### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jun e 28, 200 5

ST A TE OF TE N N ES SE E v

. R OG ER GE N E D A V IS
Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for K nox Coun ty No. 78210 Ray L. Jenkin s, Jud ge

No. E2004-02673-CC A-R3- CD - F iled Augu st 22, 2005

The defendant, Roge r Gene Davis, stands convicted of ag g ravated assault and r obbery , for whic h he was orde red to serve an e ffe ctive six -y ear sentenc e. Ag g rieve d of hi s convictions and sente nces, the de fe nd a nt b ri ng s th is i ns ta nt a pp e a l c ha lle ng ing the su ff ic ie nc y of th e evi den c e to s up po rt his convictions and the tria l court’s imposit ion of consec utive sentenc es. Afte r re viewing the re cord,

we a ff ir m th e jud g me nts of

thelow e r c ou rt

.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt s o f theCr im ina l C our t a r e Affir m e d.

J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which A L AN E. G L EN N a nd R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.

J. L idd e ll Kir

k, Kn oxvil le , T e nn e sse e , f or theAp pe llant, Rog e r G e ne Da vis

.
Paul G. Sum me rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; Re ne e W. T urne r, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Randall E. N i ch o l s, District Attorney Gene ral; and D eborah Her ron, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

The victim was briefly

marrie d to the defe ndant from November 2002 until J anuary 2003, when she filed for

divorce . I n Marc h 2003, the vi ctim and the de fendant rec onciled, and the defe ndant moved back into the victim’s r esidenc e. On J une 24, 2003, the victim aske d the def endant to mov e ou t be c aus e he wo uld no t wo rk a nd c on tr ibu te to the ho us e ho ld inc ome. T he d efen da nt, wh o w a s a ng ry , th e n b e g a n lo a din g the vic tim ’s c ar w ithhis be lon g ing s andma de tw o trips to transport his belong ings to his mother’s house . During these tw o t ri p s , t h e victim’s daug hter

acc ompanied the de fendant. On his third and final trip to his mot her’ s house, the def endant f orce d the victim to accompany

him, as well. During t h at t ri p, the def endant be came incre asing ly more upset and drove err atically , intermittentlyswerving , speeding , and bra king.T he vi ct i m t est i f i ed t hat t he d efend ant had de st royed her p ho nes i n previ o us f i t s o f rage, b u t af

t er t he 1
d e fen d a n t l e ft, sh e w a s a b le to lo c a te a n d us e a p h o n e w h o se ha n d se t wa s b ro k e n b u t wh o se sp e a k e r-p h o n e w a s still f unct i o ni ng.

In c o u n t t w o o f h is in d ic tm e n t, the d e fen d a n t w a s c h a rg e d w ith a g g ra v a te d ro b b e ry, a n d the ju ry fo u n d him 2

g u ilt y o f t h e les se r in c lud e d o ff e n se o f ro b b e ry.
-2- When the defe ndant, the victim, and her daug hter a

rrived at the defe ndant’s mother’ s house, the victim attempted to use the telephone to c ontact the police , but the defe ndant, who wa s standing behind her

holding a pocket knife with a t hree - t o four- inch blade, pr evente d her f rom doing so. At one point, the defe ndant lung ed towar d the victim, and her daug hter stepped in f ront of the vic tim in or de r to pr ote c t her

. Th e vic tim te sti fi e d tha t the de fe nd a nt’ s beh a vio r te rrif ie d he r. Stil l

arme d with the knife, the de fendant persuade d the vi ctim to g ive hi m $50. The de fendant then drove the victim and her

daug hter to the victim’s bank, wher e she withdrew the money and g ave it to the defe ndant. The de fendant then drove the m to the victim’s residence

.

After they arrived at the victim’s r esidenc e, the defe ndant asked the victim to return he r w e dd ing ri ng to h im. Th e vic tim fi rs t r efus ed to do so , b ut w he n th e de fe nd a nt b e c a me incre asing ly

ang ry and beg an vandalizing her car , the victim became more fe arf ul, and there fore she went inside her

residenc e, located the ring , threw it outside, wen t back inside he r re sidence , and locked the f

ront door. The defe ndant continued to y ell and thre aten the vic tim while outsi de. Af ter the def endant’ s mother persuaded him to leave , the victim located a n opera ble telephone and ca lled 911. 1

Ba sed on the fore g oing evidenc e, the jury found the de fendant guilty of ag g ravated assault an d r o b b e r y

. T h e tria l c o u r t c o n d u c te d a s e n te n c in g h e ar in g inw h ic h th e c o u r t h e ard 2 testimonyfrom the vict i m , ar gu m en t s by counsel, a nd a stateme nt from the def endant. The court the n o rder ed the de fe nd a nt t o s e rv e thr e e y e ars fo r e a c h c on vic tio n a ndor de re d h im t o s e rv e his sentenc es conse cutively

based on the court’s findings that the de fendant is a dang erous of fende r and has an e x tensive criminal recor d.
Sufficiency of the E videnc e

The de fendant contends that the e vidence is ins u ff i ci ent to support his convictions for a g g ravated assault and r obbery . Our c onsideration of that claim is grounded in leg al bedr ock. When an ac cused c halleng es the suff iciency of the ev i d en ce , an appe llate court inspects the

e vid e nti ary la nd sc ape , inc lud ing the dir e c t a nd c ir c ums ta nti a l c on tou rs , fr om the va nta g e po int mos t ag ree able to the pr osecution. The r eviewing court t h en decide s whether the evidenc e and the infere nces that flow there from permit any rational fact finder t o conclude bey ond a re asonable doubt that the defe ndant is g uiltyof the c harg ed crime. See Te nn . R. A pp . P. 13 (e ); J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 44 3 U. S. 30 7, 32 4, 99 S. Ct. 27 81 , 2791 -92 (19 79 ); State v. Dunc an , 698 S.W .2d 63, 67 (Tenn. 19 85 ); State v. Dy kes , 803 S.W .2d 250, 253 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) , overruled on othe r grounds by State v. H

ooper , 29 S.W .3d 1 (Tenn. 2000)

.-3- I n determining s u ff

i ciency of the proof

, the appe llate court does not replay and

rew eig h the evidenc e. Se e Sta te v . M att he ws , 805 S.W .2d 776, 7 7 9 (T en n. Crim. App. 1990). Wit ness credibility , the weig ht and value of the evidenc e, and f

actua l disputes are e ntrusted to the finder of fac t. State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978) ; Lia k as v . S tate , 199 Tenn. 298, 3 0 5 , 2 8 6 S

. W

. 2 d 8 5 6, 85 9 ( 19 56 ); Fa rm e r v . S tate , 574 S.W .2d 49, 51 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1978)

. Simp ly state d, the re viewi ng c ou rt wi ll n ot s ub sti tut e its jud g me nt f or that of thetr ie r o f f

a c t. I nstead, the c ourt extends to the St ate of T en nessee the strong est leg itimate view of the e vidence contained in the r ecor d as we ll as all rea sonable a nd leg itimate infere nces that may be dra wn from the evidenc e. See Cabbage , 571 S.W .2d at 835.

Wit h these princ iples in mind we must determine whe ther the e vidence in this record is s uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

thejury ’s ve rd ic ts. We b e g in w iththe de fi nit ionof the c on vic tio n o ff

e ns e s. As alleg ed in the def

endant’ s indictment, “A per son commits agg ravated a s sault who . . . [i ]nt entionally

or knowing ly

commits an assault as def ined in § 39-13-101 a n d [ ]

. . . [ u ]ses or display s a dea dly

wea pon.” Te nn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102( a)( 1)(B ) (2003) . Tenne ssee Code An n o t a t e d s e c t i o n 3 9

- 1 3

- 1 0 1 d e f i n e s a s s au l t , i n p e r t i n e n tp ar t , a s “ [i ]n t e n t i o n a l l y o r k no wi ng ly caus[ing] another

to rea sonably

fea r imminent bodilyinjury .” Id. § 3 9

- 1 3

- 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 2 )

. A d d i t i o n a l l y, the Code def

ines robbery

as “the intentional or knowing theft of prope rty from the pe rson of a nother by violence or

putting the pe rson in fea

r.” Id. § 39-13-401( a).

Th e de fe nd a nt a

rg ue s th a t th e rewa s in su ff ic ie nt e vid e nce in tr od uc e d at tria l to

su pp ort a fi nd ing that th e vic tim reasonably fe are d im min e nt b od ily inj ury . T he de fe nd a nt a sse rt s that the victim could not have r easona bly fea red that the defe ndant would cause her bodily injury when he voluntarily

moved his belong ings out of he r house and while t he victim was in the pre sence of the de fendant’s mother. We disag ree . Viewe d in the light most favor able to the st at e, the evidenc e introduce d at trial demonstrate s that the defe ndant was e x tremely ang ry with and ac ting

a g g re ssi ve ly

tow ard s th e vic tim . H e ins ist e d o n th e vic tim a c c omp a nying him

to h is m oth e r’ s h ou se
a nd on drivi ng the vic tim ’s c ar to his mothe r’ s hou se . E n r ou te , h e dr ov e e rr a tic a lly a ndda ng e ro us ly in or der to upset and terrify the victim. Armed with a poc ket knife w ith a three - to four- inch blade, he vanda liz ed the victim’s vehicle and eventua lly lunge d towards he r with the knife, c ausing the victim’s daug hter to step in front o f t h e v ictim to shi eld her from the de fendant’s arme d advanc e. Th e vict im test if

ie d th a t th e de fe nd a nt’ s b e ha vio r t e rrif ie d h e r. We c on c lud e that ba se d o n th is evidenc e, a j u ry co uld have de termined that the de fendant display ed a de adly wea pon, there by p l a c i n g t h e v i c t i mi n r e a s o n ab l e f e ar o f i m m i n e n tb o d i l y i n

j u r y.

The de fendant next asserts tha t the evidenc e is insufficient to support his robbery conviction. Specific ally , the def endant a sserts that the evide nce doe s n o t d emons trate that the de fe nd a nt, wh o w a s ma

rrie d to thevic tim

a t th e tim e of

the of fe ns e , ha d no pr op ri e tary int e re st i n the $50 withdraw n from the victim’s acc ount or her w edding band. More over, the defe ndant ar g ues that evi d en ce doe s not support a finding that the def endant pr ocure d these items by placing the victim in fear. V iewed in the lig ht most favora ble to the state, the e vidence introduced at trial demonstrates that the defendant drove t he victim to her bank and while display ing his poc ket knife, forc ed the victim to withdraw $50 f rom her acc ount and give it to him. The defendant was not l isted-4-

a s a c o- ow ne r o f the vic tim ’s a c c ou nt. Af te r re turnin g to the vic tim ’s re sid e nc e , the de fe nd a nt a g a in eng ag ed in loud and threatening behavior including slashing the victim’s car seats with his knife, and the defendant retreated i nto her house and threw the ring outside. Once inside her house , she wa s able to locate a tele phone and c ontact the police. T h e victim testified that she c omplied with the defe ndant’s re quest for $50 and the ring beca use she f ear ed the de fendant. Ba sed on this evidence , a j u r y c o u l d h a v e r e a s o n ab l y f o u n d t h e d e f

e n d a n tg u i l t y o f

r o b b e r y.

Consecutive Se ntencing

The de fendant arg ues t hat t he trial court e rrone ously imposed consec utive sentenc es be c aus e there su lti ng se nte nc e is not re a so na bly re la te d to the se ve ri ty of his of fe ns e s andbe c aus e the fa cts of this case do not demonstrate that h e i s a gene ral da ng er to the public. We be g in our

a na ly sis by

re vie wi ng famil iar r

ule s f or app e llate revi ew of sen te nc ing te rm s. Whe n th e re is a

c ha lle ng e to the le ng th, rang e , o r m a nn e r o f s e rv ic e of a se nte nc e , it

is the du ty

of thi s c ou rt

to conduct a de novo revie w of the rec ord with a pre sumption t hat the dete rminations made by the trial court a re c orre ct. Tenn. Code A nn. § 40-35-401( d) (2003) . This presumption is conditioned upon the a ff ir ma tiv e sh ow ing in the re c or d th a t th e tria l c ou rt c on sid e re d th e se nte nc ing princ ipl e s a nda ll rele vant facts and circumstance s, and the burde n of showing that the sentenc e is improper is upon the appe llant. State v. Ashby , 8 23 S.W. 2d16 6, 16 9 (Tenn

. 19 91 ). I n th e e ve nt the re c or d f a ils to d e m o n s tr a t e t h e r e q u i r e dc o n s i d e r a t i o n b y t h e tr i a l c o u r t , r e v i e w o f t h e s e n t e n c e i s p u r e l y de novo

. Id

. I f a p p el l at e re v i ew re fl ec t s t h e t ri al co u rt p ro p er l y co n s i d er ed al l re l ev an tfa ct o rs an d i t s fi n d i n gs of fa c t a re a de qu a te ly

su pp orte d by the re c or d, thi s cou rt mus t af fi rm the se nte nc e , “e ve n if w e wo uld have prefe rre d a diffe rent re sult.” State v. Fletc her , 805 S.W .2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991)

.

The trial c ourt must order concur rent service of

multipl e sente nces unle ss it finds that a st atutory basis for c onsecutive se ntencing applies. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115( b)-( d) (2003) (enume rating bases f

or conse cutive sente ncing and spec ify ing c oncurr ent sentenc ing a s a base line). The fir st basis used by

the trial court was that the defendant is a dang erous of fende r “w hose beha vior indicates li ttle or no reg ard for hum an li fe, and no hesitation about committing a c rime in which the risk to human life is high.” See id. § 40-35-115( b)(4) . The following fac ts support the trial court’s finding that the def

endant is a dang erous offe nder: The defe ndant drove in an er ratic and dang erous
mann er wh i l e t he victim and her daug hter we re pa sseng ers in the ve hicle, and the defe ndant brandished a

three - t o four- inch pocket knife and lunge d at t he victim

. Moreove r, we conclude that the trial court corr ectly found that the def endant’ s criminal re cord is extensive, supporting another basis for imposing consec utive sentenc es. See id. § 40-35-115( b)(2) . The de fendant’s criminal his tory inc lud e s c on vic tio ns fo r a tte mpt e d a g g ra vate d b ur g lary , s e c on d d e g re e bu rg lary , tw o c ou nts of re ckless driving , public intox ication, ca sual exchang e, assault, theft, resisting arrest, g rand the ft auto, and a

probation violation. Finally , we note that the trial court se ntence d the def endant to serve the minimum s entenc e within the applica ble ra ng e for

eac h conviction offe nse, t h re e y ea rs. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102( d)(1) (cla ssify ing a g g ravated assault as de fined in § 39-13- 102(a) (1)

a s a Cla ss C fe lon y ); id. § 39- 13 -4 01 (b ) (d e fi nin g ro bb e ry a s a Clas s C fe lon y ); id. § 40-35-112( a)( 3)W e n o te th a t th e r e c o rd re flec ts tha t i f t h e sta te ha d p ro v id e d p ro p e r n o tice to the d e fen d a n t, the sta te c o u ld 3 have sought t o have t he d efend ant cl ass i f i ed as a R ange II o f

fend er.
-5- (def ining the se ntencing rang e for Rang e I Class C felonies as three to six y ear s). Be cause the trial 3

cour t i mposed the minimum sentence f or ea ch of the defe ndant’s convic tions, because the re cord ref lects g rounds for c lassify ing the defe ndant as a dang erous of fende r, and be cause the def endant ha s
a n e xten siv e c ri min a l hi sto ry , w e c on c lud e that th e tria l c ou rt ’s imp os iti on of c on se c uti ve se nte nc e s, resulting in an ef

fec tive six -y ear

sentenc e, is rea sonable.

I n co n clusion, finding no r ever sible err or, the judg ments of the trial c ourt are aff irmed.

___________________________________ J AMES CURW OOD WI TT, J R., J UDGE