# FIL ED

No v emb er 8 , 199 6 Cecil W. Crow son A pp ellat e C ou rtC lerk IN THE CO URT OF CR IM IN AL AP PEALS OF TENN ESSEE

AT NA SH VILLE APR IL 19 96 SE SSIO N

STATE OF TENN ESSEE , ) ) APP ELLEE, ) ) No. 01- C- 01- 9506- CR -0 0202 ) ) Dav ids on C ounty v . ) ) J. Ra n d a ll W yat t, Jr. , J u d ge ) ) (R obber

y and Thef

t) MA RI O A. LAVE ND ERand ER IC L. HO BBS, ) ) APPEL LAN TS. )
FO R THE A PPELLA NTS: FO R THE A PPELLE E: FO R LAVEN DE R: Cha rl es W . Bu rs on Atto rn ey Gene ra l & R epor

ter Dea nna C . Be ll 500 C har lotte Av enue Atto rn ey at Law Nas hv il le, TN 37243- 0497 211 Thi rd Av enue, Nor th Nas hv il le, TN 37201 Dar ian B. Tay lor Ass is tant Atto rn ey

Gene ra l FO R HO BBS: 450 J ames R ober tso n Par kw ay Nas hv il le, TN 37243- 0493 Jeffrey A. DeV asher Ass is tant Publ icD efender Vi cto r S. J ohnso n, I II 211 U nio n St re et, Sui te 12 02 Di str ict Attor ney Gene ra l Nas hv il le, TN 37201- 5066 222 Se cond Av enue, South (A ppeal Onl y ) Nas hv il le, TN 37201- 1649 Joan A. L awson Ni chol as D. Bai ley Ass is tant Publ icDefender Ass is tant Di str ict Atto rn ey General 211 U nio n St re et, Sui te 12 02 222 Se cond Av enue, South Nas hv il le, TN 37201- 5066 Nas hv il le, TN 37201- 1649 (T ri a l O n ly) Cha rl es Car penter OF COU NS EL: Ass is tant Di str ict Attor ney General 222 Se cond Av enue, South Kar l Dea n Nas hv il le, TN 37201- 1649 Me tropol it an Pub li c D efender 211 U nio n St re et Nas hv il le, TN 37201- 5066

OPIN ION F ILED :______

_________

_________

_________

__ AFF IR ME D Jo e B. Jo n e s, Pre sid in g Ju d ge2 

### O P I N I O N
The appel lan ts, M ar io A. Lav ender and Er icH obbs, w ere found g uil ty of two c ounts of robbe ry , a Class C felon y , and o ne co untof theft over $1, 000 , a Class D felo ny, by a jury of thei r peers. The tr ial cour t found that Lav ender

w as a s tandard offender and impos ed Ran g e I sent ences as foll ows: ( 1 ) coun t 1, robber y , c onfinement for s ix

( 6) y ears i n the Dep a rt me n t o f C o r re ct i o n , ( 2 ) c o u n t 2 , ro b b e r y , c o n fi n e me n t fo r s i x ( 6 ) y e a rs i n the Dep artment of Cor re cti on, an d ( 3 ) co u n t 4, theft, confine ment for four ( 4) y ears i n the Dep a rt me n t o f C o r re ct i o n . Th e t r i a l c o u rt fo u n d t h a t H o b b s w a s a mu l t i p l e o ffe n d e r and impos ed th e foll ow ing R ang e II se ntenc es: ( 1) co unt 1 , robber y , c onfinement for te n ( 10) y ears in the Depa rtme nt of Correction, (2) count 2, robbe ry , conf inem entfor ten (10 ) y ears in the D epar

tment of Cor re cti on, a nd (3 ) count 4, theft, confine ment for four (4 ) y ears i n the Dep artment o f

C o rre ct ion. The tr ial co urt ordered th at t he s entenc es are to be s er v ed
c o n s e c u t ive ly. T h e e f

fe ct ive s e n t e n c e fo r L a ve n d e r is s ixt e e n ( 1 6 ) ye a rs , a n d t h e e f fe ct ive sent ence fo r Ho b bs is twenty-four ( 24) y ears. In thi s C our t, both Lav ender

and Hob bs cont end t hat t he s entenc es impos ed by the tr ial cour t are ex ces si v e. Hob bs als o c ontends that the tr ial cour

t commi tted er ro r of preju dic ial dimens ion s by ( a) deny ing hi s mot ion to suppress a s tatementhe made to pol ic e and (b ) deny ing his moti on i n l imi ne, w hic h s oug ht to de ny the Stat e of Tenness ee the rig ht to use his pr ior conv icti ons to i mpeach him if he opt ed to testif

y . Af ter a tho rough rev iew

of the reco rd, the briefs subm itted bythe pa rties, and t he l aw

appl ic abl e to the i ss ues present ed for rev iew , it is the opi nio n of thi s C our t t hat the j udg ment of the tr ial co urt s houl d be aff ir med. Dur ing the ear ly

mor nin g hours o f Januar y 3, 1994, the W il son family w as aw akene d
w hen t hey

heard noise s outsi de of their resi dence

. Mr . W il son loo ked throug h a w ind ow to i nv est ig ate t he so u rce of the noi se. H e s aw

two Afri can-Amer ic an mal es sta ndi ng o u t s id e h is re s id e n c e . W h e n h e il lu m in a t e d t h e f lo o d li gh t s o u t s id e h is re s id e n c e , t h e two me n ran across th e streetand w ere last see n en tering a d it c h

. P o li ce of f icers w ere summoned. They

patroll ed th e a re a and, noti ci ng noth ing su spi ci ous, depar ted. A few min utes l ater

Lav ender

and Hob bs entered the New bil l re si dence , w hic h w as loc ated across the street f ro m the W il sons ’ re si dence

. Theyused a t ire i ro n to open t he3

sl idi ng doors a t t h e r e ar of the resi dence

. Mr . N ew bil l w as aw akene d by one of the app ellant s. T he intrud er t old Mr. New bill to turn an d face th e w all or he w ould “blow [his] brain s o ut." He felt someth ing sti ck ing him in the back

. H e "as sumed itw as a g un." The per petrator

tol d M r. N ew bil l to put a pil low ov er his head. H e foll ow ed th e di re cti ons g iv en to h im

. M rs. New bil l w as in another bedroom. She t oo was aw akene d by one of the appel lan ts. Sh e w as tol d notto loo k a t t he per petrator

. She was als o di re cte d to pla ce a pil low ov er her head. Sh e w as tol d tha t i f she did n ot c ooperate, they woul d k il l her husba nd. The appell ants spent in ex ces s of an hour i nsi de th e N ew bil l re si dence

. They to ok n um erou s i te ms o f j ewel r y , g un s , an d a l arg e s um o f c as h. Th ey l oa de d th es e i te ms into Mr. New bill's pickup truck an d drove aw ay in the truck. T he app ellant s t ook in excess of $10,000 in cas h and personal proper ty from the re si dence

. The pic kup had a v alu e of $9,600. T he Newbills testif ied th e tw o me n in the ir reside nce " soun ded black." Mr. N ewbill
saw the w rist of

one of the app ellant s w hen he w as giv en a g lass of w ate r. The man 's skin appeared to be b lac k. H e c oul d tel l thi s a ppel lan t was w ear ing g lov es. The Ne w bil ls su bseq uentl y noti fied the pol ic e. Theytol d the pol ic e w hat o cc ur re d and w hat was tak en from the res ide nce. The off ic ers i nit iat ed a broadca st desc ri bin g the pi c k u p t r u c k a n d t h e i t e ms s t o l e n . Th e b ro a d c a s t i n d i c a t e d tw o me n c o mm i tt e d the offense. A pol ic e off ic er

sa w the pic kup tr uck

and follo w ed i t. Ot hero f f ice rs entered th e pursui t. The appel lan ts subs eq uentl y sl ow ed th e v ehicl e , e xited the v ehi cl e w hil e i t was sti ll mov ing , and ran i n different direct ion s. The pi ck up tr uck st ru ck a t ele phone p ole

. The off ic ers b eg an pursui ng the appel lan ts on foot. B oth L av ender and Hob bs dropped a pi sto l as the y w ere att em pting to evade th e of f icers. Tw o police s e a rch dog s were s ummoned. One o f the dog s found L av ender under neath a motor

v ehi cl e a s hor

t d ist a n ce f ro m the poi nt w here he ex it ed th e pi ck up tr uck

. The sec ond dog l ocat ed H obbs in a uti li ty bui ldi ng behi nd a near by resi dence

.Stat e v . S t e p h e n s o n , 8 7 8 S

. W

. 2 d 5 3 0 , 5 4 4 ( Te n n . 1 9 9 4 ) ; S t a t e v . M a k o k a , 885 1 S

. W

. 2 d 3 6 6 , 3 7 1 -7 2 (T e n n . Cr im

. A p p . ), p e r. a p p . d e n ie d ( T e n n . 1 9 9 4 ); S t a t e v. G e n t ry, 8 8 1 S

. W

. 2 d 1 , 5 (T e n n . Cr im

. A p p . 1 9 9 3 ), p e r. a p p . d e n ie d (T e n n . 1 9 9 4 ) ; St a t e v. Ra y, 8 8 0 S

. W

. 2 d 7 0 0 , 7 0 4 (T e n n . Cr im

. A p p . 1 9 9 2 ), p e r. a p p . d e n ie d (T e n n . 1 9 9 3 ); S t a t e v. (c onti nued.. .) 4 I.

W hen Hobb s resisted arrest and atte mp ted to esca pe f rom th e of f icers, the p olice dog w as all ow ed to su bdue hi m. H e s ust ain ed s ev eral dog bi te wounds

. Before Of f ic er Cla ude Mann tran sporte d Hobb s to the hosp ital, he advised him of the Miranda rig hts. Off ic er M ann state d Hobbs w as "moaning and g ro ani ng " at the t ime. W hen O ff ic er M ann ask ed H obbs if he u ndersto od hi s r ig hts , t he appe ll ant a nswered: "Oka y , man, I
--kn ow the d eal , I kn ow

the deal , I know

the deal ." Off ic er

Mann test ified H obbs, w ho had sev eral previous arrests and convictions, und erstoo d his rig hts. Onc e H obbs w as in a treatment ro om, Officer M a n n r e m ov ed th e handc uffs a nd
a s s is t e d a n u rs e in re m o vin g h is cl o t h in g s o s h e c o u ld vie w th e wo u n d s . A " wa d o f m o n e y" fell from H obbs' s p ants

. A s econd "w ad of money " w as found in his underw ear . Sin ce the broa dcaststate d jew elry had bee n take n in the robbe ry , Of f icer Mann rem oved three g old chai ns from H obbs' s n eck

. W hen O ff ic er M ann as ked Hob bs w here he o b ta ined the jewelr y , H obbs, an Afric an-Amer ic an, t old M ann t he j ew elr y bel ong ed to his uncl e. Officer Mann ope ned a locket at tach ed to on e o f t he ch ains. He foun d a pictu re of an elde rly Ca u c a s ia n m a n in s id e t h e lo c k e t

. W h e n O f f ic e r M a n n a d vis e d Ho b b s a b o u tt h is d is c o ve ry, Hob bs appeared s hock ed. The onl y ev ide nce of the i nju ri es sus tai ned by H obbs w as g iv en by

Officer M ann. He testif ied Hob bs susta ined "several" do g bites. He also testif ied H obb s w as in a "little pain " w hen he tran sporte d him to the hosp ital. In th is Court, Hobb s asserts that the ruling of the trial court was clearlyerroneo us. He arg ues he was in "suc h phy si cal pain f ro m the dog bite w ounds thathe c oul d nei ther understa nd hi s r ig ht no t t o make st atements nor kn ow ing ly

and v olu ntar il y

w aiv e his ri g hts ." The st andard of re v iew appl ic abl e to suppress ion is sues is w ell -e sta bli shed. W hen a tr ial co urt makes a f ind ing of facts at t he c oncl usi on of a s uppress ion hear ing , t he facts found by the tr ial courtare af

forded the w eig ht of

a jur y v erdict. As a resul t, thes e facts

1(. ..c onti nued)

Adams, 859 S.W .2d 3 59, 3 62 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1992) , per . app . den ied ( Tenn. 1993 ); Stat e v . W oods. , 806 S.W .2d 2 05, 2 08 ( T e n n . Cr im. App. 1990) , c ert. deni ed, 5 02 U .S. 1079, 112 S. Ct . 986 , 117 L.E d.2d 148 ( 1992) ; Stat e v . Au co in , 7 56 S. W .2d 7 05, 7 10 (Tenn. C ri m. App. 1988) , ce rt . den ied , 489 U .S. 1084, 109 S. Ct . 154 1, 10 3 L.E d.2d 845 (198 9). Stephe nson , 8 7 8 S

. W

. 2 d a t5 4 4 ; S t a t e v . S mi t h , 8 6 8 S

. W

. 2 d 5 6 1 , 5 7 0 ( Te n n.

2 1993) ; Stat e v . Bo bo, 7 27 S.W .2d 945, 948 (Tenn. ), cer t. deni ed, 4 84 U .S. 872, 108 S. Ct

. 204, 98 L. Ed.2d 155 ( 1987) ; Stat e v . O 'G uin n, 70 9 S. W .2d 5 61, 5 65- 66 ( Te n n .) , cer t. deni ed, 4 79 U .S. 871, 107 S. Ct . 244 , 93 L.Ed. 2d 169 (1 986) ; Stat e v . H ar bis on, 7 04 S.W .2d 3 14, 3 18 ( Ten n. 1 98 6) ; S ta te v . Ke l l y , 60 3 S. W .2 d 72 6, 7 29 ( Ten n. 1 98 0) ; Ma kok a, 88 5 S. W .2d a t 3 7 1 -7 2; Ray , 880 S.W .2d a t 704 ; Adams, 859 S.W .2d a t 362 ; Auco in, 756 S.W .2d a t 710

. W oot en v. State , 203 Te nn. 473 , 481 , 314 S.W .2d 1, 4-5 (195 8). 3 Stephe nson, 878 S.W .2d a t 544

. 4 See S tate v . Mi ddl ebrooks , 840 S.W .2d 3 17, 3 27 ( Tenn. 1992 ); St ate v . W or kman, 5 667 S. W .2d 4 4, 48 ( Tenn.) , c ert. deni ed, 4 69 U .S. 873, 105 S. Ct . 226 , 83 L.Ed. 2d 155 (198 4). 5 are bi ndi ng upon thi s C our t i f the ev ide nce cont ain ed i n the record does not p re ponderate ag ain s tt h e s e fa ct s . T h i s s t a n d a rd h a s b e e n a p p l i e d t o a v a r i e ty o f c o n fe s s i o n i s sues 2 si nce 1958. The ap pel lat e c our ts hav e appl ied thi s s tandard w hen t he i ss ue pres ented 3 for rev iew

is w het her the accuse d inte llig ent ly and v olun tarily

g ave the s t ate me nt in q uest ion

. 4 In thi s cas e, Hob bs has faile d to est abl is h the ev ide nce adduc ed atthe suppress ion hea ring prep ond erate s against the trial court's fin ding of fac t s . First, the only evidence int ro duced at the h ear ing w as the t est imony of Off ic er

M ann. The off ic e r tes ti fied h e advised Hobb s of

his Mi rand a rig h ts, an d it w as clear to him Hobbs un dersto od th ese rig hts. T he trial court fo und Hobbs did und erstan d the Mirand a w arnings. Th e trial court obser v ed th is w as not t he firs t t ime Hob bs had bee n adv is ed of hi s r ig hts

. Off ic er M ann als o tes ti fied H obbs w as bitten "sev eral ti mes," he was "moanin g and g ro ani ng ," and he
w as in a "li ttl e pai n." This ev ide nce does not est abl is h that the w ounds had a suffici ent o r ov er bear ing effecton Hob bs' s capac ity to know ing ly and und ersta ndi ng ly w aiv e hi s r ig ht to remain si len t. 5 This i ss ue i s w it hout meri t.6 II.
Hob bs filed a mot ion i n l imi ne as ki ng the tr ial courtto "condu ct a hear ing outs ide the prese nce o f

the jury to determ ine the adm issibility of any character or oth er crime evidence the S ta te m a y seek

to int ro duce at t he tr ial of thi s c ause. " The t ri al cour t c onducted a hea ring prior to trial. Altho ugh this mo tion doe s n ot add ress t he a dm issibility of Hobbs's pr i o r c o n v i ct i o n s t o i mp e a c h h i m a s a w i t n e s s , d e fe n s e c o u n s e l a rg u e d t h e S t ate o f Tenness ee shoul d not be per mitt ed to use Hob bs’ s p ri or co nv icti ons to i mpeach him if he opt ed to testif

y . Th e record ref lects Hobb s had bee n con v icted o f the followi ng fe lonies: (a) thef t over $10 ,00 0 on July

2 2, 199 1. T he of

fense was co mm itted o n Febru ary 2 0 , 1 9 9 1 , in Ma d is o n Co u n ty; (b ) ag g ra v ated ro bber y on D ecember

10, 19 9 1

. T h e offense w as commi tted on A u gu s t2 1 , 1 9 9 1 in Ma d is o n Co u n ty; (c ) ag g ra v ated burg lar y on Dec ember 10, 1991. The offense w as comm it te d on Aug ust22, 1991, in Ma dis on C ounty ; and (d ) theft ov er

$1,0 00 on Dec ember 10, 1991. The offe n se w as commi tted on A u gu s t2 2 , 1 9 9 1 , in Ma d is o n Co u n ty. T he trial cou rt ruled the se felon ies could be use d to im pea ch H o b b s i f h e t e stif ied in suppo rtof his defense. The c our t found t he proba ti ve v alu e of thes e offenses far
ex ceede d any

preju dic ial ef

fect th at t hese conv icti ons mig ht ha v e on the t ri er of fact. Hob bs did not tes ti fy in suppo rtof his defense. Hob bs co n tends "the tr ial co urt er re d i n r uli ng that[hi s] pr ior felony co nv icti ons
w oul d be admis si ble for i mpeachmentpur poses ." He arg ues "the p ro visions of the Tenness ee R ule s of E v ide nce do not suppo rt the admis si on of t he conv icti ons under the circumsta nces of this case , and thatthe trial court's ruling deprived him of his ri ght to a fair tr ial i n v iol ati on of the Fi fth and Four teent h Amendments to the U nit ed St ates C onst it uti on and Ar ti cl e I, § 9 of the Tennes see Con sti tuti on." He predi cat es his a rgument on the si mil ar ity of thes e offenses to the o ffenses al leg ed i n the i ndi ctment

. The Stat e of Tenness ee may us e a p ri or

co nv ictio n t o i m peach an a cc used if the
conv icti on meets the cri ter ia est abl is hed by R ule 609 of the Tennes see Rul es of Ev ide nce. This r ule st ates i n par

t:See State v . Farme r, 841 S. W .2d 837 , 839 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p. 19 92). 6 7 (a ) GEN ERAL R UL E. For the pur pose of attac ki ng the credi bil ity

of a w it ness, ev ide nce that the w it ness has been conv icted o f a cr ime maybe a dmitted i f the following procedu re s a nd c ondi ti ons are s ati sfied: * * * (2 ) The c ri me mustbe p uni shabl e by deat h or i mpri sonment in excess of

one y ear un der the law und er wh ich the wi tne ss wa s co n vic t e d o r, if

n o tso p u n is h a b le , t h e cr im e m u s th a ve involv ed di shone sty

or fals e s tatement

. (3 ) If the w it ness to be impeach ed is the a cc used in a c ri minal prose cuti o n , the State mustg iv e the accuse d reaso nab le w ri tten noti ce of the i mpeachi ng co nv icti on before tr ial , and the court up on requestm u s tdete rmine thatthe con v iction's probati v e v alu e on credi bil ity outweig hs it s u nfair

prejudi ci al effe ct on t he s ubst anti v e i ss ues. The c our t may r ule on t he admis si bil ity

of suc h proof pri o r to t he tr ial but in any ev ent shall rule prior to t h e t e s timo ny of the accu sed. If th e cou rt makes a fina l deter minat ion thatsuch p ro of is admi ss ibl e for i mp e a c h me n tp u r p o s e s , t h e a c c u s e d n e e d no ta ct u a l l y t e s t i fy at t he tr ial to lat er

chall eng e the propr iety of the deter minat ion

. (b ) TIM E LI MI T. Ev ide nce of a conv icti on under thi s rul e i s n ot admis si ble i f a per iod of more than ten y ears h as ela p sed betw een t he dat e of rele ase from co nfinement and t he com me ncem entof

the a c t io n or prosecut ion; if the wi tne ss w as not c onfined t h e t e n- y ear per iod i s meas ured from the date of conv icti on rather than rele ase. . . .
Accordin g to this rule, the S tate o f T enn essee m ay use a p rior ad ult conviction to im pea ch th e te s ti mo ny

o f an a c c us ed i n a c r i mi na l pros ec ut i on i f ( a) th e c on v i cti on w as for a c r i me that is punish abl e bydeath or impr is onment in ex ces s o f one ( 1) y ear or a mi sdemeano r involv ing di shonesty

or a fals e s tatement , ( b) l ess than ten y ears h av e el apsed between the d ate t he ac cus ed was re le a se d f ro m confin ement an d the co mmencement of the prosec uti on, ( c) the Stat e of Tenness ee g av e reason able writ ten n oti ce of the par ti cul ar conv icti on or

conv icti ons iti ntends to use to i mpeach the a cc used pr ior to tr ial , and ( d) the tr ial co urt finds the probati v e v alu e of t he felony or mis demeanor on the is sue of credi bil ity outw eig hs it s u nfair

preju dic ial effect

. 6 In th is case, the f irst three requireme nts, (a) throu gh (c) , have bee n satisf ied. T hus, the o nly i ss ue w hic h thi s C our t mus t resol v e i s w hether the p ro b ati v e v alu e of the four felon ies outw eighed th eir unfa irp rejudicial ef fect du e to th e similarity betw een theseN. C ohen, D. Pai ne, a nd S. Shepp eard, Tennes see Law of Ev ide nce, § 60 9.9 a t 7 p. 28 8 ( 2nd ed. 1990) ; s ee F ar mer, 841 S.W .2d a t 839

. I t i s a w e l l
- e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e o f l a w t h a t q u e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e a d mi s si bil it yof 8 ev ide nce re st w it hin the sound disc re ti on of the tr ial co ur

t; and an appel lat e c our t w il l not int er fere w it h the ex erci se of t his dis creti on absen t a cl ear abuse appear ing on the face of the re cord. Stephe nson, 878 S.W .2d at 542; Stat e v . Van Tran, 864 S. W .2 d 46 5 , 4 77 (Te nn. 199 3), cert

. d enie d, __ __ U.S. ___

_, 11 4 S.Ct. 1 577 , 128 L.Ed .2d 220 (1994 ); Stat e v. H a rr is , 839 S.W .2d 5 4, 73 ( Tenn. 1992 ), ce rt . den ied , 507 U .S. 954, 113 S. Ct

. 136 8, 12 2 L.E d.2 d 74 6 (199 3); Sta te v . Bake r, 751 S. W .2d 154 , 163 (Ten n.. Crim. Ap p.), per. ap p. de nied (Ten n. 19 87). Se e S ta te v . M il ler , 737 S.W .2d 5 56, 5 60 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. ), per . app . den ied 9 (Te nn. 198 7). Stat e v . C ra nk, 721 S.W .2d 264, 266 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. ), per . app . den ied ( Tenn. 10 198 6). Stat e v . Tune, 872 S. W .2d 9 22, 9 27 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. ), per . app . den ied ( Tenn.

11 199 3)(burglary ); Mill er, 737 S .W .2d a t 560 (burglary ); Cran k, 721 S.W .2d at 266 (burgl ary ); Stat e v . Bow ers, 673 S.W .2d 887, 889 (Tenn. Cr im. App.) , per . app . den ied ( Tenn. 1984 ) (b urg lar y ); Sta te v . St afford, 67 0 S. W .2d 2 43, 2 45 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. ), per . app. deni ed ( Ten n. 1 98 4)( rob be r

y a nd b urg l ar

y ) ; S ta te v . C ol e, 6 65 S .W .2 d 40 7, 4 10 ( Ten n. C r i m. App. 1983) ( burg lar

y ); Pr ic e v . St ate, 589 S. W .2 d 9 2 9, 93 1- 32 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. ), ce rt

. deni ed ( Tenn. 1979 ) (b urg lar y and g ra nd l arceny ). Stat e v. Goad, 692 S.W .2d 3 2, 37 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. ), per . app . den ied ( Tenn. 12 1985) ( ro bber

y co nv icti on admi ss ible t o impeach acc used in a prosec uti on for ar med ro bber y ); Sta te v . N or ri s, 684 S.W .2d 6 50, 6 54 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1984) , per . app . den ied (c onti nued.. .) 8 conv icti ons and t he offenses a ll eg ed i n the i ndi ctment

. In de ter mini ng w hether

the probati v e v alu e of a felony us ed to i mpeach an ac cus ed outw eighs its unfair prejudicial ef fect on the issue s to be reso lv ed b y the jury, a tri al court shoul d ( a) "as ses s t he s imi lar ity between t he c ri me on t ri a l a n d t h e c ri me under ly ing the impeac hin g co nv icti on" and (b ) "anal yz e the rele v ance the i mpeachi ng co nv icti on has to the issue of

credibility ." W hen the an alysi s is app lied in this case, it is clear the trial court

7 did notabu se its discretion in ruling the four felon ies could be use d to im pea ch Hobb s if he opt ed to tes ti fy in suppo rtof his defense. 8 The mere fact a pr ior

co nv icti on of

the acc used is identi cal , or si mil ar in nat ure, t o the of fense for w hich th e accu sed is bein g tried doe s not, as a ma tter of law , bar the use of the c onv icti on to i mpeach the acc used as a w it ness . The ap pel lat e c our ts of this st ate 9 h a ve h e ld t h e o f

fe n s e s o f

ro b b e ry, b u rg la ry, a n d t h e f ta re " h ig h ly p ro b a t ive o f cre d ib il it y" 10 becau se thes e c ri me s inv olv e di shone sty

. Thus , t he appe ll ate c our ts hav e hel d tha t 11
conv icti ons for th ese feloni es maybe used to impeac h an acc used bei ng tr ied for o ne or more of these offenses abs ent c ircums tanc es w hic h req uire a d ifferent re sul t. 12(. ..c onti nued)

(Tenn. 1985) ( ar med robber y co nv icti on admi ss ibl e to impeac h ac cus ed i n a p ro sec uti on for ar med robber

y ); Sta te v . Col e, 665 S.W .2d 407, 410 (Tenn. Cr im. App. 1983) , per . app . deni ed (Tenn. 1984) (burg lar y conv icti ons admis si ble to impeac h accus ed in a prosec uti on for burg lar

y ); Sta te v

. Dav is , 649 S.W .2d 12, 13 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1982) , per . app . den ied (Tenn. 1983)( bank ro bber y co nv icti on admiss ibl e to impeac h accus ed in a prosec uti on for bank ro bber

y ); Sta te v . F lue ll en, 6 26 S.W .2d 299, 300 (Tenn. C ri m. App. ), per . app . den ied (Tenn. 1981)( ar med robber y co nv icti on admi ss ibl e to impeac h ac cus ed in a prosec uti on for arme d robb ery ). 607 S.W .2d 482 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p.), pe r. app. den ied (T enn . 198 0). 13 841 S.W .2d 837 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p.), pe r. app. den ied (T enn . 199 2). 14 841 S. W .2d a t 840 15 Tune, 872 S.W .2d a t 927

. 16 9 Ho b b s’s rel ia n ce on Lo n g v . S ta te an d St a te v. Fa rm e r i s m i s p l a ce d . In Lo n g, 1 3 14
a c onv icti on for sec ond deg re e murde r w as used to impeac h the a cc used in a prosec uti on for as saul t w it h i ntentto commi t murder i n the first deg re e. In F ar mer, a c o n vict io n for
ass aul t w i t h i n t e n t t o c o mm i t ma n s l a u g h t e r w a s u s e d t o i mp e a c h t h e a c c u sed in a prosec uti on for murde r in the s econd deg re e. In both cas es, thi s Cou rthel d the preju dic ial ef fect of introdu c ing the prior convictions outweighed the proba tiv e v alue of the con v ictions. A s t h i s C o u rts a i d i n F a r me r , t h e p ro b a t i v e v a l u e o f t h e s e c o n v i ct i o n s w a s " s l i g h tor nonex is tent. " I n thi s c ase, the conv icti ons are "par ti cul ar ly probati v e of credi bil ity ." 15 16 This i ss ue i s w it hout meri t.

III .

Lav ender

and Hob bs chal len g e the l eng th an d method of ser v ing the sent ences impos ed by

the tr ial court

. Lav ender contends the tr ial courtcommitte d er ro r of prej udi ci al dimens ion s b y

i mposi ng the max imum s entenc es with in the appropr iat e rang e and requiring the sen ten ces to be serve d c o n s e c utively . Hobbs con ten ds tha t the trial court commi tted preju dic ial er ro r by i mposi ng the max imum s entenc es for robber y and req uir ing h im t o se rve t h e se n t e n c e s co n s e c u t ive ly.

A.T enn . Code Ann. § 40-35 -401 (d). 17 Stat e v . As hby , 823 S.W .2d 1 66, 1 69 ( Tenn. 1991 ). 18 Stat e v . Bu tl er , 900 S.W .2d 305, 311 (Tenn. Cr im. App. 1994) ; Stat e v . Smi th, 891 19 S.W .2d 922 , 929 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p.), p e r. app . den ied (T enn . 199 4); State v . Bon este l, 871 S. W .2d 1 63, 1 66 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1993)

. See Tenn. C o d e A n n . §§ 40- 35- 103 and - 210; Sta te v . Sc ott, 735 S.W .2d 8 25, 20 829 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p.), pe r. app. den ied (T enn . 198 7). Senten ci ng C ommis si on C omments to Tenn. C ode An n. § 40- 35- 401; Ashby , 823 21 S.W .2d a t 169 ; Butl er , 900 S.W .2d a t 311

. 10 W hen an accuse d challen ges th e length and m ann er o f se rv ice of

a sente nce, it is the d uty of thi s C our

t to conducta de nov o rev iew on the rec ord w it h a pres umpti on th at "th e de term inatio ns ma de by the co urt f rom w hich the a ppe al is ta ken are correct." This 17 presu mp tion is "co nditio ned upo n the af f irmative showi ng in the record th at th e trial court
cons ide re d the se nten cing pr inc ipl es and al l re lev ant fact s a nd c ircums tanc es. " The 18 presu mp tion d oes n ot ap ply to th e legal conclusion s reache d by the tria l c o u rt in sent encin g the accuse d or to the dete rmina tions m ade byth e t ri a l c o urt w hich are predi cat ed upon unc ontrov erted fact s. H owev er , t his C our t i s req uired to g i v e g re at weig ht 19 to th e trial court's det ermin ation of controverted facts as th e trial court's det ermin ation is based upon the w it ness es' demeanor , app earance, and v ocal i nflect ion

. In c on d u ct i n g a d e n o v o re v i e w o f a s e n t e n c e , t h i s C o u rt mu s t c o n s i d e r (a ) any ev ide nce re cei v ed at the tr ial and/or sent enci ng hear ing , ( b) the present ence re por t, (c ) the principles of

sente ncing, (d) th e argume nts of co unse l relat iv e to sen ten cing alternatives, (e ) th e na tu re an d ch a ra ct e ris ti cs of th e o f fe n se , (f ) a n y m it iga ti n g o r e n h a n cin g fa ct o rs, (g) any st atements m ade bythe acc used in his ow n behalf, and (h ) the acc used' s p otent ial or lac k o f potenti al for rehabi li tati on or treatment. 20 The par ty ch all eng ing the sent ences i mposed by the tr ial co urt has the burden of esta blishing thatthe sen ten ces imp osed bythe trial court were erroneou s. 21T enn . Code Ann. § 40-35 -114 (1). 22 T enn . Code Ann. § 40-35 -114 (5). 23 T enn . Code Ann. § 40-35 -114 (10). 24 T enn . Code Ann. § 40-35 -114 (16). 25 T enn . Code Ann. § 40-35 -113 (6). 26 11 B.

The tr ial co urt found t he ev ide n ce s uppor ted four enhanc ement fact ors, and t he
cour t us ed th ese factor s to e n hance the appel lan ts’ se ntenc es w it hin the appropr iat e ra ng e. The e nhanc ement fact ors u sed to i ncrease thes e s entenc es w ere: (a ) they had a prev iou s h is tor

y of c ri minal conv icti ons and c ri minal behav ior , ( b) they treated or

al lowed 22 the v icti m to b e treated w it h ex cept ion al cru elty dur ing the commi ss ion of the o ffense, 23 (c ) they had no hes it ati on abou t c ommitt ing a c ri me w hen the ri sk to human l ife w as hig h, 24 and (d) they com mitt ed the crim e und er circum stan ces w here the po ten tial for bod ily injury to a v icti m w as g re at. The t ri al cour t found t here w ere n o m it iga ti ng ci rc umstan ces 25 suppo rt ed by

the re cord. Lav end e r a n d Hobbs cont end t he tr ial co urt s houl d nothav e us ed enha ncement factors ( 5) , ( 10) , and ( 16) to enhanc e thei r re specti v e sent ences . Lav ender al so cont ends the tr ial cour

t shoul d hav e appl ied miti g ati ng factor (6 ) becau se of hi s ag e at t he ti me he commi tted the c ri mes i n q uest ion

. 26 T he reco rd ref lects tha t Lavend er w as convicted of tw o of fense s before the date in q u e s t i o n . H e w a s c o n v i ct e d o f s e l l i n g a c o n t ro l l e d s u b s t a n c e a n d p o s s e s s i o n o f a
c o n t ro l l e d s u b s t a n c e . Ho b b s h a d b e e n co n vic t e d o f a tle a s tfo u r fe lo n ie s a n d two mis demeanors. Thus, the tr ial courtproper ly us ed enha ncementfactor ( 1) to enhanc e the appel lan ts' se ntenc es. Lavend er and Hobbs m ake a strong arg um ent tha t enh ance me nt facto rs ( 5), (10), and ( 16) w ere er ro neous ly appl ied by the tr ial cour t to en hance thei r sent ences w it hin the appropr iat e rang e. Theytak e the pos it ion factors ( 10) and (1 6) sh oul d notbe appl ied w hen
an a cc u sed is co nv icted o f robber y . W hil e thi s C our

t has hel d on numerous occ asi ons thes e factors s houl d notbe u sed to en hance a s entenc e i n a robber y ca se, thi s i s n ot anT enn . Code Ann. § 40-35 -114 (8). 27 T enn . Code Ann. § 40-35 -113 (6). 28 12 ironcl ad r ule w hic h appl ies i n ev er y robber y ca se. To t he c ontrar y , w hether

an enhanc ement fact or

sh oul d be used to enhanc e a s entenc e depen ds on th e el ements of th e of fe n se an d th e evid e n ce ad d u ce d atth e tri a l a n d se n te n cin g he a rin g. In th is case, the v ictims were senior citiz ens. Mr. New bill was retired. The record esta blishes Mr. New bill suf fered f rom h eart dise ase. It w as serious enou gh for Mr. New bill to tak e medic ati on to av oid hav ing a hear t attac k. Due to the shoc k of be ing awak ened dur ing the nig ht, the stress of be ing tol d he w oul d be shoti f he di d notco operate, and l iv ing throug h thi s orde al for approx imat ely an hour , M r. N ew bil l sta rt ed hav ing ch estpai ns and shor tnes s of breath, cl ass ic si g ns of an ensui ng hear t attac k. Mr

. New bill to ld the appel lan ts he w as a hear t pat ien t, he was sufferin g the sy mptoms of a hear t attac k, and he was g oin g to be s ic k. The appel lan ts w oul d notperm it hi m to g et ou t of bed. Con seq uentl y , he di d not hav e acces s to his medic ati on. Mr . N ew bil l took a ni trog ly cer ine tabl et t o al lev iat e the pai n and av oid an e nsui ng hear t attac k a fter t he appe ll ants ex it ed th e re si dence

. W hil e i t i s t ru e t h e a p p ell ants di d notkn ow w ho resi ded i n the resi dence or the condi ti on of thei r heal th, thi s fact nei ther ex cus es nor miti g ates the effectthei r condu ct had upon t he N ew bil ls . W hen they entered the New bil l re si dence , t hey as sumed the r is k t hat
a v ictim ma y

b e advance d in age, the victim ma y h ave a serious, life-threa ten ing i llness, and t hei r co n ductco uld ag g ra v ate t hismedi cal co ndi ti on and caus e l ife- threateni ng ci rc umstan ces . Base d upon the fact s o f this ca se , th e tr ial co urt proper ly appl ied enhanc ement factors ( 5) , ( 10) , and (1 6)

. Nei ther factor cons ti tutes an el ement of ei ther robber y or theft. T he trial cou rt should h a ve ap plied e nha ncem entfacto r ( 8) to increase Hobbs's sent ences w it hin the appropr iat e rang e. The present ence re por t est abl is hes that Hob bs 27
w as g ra n t e d p ro b a t i o n i n M a d i s o n C o u n ty . Th i s p ro b a t i o n w a s re v o k e d w h e n he w as arrested for and convicted of sev eral new cr ime s. T h e tri a l co u rtpro p e rly reje ct e d m it iga ti n g fa ct o r (6 ). La ven d e r was 2 7 yea rs o f age 28 whe n he w a s se n te n ce d . He ha s wo rke d ap p ro xim a te ly fo u r m o n th s si n ce he le f t h ighT enn . Code Ann. § 40-35 -115 (b)(2). 29 T enn . Code Ann. § 40-35 -115 (b)(4). 30 Tenn. C ode An n. § 40- 35- 115. 31 Sta te v. W ilkerson, 90 5 S.W .2d 933 , 939 (Ten n. 19 95). 32 W il kerson, 905 S.W .2d a t 939

. 33 Sta te v. Barker, 642 S. W .2d 735 , 739 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p. 19 82). 34 T enn . Code Ann. § 40-35 -115 (b)(2). 35 13 sc hool i n the el ev enth g ra de. The re cord is dev oid of ev ide nce that Lav ender's y outh had any effecton h iscr imi nal condu ct. To the cont ra ry , he w as conv icted of tw o dr ug offenses before c ommitt ing the cr imes i n q uest ion

. This i ss ue i s w it hout meri t.

C.

T h e t ri a l c o u rto rd e re d t h a tt h e app ellant s ' se n t e n c e s a re t o b e se rve d co n s e c u t ive ly. It found Hob bs to be "an offender w hose cr imi nal act iv ity is extens iv e," and both Lav ender 29 and H obbs to be "dang e ro us offender [s] w hose behav ior i ndi cat es li ttl e or

no reg ard for hum an life, an d no hesita tion a bou t com mitt ing a cr ime in w hich th e risk to hum a n life is h ig h

. " T h e a p p e ll a n t s co n t e n d t h e se n t e n c e s sh o u ld b e se rve d co n c u rre n t ly.

30 An ac cus ed may

be requi re d to ser

v e mul ti ple se ntenc es cons ecut iv ely i f (a) the
acc used meets the c ri ter ia for c onsec uti v e s entenc ing se t fort h i n the appli cabl e s tatut e, 31 (b ) the e ffe ct ive se ntenc e i mposed re asona bly rela tes to the s ev er ity of the c ri mes commi tted by

the acc used, and (c ) an extended per iod of inc arcerati on i s n eces sar y to 32 protect t he publ icfrom t he ac cus ed's future c ri minal conduct

. The S tate of Tennessee 33 h a s t h e b u rd e n o f

e s t a b li s h in g t h e s e fa ct o rs b e fo re a n a c c u s e d c a n b e re qu ir e d t o se rve m u lt ip le se n t e n c e s co n s e c u t ive ly. 34 Hob bs q ual ifies for c onsec uti v e s entenc ing bec ause his "re cord of cr imi nal acti v ity is extens iv e." Be tw een Febr uar y 1, 1991 and Dec ember 10, 1 991, he was conv icted o f 35
a ggra va t e d ro b b e ry, a ggra va t e d b u rg la ry, t h e f to f p ro p e rt y in e xc e s s o f $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 , two c o u n t s , e v a d i n g a r re s t , a s s a u l t , re s i s t i n g a r re s t , a n d i mp e rs o n a t i o n . H e w a s req uired toSee Stat e v . Frankl in, 919 S.W .2d 3 62, 3 66 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1995) , per . app . 36 deni ed ( Tenn. 1996 ); St ate v . M arshal l, 888 S.W .2d 7 86, 7 88 ( Tenn. C ri m. App.) , per . app . deni ed ( Tenn. 1994 ); St ate v . Meek s, 867 S.W .2d 3 61, 3 77 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1993) , c ert. d e n ie d , ____ U .S. ____, 114 S. Ct . 120 0, 12 7 L.E d.2d 548 ( 1994) ; St ate v . D av is , 825 S.W .2d 109 , 113 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p. 19 91), pe r. app. den ied (T enn . 199 2). T enn . Code Ann. § 40-35 -115 (b)(4). 37 14 ser v e the se ntenc es for the felony conv icti ons in the Dep artment of C or re cti on. Tw o of the sent ences w ere s er

v ed c onsec uti v ely

. The offenses in q uest ion occ ur re d on Janua ry 3, 1994. Iti s o bv iou s t hat H obbs commi tted the p re sentoffenses s h o rt ly after he was re lea sed from the Dep artment of Cor re cti on. In hi s b rie f , Hobbs co ntends hi s p ri or co nv icti ons canno t be the b asi s o f an enhanc ed sent ence and a cons ecut iv e sent ence. This arg ument ig nores the rep o rt ed deci si ons w hic h hol d the co ntrar y . This Cou rthas hel d on numerous occ asi ons the p ri or conv icti ons of an acc used can be used to est abl is h the appropr iat e ra ng e, or enhanc e a sent ence w ithin th e ap prop riate range, an d justif y conse cutive sente nces. 36 Both appel lan ts q ual ify

for c onsec uti v e s entenc ing b e c a u s e t h e i r " b e h a v i o r

i ndi cat es [t ha t th ey h ad ] l i tt l e or

n o reg ard for

h um an l i fe, a nd n o he s i ta ti on a bo utc om mi tt i ng a c r i me in w hic h the ris k to human li fe is hig h." The offense of ro bber y is a "cri me i n w hic h the 37 risk to hum an li fe is high." In this case, the cond uct of the app ellant s tow ards Mr. New bill est abl is hed t hey

had absol utel y

"no reg ard for human l ife.” M r . N ew bi l l s uffered from h ea r t di s ea s e. Th e s ho c kof be i ng aw ak en ed i n hi s h om e and t h e f e a r ins ti ll ed i n hi m by the appel lan ts caus ed hi m to s uffer ch estpai ns and shortn ess o f

b re a th. T hese are com mo n sy mp tom s of an ap proa ching or actua l heart attac k. M r. N ew bil l ex pla ine d to one of the appe lla n ts h e had a hear t c ondi ti on, h e w as suf fering from these sy mp tom s, and he w as abo ut to beco me sick. T he a ppe llants w ould
n o tp e rm itMr. New bill to get out of his bed. As a result, he did not ha v e acce ss to his medic ati on. Howev er , he w as g iv en a g las s o f w ater

. He tes ti fied he w as in "bad s hape." Jus t as so on as the appel lan ts ex it ed th e resi dence , M r. N ew bil l took a ni trog ly cer ine tabl et to al lev iate the pai n and to avoid hav ing a he art attac k. In shor t, the a ppel lan ts did not
care i f Mr . N ew bil l li v ed or di ed. The ev ide nce strong ly

su g g est s that the a ppel lan ts w ere prow li ng the nei g hbor hood loo ki ng for a resi dence from w hic h to ste al proper ty and a v ehi cl e. Mr . W il son, w ho l iv edW il kerson, 905 S.W .2d a t 939

. 38 W il kerson, 905 S.W .2d a t 939

. 39 15 across the street from the New bil ls , heard noi ses . He tur ned on the outs ide floodl ig hts and
saw two bl ack

men r unni ng aw ay . Theyran across the street and disap peared in a dit ch. Mo st peopl e woul d be afrai d to eng ag e i n oth er cr imi nal acti v ity

for fear the pol ic e may

be summoned and find them in the nei g hbor hood. Not the appel lan ts. They en te re d the Ne wb il ls ’ re s id e n c e a n d t h e re m a in d e r o f t h e st o ry i s h is t o ry. W hat occurred af

ter the police of

f icers initiate d the ir pursu it of Mr. New bill' s truck also est ablishe s this groun d for conse cutive sente ncing. W hen t he o f f icers initiated their pursu it, the app ellant s reduce d the spee d of the truck and ex ited w hile the truck w as still
mo v ing. The truck struck a pole

. T he truck could have struck som eon e prep aring to w alk
across the street, someone en route to wor k, or it coul d hav e str uck

a re si dence and ki ll ed the s lee pin g oc cupan ts. T h e da m a ge t o t h e ve h icl e i n d ica te s th e t ru ckw a s st ill tra veli n g ata re la ti vely hi gh
ra te of s p e e d

. The i mpact compl etel y demol is hed t he tr uck

. The in surance company found the t ru ck

w as bey ond repai r, and it pai d Mr

. New bil l $9,600, the fair mar ketv alu e of his 1991 model tr uck

. T he len gthy

sente nces im pose d by the trial court w ere ap prop riate. T hese sent ence s " reaso nab ly

rela te to the se v erityof

the of fense s” comm itted bythe ap pellan ts. 38 Al so, thes e s entenc es are "necess ar y to protect the publ icag ain st further cr imi nal co nduct " at t he hand s o f the appel lan ts. Bo th of the appel lan ts hav e pri o r criminal records, and 39 the y have been required to serve j a il o r prison sen ten ces for the p ast tran sgression s. Obv iou sl y , the s hor

ter se ntenc es did not deter the appel lan ts from co mmitt ing the cr imes in thi s c ase.

_________ __________

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______ J OE B . J ON ES, PR ESID IN G J UD GE
CONCUR:16

_________

_________

_________

_________

__ J OH N H. PEA

Y , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

_________

__ DA VID G. H AY ES, JU DG E