### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs O ct obe r 3, 200 7
STATE OF TENNESS EE v . DAVID HAROLD HAMMO ND

Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Madison Cou nty No. 02-567 Donald H . Allen, Jud ge

No. W2007-00219-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Fe bruary 21, 2008

Appellant, David Har old H ammond, was convicted by a Madison County jury of one count of ra pe. As a re sult , t h e t ri al court sentenced A ppellant as a

Rang e I Imultipl e off

ender to twelve y ear s incar c e r a ti o n

. B e c a

u s e A p p e ll an t w a s o np r o b a ti o na t t h e ti me th e r a

p e w a s c o mm itte d , th e tr ia l court orde red A

ppellant’s sentence to run consecutively to two exis ting f elony sentenc es. Appe llant complains on appea l that the evidenc e was insufficient to support the ra pe convic tion and that the trial court imprope rly

order ed him to serv e h i s sentenc e for rape consec utively

to his ex isting
se nte nc e s. B e c a

us e the e vid e nc e wa s su ff

ic ie nt to su

pp or t th e c on vic tio n a

nd the tr ia l c ourt

pr op e rl y se nte nc e d App e lla

nt, we a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Ci r c uitCo ur t i s A ffirm e d.

J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J ., delivere d the opi nion of the cour t, in which N OR MA M C G EE O G LE and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J ., joined.

Gr e g or y D. Go ok in, As sis tant Pub lic De fe nd e r, Jac ks on , Te nn e sse e , for the a pp e lla nt, Da vid Ha ro ld Hammond. Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney Gene ral a

nd Reporter ; Eliz abeth T . Ry an, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; Jerry

Woodall, Dist rict Attorney Gene ral, a

nd S h aun B rown, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

Acc ording to the victim, St arle t Givens, she wa s rape d by Appellant in Marc h of 2002. At tr ia l, t he vic timte sti fi e d th a t on Marc h 2 9, 20 02 , s he a tte nd e d a party a t he r s ist e r’ s a

pa rtme nt i n J ackson, Te nnessee

. Sequoia Greer, the victim’s sister, lived in the same apa rtment complex as the victim.-2-

The pa rty started a round 10:00 p.m. At some point that evening , Appellant showed up at the party . Acc ording to the victim, Appe llant w as not invited. The victim drank a pproxi mately

seven shots of tequila during the par ty . The victim went into one of Ms. Gr eer ’s bedr ooms to go to sleep
aro un d 1 :30 a. m. S he was a c c omp anie d to the be dr oo m by he r f ri e nd , T e d Ing ra

m. T he vic tim testified that she slept in the bed, f ully -clothed, w ith Mr. I ng ram until approximately 2:45 a.m., when Mr. Ing ram’s “ partne r” w oke him up to leave the party

. Th e vic timte sti fi e d th a t th e ne xt thi ngsh e re me mbe re d was wak in g u p “ wh e n [sh e ] fe lt [Appellant] coming out of me.” A ccor ding to the victim, the room was dark when she woke up. She felt someone ha

ving se x with her an d turned on the lig hts to find Appellant in the room. The victim’s pants and panties we re pulled dow n t o h er an k l es

. The victim stated that she w as menstruating at t he ti me, and there was blood on the bed she ets. She saw Appe llant ge tting dre ssed and noticed that he had blood on his pants. Appellant a sked her to g o to “dinner sometime.” The vic timdid

no t sc re a m out to anyon e wh e n sh e sa w w hat App e lla

nt w a s d oin g . Sh e a sk e d App e lla nt, “What the ‘F ’ just went on? ” Then the victim pulled up her pa nts and left the be droom. She then exit ed the a

partment and went to her

own apa rtment. Ms. Gree r testified that the vic tim was “ver y upset and c rying a

nd scre aming and stuff” when she left the a partment.
When the victim g ot to her own apar tment, she douched and took a bath. The victim then called Ms. Gree r t o tell her what had happened. The victim went back to Ms. Gr eer ’s apa rtment, but Ap pe lla nt wa s no lon g e r the re

. Th e vic tim ’s fr ie nd s dr ov e aro un d town, loo kin g fo r Ap pel lan t. When they

wer e unable to locate Appe llant, the victim drove to the pol ice station to repor t the rape

. The victim was ex amined at the hos pital for evidence of ra pe. The re w as no semen de tected afte r a va g inal swab, but the DN A tests perf ormed on the vic tim’s underwe ar r evea led the pre sence of Appe llant’s DNA “ along the edg e of the crotc h are a.”

Michelle L ee, Appellant’s si ster, testi fied at trial on his behalf

. Acc ording to Ms. L ee, she and A p p e ll an t w e r e inv it e d to th e p arty b y A n th o n y H aw k in s , M s

. L e e ’ s c o u s in

. M s

. L e e did not drink any alcoholic be vera g es at the pa rty . At some point, she over h ea rd t he victim say that “somebody

is goingto ge t fucke d tonight.” T he victim denied makingthat statement.

Ms. L ee stated that Appellant f ell aslee p on the couch and sl ept t here until around 2:45 a .m., when he g ot up from the couch. At that point, Ms. L ee sa w Appellant g o into the bedroom whe re the victim was sleeping . Appellant wa s g oing into the r oom to “g et hi s co at

. ” Ab out five to ten min ute s late r, Ms. L e e saw the vic timle a ve the be dr oo m. C on tr ary to M s. Gr e e r’ s te sti mony , M s. L e e c la ime d th a t th e vic timdid no t a pp e ar u ps e t w he n s he le ft

the be dr oo m or the a

pa rtme nt. Ms. L ee did not see any b l o o d on Appellant’s pa nts when he le ft the bedr oom. After le aving the bedroom, Appellant and Ms. L ee went t o the kitchen a nd made a

sandwich. The two then left the apar tment at approximately

3:30 a.m.

At the c o n c lu s io n o f th e p r o o f , th e ju r y f o u n d A p p e ll an t g u il ty o f r a p e a s c h ar g ed in the ind ic tme nt. At

a se nte nc inghe ari ng , th e tr ial cou rt se nte nc e d App e lla nt a s a Rang e I I , mu lti ple-3-

of fe nd e r t o a

tw e lve -y e ar s e nte nc e

. Th e tr ia l c ourt or de re d the se nte nc e to b e se rv e d c on se c uti ve ly to Appellant’s sente nces in “ Madison County Case # 9 2 -791 and G ibson County Case #15622.”

An aly sis On appe al, Appell an t ch al leng es the suff iciency of the e vidence . Specifica lly , Appellant
argue s th a t “ Gr e e r a

nd Gi ve ns ’ l a c k o f c re dib ili ty is s uc h th a t th e ir

te sti mony wa s n ot t

ru e ” and thi s Court should reve rse Appellant’s conviction. The State c ontends that the jury proper ly weig hed the
cre dibilit y

of the witnesse s and prope rly convicted A

ppellant.

When a def

endant c halleng es the suff iciency of t he evidence, this Court is obli g ed to re view that claim ac cordingto cer tain well-settled pr inciples. A ver dict o f gu i l ty , rende red by a jury and

“ a pp ro ve d b y

the tr ia l j ud ge, accred its the te sti mony of the ” State ’s wi tne sse s and re so lve s a ll conflicts in the testimony in favor of

the State. State v. Cazes , 875 S.W .2d 253, 259 (Tenn. 1994) ; Sta te v . H arris , 839 S.W .2d 54, 75 (Tenn. 1992) . Thus, althoug h the ac cused is orig inally cloake d with a pre sumption of innocence , the jury verdic t of guilty remove s this presumption “and r eplac es it with one of g uilt.” Sta te v . Tu gg le , 639 S. W

. 2 d 9 1 3 , 914 (Tenn. 1982) . Henc e, on appe al, the burden of proof r ests with the defe ndant to demonstrate the insufficienc y of the c onvicting e vidence

. Id. Th e re le va

nt q ue sti on the re vie wi ngc ourt

mus t ans we r i s w he the r a ny ratio na l tr ie r o f f

a c t c ou ld have found the acc used g uilty of ever y element of the off

ense be y ond a re asonable doubt. See Tenn. R. A pp . P. 13 (e ); Ha rri

s , 839 S.W .2d at 75. In making this decision, we a re to a ccor d the State “the strong est leg itimate view of the e vidence as we ll a s all rea sonable a nd leg itimate infere nces that may be dra wn there from.” Se e Tug gle , 639 S.W .2d at 914. As such, this C o u rt i s p re cl u ded fr om rew eig hing or

rec onsidering the evidenc e when evaluating the convicting proof. State v. Morgan , 92 9 S. W.2 d 3 80 , 3 83 (T e nn . Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ); Sta te v . M att he ws , 805 S.W .2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). Moreove r, we may not substitut e our own “inferenc es for those drawn by

the trier of fac t f rom circ umstantial evidence .” Ma tth e ws , 805 S.W. 2d a t 779. F ur the r, qu e sti on s o f w itn e ss cre dibilit y , the weig ht and value of evidenc e, and r esolution of conflicts in the evide nce a re e ntrusted to the trier of

fac t. State v. Odom , 928 S.W .2d 18, 23 (Tenn. 1996)

.
I n p e rt ine nt p art , r a

pe is d e fi ne d a s: [ U ] n l aw f u l s e x u a l p e n e t r a t i o n o f a v i c t i m b y t h e d e f e n d an to r o f t h e d e f e n d an tb y a vic tima c c omp anie d b y

any of the fo llo wi ngc ir c ums tanc e s: (1 ) F or c e or

c oe rc ion is u se d to a c c omp lis h th e a c t; (2) The sexual penetr ation is acc omplished without t he conse nt of the victim and the de fe nd ant k

no ws or ha s r e a so n to kn ow a t th e tim e of the pe ne tr a tio n th a t th e vic tim did not consent; . . . .
T.C.A. § 39-13-503. Viewingthe evidenc e at tria l in a light most favora ble to the State, the evide nce show ed that Appellant ente red the bedroom whe re the victim was sleepingalone. The victim testified that sheW e no t e t hat our suprem e co urt ’ s recent de ci si o n i n St at e v

. G om ez , 2 3 9 S .W .3 d 7 3 3 , 7 4 0 (T e n n . 2 0 0 7 ), in 1 whi ch t he suprem e co urt de t erm i ned t hat the use o f e nhancem ent fact o rs no t found b y a jury o r ad m i t t ed b y a de f end ant
v io la te d the S ixth A m e n d m e n t, d o e s n o t a ff e c t o u r re v ie w o f c o n se c u tive s e n te n c ing iss u e s. B e fo re o u r su p re m e c o u rt’s d eci si o n i n G o m e z, it h a d sp e c ifi c a lly n o te d tha t Bl ake l y v. Was hi ngt on , 5 4 2 U .S . 2 9 6 ( 2 0 0 4 ), d id no t i m p a c t T e n n e sse e ’s
c o n se c u tive s e n te n c ing sc h e m e

. St at e v. Robi ns on , 14 6 S. W

. 3d 46 9, 49 9 n

. 14 ( T enn

. 200 4). I n a dd i t i on, t hi s Co ur t ha s
c o n siste n tly fo u n d tha t B la k e ly d o e s n o t affe c t co n se c u tive se n te n c ing d e te rm ina tio n s. S e e S ta te v . E a ric e R o b e rts , N o. W 2 0 0 3 -0 2 6 6 8 -C C A -R 3 -C D , 2 0 0 4 W L 2 7 1 5 3 1 6 , a t * 1 5 ( T e n n . C rim . A p p ., at J a c k so n , N o v . 2 3 , 2 0 0 4 ), per m

. app. deni ed , (T e n n . M a r. 2 1 , 2 0 0 5 ); St at e v. Law r ence W arr en P i er ce , N o. M 2003- 01924- CC A- R3- CD , 2004 W L 2533794,

a t *1 6 (T e n n . C rim . A p p ., at N a sh v ill e , N o v . 9 , 2 0 0 4 ), per m

. app

. deni ed , (T enn. Feb

. 28 , 20 0 5 ).

-4- awoke with her c lothes around he r ankle s. She felt Appellant penetr ating and then “comingout of her.” When the victim turned on the light, she saw Appellant putting on his c lothes. Appellant’s
s em en wa s fo u n d o n t h e vi ct i m ’s p an t i es an d t h er e wa s b l o o d o n t h e be d wh er e t h e v i ct i m wa s l y i n g. The victim also saw blood on Appe llant’s pants. Acc ording to at least one w itness, the vi ctim left the apa rtment in an upset manne r. Although Appellant’s sister te stified that the victim did not look
u p s e tw h e ns h e l e f

tt h e b e dr o o m , t h e t a s k

o f w e i g h i n g t h e e v i d e n c e a tt r i a l b e l o n g s t o t h e j u r y. Appar ently , the j ury

in this case chose to acc redit the State’s w itnesses, including the victim. There
wa s ampl e evi den ce for

a ratio na l jury

to c on c lud e that App e lla nt s e xua lly

pe ne tr a te d th e vic tim while she wa s either pa ssed out o r i n a hea vy sleep a nd there fore she did not consent to the penetr ation. Appellant is not entitled to relief on this issue.

Sentenc ing

Ne xt, Ap pe lla

nt c lams that th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in or de ri nghis se nte nc e to r un c on se c uti ve ly to t wo pr e vio us ly e xistin g e ig ht- y e ar se nte nc e s. Ap pe lla nt c on c e de s th a t he is a

Rang e I Imul tip le offe nder f or sentenc ing pur

poses and that he was “on probation from Gibson County Circuit Court for a felony drugoffe nse” at the t ime he was convicted. Howeve r, he maintains that the trial cour t’s decision to order

the sentenc es to be ser

ved conse cutively

was “ discretionar

y , not mandatory .” The State contends that Appe llant has waive d the issue for f ailure to cite to authority

for his ar g ument
an d , i nan y

ev en t , t h e t ri al co u rt p ro p er l y o rd er edco n s ec u t i v e s en t en ci n g. As pointed out by

Appellant, a tr ial co u rt may impose consec utive sentenc ing upon a deter mination that one or m o re o f the cr iteria set f orth in Tennesse e Code Annotated sec tion 40-35-115( b) exists

. One of the provisions allo wi n g consec utive sentenc ing pr ovides that 1
c on se c uti ve se nte nc ingis w arr ante d if “ the de fe nd ant is se nte nc e d fo r an of fe ns e c omm itt e d w hil e on probation.” T.C.A. § 40- 35-115(b) (6). Additionally , whe t h er sentenc es ar e to be se rved
concur rently or conse cutively

is a matter a ddresse d to the sound discretion of the trial cour t. Sta te v. Hastings , 25 S.W .3d 178, 181 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999)

.
I n the ca se her ein, the State introduce d a ce rtified copy of the Criminal Tri al Do ck et from Ma dis on County Cir c uit Court sh ow ingtha t App e lla nt p le d guil ty

to p os se ssi on

wi th i nte nt t o s e ll .5 g ra ms o r mor e of

c oc a ine , a

Cla ss B fe lony , o n Se pte mbe r 1 5, 19 92 . T he pr e se nte nc e re po rt a lso ref lects this conviction. As a re su l t o f t h e co caine conviction, Appellant wa s sentence d to an-5-

e ig ht- y e ar s e nte nc e . T he tr ia l c ourt su sp e nd e d th e se nte nc e a ft e r t he se rv ic e of

ni net y day s in j a il with work re lease “if def. is e mploy ed at that time,” the n place d Appellant on super vised probation. Appellant’s probation was first revoke d in Fe bruar y of 1997, and Appellant was orde red to ser ve five mont hs in incar cer ation prior to being place d back on intensive probation. Then, in Nove mber of 1999, Appe llant’s probation wa s revoke d ag ain, and he was orde red to serve eleve n months and twenty -nine day s in jail for the probation revocation. Appar ently , Appellant was there afte r re lease d by the Depa

rtment of Correc tion “ by mistake” prior to serving the eleve n months and twenty -nine day s for the r evocation of probation. A capias was iss ued for Appellant’s arre st. Finally , in May of 2006, afte r Appe llant’s arr est fo r t h e crime here in, the Madison County Circuit Court found that Appellant aga in violated probation and order ed him to serve his e ight- y ear sentenc e in incar cer ation, with cre dit for time serve d. There was also proof introduced at the se ntencinghear ing that Appellant
was on parole for a cla ss B fe lony sentenc e fr om Gibson County for possession of c ocaine . At the sentenc ing he aring , the trial cour t determined that Appellant clea rly committed the offe nse at issue here in while on probation and or dere d the s entenc e for rape to “run c onsecutively to the sentenc es for whic h he wa s on probation or pa role.” Specifica lly , the trial cour t fou n d t h at “i t does appe ar c le arl y that [Ap pe lla

nt] w a s o n pr ob a tio n ou t of Ma dis on County and pe rh a ps on pr ob a tio n or

pa ro le out of Gibson County

when he committed this new offe nse. So this sentenc e will run conse cutive based upon the Court finding that.”

Whil e the r ecor d does not contain the e x hibit that was introduce d at the sente ncing hear ing to show that Appellant wa s on parole f or an of fense out of Gibson County at the time of the r ape, the tr ans c ri pt o f t

he se nte nc inghe ari ngre fl e c ts that th is p ro of wa s b e fo re the tr ia l c ourt . I t is the du ty of the a ppellant to prepa

re a rec ord that conve y s a fa i r, accurate, and c omplete ac count of what tr ans pir e d in

the tr ia l c ourt

wi th res pect to t

he iss ue s th a t f

or m th e ba sis fo r t

he a pp e a l. T e nn . R. Ap p. P. 2 4( b) ; State v. Thompson , 3 6 S.W.3 d 102 , 108 (T e nn . Crim . App . 2 00 0) ; State v. Miller , 737 S.W. 2d 55 6, 55 8 ( Te nn . Cr im. Ap p. 19 87 ). I n th e a bs e nc e of an ad e qu a te re c or d, thi s Co ur t mu st presume the corr ectne ss of the trial court’ s ruling. State v. Bibbs , 8 06 S.W. 2d 78 6, 79 0 ( Te nn . Cr im. App. 1991). Be cause it appea rs t hat Appellant was on parole out of Gibson County at t he time he committed the crime he rein, he fac ed mandat ory consec utive sentenc ing. See Te nn . R. Cr im. P. 32(c) (3)( A). The rec ord does not conta in a copy of that judgme nt, how ever we must presume the
corr ectne ss of the ruling of the trial c ourt. Moreove r, eve n if the record were devoid of proof that Appellant wa s on parole an d t h erefore subject to mandatory consec utive sentenc ing, the rec ord supports discretionar

y consec utive sentenc ing unde r Tenne ssee Code An notated sec tion 40-35- 115(b)( 6) bec ause A

ppellant was c lear ly

on probation at the time he committed the offe nse her ein. Appellant is not entitled to relief on this issue.-6- Conclusion

Ba sed on the for eg oing r easons a nd authority , the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.

___________________________________ J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE