### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs F eb ru ar y 16, 200 5
STATE OF TENNESS EE v . RONALD LYNN CHATMAN

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Robertson County

No. 01-0494 M ichael R. Jones, Judge

No. M2003- 00806-CCA -R3-C D - F iled April 19, 2005

De fe n d an t , R o n al d Ly n n C h at m an , wa s i n d i ct ed fo r th e of fe n s e of es p ec i al l y

aggr av at ed k i d n ap p i n g, a Class A felony

. Following a jury trial, Def endant was c onvicted of the lesser inc luded offe nse of fac ilitation of especially

ag g ravated kidnap ping, a Class B fe lony . The trial c ourt sentenc ed Def endant to nine y ear s impriso n ment as a Rang e I , standard of fende r. I n his appea l, Defe ndant challe n ges t h e s ufficie ncy of the c onvicting e vidence , and ar g ues that the trial c ourt err ed in not g ranting Def

endant’ s reque st for a pr ob at ed s en t en ce. A fter a thoroug h revie w of the r ecor d, 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 Circ uit Court Aff irm ed
T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., joined. D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., filed a c oncurring opinion.
J oe R. J ohnson, Springf

ield, Tenne ssee, f

or the a ppellant, Ronald L . Chatman.
Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; El iza be th B . M arn e y , A s s i s t ant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; J ohn Wesley Carney , J r., Dist rict Attorney Gene ral; and D ent Morriss, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, the State of Tenne ssee. OP IN ION
I. Bac kgr ound
Michae l Dowlen stopped by Marian D ishman’s house for a fe w minutes onO c to b e r

1 0 , 2 001. He lef t his two-y ear -old daug hter, Asianna , in her c ar se at. Mr. Dowle n said he c ame out of Mr

. Di sh ma n’ s h ou se no mor e than s ixty se c on ds la te r, a ndsa w a ma n r unni ng do wn the str e e t w ith Asianna in his arms. Mr

. Dowlen chase d the man to a g ray Oldsmobile. The man g ot into the car with Asianna while Mr . Dowlen beat on the car’s trunk with his hands. As the c ar pulled out, one of the pa sseng ers y elled, “w e wa nt some money , n____.”-2-

A neig hbor told Mr. Dowlen that the Oldsmobile belong ed to Def endant. Mr. D owlen and Mr. Dis hman l eft in their r espec tive car s to look for the Oldsmobile. After unsucce ssfully

sear ching for fiftee n or twenty minutes, the men returne d to Mr

. Dishman’s house to c all the police. Ma rian Ra ine y , a no the r v isi tor

a t Mr . Dis hman’ s hou se , told Mr . Dow le n tha t “th e y ” ha d be e n c a lli ng wh ile the two m en we re g one. The telephone w as ring ing w hen Mr. Dow len enter ed the home. T he ca ller told him t o bring $4,000 to the J ames Ralph Apa rtments if he w an t ed to see his baby . The c aller then lower ed the a mount to $2,000, and instructed Mr. Dowle n to leave the money on the stoop of the first apa

rtment. Mr. Dowle n said that he did not rec og nize the caller ’s voice.
Mr . Dowl en d ro ve to the apa rt me nt b uil din g e ve n th ou g h h e didno t ha ve the re qu isi te amount of money

with him. A woman was standing in the st re et h o l d i n g h i s daug hter. A police office r was also at the scene
. Mr. Dowlen said that he found Asianna approximately

thirty minutes afte r she wa s abducte d. He late r learned that he and D efe ndant wer e re lated on De fendant’s fathe r’s side.
On cr oss-examination, Mr. Dowlen insisted that someone inside t h e ca r told him that the men wanted mone y

even thoug h he had initially told the police that the man who w as car ry ing A sianna was the one who demande d money

. M r. Do wl en said that Def endant wa s not the person who g rabbe d Asianna out of his c ar.
Mr. Dishman conf

irmed Mr. Dow len’s re cital of the sequence of eve nts that afternoon, except that he said Mr. D owlen wa s in his house around t en m i n u t es. Mr. Dishman said that he knew De fenda nt, and Def endant called Mr. Dishman on his c ell phone af ter Asianna

was found. Mr

. Di sh ma n a dmi tte d th a t he didno t te ll the po lic e abo ut the ph on e c a ll.
Be verly Ba ker spotted Asia nna standing in the middle of the stree t by herse lf. She picked the child u p a n d b r o u g h t h e r to th e s id e w a lk

. So me o n e d r o v e b y a n d s a id th e c h il d h a d been kid na pp e d f ro m Jar re tt D ri ve . M s. B ake r’ s d a ug hte r c a lle d th e po lic e
. Mr . D ow le n a rrive d s ho rt ly afte r the police

. Tameka Chatman, Def

endant’ s cousin, said that Def endant, Damus Hudson, Marcus Wilson and B rian Dunn dr ove up in Def endant’ s car

around 1:00 p.m. on Oc tober 10, 2001. De fenda nt parke d the ca

r at the ba ck of the house. Ms. Chatman was ta lking t o h er gra ndmother on the telephone w hen Defenda nt arrived. Her g randmother had heard a bout the kidnapping on her police scanne r. Ms. Chatman said that she a sked De fendant what was happening , and he ne ither admitted n o r d en i ed t h at h e w as i n v o l v ed i n t h e k i d n ap p i n g.
Of fi c e r Ja me s Patty

wi th the Spring fi e ld Pol ic e De pa rt me nt s a id that he re sp on de d to the c a ll from Ms. B ak e r ’ s d a u g h te r
. H e s a id th a t M r
. D o w le n w a s h y s te r ic a l w h e n h e arr iv e d at the apartments. Office r Patty allowed Mr. D owlen to g o to his home to g ive a statement. He sa id that Mr. Dowlen de scribed the kidnapper as a lig ht-skinned, thin, A frican-American male, and that it was t h e k i d n ap p e r

w h o m a d e t h e s t a t e m e n tab o u tw a n t i n g m o n e y.-3-

Marc us Wi lson was a passeng er in De fendant’s car that afte rnoon. He testified that the four me n wen t to Jar

re tt D ri ve to p ur c ha se so me mari juana . H e a ndMr . H ud so n g ot o ut o f the c ar t o make the pu rc ha se . M r. Wils on sa id that a ft e r the y re turne d t o th e car, Defe nd a nt s tart e d to pu ll away and then stopped the car . Def endant then told Mr. Dunn to gr ab the c hild. Mr. Dunn g ot out of the c ar, r an to Mr. Dowlen’s car, gra bbed Asianna, and returned to Def endant’ s car
. Mr. Wils on said a man r an af

ter Mr. H udson. Mr. Wil son admitted that someone in the fr ont seat y elled out the window that they

wanted mone y , but he di d not know i f t hat person was De fendant or Mr. Hudson. Mr. Wils on said that Def endant dr ove to Ms. Chatman’s house, a nd the four me n separ ated. Mr. Wil son said that he did not know a kidnapping was planne d.
Mr. Wils on said that Def

endant c alled him about t hree day s afte r the incide nt and threatened t o k n ock out his front tee th if Mr. Wil son testified. Mr. Wilson s aid that on Octobe r 13, 2001, Def endant’ s cousin, Bobby

Way ne Dowle n, beat him up.
On c ro ss- e xami natio n, Mr . Wil so n a g re e d th a t he did no t g ive a state me nt to the po lic e un til a ft e r h e wa s a

rr e ste d o n th e c ha

rg e of e sp e c ia lly

a g g ra vate d kidn app ing . M r. Wils on sa id that hi s first statement was not acc urate . Mr. Wils on ag ree d that he bec ame a war e at some point during the interview that the police we re f ocusing on Def

endant a s a suspec t rather

than him. Mr. Wil son then told the police that Def

endant told Mr. Dunn to kidnap the c hild. Mr. Wi lson said that Defe ndant was shaking his head a s he drove away afte r Mr. Dunn br oug ht the child back to the c ar. II. Su ff iciency of the Evid ence
I n c hal leng ing the su ff

ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e , D e fe nd a nt h ig hli g hts the inc on sis te nc ie s in Mr. Wils on’s and Mr. D owlen’s testim o n y , and ar g ues that there was no e vidence that Def endant acte d knowing ly

during the commission of the offe nse.
When a def

endant c halleng es the suff iciency of the c onvicting evidenc e, we must review the evidenc e in a lig ht most favorable to the prosec ution in determining whether a rational trier of fac t could have found all the e ssential elements of the crime be y on d a reasonable doubt. Jack son v. Vi rg inia , 4 4 3 U

. S

. 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 , 9 9 S

. C t

. 2 7 8 1 , 2 7 8 9 , 6 1 L

. E d

. 2 d 5 6 0 ( 1 9 7 9 )

. O n c e a j ur yfi nd s a defe ndant g uilty , his or her pr esumption of innocenc e is remove d and repla ced with a presumption of g uilt. State v. Black , 815 S.W .2d 166, 175 (Te n n
. 1 9 9 1 ). T h e def endant ha s the burden of overc oming this pres u mption, and the State is entitled to the stronge st leg itimate view of the evidenc e along with all reas onable infe renc es which may be dra wn from that e vidence

. Id .; Sta te v . Tu gg le , 63 9 S.W. 2d 91 3, 91 4 (T e nn
. 19 82 ). Th e jury is p re su me d to ha ve re so lve d a ll c on fl ic ts and dra wn any

rea sonable infe renc es in favor of the State. State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W .2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984) . Questions conce rning t h e credibilit y of witnesses, the w eig ht and value to be g iven the e vid e nc e , a nd a ll f

a c tua l is su e s r a ise d b y

the e vid e nc e are re so lve d b y the tr ie r o f f

a c t a ndno t th is court. State v. Bland , 958 S.W .2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997)

. These rules are applicable to f indings of g uilt predicate d upon direc t evidenc e, circumstantial evidenc e, or a combination of both dire ct and circ umstantial evidence

. Sta te v . M att he ws , 805 S.W .2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990)

.-4-

Def endant wa s convicted of

fac ilitation of especially ag g ravated kidnapping . “B efor e an a c c us e d c a n b e c on vic te d o f the fa c ili ta ti on of a fe lon y , th e Sta te mus t pr ov e be y on d a re a so na ble doubt that the acc used (a ) knew another person was g oing to c ommit a specified f elony and (b) kn ow ing ly

fu rn ish e d sub sta nti a l ass ist a nc e in the c omm iss ion of the fe lon y a lth ou g h th e a c c us e d d id not possess the requisite intent to be g uilty of the felony .” State v. Parke r , 932 S.W .2d 945, 950-51 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 11-403(a )).
There was no dispute that De fendant was driving the car on the afte rnoon that the offe nse wa s committed. Defe ndant started to pull out a fter the drug purcha se wa s completed a nd then stopped. Mr. Wils on said that Def endant told Mr. Dunn to g rab the child who had be en le ft al o ne in a c ar parke d in front of Mr. Dis hman’s house. Mr. Dis hman said that he a nd Def endant kne w one a nother. De fe nd a nt d id no t mak e any a tte mpt to dri ve a way

be fo re Mr . D un n g ot b a c k inthe c ar w ith Asianna. Defe ndant drove away with Asianna despite Mr. Dowlen’s fra ntic attempts to stop the car. Def endant dr ove t o h is cousin’s house and pa rked the car

in the back y ard. H e and the other four me n th e n le ft

on fo ot. Viewing the evidenc e in a li g ht most favorable to the State, we c onclude that the e vidence is sufficient for

a rational trier of f

act to find that De fendant knew that Mr. Dunn w as g oing to kidnap Asianna a nd that Def

endant p ro v ided substantial assistance during the commission of the kidnapping

. This Court has previously found t hat a person who drives another to the scene of the crime, w aits while the other pe rson commits the crime, and then provides the means of esc ape, ha s knowing ly

provided a ssistance substantial e noug h to support a fac ilitation conviction. See State v

. Ha rri s , 30 S.W.3 d 3 45 , 3 54 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 99 ); State v. Hay es , 7 S.W. 3d52 , 5 7 ( Te nn . Crim. App. 1999).
T h e r e w e r e , a s D e f

e n d a n tp o i n t s o u t , s i g n i f

i c a n t i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n M r
. W i l s o n ’ s t e s t i m o n y, and, to a c e r tain e xte n t, in M r
. D o w le n ’ s te s ti mo n y
. “ A ll q u e s ti o n s in v o lv in g th e c r e d ib il ity of witnesses, the we ight a nd value to be g iven the evide nce, and al l fac tual issues [however] are resolved by the trier of fac t.” State v. Mic ken, 12 3 S .W .3 d 3 55 , 3 87 (Ten n. Cr im . Ap p. 20 03 ). By its verdict, the jury

resolved those conflicts in fa vor of the State. Id. (quotin g S t ate v. Grac e , 493 S.W . 2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973) ). De fendant is not entit led to relief on this iss ue. III. Sentencing Iss ues Although D efe ndant does not spec ifically challeng e the tria l court’s a pplicati o n of enhanc ement and mitig ating fac tors in de termining the leng th of his se ntence , Def endant a rg ues that the trial court should ha ve g rante d him a probate d sentenc e beca use of his y outh. Def

endant is not entitled to a presumption that he is a favorable candidate for probation because he was c onvicted of a Class B felony . Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-102(6) . Def endant wa s, howeve r, po te nti all y e lig ibl e for pr o b at i o n b ec au s e the sentencing rang e for a Class B f

elony is eig ht to twelve y ear s, and a defe ndant is elig ible for probation if the sentenc e ac tually imposed is eight y ear s or less. Id. §§ 40- 35-112(a )(2) ; 40- 35-303(a ). The trial court imposed a nine y ear sentenc e. Consequently , in order-5-

fo r D e fe nd a nt t o p re va il o n h is a rg ume nt, we mus t f

ir st d e termi ne th at the t

ri a l c ou rt e rr e d in determining the leng th of Def endant’ s sentence

. At his sentencing hearing, D efe ndan t t es t ified that he w as ninetee n y ear s old when he committed the curr ent o ffe nses. Althoug h he lef t high sc hool after

the eleve nth gr ade, D efe ndant said that he ha d finished the re quired c ourses for a G.E.D exam. De fendant said that he had be en employ ed one time, but the job l as t ed o n l y a few day s. Defe ndant admitted that he ha d sever al juvenile a d

j u d i cations which included resisting arr est, assault, theft, va ndalism and ag g ravated robbery . Def

endant sa id that he had been plac ed on house a rre st twice as a

juvenile, and then se nt to a juvenile dete ntion facility on two differ ent occa sions. Def endant believed that eac h time he had spent about six months in t he fa cility . The pre -sentenc ing report showed that Def endant was arr ested for theft over

$500, automobile burg lary , and fr audulent use of a cr edit car d in Sumner Countyprior to the commission of the curr ent offe nses, but the cha rg es we re st i l l p ending at the time the pre

sentenc ing r eport wa s prepa red. D efe ndant said that betwee n the prepa ration of the pr e-se ntencing r e p o r ta n d t h e s e n t e n c i n g h e ar i n g , h e h a d c o m p l e t e d a s e n t e n c e o f e l e v e n m o n t h s , t w e n t y- n i n e d a ys fo r the se of

fe ns e s indi c a tin g that De fe nd a nt ha d at le a st b e e n c on vic te d o f a mis de me a no r a s a

re su lt of the a rre st in S umner County

. D e f e n d a n t s a idth a t h is li f

e h a d c h a n g e d d ir e c ti o n , a n d h e a s k e d th e c o u r t t o p la c e h im on pr ob a tio n s o th a t he c ou ld b e wi th h is f a mil y . D e fe nd a nt a

po log ize d f

or his c on du c t.
At the conc lusion of the sentenc ing he aring , the trial court found that enha nceme nt fac tors (2) a nd (21) we re a

pplicable ba sed on De fendant’s adult conviction in S u m n er C o u nty and the ag g ravated robbe ry

offe nse he committed a s a juvenile. Tenn Code Ann. § §40-35-114( 2) and (21)

. As mitigating fac tors, the t rial court considere d Def endant’ s expression of remorse, the f act that he voluntarily surre ndere d to the police, and the re lease of the victim unharme d. Id

. §§ 40-35-113( 13) and 3 9

- 1 3

- 3 0 5 ( b ) ( 2 )

. T h e tria l c o u r t f o u n d th a t th e e n h a n c e me n t f a c to r s g r e a tl y o u tw e ig hed the mit ig a tin g fa c tor s a ndse nte nc e d D e fe nd a nt t o n ine y e ars ’ i mpriso nme nt.
When a def

endant c halleng es the leng th, rang e, or manner of service of a sentenc e, 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 pr esumption is “conditioned upon the aff irmative showing in the rec ord that the trial c ourt consider ed the se ntencing principles an d al l relevant fac ts and circ umstances.” State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1 9 9 1 ). “I f the trial c ourt applies inappropriate fa ctors or othe rwise f ails to fo l l o w t he 1989 Sentenc ing A ct, the pre sumption of corr ectne ss falls.” State v. Shelton , 854 S.W .2d 116, 123 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992)

. The Sentenc ing Commission Com ments provide that the burden is on the def endant to show the imp ro prie ty

of the se nte nc e
. Te nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 35 -4 01 , Se nte nc ing Com mis sio n Co mme nts

. Our re view re quires an analy sis of (1) the e vidence , if any , rec eived at the t ri al and sente ncing hearing; ( 2) the pre sentenc e re port; (3) the principles of sentencing and ar g uments of counse l relative to sentencing alternatives; (4) t h e n at u re and cha rac teristics of the of

fense ; (5) any

mitigating or enhanc ing f

actor s; (6) any

statements made b y t h e d ef endant in his own beha lf; and (7) the-6-

defe ndant’s potential for

reha bilitation or treatment. Tenn. Code A nn. §§ 40-35-10 2, -103, and - 210; 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 B felony , Def

endant is subjec t to a sentenc e of betwee n eig ht and twelve y ear s. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-112(a )(2)

. I n calc ulating the sentenc e for a Class B felony conviction, t he presumptive sentenc e is the m inimum in the rang e if ther e ar e n o en h an ceme nt or mitigating fac tors. Id. § 40-35-210( c). I f there are enhanc ement but no mitigating fac tors, the trial court may set the sentenc e above the minimum , but stil l within the rang e. Id. § 40-35-201( d ). I f both enha ncing and mitigating f actor s are prese nt, the trial court must start at the pre sumptive mini mum, enhance the sentenc e within the ra ng e as a ppropriate for the e nhancing fac tors, and then reduc e the sentenc e as appr opriate f or the mitigating f

actor s. Id. § 40-35-210( e). Although not c ited by

Def endant in his brief

, we must also consider

the impac t of the Supreme Court’s re cent de cision in Blakely v. W ashington , 5 4 2 U

. S

.
___ , 1 2 4 S

. C t

. 2 5 3 1 , 1 5 9 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004), w hich ca lls int o question certain aspec ts of our sentenc ing sc heme, in conduc ting our re view. I n Bl ake ly , the United States Supreme Court conc luded that “‘ [o] ther than the fac t of a prior c onviction, any

fac t that increa ses the pena lty for a crime be y ond the pre scribed statutory maxi mum must be submitt ed to a jury , and proved be y ond a re asonable doubt.’” Bl ake ly , 1 24 S. Ct

. at 2536 (quoting Apprendi v. New Je rsey , 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 2362-63, 147 L . Ed. 2d 435 (2000)) . The Bl ake ly court clarified that the re levant “statutory maxi mum” for se ntencing purposes “ is not the max imum sentence a judge may

impose afte r finding additi onal fa cts, but the maxi mum he may

impose without

any additional fac ts.” Bl ake ly , 124 S. Ct . at 2537.
Bl ake ly , howeve r, does not pr eclude a sentenc ing court’s consideration of a def endant’ s prior convictions as an enhanc ement fac tor in de termining the leng th of the def endant’ s sentence

. Id . at 2536. As the Apprendi court observed, prior c onvictions do not r el at e to the commission of the offe nse for

which the de fenda nt is being se ntence d, and pre sumably the prior c onvictions “had be en enter ed pursua nt to p ro cee dings w ith substantial safeg uards of their own.” Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 488, 120 S. Ct . at 2361-62. The re is enoug h evidenc e in the re cord ba sed on De fendant’s testimony at the sente ncing h ea ri n g t o support a finding that he at lea st had one prior conviction for a misdemeanor be fore committing the cur rent off enses in Oc tober. B ased on our revie w of the r ecor d, application of e nhance ment fac tor (2), D efe ndant has a previous his tory of criminal convictions or criminal beha vior in addition to those necessa ry to establish the approp ri at e ra ng e, is appropriate. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-114(2)

. The trial court also found that enhanceme nt fac tor (21) w as appr opriate be cause Def endant ha d c omm itt e d a

de lin qu e nt a c t a s a

juv e nil e that w ou ld c on sti tut e a fe lon y if c omm itt e d a s a n a du lt, namely ag g ravated robbe ry
. Se e id

. § 40-35-114( 21). J uvenile adjudications, howe v er , differ fundame ntally

from criminal convictions. “The pur pose of juvenile justice laws is to ‘r emove f rom children c ommitt ing de linquent acts th e t ai nt of criminality and the c onsequenc es of c riminal behavior .’” Sta te v . Ch ris top he r Ki rke nd all , No. W2004-00784-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 2083760 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Sept. 16, 2004), application for perm. to appe al granted Marc h 7, 2005 (quoting Tenn. Code Ann. § 37- 1-101). In addition, a juvenile adjudication is not considere d-7-

a c ri min a l c on vic tio n. Te nn . Co de An n. § 3 7- 1- 13 3( a ). Th is co urt has pr e vio us ly he ld that ju ve nil e adjudications do not qua lify as prior convictions under the rule e stablished in Apprendi and Bl ake ly

. S ee S ta t e v
. B r

a n don W allace , N o
. W 2 0 0 3

- 0 19 67 -C CA -R 3- CD , 2 00 5 WL 19 50 86 , * 10 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. , a t Jac ks on , Jan. 28 , 2 00 5) ; Sta te v . R e c ar do Da le , N o
. W2 0 0 3

- 0 2 3 9 1

- CC A

- R3

- CD , 2 0 0 5 WL 94362, *6 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Jan. 10, 2005), application for perm. to appeal filed (Tenn. Ma r. 7, 20 05 ). Th us , the tr ia l c ou rt ’s c on sid e ratio n o f e nh a nc e me nt f a c tor (2 1) wa s in app ro pria te under Bl ake ly

. Although w e conc lude that the trial court misapplied enhanc ement fac tor (21), this err or does not nece ssarily

lead to a r edu ct i on in the leng th of Def endant’ s sentence

. Sta te v . W inf ie ld , 23 S.W .3d 279, 284 (Tenn. 2000) . The trial c ourt sentenc ed Def endant to nine y ear s, or one y ear over the presumptive sentenc e of eig ht y ear s for a Rang e I , standard of fende r, of a

Class B fe lony . The Blakley ru lin g do e s n ot p re c lud e the c on sid e ratio n o f D e fe nd a nt’ s p ri or c ri min al con vi c tio n in determining the leng th of his sentence . Ba sed on the pre sence of one enhanceme nt fac tor and the littl e we ight a ccor ded the mitigating fac tors by the trial court, we conc lude that a se ntence of nine y ear s for De fenda nt’s conviction of fa cilitation of espe cially ag g ravated kidnapping is appropriate. B e c a u s e D e f

e n d a n t ’ s s e n t e n c e e xc e e d s e i g h ty e ar s , w e n e e d n o tf u r t h e r a d d r e s s h i s ar g u m e nts conce rning his eligibility

for pr obation. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-303(a ).

CO NC LU SION
B a se d o n th e fo re g oin g , w e a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

.

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODAL

L , J UDGE