### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Marc h 1, 200 5

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. GEOR GE HA MP TON

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty Nos. 03-01711,18 Joseph B. Dailey, Jud ge

No. W2004-01248-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Jul y 14, 2005

Following a jury

t ri al, Defenda nt was found g uiltyin case No. 03-01711 of thr ee c ounts of
a g g ra va te d r ob be ry , Cl a ss B fe lon y , invo lvi ng vic tim s He nry Ske lto n, Ma rk Me ars , a ndJohn No rris, and one count of a g g ravated assault, a Class C fe lony , involving victim Myron Ray mond. The trial
cou rt sentenc ed De fenda nt as a Rang e I I I , persistent off ender , to thirtyy ear s for e ach a g g ravated robbery conviction and f

ifteen y ear s for the a g g ravated assault convic tion. Defe ndant was f ou nd g uiltyin case No. 03-01718 of one count of e specia lly ag g ravated robbe ry , a Class A felony , of Dr. Charles White, and the trial c ourt sentenc ed De fenda nt to six ty y ear s as a Rang e I I I , persistent offe nder, f

or this offense . The trial court ordere d Def endant’ s sentenc es i n case No. 03-01711 to be
serve d consec utively to eac h other and consec utively to his sentenc e in case No. 03-01718, for an eff ective se ntence of one hundr ed and sixty -five y ear s. On appeal, Defenda nt does not challeng e the sufficie ncy

of the c onvicting e vidence . Def endant a rg ues, howe ver, tha t the trial court’ s application of enha nceme nt fac tors in determining the leng th of h i s s en t ences violated his Six th Amendment rig ht to trial by

jury . Def

endan t also arg ues that the trial c ourt err ed in imposing c onsecutive sentenc ing. A fter a

thoroug h revie w of the record, we affirm the j udg ments of t he trial court, a nd t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f c o n s ec u t i v e s en t en ci n g. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nts of

the Trial Court Affi rm ed

T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., a ndJ.C. M C L IN , J J ., joined.

Robert Wil s on J ones, District Public Defe nder; Ga rland Er g uden, Assistant Public Defe nder; a nd Trent Ha ll, Assist ant Public Defe nder, Me mphis, Tennessee , for the a ppellant, Geor g e Ha mpton.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Da vidE. Coe ne n, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Willi a m L . G ibb on s, Di stric t A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; A my

Wei ri c h, As sis ta nt Dis tr ic t Atto rn e y Ge ne ra l; and Steve Jones, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, the State of Tenne ssee.-2- OP IN ION

I. Bac kgr ound

J udy Murphy , a nurse with the Memphis Surg ery Center, was fee ding some stray cats outside the Ce nte r a

ro un d 6 :15 a .m on July 30 , 20 02

. She sa w D r. Cha rl e s Whi te drive int o th e pa rking lot

. Dr. White started wa lki n g t o wa rd the Center, and Ms. Murphy saw two men be hind him, one of whom car ried a shotgun. The man with the g un said, “Where do y ou think y ou are g oing, old man.” Dr. White beg an to run. He tripped and fell fac e forwar d onto the pavement. Both men le aned dow n to s e arc h th ro ug h D r. Whit e ’s po c ke ts. Ms. Murphy

ran towa rd the Center. Candy Stidum opened the locked door, and Ms. Murphy
was a ble to g et into the Center just a s the man with the g un rea ched the door. The ma n pounded on the do or w it h hi s gun a ndpo int e d th e we apo n at Ms . St idu m, w ho wa s b e hin d th e g la ss p a ne l. Another nur se in the Center called 911. Ms. Mur phy and Ms. Stidum l ater

identified De fenda nt as the man who c arried the g un during the robbe ry

.
J ohn Norris, He nry

Skelton, Mark Mea

rs, and My

ron Ray mond had g ather ed in t he par king lot of a Steak a nd Ale Restaur ant around 6:15 a.m. on J uly 30, 2002, to collect the newspape rs they would later deliver throug hout the city

. Two men drove up in a late-mode l, gr ay

automobile. Mr. Ray mond identified Def

endant as the driver of the ve hicle. De fenda nt’s car window was dow n. Mr. Norris said that De fenda nt pulled a stocking mask over his face , pointed a saw ed-of f shotg un out of the window and told him and Mr. Skelton to hand over the ir wallets. De fenda nt stuck his hand out of the wi nd ow , a ndMr . Sk e lto n a ndMr . N or ri s h a nd e d h im the ir

wa lle ts. The passeng er w ith Defe ndant, whom Mr. Raymond and Mr. Mea rs later identified as Anthony Wallace, e x ited the vehicle and appr oache d Mr. Mear s, demanding money . Mr. Wallace g rabbe d some key s and a pa g er f rom Mr. Mea

rs’ poc kets and then began h i t t i n g Mr. Mea rs. Mr. Ray mond r u s h ed t o M r. Mear s’ assistance and pulled Mr. Wallace away from him. Mr. Wallace went over to the g ray

car and g rabbe d the s hotgun from Defenda nt. The three men be g an cir cling Mr. M ear s’ tru c k

a s M r

. Wa ll a c e y e ll e d th a t h e w a s g o in g to k il l M r

. M e ar s

. I n th e me a n ti me , Def endant wa s having trouble starting the g ray car , and Mr. Wallace order ed Mr. Me ars to hand ove r t h e k e ys t o h i s tru c k

. T h e g r a y c ar s t ar t e d , h o w e v e r , a n d D e f e n d a n ta n d M r

. W a l l a c e d r o v e a w a y. Mr. Skelton said he thoug ht that the license plate number of the g ray car was HV Y 647.

L ater tha t d a y , ar o u n d 4 :3 0 p

. m. , O f f ic e r M ic h a e l Ja c k s o n r e c e iv e d in f o r mati o n th a t a car matching the desc ription of the vehicle used in the ea rl y m o rn i n g robberies was pa rked at 575 Wil liams St ree t. Office r Jackson parke d about five hundred fee t f rom the house. Twe nty

minutes later, a man ca me out of the house and drove awa y in the g ray car . The lice nse plate numbe r of the g ray car was HV Y 847. Off

icer J ackson r adioed that the vehicle was moving and followed the c ar up Wil liams St ree t until t he drive r turned into an a lley

. A patrol c ar e ntere d the alley from the other end and bloc ked the c ar’ s exi t. Office r Jackson identified Def endant a s the driver

of the ve hicle.-3-

On Au g us t 1, 20 02 , O ff

ic e r Jac ks on wa s a t th e Gr e yho un d B us Te rm ina l pi c kin g up a fa mil y member w hen he spotted Mr. Wallace sitti ng in the waiting room. Mr. Wallace had a one-w ay ticket to Buff alo when he was a

pprehe nded. The proof

showed that Dav i d W hite was robbe d at 12:45 a.m. on J uly 30, 2002, in the parking lot of his place of employ ment. He s ai d t h at a ca r pulled into the parking lot as he wa s walking toward his vehic le. The c ar stopped, and the driver stuck a shotgun out of the window. The passeng er g ot out of the ca r and took Mr. White’s wa llet from his pocket. T h e d ri ver y elled, “Anthony , just ge t his wallet, just get his wa llet, Anthony .” M r. Whit e later identified De fenda nt as the drive r of the ve hicle.

Of fi c e r K e vin M. Sha ff

e r te sti fi e d that he fo un d on e 12 -g a ug e liv e sh otg un sh e ll w ra pp e d in a Klee nex in t he fr ont seat of De fenda nt’s car

. Serg eant B art Rag land testified that the Me mphis Surg ery Center a nd the Steak and A le at which the of

fense s took place wer e less than a mile a part. Serg eant Rag land said that some of Dr

. Whit e’s pe rsonal belong ings were found i n a gar bag e can i n the hous e located on Wil liams St ree t afte r De fenda nt was transported to the police station. Serg eant Ragla nd rea d Def endant his Miranda rig hts at 7:57 p.m. on J uly 30, 2002. He sa id that Defe ndant was cooperative, but he told Serg eant Rag land that he did not wa n t to talk that night bec ause he was tired. Ser g eant Rag land said he decide d to wait unt il the nex t day to interview Defe ndant. The f ollowing e vening , Def

endant state d that he participated in Dr. White’s robbe ry , but he denied c arry ing the shotgun. He sa id that it was Mr. Wallace’ s idea to r ob Dr. White, and Mr. Wallace car ried the w eapon during the commission of the off ense. D efe ndant said that he w as driving a gray car which he had purchased for two rocks of coc aine. De fenda nt said that the shotgun was unloaded beca use he did not want any one to g et hurt d u r i n g t h e r o b b e ry.

I mme diate ly

a ft e r this st a te me nt, De fe nd a nt g a ve a state me nt d e ta ili ng his pa rt ic ipatio n in the robbe ries at the S teak and Ale Restaur ant. Once ag ain, Def endant sa id that the robberies wer e Mr. Wallace’ s idea, a nd Mr. Wallace, not De fenda nt, car ried the shotg un.
Def endant testified in his own behalf at the trial. During the trial and pri o r t o Def endant te sti fying , the tr ia l c ou rt

he ld a he ari ng on De fe nd a nt’ s mo tio n to su pp re ss the nu me ro us state me nts he g av e t o t h e police af

ter his ar rest on Jul y

30, 2002. The trial c ourt ruled that De fenda nt’s state me nts c on c e rn ing Dr . Wh it e’s rob be ry a ndthe ro bb e ri e s o f the me n a t th e Ste ak a ndAl e Re staur a nt w e re a dmi ssi ble . T he tr ia l c ou rt ru le d D e fe ndant ’s stat e me nts c on c e rn ing his participa tion in five other robberies on J uly 30, 2002, wer e inadmissible, but cautioned De fenda nt that th e oth e r s ta te me nts mig ht be a dmi ssi ble if he te sti fi e d in c on sis te ntl y wi th h is p ri or

state me nts
o r m e n t i o n e d t h e o t h e r

r o b b e r i e s d u r i n g h i s t e s t i m o n y.
De fe nd a nt t e sti fi e d th a t he sp e nt the nig ht o f Jul y 29 , 2 00 2 w ith a wo ma n w ho m he ha d ju st
m et , an d t h en we n tt o v i s i t an el d er l y gen t l em an t h e fo l l o wi n g m o rn i n g. S o m e ti m e th at m o rn i n g, Def endant we nt to a house on Will iams Street which De fenda nt refe rre d to as a “ cra ck house.”-4-

D e f e n d a n t s a id h e s mo k e d s o me ma r ij u a n a a n d to o k a n E c s ta c y p il l. M r

. Wa ll a c e s to p p e d bythe ho us e , a ndhe a ndDe fe nd a nt a rg ue d b e c a us e Mr . Wa lla c e ha d g ive n D e fe nd a nt’ s si xtee n- y e ar- old daug hter a

sexuallytransmitted disease.

After Mr. Wallace le ft, two men ar rived at the house and a sked if any one wa nted t o buy the tires from a

stolen car . One of

the men wa s car

ry ing a g un. Def

endant boug ht the car

for two r ocks of coc aine. He laid down for a while and then went to find someone to help him take the tires off the g ray c ar. De fe nd a nt s a id h e wa s d ri vin g do wn the a lle y wh e n he wa s st op pe d b y po lic e of fi c e rs

.
De fe nd a nt sa id that he did no t wa nt to ta lk to the po lic e on July 30 , 2 00 2, be c a us e he wa s st ill fee ling the e ffe cts of the drug s he had c onsumed that day , and he w as tired. De fenda nt said he ca lled his brother w h o t o l d h i m that Mr. Wallace and another man had c alled Crime Stoppers about Def endant’ s involvement in the robberies. Def endant de cided to ta lk to the police in order to g et Mr. Wallace into trouble.

Def endant sa id that h e co u l d n o t have c ommitt ed the r obberie s that occur red on July30, 2002, within the time frame de scribed by the witnesses. Defendant said that the newspaper sa id that Cha rl e s Libe rt o w a s r ob be d a t 6: 10 a .m. , D r. Whit e a t 6:15 a .m. , an d the me n a t th e Ste ak a ndAl e Restaura nt at 6 :2 0 a

. m. D e f e n d a n t a ls o c h a ll e n g e d th e a c c u r a c y o f th e w it n e s s e s ’ p h y s ic al de sc ri pti on s o f h im.

On cros s- e xami na tio n, theSta te int ro du c e d D e fe nd a nt’ s st a te me nts a dmi tti ng to h is participa tion in the following robbe ries, all of which occur red on J uly 30, 2002: Kennedy Anthony at 12:25 a.m., Rodney

Peterson at 2:15 a.m., Ray Penno at 2:50 a.m., Donald Allen at 4:20 a.m., and Charles Liberto at 6:12 a.m. All five men wer e robbe d at g unpoint. Defe ndant denied that he part i cipated in the r obberie s. He said his only purpose in talking to the investigating of fice rs was to imp lic a te Mr . Wall a c e in the of fe ns e s. De fe nd a nt ad mit te d tha t it wa s h is s ig natur e a ndini tia ls
on eac h of the state m en t s , b u t h e said that Serg eant Rag land told him what details to write down. Def endant sa id the shotgun be longe d to one of the men who sold him the gr ay car , and De fenda nt
c la ime d th a t th e se me n w e re the pe rp e tr a tor s o f the of fe ns e s. II. Sentencing Issu es
When a def

endant c halleng es the leng th, rang e, or manner of service of a sentence, 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 affirma tive showing in the
re c o r d th a t th e tria l c o u r t c o n s id e r e d th e s e n te n c in g p r in c ip le s a n d a ll r e le v a n t fac ts and circ umstances.” State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Ten n

. 1 9 9 1). “I f the trial c ourt applies inappropriate fa ctors or othe rwise f ails to f o 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 bur den is on the def endant to show the imp ro pr ie ty

of the se nte nc e . T e nn . Co de An n. § 40- 35 -4 01 , Se nte nc ing Com mis sio n Co mme nts

.-5-

Our re view re quires an a naly sis of (1 ) t he evide nce, if any , rec eived at the trial and sente ncing hearing; (2) the pre- sentenc e report; ( 3) the principles of sentenc ing and arg ument s o f c o u n s el relative to sentencing alternatives; (4) the nature and char acte ristics of the offe nse; (5) any mitigating or enha ncing 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)

. A per sistent offende r is sentenc ed within the applicable Rang e I I I , or betwee n ten and f ifteen y e ars fo r a Cla ss C fe lon y , be tw e e n tw e nty a ndthi rt y

y e ars fo r a

Cla ss B fe lon y , a ndbe tw e e n f orty
a n d s i x t y y e ar s f o r a C l a s s A f

e l o n y
. T e n n

. C o d e A n n

. § § 4 0

- 3 5

- 1 0 7 ( c ) a n d 4 0

- 3 5

- 1 1 2 ( c )

. In
c a lc ulatin g the se nte nc e for a Cla ss C or

a Cla ss B fe lon y

c on vic tio n, the pr e su mpt ive se nte nc e is the minimum of the rang e if ther e ar e no enhanceme nt or mitigating fac tors. Id. § 4 0

- 3 5

- 2 1 0 ( c )

. In calc ulating the sentenc e for a C lass A felony conviction, the pre sumptive sentence is the midpoint of the ra ng e if ther e ar e no enhanceme nt or mitigating fac tors. Id. I f t here are enhanc ement but no mitigating fac tors, the trial court may set the sentenc e above the pre sumptive sentence for the r ang e, but still within the rang e. Id. § 4 0- 35 -2 10 (d ). I f b othe nh a nc ing a ndmit ig a tin g fa c tor s a re pr e se nt, the trial court must st art at the presumptive sentenc e for the rang e, enhance the s entenc e within the rang e as appropriate for the enha ncing fac tors, and then r educe the sentenc e as a ppropriate for the mitigating fac tors. Id. § 40-35-210( e). I f t here are mitigating but no enhanc ement factors pre sent for a Class A fe lony , then the trial c ourt may set the sentenc e either

at the midpoint of the sentenc ing rang e, or be low the midpoint. Id. § 40-35-210( d).

At the sentenc ing he aring , the State introduce d the pre -sentenc e re p o rt and copie s of De fe nd a nt’ s p ri or

jud g me nts of

c on vic tio n w hic h i n c lud e the fo llo wi ng fe lon y of fe ns e s: thr e e c ou nts of g rand la

rce ny , a Class D felony ; two counts of attempt to se ll c ocaine , a Class C felony ; one count of po sse ssi on of

c oc a ine of

le ss tha n 0. 5 g rams wi th int e nt to s e ll, de liv e r o r m a nu fa c tur e , a Cla ss C felony ; two counts of re ceiving stolen pro p er t y v al u ed at over $200, a Class D fe lony ; and one count of thef

t of property over $1,000 and under $10,000, a Class D fe lony . I n addition, Defe ndant has numerous misdemea nor convic tions for d ri v i n g violations, unlawful possession of a we apon, failure to app ea r, an d possession of an automobile with an altere d serial number . Def endant wa s f o u n d i n v i o l a t i o n o f

p ar o l e i n 1 9 9 0 a n d a g a i n i n 1 9 9 5

. B a s e d o n D e f e n d a n t ’ s p r i o r

c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y, t h e t r i a l co u rt cl as s i fi ed De fe n d an tas a R an ge III , p er s i s t en to ff en d er , fo r p u rp o s es o f s en t en ci n g, and De fenda nt does not challeng e this classification. See Tenn. Code Ann. 40- 35-107(a )(1)

.
I n determining the leng th of ea ch of D efe ndant’s sente nce s the trial court considere d the following enhanc ement fac tors: fac tor (2), D efe ndant has a previous history

of criminal convictions in addition to the five felony convictions nec essary to support his Rang e II I classification; factor ( 3) Def en d a n t w a s a

le a d e r in th e c o mm is s io n o f

th e o f f e n s e s ; f a c to r ( 4 ) , th e o f

f e n s e s in v o lv e d more tha n o ne vic tim ; a nd fa c tor (9 ), De fe nd a nt ha s a pre vio us his tory of un wi lli ng ne ss t o c omp ly wi th the conditions of a se ntence involving re lease into the c ommunity

. I n addition the trial court a pplied fac tor (5), the victim was particula rly vulnera ble bec ause of

age , t o De fendant’s conviction for espec ially ag g ravated robbe ry

. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-114( 2), (3) , (4), ( 5), and ( 9). Without being more spec ific, the trial c ourt applied e nhance ment fac tors (11) a nd (17) “t o those sentenc es-6-

wher e bodil y injury was not an element of t he underly ing offense .” See id. §§ 40-35-114( 11) and (17). The trial court found that no mitigating fac tors wer e appropriate. B ased on the enhanc ement fac tors, the trial court se n t en ce d Def endant to the maximum s entenc e within Rang e I I I for e ach conviction, or sixt y

y ear s for the e specia lly

ag g ravated robbe ry

conviction, thir t y y ea rs fo r ea ch ag g ravated robbe ry

conviction, and f

ifteen y ear s for the a g g ravated assault convic tion.

The trial court found that consec utive sentenc ing was appropriate base d on its findings that Def endant has an extensive c riminal history , and that he is a profe ssional c riminal an d d an gerous offe nder. See id . §§ 40-35-115( b)(1) , (2) a nd (4). The trial court or dere d eac h of De fenda nt’s
se nte nces i n c a se No s. 03 -0 17 11 to b e se rv e d c on se c uti ve ly to e a c h o the r, a ndc on se c uti ve ly to Def endant’ s sentence in case No. 03-01718, for an eff ective sentence of one hundr ed and sixty -five y e ars

. A. L eng th of Sentence s
Def endant’ s sole challeng e on appe al as to the a pplication of enhanc ement fac tors is based
on the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Blakely v. W ashington , 542 U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct . 2531 (2004). Rely ing on B l a k e ly , De fenda nt arg ues that his Six th Amendment rig ht to trial by jury was violated be cause the trial court failed to subm it to a jury the enha nceme nt fac tors not based on his prior convictions. Se e Bl ake ly , 124 S. Ct . at 2536. Our Supre me Court, howeve r, has
re c e ntl y c on c lud e d th a t T e nn e sse e ’s se nte nc ing sc he me do es no t violate a de fe nd a nt’ s Sixth Amendment rig hts under Bl ake ly

. St a t e v. Edwin Gomez and J onathan S. Londono, ___ S.W .3d

___ , N o

. M 2 0 0 2

- 0 1 2 0 9

- S C

- R 1 1

- C D , 2 0 0 5 W L 8 5 6 8 4 8 , a t* 2 7 ( T e n n

. A p r

. 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 )

. A c c o r d i n g l y, Def endant’ s relianc e on Bl ake ly is mispl ace d. Nonethele ss, because we fi n d t h at t h e trial c ourt misapplied certain enhanc ement fact o rs , we will conduct a de novo revie w of the le ng th of Def endant’ s sentence s.
Def endant c oncede s the applica bility of enha nceme nt fac tor (2) ba sed on his previous history of criminal convictions. See Tenn. Code An n

. § 40-35-114( 2). The r ecor d also supports the trial court’s f inding that he has fa iled in the past to succe ssfull y comply with the terms of a

parole d sentenc e, and that he was a leade r i n t h e co m m i s sion of eac h of the off enses. See id . §§ 40-35- 114(3) a nd (9). Ms. Murphy testified that Def

endant c arried the g un during the robbe ry at the Me mph is Sur g e ry Ce nte r, a nd De fe nd a nt c ha se d he r a s sh e fl e d int o the Ce nte r. Ms. Stid um sa id that Def endant pointed the shotgun a t her fr om behind the window. Mr. Raymond identified De fe nd a nt a s th e drive r o f the ve hic le du ri ng the of fe ns e s c omm itt e d a t the Ste ak a ndAl e re sta ur a nt. Mr

. No rris sa id that De fe nd a nt pu lle d a sto c kin g ma sk ov e r his fa c e be fo re he de ma nd e d h is w a lle t. “[E] nhance ment for be ing a leade r in the commission of an off ense doe s not require t hat the [defendant] be the sole lea der but only that he be ‘a’ leade r” in the commi ssion of t he offense. Sta te v. Hick s , 868 S.W .2d 729, 731 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) (citation omitted.).

The trial c o u rt fo u n d that multipl e victims were involved in eac h of the off enses ba sed appar ently

upon the pre sence of Ms. Murphy and Ms. Stidum during Dr. White’s robbe ry , the-7-

prese nce of

Mr. Ray mond during the robberies at the S teak and Ale R estaurant, and the presenc e of Mr. My ers during the ag g ravated assault of Mr . Ray mond. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-114(4)

. The term “victim” for e nhance ment fac tor (4) pur poses, howeve r, is limit ed to per sons who
are injured or killed, o r who ha ve prope rty stolen or destroy ed by

the per petra tor of the c harg ed offe nse. State v. Raines , 882 S.W .2d 376, 384 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). Our Supreme Court has he ld tha t th e re c a nn ot b e mul tip le vic tim s f or a ny on e of fe ns e wh e re the ind ic tme nt s pe c if ie s a named victim. Sta te v . I

mf e ld , 7 0 S. W.3 d 698 , 7 06 (T e nn . 2 00 2) . E a c h o f D e fe nd a nt’ s in dic tme nts for a g g ravated robbe ry , ag g ravated assault and especially ag g ravated robbe ry

have a specific , named victim. The fac t that there w ere other individuals prese nt during Def endant’ s various off

enses on whose be half c harg es we re not filed doe s not support application of enhancem en t fa ctor (4). Id

. Acc ording ly , we c onclude that the trial court e rre d in apply ing e nhancement fa ctor (4) to eac h of De fe nd a nt’ s se nte nc e s.

I n addition, we conclude that the t rial court improperly considere d enhanc ement fa ctor (5) , that the victim was particularly vulnera ble bec ause of

ag e and phy sical limitations, t o Def endant’ s conviction of espec ially ag g ravated robbery

. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-114(5) . Marg e White, Dr. W hite ’s wi fe , te sti fi e d th a t prior to the of fe ns e Dr . Wh ite ha d h e art su rg e ry a ndha d d if

fi c ult y using his rig ht hand bec ause of nerve damag e. As a

result, Dr. White was no long er able to perf orm surg ery but worked at the Memphis Surge ry Center in an a dminist rative c apac ity . Although the trial court re fer

red to Dr . Whit e as e lderly , the rec ord is silent as to any indication of Dr. Whit e’s a g e at the time of the off

ense othe r than De fenda nt’s char acte rization of Dr. White as “an old man.”

A victi m m ay b e vulner able be cause of phy sical limitations i n a g ener al sense, but that vulnera bility may not ha ve any rele vance to the offe nse committed ag ainst him. Sta te v . Le wis , 44 S.W .3d 501, 505 (Tenn. 2001) . Ms. Murphy testified that Def

endant a nd Mr. Wallace walked up behind Dr. Wh it e

. D r

. Wh it e tu r n e d to ru n , trip p e d , a n d f e ll o n to th e p a v e me n t. T h ere is no indication that Dr. W hite tripped because of a phy sical di sability , or that any phy sical limitations or his ag e were factor s in the commi ssion of t he off ense. State v. Butler , 900 S.W .2d 305, 313 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). Ba sed on the circumstances presente d in this case and upon applica ble ca se law, we f ind that the trial court e rre d in considering enhanc ement fa ctor (5) in determining the leng th of D e f e n d a n t ’ s s e n t e n c e f

o r e s p e c i a l l y a g g r a v a t e d r o b b e r y.
Wit hout specifica lly

statin g wh i ch enhancement f actor applied to which of

fense , the trial court c o n s id e r e d

e n h an ceme nt fac tors (11) a nd (17) in incr easing the leng th of Def endant’ s sentence s to the extent that these fac tors wer e not an element of the underlying offe nse. Enhanc ement fa ctor (17) r equire s a finding t h at t h e crime was committed under c ircumstance s which posed a g reat potential for bodily injury to a victim

. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114( 17). De fenda nt was cha rg ed with ag g ravated assault ag ainst Mr. Ray mond w ith the use of a deadly wea pon causing Mr. Ray mond to fea r i m m i n en t bodily

injury

. Id . §§ 39-13-101( a)( 2); 39-13-102( a)( 1)(B ). This Court has previously

conclude d that the pre sence of g reat potential for bo d i l y injury is inherent in an ag g ravated assault committed w ith a deadly wea pon. Sta te v . H

ill , 885 S.W .2d 357, 363-64 (Te nn.-8-

Cr im. Ap p. 19 94 ). Th us , e nh a nc e me nt f a c tor (1 7) is n ot a

pp lic able to D e fe nd a nt’ s se nte nc e fo r h is ag g ravated assault convic tion.

En ha nc e me nt f

a c tor (1 7) is a lso no t app lic able to D e fe nd a nt’ s se nte nc e fo r e sp e c ia lly ag g ravated robbe ry

beca use serious bodilyinjury

is an eleme nt of the off

ense. In addition, fac tor (17) may not be based on the risk of potential bodily injury to an individual other than the victim of the crime. Im

fe ld , 70 S. W.3 d a t 70 6; Sta te v . Ni x , 922 S.W .2d 894, 903 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995)

. Th us , th e pr e se nc e of

Ms. Mu rp hy

a ndMs. Stin ne t du ri ng the c omm iss ion of the e sp e c ia lly ag g ravated robbe ry

offe nse does not support a pplication of enhanc ement fac tor (17) to this sentence.

Def endant wa s char g ed with the ag g ravat ed robbery of Mr. Skelton, Mr. Norris and Mr. Me ar s b y u s e o f a d e a d ly w e ap o n

. T h is Co u r t h a s p r e v io u s ly h e ld th a t e n h a n c e me n t f actor (17) g ener ally cannot be used to enha nce a senten ce fo r agg ravated robbe ry beca use the off

ense of ag g ravated robbery entails a high risk of bodily injury

. See State v. Claybrooks , 910 S.W .2d 868, 872-73 (Te nn. Crim. App. 1994). As noted above, there is alway s a g reat potential for bodily injury when a deadly wea

pon is used in the commission of the offe nse. Hi ll , 885 S.W .2d at 363. Thus the trial court erre d to the ex tent it considere d enhanc ement factor (17) i n determining the leng th of any of De fe nd a nt’ s se nte nc e s.
Enhanc ement fa ct o r (11) applies when the de fenda nt has “no he sitation about committ ing a crime when the risk to human l ife” is high. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114(11). It may be applied if the de fe nd a nt’ s c on du c t cr e a te s a hig h ris k to the lif e of the vic tim , a ndthe c re a tio n o f a hig h r isk to life is n o t an essential ele ment of the c harg ed off ense. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-114(11) ; State v. Bingham , 910 S.W .2d 448, 452-53 (Tenn. Crim. Ap p

. 1 995), overruled in part on other grounds , State v. Hoope r , 2 9 S

. W

. 3 d 1 , 9 (T en n

. 2 0 0 0 ) ( ci t i n g State v. Jone s , 883 S.W .2d 597 (Tenn. 19 94 )) . T ha t is , “ wh e re the pr oo f ne c e ssa ry to e sta bli sh a n e le me nt of the of fe ns e wo ulde sta

bli sh that th e ‘risk

to h uma n li fe wa s h ig h, ’ the e nh a nc e me nt f a c tor is a n e sse nti a l e le me nt o f the of fe ns e and thus inapplica b l e.” Id. Def endant’ s use of a

deadly wea pon during the commission of the robberies and a ssault was wha t elevate d his offense s to a g g ravated, and was an essential element of
eac h of his offe nses. As a g ener al rule, e nhance ment fac tor (1 1 ) i s n ec essarilyinhere nt in an
a g g ra va te d a ssa

ult or a n a g g ra va te d or e sp e c ia lly a g g ra vate d ro bb e ry that is c omm itt e d wi th a de a dly
wea pon. See State v . Makok

a , 885 S.W .2d 366, 373 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)

. Howeve r, “[w]hil e this Court has consistently held that [factor 11] should not be applied when the only

person subjec t to being injured is the victim, this fac tor is not inhere nt . . . when other persons prese nt could have be en injured.” Id .; see also Bingham , 910 S.W .2d at 452. During Dr. Whit e ’s ro bb e ry , D e fe nd a nt c ha se d Ms. Mu rp hy int o th e Me mph is Su rg e ry Ce nte r andsh e ba

re ly manag ed to g et into the building and loc k the door befor e Defenda nt caug ht up with her. Defe ndant br a nd ish e d h is s ho tg un a t bo th M s. Mu rph y and Ms. Sti du m. N o c ha rg e s w e re fi le d a g a ins t De fe nd a nt as a res ult

of his c on du c t to wa

rd s Ms . M ur

ph y a ndMs. Stid um. Th e re c or d s up po rt s application of e nhance ment fac tor (11) to De fenda nt’s sentenc e for espec ially ag g ravated robbe ry ba se d o n th e ri sk

of inj ury De fe nd a nt’ s c on du c t c re a te d f or Ms. Mu rp hy

a ndMs. Stid um.-9-

Def endant’ s convictions arising out of the off enses committ ed at the S teak and Ale do not support application of enhanc ement fac tor (11). Eac h of the men pr esent during the commission of the se of fe ns e s w a s a

na me d v ic tim

in an in dic tme nt r e su lti ng fr om the se of fe ns e s.

I n summary , we f

ind that the trial court’ s application of enhance ment fac tors (2), ( 3), and ( 9) to eac h of De fenda nt’s sentenc es wa s proper . We find enhanc ement fa ctor (11) was prope rly applied to D e fe nd a nt’ s se nte nc e fo r h is e sp e c ia lly a g g ra vate d rob be ry c on vic tio n, bu t impr op e rl y app lie d to Def endant’ s sentence s for his a g g ravated robbery and ag g ravated assault convic tions. W e find that the trial court misapplied enhanc ement fac tor (5) in determining the leng th of Def endant’ s sentence for e specia lly

ag g ravated robbe ry . The fa cts surrounding the commission of Defe ndant’s off enses do no t su pp ort th e app lic a tio n o f e nh a nc e me nt f a c tor s ( 4) a nd(1 7) to an y of De fe nd a nt’ s se nte nc e s. Although w e hav e d etermined that the trial court misapplied certa in enhanc ement fa ctors during its sentencing consider at ions, this does not necessarily lead to a r eduction in the leng th of Def endant’ s sentence s. Sta te v . W inf ie ld , 23 S.W .3d 279, 284 (Tenn. 2000) . Ba sed on the pre sence of three enhanc ement fa ctors f o r Def endant’ s sentence s for a g g ravated assault and a g g ravated robbery convictions, four e nhance ment fac tors for his e specia lly ag g ravated robbe ry conviction, and
no mitigating fac tors, we c annot conc lude that the trial c ourt err ed in determining the leng th of Def endant’ s sentence s. Also, the imposit ion of maxi mum sentence s within the appr opriate r ang es for these offe nses base d upon the applica ble enha nceme nt fac t o rs i s we ll within t he discre tion aff orded to the tria l court under Tenne ssee’ s sentencing scheme

. See G omez , 2005 WL 856848, at ** 20-22 The Go me z c ou rt c on c lud e d th a t “ e ve n a ft e r an e nh a nc e me nt f a c tor is f ou nd , thi s st a tut e aff ords to the j u d g e d is c r e tion to choose an a ppropriate sentenc e an

y whe re within the statutory rang e, including the presumptive mi nimum sentence w ithin the rang e.” Id ., a t 20 (e mph a sis a dd e d) . T hu s, we a ff ir m D e fe nd a nt’ s se nte nc e of sixty y e ars fo r h is e sp e c ia lly

a g g ra vate d r ob be ry

c on vic tio n, his sentenc e of thirty

y ear s for eac h of his a g g ravated robbery convictions, and his se ntence of fifte en y ear s for his ag g ravated assault convic tion.

B. Consec utive Sentencing

The trial c ourt order ed De fenda nt’s sentenc es for his ag g ravated robbe ry

and ag g ravated
a ssa ult c on vic tio ns to be se rv e d c on se c uti ve ly to e a c h oth e r a ndc on se c uti ve ly to h is s e nte nc e fo r h is espec ially ag g ravated robbe ry

convict i o n b ased on its finding s that Defe ndant is a prof essional criminal, that he ha s an extensive c riminal history , and that he is a dang erous of fende r. De fenda nt challeng es the trial court’s finding s and ar g ues that conse cutive sente ncing is not warra nted by the
c ir c ums ta nc e s su rr ou nd ing his of fe ns e s.
When a Def

endant is convic ted of multiple crimes, the tria l court, in its discretion, may order the se nte nc e s to ru n c on se c uti ve ly if it f ind s b y a pr e po nd e ranc e of the e vid e nc e that a de fe nd a nt f a lls into one of seven cate g ories listed in Tenne ssee Code Annotated se ction 40-35-115. In this inst ance , the t rial court found as one of the factors t hat Defenda nt was “a dange rous offender whose be havior indicates little or no re g ard for hum an li fe, and no hesitation about commi tting a c rime in which the ri sk to h uman li fe is h ig h. ” Te nn . Co de An n. §4 0- 35 -1 15 (a )( 4) . I f the tr ia l c ou rt re sts its-10-

determination of consec utive sentenc ing on this categ ory , the court must m ake two a dditional finding s. Im

fe ld , 7 0 S. W.3d at 70 8. Fir st, the tr ia l c ou rt mus t f indthat a n e xten de d s e nte nc e is
nece ssary to protect the public f

rom furthe r criminal conduct by Def endant, a nd, second, it must find
consec utive sentenc ing to be rea sonably rela ted to the seve rity

of the off enses. State v. W

ilkerson , 905 S.W .2d 933, 939 (Tenn. 1995)

. Although such specific fac tual finding s areunnece ssary for the othe r categ ories enume rate d in T e nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 4 0- 35 -1 15 (b ), the imp os iti on of c on se c uti ve se nte nc e s is a lso g uid e d b y

the g e ne ra l se nte nc ing pri nc ipl e s th a t th e le ng th o f a se nte nc e be ‘j us tly

de se rv e d in
re la tion to the se ri ou sn e ss o f the of fe ns e ’ and‘n o g re a te r tha n th a t de se rv e d f or the of fe ns e committed.’” Im

fe ld , 70 S.W .3d at 708 (quoting Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-102( 1) and - 103(2)) ; State v. Lane , 3 S.W .3d 456, 461 (Tenn. 1999)

.
B a se d o n o ur

re vie w, we fi ndthat th e e vid e nc e do e s n ot s up po rt a fi nd ing that D e fe nd a nt i s a pr of e ssi on a l c ri min a l w ho kn ow ing ly de vo te d h is l if

e to c ri min a l ac ts as a

ma jor so ur c e of

his livelihood for the purpose s of consec utive sentenc ing under Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40- 35-115(b) (1). As the trial court noted at the sentenc ing hearing, Def endant has a sparse employ ment
rec ord. He worke d for a few months in 1999 and ag ain in 2000 as a f orklift operator. Ther e is no
e vid e nc e , h ow e ve r, re fl e c tin g the a mou nt of mon e y De fe nd a nt de ri ve d fr om his c ri min a l of fe ns e s, or that he used that income, if a ny , to support himself. See State v . Desirey , 909 S.W .2d 20 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). Be cause the State fa iled to prove that De fenda nt’s criminal ac ts provided a major
source of l i velihood, we f ind that the trial court’ s consideration of this factor in its sentencing determinations was inappropriate.

The evidenc e, howeve r, does not pr eponder ate ag ainst the the trial court’s find i n gs that Def endant ha s an extensive c riminal history

. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-115(b) (2). De fenda nt ha s a t le a st thr e e Cla ss C fe lon y c on vic tions a ndnin e Cla ss D fe lon y c on vic tio ns in a dd iti on to
numerous misdemeanor convictions. On Aug ust 25, 1987, Defe ndant pled g uiltyto two counts of g rand la rce ny and two counts of r ece iving stolen p ro perty over $200, a nd rec eived f ive-y ear sentenc es for

eac h conviction. On November 13, 1987, he pled g uiltyto larce ny and re ceive d a four

y e ar s e nte nc e . I n 1 99 1, he wa s se nte nc e d to tw o s ix-y e ar s e nte nc e s f or tw o c ou nts of

a tte mpt to s e ll
coca ine. I n 1996, Def

endant wa s convicted of possession of a controlled substance and sente nced to three y ear s. On Marc h 15, 2002, he wa s convicted of a Class D felony theft convic tion March 15, 20 02 , for wh ic h he re c e ive d a se nte nc e of

tw o y e ars . T he c ur

re nt o ff e ns e s w e re c omm itt e d o n July 30, 2002. Thus, Def

endant’ s criminal history was a n appropriate conside ration in determining the
ma nn e r o f s e rv ic e of

his se nte nc e s.
Th e tr ial cou rtfou nd th at D efen dan t w as a d angero us off end er wh os e beh avi or i nd ic ate d li ttl e or no re g ardfo r hu ma n lif

e ba se d on the c ir c ums ta nc e s su rr ou nd ing the c omm iss ion of the of fe ns e s. The trial c ourt stated: But this man, and the pe rson who helpe d him do this, are certainly , by any definition, da n g e r o u s o f

f e n d e r s

. T h e y ar e u r

b a n te rr o r is ts

. T h e y to o k a s h o tg u n and prow led-11-

the stree ts of our city , threatening p eo p l e’s lives, taking their belong ings. The t es t i m o n y o f e ac h o f t h e v i ct i m s wa s ex tre m el y co m p el l i n g.
The trial co u rt fo u n d that consec utive sentenc ing w as re asonably rela ted to the seve rity

of t h e o ff en s es and nece ssary

to protect the public ba sed on the e x tent that Def endant’ s conduct imp a c te d th e liv e s o f the vic tim s. I t is a lso app are nt fr om the re c or d tha t D e fe nd a nt c a nn ot r e fr a in f r o m c o m m i t t i n g c r i m e s d e s p i t e r e p e a t e d c o n v i c t i o n s w h i c h e v i d e n c e s h i s d a n g e r o u s n e s s t o s o c i e t y. B a se d o n o ur revi ew, we ca nn ot c on c lud e that th e tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d in c la ssi fying De fe nd a nt a s a d an ger o u s o ff

en d erfo r p u rp o s es o f c o n s ec u t i v e s en t en ci n g.

I n any event, it is nece ssary to find the presence of only one of the statutory

cate g ories listed in Tennesse e C o d e An notated sec tion 40-35-115(b) to support the imposition of consec utive
s e n te n c in g

. S ee S tate v. Adams , 973 S.W .2d 224, 231 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) . Def endant’ s extensive criminal history alone is suffic ient to support co n s ecutive se ntencing . Def endant is not entitled to relief on this issue.

CO NC LU SION

After a thoroug h revie w of the r ecor d , we af fi rm the judg ments of the trial c ourt and the i m p o s i t i o n o f c o n s ec u t i v e s en t en ci n g.

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODAL

L , J UDGE