### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE Jul y 26, 200 5 S es sio n

ST A TE OF TE N N ES SE E v

. TH OM A S A LL EN F R A N KS , II

Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for K nox Coun ty No. 76815 Mar y Beth Leibow itz, Judge

No. E2005-00292-CC A-R3- CD - F iled Augu st 26, 2005

Th e de fe nd a nt, Th oma s Alle n Fra nk s, I I , w a s c on vic te d o f a g g ra vate d b ur g lary , a g g ra vate d a ssa ult
, evading arr est, and resisting arrest. The trial court im posed consecutive sentences of ten y ear s for
ag g ravated burg lary

and six y ear s for a g g ravated assault. The re w ere concur rent sente nces of

eleve n months and tw e n ty

- nine day s eac h for misdemea nor eva ding a rre st and resisting arr est. The e ffe ctive
sentenc e is, there fore , six teen y ear s. I n this appeal a s of rig ht, the single issue prese nted for r eview is whether the trial court e rre d by declining to gr ant a c ontinuance or other re lief whe n the state filed notice of its intent to use impeac hing c onvictions just before t h e b eginning of the trial. The judgme nts are a ffirme d.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nts of the Trial Court Affi rm ed

G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined.

K e l l y S

. J o h n s o n , K n o x v i l l e , T e n n e s s e e , f o r t h e ap p e l l a n t , T h o m a s A l l e n F r a n k s , II.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; Da vidE. Coe ne n, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; and Ke vin Allen, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

On Oc tob e r 2 3, 20 02 , th e vic tim , Ph ill ip D a vidCom e r, wa s dri ven by a frie nd , D a vid M ap l es , t o t h e v i ct i m 's re s i d en ce i n Kn o x v i l l e, ac co m p an i ed b y t h e d ef en d an t , an d t h e d ef

en d an t 's
g irlfriend, A nnette McMur ray . Acc ording to the victim, the defe ndant, who had be en drinking , and his girlf riend ha d enter ed his ca

r uninvited and we re " fig hting like c ats and dog s" at the time.

At tr ia l, the vic tim te sti fi e d that wh e n he arrive d a t his re sid e nc e , the de fe nd a nt in it ial ly stay ed outside. Maples a nd Ms. Mc Murra y wer e sitti ng on a couch when the def endant e ntere d the fr on t do or a ndbe g a n to arg ue wi th Ms. Mc Mu rr a y

. Th e vic tim te sti fi e d that the de fe nd a nt andMs. McMurray went outside, at which point the vic tim then locked and c hained the door in an attempt-2-

to k e e p th e m out of his ho us e

. He te sti fi e d th a t he wa s a fr a id o f the m be c a us e " [t]he y we re pr e tty wild." The victim reca lled that shortly there afte r, the de fenda nt returne d and kicke d in the door, knocking it off its hinge s and off the bolt lock, while looking f or Ms. McMu rr ay

. W hen the de fe nd a nt thr e a te ne d th e vic tim , th e a lte rc a tio n e sc a la te d. Th e vic tim te sti fi e d a s f

oll ow s:

I wa s p re tty

ma d a ndsc are d, a ndI

ho lle re d a t hi m. I

sa id, " [A]r e y ou g oin [g ] to c ome back up he re a nd fix this door? " A nd he stopped rig ht in his t ra ck s. And . . . I shouldn't ha ve said that be cause I provoked him, I g uess. And he turned around . . . [and] say s, "Y eah, I ' m gonna fix it; I ' m g onna fix it a lrig ht." And he starts walkin' back u p t o t h e h o u s e. I had no door the n. So it was 911 . . . because I knew somethin' w as g oin' to ha ppen . . . . He was g oing to f ix me so . . . I

was a fra id.

The victim explained that he g rabbe d an aluminum baseba ll b at as t he def endant
t h re at en i n gl y

ap p ro ac h ed h i mi n s i d e t h e h o u s e a n d "h i th i m wi t h ev er y t h i n g [ h e] h ad " b u t"i td i d n 't phase him." I n response , the defe ndant drag g ed the victim into the y ard, striking him over and over with his fists and the bat for a s long a s ten minutes until he was finally stopped by the arrival of the police. A n e ig hb or , Ro na ld E ug e ne Sc a te s, te sti fi e d th a t he sa w the de fe nd a nt s tr ike the vic tim wi th the ba t. H e state d th a t a ft e r the po lic e arrive d, he pla c e d a pillo w und e r the vic tim ' s h e a d " be c a us e he wa s b le e din g pr of

us e ly ou t of the sid e of

his he a d. " Sc a te s d e sc ri be d th e vic tim ' s h e a d a s " fu ll of blood." He r eca lled that one of his ey es wa s "poppe d out" a nd that he had a "big knot."

Offic er D onnie Huskey

of the Knoxvill e P o l i ce D epartment testified that he saw the defe ndant standing over the victim with a baseba ll bat when he a rrived at the re sidence . He r eca lled that the def

endant tossed the bat away and then f

led on foot. The de fenda nt ran throug h sever al
y ards be fore hiding in a storag e shed, wher e an office r found him. After ref using to c omply

with the office r' s demands, the de fenda nt lunge d t o wa rd Officer Huskey . Offic er H uskey and the other of fi c e r " too k h im t o th e g ro un d, " bu t the de fe nd a nt co nti nu e d to jer k, pu ll, a nd kic k in an atte mpt to

a v o i d t h e arr e s t

. T h e d e f

e n d a n tw a s s u b d u e d a n d t ak e n i n t o c u s t o d y.

Six months prior to trial, counsel for the def ense fi l ed a m o tion seeking notice of a ny impeaching evi d en ce p ursuant to Tenne ssee Rule of E vidence 609(a) (3). The state did not file a

re sp on se to the mot ion p ri or to th e da te of the tr ia l. O n N ov e mbe r 9 , 2 00 4, the da te of the tr ia l, defe nse counse l asked the tria l court t o prohibit the s tate from questioning the defe ndant about any prior co n v i ct ions should he choose to exercise his right to testify . At that point, the state asked permission to file notice of the defe ndant' s criminal reco rd
, whi ch included nine teen prior convictions, so as to be a

ble to utiliz e at lea st some of the convic tions in any cross-e x amination of the def endant. The assistant district attorney , who claimed that the failur e t o p ro v i d e noti ce of impeachme nt was an oversig ht, expl ained that the sta te had f iled such a notice in a sepa rate pending

c ri min a l c ha

rg e a g a ins t th e de fe nd a nt, c a se nu mbe r 7 62 25 in the Kn ox Cou nt y Cr imi na l Co urt, wher ein the def

endant a nd his same counse l had re ceive d the identical information about the prior

rec ord.-3-

Whil e c on te nd ing that kn ow ing wh a t th e state int e nd e d to us e a s e vid e nc e wa s e sse nti a l to his pr e pa ratio ns in this pa

rt ic ula r c a se , d e fe ns e c ou ns e l a sk e d the tr ia l cou rt fo r a lte rn a tiv e sa nc tio ns : (1) e ither g rant a continuance or (2) exclude the i mpeac hing evidence if the def endant c hose to testify in his own def

ense. A fter c onsiderable arg ument and some leg al re sear ch, the tria l court denie d the de fe ns e mot ion fo r r e lie f b ut p e rm itt e d th e state to imp e a c h on on ly fo ur of the nin e te e n c on vic tio ns : thr e e fe lon ie s a nda

mis de me a no r the ft

.

I n this appeal, the de fenda nt arg ues that the notice by the state wa s unrea sonably late and the trial court erre d by failing to g rant a continuance or preclude use of t he convictions for impeac hment
pu rp os e s. Th e e ff

e c t of the ru lin g , the de fe nd a nt arg ue s, wa s to de ny him the ri g ht t o te sti fy

in h is own def ense.

Te nn e sse e Rul e of

Ev ide nc e 60 9 p ro vid e s, in p e rt ine nt p art , a s f oll ow s:

I f the witness to be impea ched is the a ccuse d in a criminal prosecution, the [s] tate must g ive the ac cused r easona ble written noti ce of the impeac hing c onviction befor e trial, a nd the court upon reque st must determine that the convic tion's probative

va lue on c re dib ili ty ou tw e ig hs its un fair pr e jud ic ia l e ff

e c t on the su bs ta nti ve iss ue s. The court may rule on the admissibili ty of such proof prior to the t ri al b u t i n any event sha ll rule on the admiss i b i l i t y o f such proof prior to the testimony

of the

acc used. I f t he court makes a f inal determination that such proof is admissible for impeachme nt purposes, t h e accuse d need not a ctually testify at the trial to later challeng e the pr opriety

of the de termination. Te nn . R. Ev id. 60 9( a )( 3) . T his ru le pe rm its the state to use the prior c on vic tio ns of

a de fe nd a nt t o

c ha lle ng e his c re dib ili ty

on the fo llo wi ng c on dit ion s:

(1 ) P ri or c on vic tio n mu st b e pu nis ha ble by de a th or imp ri so nme nt fo r ove r one y e ar o r mus t inv olv e a c ri me of dis ho ne sty

or fa lse state me nt; (2) L ess than ten y ear s must have elapse d betwee n the def endant' s relea se fr om confineme nt for the prior offe nse and the commence ment of the prose cution; (3) The state must give rea sonable pre -trial written notice of the impea ching conviction; (4 ) Th e tr ial c ou rt

mus t f indthat th e imp e a c hin g c on vic tio ns pr ob a tiv e va lue ou tw e ig h it s unfair pr ejudicial ef

fec t on the substantive issues. State v. Waller, 118 S.W .3d 368, 370-71 (Te nn. 2003); see T enn. R. Evid. 609(a) (2), ( 3), and ( b).

Th e a dmi ssi bil ity

of pr ior c on vic tio ns to i mpe a c h a te sti fy ing de fe nd a nt i s a

ma tte r w ith in the tria l c o u r t' s d is c r e ti o n a n d w il l n o t b e r e v e r s e d o n ap p e a l a b s e n t an ab u s e o f

th a t d is c r e ti o n. Waller, 118 S.W .3d at 371. " The a buse of discr etion standard c ontemplates that bef ore r ever sal the

re c or d mu st s h o w t h a t a j u d g e ' ap p l i e d a n i n c o rr e c t l e g a l s t a n d ar d
, o r r e a c h e d a d e c i s i o n w h i c h is
ag ainst logic or re asoning that cause d an injustice to t h e p ar t y co mplaining.' " State v. Coley , 32 S.W .3d 831, 833 (Tenn. 2000) (quoting State v. Shirley , 6 S.W .3d 243, 247 (Tenn. 1999) ).-4-

I n State v. Ba

rnar d, this court confirme d that the state had a duty to pr ovide written notice of i ts i n te n ti o n to u s e a

p r io r c o n v ic ti o n to imp e a c h th e d e f e n d a n t' s c r e d ib il it y

a t t r ia l. St a te v. Ba rnar d, 899 S.W .2d 617, 622 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) . I n that case , the state ha d provided notice
to the de fe ns e of the de fe nd a nt' s pri or c ri min a l re c or d but ha d fa ile d to expr e ss its int e nti on to u se the conviction for

impeachme nt purposes. The state was permitted to cross-e x amine the de fenda nt on his prior criminal re cord. This court, on appea l, determined that the t rial court erre d by permitting the state to use the c onvictions for impeac hment p u rp o s es b ec ause the notice wa s untimelybut ultimately

conclude d t h at the er

ror wa s harmless. I d. Further, this court c oncluded that the trial

c ou rt ha d a lso e rr e d b y

de te rm ini ng that th e c on vic tion's pro bativ e va lue wa s o utw e ig he d b y its unfair pr ejudicial ef

fec t on the substantive issues because of the similarity of t h e ch ar ge and the
nature of the prior

conviction but ruled that the e rror was ha rmless bec ause of

the streng th of the evidenc e. I d. (citing State v. Fa rmer, 841 S.W.2d 837, 839 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992))

.

Even if the defe ndant i s unsucce ssful in his challeng e to the admission of a prior conviction, he is not r equire d to e stablish that he did not testify beca use of the a dverse ruling in order to pr esent the iss ue on app e a l. Sta te v. Ga lmo re , 9 94 S.W. 2d12 0, 12 3 ( Te nn . 1 99 9) . In G a lmo re , o ur su pr e me

c ou rt c on c lud e d th a t th e de fe nd a nt i s n ot c omp e lle d to make a n o ff e r o f p ro of

sh ow ing wh a t hi s testimonymight have been, but is not prec luded from doing so:

Depe nding upon the fac ts and circ umstances of a case, an offe r of proof may be the only way to demonstrate pr ejudice. H oweve r, neither an offe r of proof nor a showing that th e de fe nd a nt w ou ld h a ve te sti fi e d b ut f or the tr ia l c ou rt ' s ruli ng is requi re d in order to preserve for revie w a cla im of an er roneous r uling on a dmission of a prior

c on vic tio n f

or imp e a c hme nt p ur

po se s. I d. at 125. Our supr eme c ourt found er ror b y t he admission of an unna med fe lony conviction for impeachme nt purposes but determi n e d th at t h eer r o r w a s h armless unde r the pa rticular c ircumstance s of the c ase. I d. The standa rd utiliz ed wa s "w hethe r t h e er ror in this case aff irmatively

or more pr ob ably than n ot a ff

e c te d th e jud g me nt t o th e de fe nd a nt' s p re jud ic e ." I d. ; se e Te nn . R. Cr im. P. 52(a) ; Tenn. R. App. P. 36(b).

Whil e the term "r eas o n able notice" ha s not been qua ntified in day s or wee ks, it is our

a sse ssm e nt tha t a

fi lin g of no tic e by the state on the mornin g of the tr ia l is un tim e ly . T he pu rp os e of re qu ir ing the state to p ro vid e no tic e is t wo -f old : to a dv ise the de fend ant a ndhis c ou ns e l of his prior criminal recor d and to notify the def endant a nd his counsel of the state ' s intention to use one

or mor e of tho se c on vic tio ns fo r imp e a c hme nt pur po se s. I f the state pe rf

orms i ts d uty , th e de fe ns e should ha ve a sufficie nt amount of time to prese nt any challeng e to the admissibilityof a c onviction so as to avoid delay

in the trial.

I n th e app lic a tio n o f this ru le , e ve ry c a se must be c on sid e re d o n it s o wn fa c ts. Th e state fa ile d to me e t it s o bli g a tio n in thi s in sta nc e a nd the tr ia l c ou rt wa s c a lle d u po n to make a dif fi c ult choice as to whethe r to g rant a co ntinuance, pr ohibit the use of the convic tions to i mpeac h the defe ndant, or proc eed to tria l and allow use of the convictions. I n our view, any err or as a result of choosing the latter alternative was harmless. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(a); Te nn. R. App. P. 36(b).-5-

I nitially , the proof of g uilt wa s substantial as to eac h of the four crimes. In addition, the victim and two ey ewitnesses te stified to the brutality of t he assault. Further, the defe ndant ac knowledg ed that he ha d r e c e ive d n oti c e fr om the state of his prior c ri min a l re c or d we ll in a dv a nc e of the tr ia l in c a se number 76225, a case in w hich defe nse counsel in this case also repr esente d the defe ndant. During
arg ument on the motion, the defe nse acknow ledg ed having had information about the extent of the de fe nd a nt' s p ri or

c ri min al reco rd. F ina lly , th e de fe nd a nt c ho se no t to make a pr of fe r o f h is contemplated te stimonyat the hea ring on the motion for a new trial. Whil e a pr offe r, as indicated, is not a prer equisite for relief, it may have been the only way in this inst ance to have de monstrated that th e un tim e ly no tic e by the state pr e jud ic e d th e tria l. In o ur

vie w, the de fe nd a nt h a s b e e n u na ble to show that the state' s failure to provide re asonable notice in this case de nied him a fa ir trial.

Acc ording ly , the judg ments are aff irmed.



### ___________________________________ GARY R. W ADE, PRESIDING JUDGE