutory maxi mum unless the fac ts supporting a pplication of the enhanc ing f

actor are submitt ed to a jury or based on the defendant’s prior convictions. Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 2362-63, 147 L

. Ed. 2d 435 (2000). The Bl ake ly court c larified that the rele vant “statutory maxi mum” for sentenc ing purposes “is not the maxi mum sentenc e a judg e may

impose after

finding additional fac ts, but the max imum he may impose without any additional fac ts.” Bl ake ly , 124 S. Ct. at 2537. A panel of t his Court has pre viouslyconclude d that Bl ake ly prec ludes application of enhanc ement fa ctor (3) beca use it relies upon the trial court’s additional finding that the def endant wa s a lea der in the c ommissi on of the off ense involving two
or m ore criminal actor s. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114(3)

. Sta te v

. Gre g H ar ris , No. E2003-02834- CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL419082, *16 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knox ville, Feb. 23, 2005)

.
No ne theless , t he t ri al c ou rtsen ten ced D efen dan t t o t he p res um pt iv e sen ten ce of tw ent y y e a rs

. We r e s p e c tf

u ll y d is a g r e e w ith D e f

e n d a n t’ s c o n te n ti o n th a t f if te e n y e ar s is th e “ p r e s u mp tive

m i n i m u ms e n t e n c e ” a s c o n t e m p l a t e d b y Bl ake ly . The leg islature cle arly es tablished the midpoint of the rang e as the pre sumptive sentence which may be imposed by

the trial court without the finding of any additional fac tors. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210( c). Although the tria l court did consider Def endant’ s y outh in its sentenc ing determinations, under our statutory sentenc ing sc heme, the trial court may impose a sentenc e for

a Class A fe lony at the midpoint of the rang e eve n if it finds the prese nce of

mitigating fac t o rs butno enhanc ement fa ctors. Id . § 40-35-210( d). De fenda nt’s sentenc e complies with Bl ake ly beca use a twe nty -y ear

sentenc e is the sentenc e De fendant c o u ld have

re c e ive d f

or his Cl a ss Afe lon y

c on vic tio n b a se d s ole ly

on the jury ’s ve rd ic t. M or e ov e r, the re is sufficie nt evidence in the rec ord to establish one e nhance ment fac tor based on D efe ndant’s prior conviction in Alabama . Ba sed upon our r eview of the re cord as a whole, we c annot conc lude that the tr ia l c ou rt

wo uldha ve re du c e d D e fe nd a nt’ s se nte nc e be low the pr e su mpt ive se nte nc e of tw e nty y ear s e v e n h a d it

n o t c o n s id e r e d D e f

e n d a n t’ s le a d e r s h ip r o le in th e c o mm is s io n o f th e offe nse. Def endant is not entitled to relief on this iss ue.

CO NC LU SION

Af te r a tho ro ug h r e vie w o f the re c or d, we a ff ir m th e jud g me nts of

thetr ia l c ou rt

.

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODAL

L , J UDGE