# FILED July 25, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRI MINAL APPEA LS OF TENNESSEE ATJA CKSON MAY SES SION, 1997

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9605-CC-00150 ) Appell ee, ) ) McNAIRY COUNTY ) V. ) ) HON. JON KERRY BLA CKWOOD, ED DIE M ILL ER , ) JUDGE ) Ap pella nt. ) (RECKLESS HOMICI DE)

FOR THE APP ELLA NT : FOR THE APPELLEE : GAR Y F. AN TR ICAN JOHN KNOX WALKUP Dist ri ct Publ ic Def ender Attor ney General & Reporter 118 East Mark et St reet P.O. Box 700 DEBORAH A. TULLI S Somervil le, TN 38068 Assist ant Attor ney General 425 Fifth Avenue North 2nd Floor , Cordel l Hul l Bui ldi ng Nashvil le, TN 37243 ELI ZA BETH T. RI CE Dist ri ct Attor ney General ED NEAL McDANIEL Assist ant Di str ictAtto rney Gener al 300 Industrial Pa rk Drive P.O. Box 473 Selmer, TN 38375
OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFI RMED THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUD GE-2- 

# OPINION

Defendantwas charged wi th t he off ense of s econd degree murder ofJeffW estbrooks i n an indi ctment retur ned by t he McN airy Cou nty gran d jury. He was convi cted of t he less er o ffen se of re ckle ss h om icide follo win g a jury tr ial. The tr ial courtsentenced Defendantto serve f orty (40) months i n the Tennessee Depa rtmentof C orre ctio n a s a R an ge I sta nd ard offe nd er. In this a pp ea l, Defendantchall enge s the suffi ciencyof t he evi dence to s ustai n the conv ict ion, and argues t hat t he tr ial courterred in t he lengt h and mann er ofserv ice ofthe sen tenc e. W e affirm the jud gm ent o f the trial c ourt.

I. SUFFI CIE NCY OF THE EVI DENCE

W hen an accused chall en ges the s uff ici ency ofthe conv ict ing evi dence, the standard is whether, after r eviewing t he evidence in t he lightmost favo rab le to the pros ecu ti on, any ra ti onal t ri er offactcould h ave f ound the essenti al elements oft he cr i me beyo nd a reas ona ble d oub t. Ja cks on v. Vir gin ia , 443 U.S. 3 07, 31 9 (197 9). Questions concerning t he credibil ityof the wi tnesses, the weightand val ue to be gi ven the ev idence, as well as all fact ual i ssues rai sed by the e viden ce, a re res olved by the trier of fac t, not this cou rt. State v. Pappas , 754 S.W .2d 620, 623 ( Te nn. C rim. A pp.), perm . to appeal denied , id . ( Tenn. 198 7). Nor may thi s courtrewei gh or r ee valua te the evide nce . State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W .2d 8 32, 8 35 (T enn . 197 8).-3- A jury verdictapproved b y th e trial ju dg e a ccr ed its th e S tate ’s wit nesses and reso lves a ll conflicts in favo r of the St ate. State v. Grace , 493 S.W .2d 474 , 476 (Te nn. 1 973 ). On app eal, the State is ent it led t o the strongest legitim ate view o f t he e viden ce a nd a ll inferen ces there from
. Cabbage , 571 S.W .2d at 8 35 . Be ca us e a verd ict of gu ilt removes t he presumpti on ofinnocence and repla ces it with a p resu m ption of gu ilt, the ac cu se d h as the bu rde n in this court ofil lustrating why t he evidence is i nsuff ici ent t o supportthe v erdi ct retur ned by the trier of fac t. State v. Tu gg le , 639 S.W .2d 9 13, 9 14 (T enn . 198 2); Grace , 493 S.W.2d at 476.

The Sta te’s proofwas thatDefendant , who was f ifty- one (51) years old at t he ti me of the off ense on March 3, 19 95 , res ide d w ith h is gir lfrien d, B eve rly Ta ylor, and her chi ldr en in Sel mer, Tennessee. One of her chil dren, Candy Ta ylor, had be en da ting the victim . On the we ek en d im m ed iate ly precedi ng the victim ’s demise, the Defend ant and his girlfrien d ha d ac com pan ied o ther a dults on a tr ip outof t own. The y were g one all night and returned hom e early the n ext morning, fi nding the v ict im and Candy Taylor toget her, aft er t hey had spentthe nightwith each other . The vi cti m was told no t to c om e b ac k to the ho us e a ga in unle ss h e ha d pe rm ission from the D efen dan t or Be verly T aylor.

In the ear lyeveni ng hours ofMarch 3, 1995, Candy Tay lorcontact ed the victim and ask ed h im to delive r som e foo d to her f rom a fastfood resta uran t. A few hours lat er, the vi cti m arri ved as a pass engerin a v eh icle w ith o ne of h is fri ends. Candy Tayl or wentou tside to t al k t o t he v i ct i m, wh o a t t ha t t i me remained insi de the v ehicl e. The Defendant gotup from the couch i nside t he home, and w ent i nto hi s bedroom for a shortperi od of t ime. He t hen went-4-

outsi de an d w en t up to th e d river ’s sid e w ind ow of th e ve hic le in which the victim was seated. The Defendant and vi cti m exchanged words, and the v ict im got out ofthe vehi cle on t he passenger side as Defendantwalked around t he back ofthe veh icle an d wa lked up th e sid e of th e veh icle tow ard th e victim
.

Th e D efe ndant ha d a .38 calib er D errin ge r pis tol, w hic h w as fully loaded with tw o (2) bull et s. The vi cti m had no weapon. The gun di scharged once, and the b ullet stru ck th e victim , who fell into a ditch ne xt to the car w here he d ied w ithin a fe w m om ents
.

Th ere were sever al peopl e, i ncludi ng teenagers, who were out side the home at the time of t he sh ootin g. O ne of t hese wit nesses saw t he De fen da nt’s ri ght hand raise up and observ ed “f ir e” come from the barr el. The pathologistt es t i f i ed t ha t t he v i ct i m di ed f r om a gunshot wound to t he neck. The bull et en tere d o n th e le ft ba ck s ide of th e vic tim ’s ne ck, trave led ba sica lly ho rizo nta llyto t he rig ht f rontof t he neck, passing thr ough the spi nal cord. The bull et was rec overed f rom the r ightfront porti on of t he vi cti m’s neck. In t he pa tho log ist’s opini on, t his was not a cont act wound as ther e was no evi dence of any pow der b urns .

The Defendantoff ered pr oof i n supportofhis t heory, which was that the shooting was acc ident al. However, the Def endant t esti fi ed concerni ng the mom ents immediately preceding the shooti ng as foll ows: And as I gotin cl oser t o him [v ict im] I just---I had my hand - -- I took the gun out ofmy poc ket and was going t o slap h im [v ict im] up beside the head wit h itand itdisch arged, and itwasn’tmy int enti on to sh oot a nyb ody
.-5- Defendantadmitt ed duri ng his t esti mony thathe was aware t he gun was loaded atthe t ime he pul led i t f rom his poc ket. Defendantwas employed by the McNairyCounty Landf il l and had broughthome a garbage tr uck whic h was parked down the st reetfrom his res idence. He test if ied t hat he had gone out side to make sure t hat t he tr uck had not been vandal ized, and thathe had tak en the weapon wit h him for

thatpurpose. Tennessee Code Annotat ed sec ti on 39-13- 215 (Supp. 1996) defines r eckless homicide, Cl ass D fel ony as “ a reckl ess ki ll ing of another .” Tennessee Code Annotat ed secti on 39-11- 106(a)( 31) def ine s reckless as f ollows: (31) “Reckl ess” refers to a person who acts reckl essly wi th respect to circumstances sur roundi ng the condu ct or the resultof t he conduct when the person is aware ofbut consciousl y disregards a substant ial and unjust if iabl e ri sk thatthe circumstances ex istor t he res ult will occu r. The risk mu st be of su ch a n ature and degree t hat its disregard const it utes a gross devi ati on from the standa rd of care thatan ordi nary person would ex erci se under al l t he circumstances as vie we d from the a ccu sed pers on’s stan dpo int;

The pro of a t trial w as tha t the De rring er p isto l wa s pr op erly funct ioni ng an d th at it w ou ld d isch arg e if the t ri ggerwas pull ed when the weapon, which had a h am m er, wa s fully co cke d. T he fire arm s exp ert from the T .B.I. Cr i me Lab als o test if ied t hat t he weapon coul d disc harge i f t he hammer was fully down an d not cocke d back t o the “ quart er-c ock” saf ety posit ion. W it h the hamm erful lydown, t he gun coul d disc harge i f suffi cientfor ce was appl ied dow nwa rd towa rd the ha mm er.

Taken in ali ght most f avorabl e to the Stat e, t he pr oof shows thatthe Defendantap pro ac he d th e u na rm ed victim , a t a t ime when the v ict im had not-6-

made any t hreat s toward the Defendant , and pul led a f ull y l oaded pistol and fi red one sho t into the ba ck o f the victim ’s ne ck. Eve n u nd er th e D efe nd an t’s theory thatthe gun “acci dental ly ” di scharged, the proof woul d show thatthe Def endant kn ow ing ly tooka ful lyloaded gun and itdisch arged atthe t ime he was attempti ng t o h itthe v ict im on the s ide ofhis hea d wit h the f ir earm. I n eit her scenar io, the pro of o verw he lm ing lysustai ns the c onvi cti on forreckl ess homici de. Thi s iss ue is witho ut m erit.

II. SENTENCI NG

W hen an accused chal lenges t he lengt h, r ange, or the manner of service of a sent ence, t his co u rt has a duty to conduct a de novorevi ew of t he sentence wit h a presumpti on thatthe determ inations m ade by the trial court are corre ct. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 401(d). This pr esumption i s "condi ti oned upon the affi rmati ve showi ng in t he record thatthe t ri al c ourtconsi dered t he sentenci ng prin cip les an d a ll releva nt fac ts an d circu m stan ces ." State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 16 6, 169 (Ten n. 199 1).

In conducti ng a de n ovorevi ew of a sentence, t his courtmust cons ider: (a) the ev idence, ifany, recei ved atthe tr ial and the sent encing hea ri ng; (b) the p rese nten ce re port; (c ) the p rinciple s of se nten cing and argu m ents as to sentenci ng alt ernat iv es; ( d) t he nature and charact eri sti cs of t he cri minal conduct inv olv ed; (e) any st atut ory mi ti gati ng or enhancemen t fact ors; (f ) any s tat ement thatthe de fen da nt m ad e o n h is own beh alf; and (g) the pot enti al or lack of potent ial for reh abilitatio n or tre atm ent. T enn . Co de A nn. §§ 40-35- 102, - 103, and -210 ; see Sta te v. Sm ith , 735 S .W .2d 85 9, 863 (Ten n. Crim . App. 1 987 ).-7- Ifour revi ew reflect s thatthe trial court followe d the sta tutory se ntenci ng procedure, i mposed a lawf ul sent ence aft er havi ng giv en du e con side rati o n and proper weightto t he fact ors and pr inci pals s et outunder t he sentenci ng law, and thatthe t ri al cou rt's fi ndings of factare adequat elysupport ed by t he r ec ord, t he n w e ma y not mo dify the sen tence even if we wou ld have pref erred a differe nt res ult. State v. Flet cher , 805 S. W .2d 78 5, 78 9 ( Ten n. Cr i m. App . 1991 ).

The Defe nda nt was fifty- two (52 ) years old at t he ti me of sentenc ing. He ha d b ee n st ea dily e m plo yed virtua lly all o f his a du lt li fe. He att ended school thr ough the 10th grade, buthad neverobtai ned his GED. Defendant had thr ee (3) pri orClass B f elonyconvi cti ons in 1 990 regarding t hree (3) se para te incid ents ofcontroll ed subs tance v iola tion s. H e p aid child sup po rt for tw o (2 ) of h is chil dren and prov ided suppo rt forhi s c ur re ntgi rl fr i end and her chi l dr en. He had pa id $800.00 or

$900.00 t oward t he $12,000. 00 tot al f ines f rom the f elony convi cti ons in 1990. He was sti ll on probat ion f or t hese fel ony conv ict ions atthe t i me ofthe pr esent off ense. Def endant had s erved s even (7) months i n jai l f or the prior felon y convictions and h ad be en on supe rvised pro bation the reafter.

The Sta te d id n ot file notice of i ntentto seekenhanced puni shment with in Ra nge II until after th e trial. T heref or e, t he tr ial courtsentenced the De fend ant w ithin R ang e I. See Te nn. C ode An n. § 4 0-35 -202
.

The tr ial courtfound two (2) e nhancement factors: ( a) t hat t he Defendant has a previ ous his tory ofcri minal con victio ns or c rim ina l be ha vior in addit ion to t hose necessary to establ ish t he appropr iat e range. Tenn. Code Ann.-8-

§ 40-3 5-11 4(1) , and (b) th e felony w as committ ed whil e the Def endant was on probat ion from a prior fel ony conv ict ion. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40 - 35-11 4(13)(C ). O nly one (1) miti gati ng fact or was f ound by t he tr ial cou rt, that th e D efen dan t, alt ho ugh gui lty ofthe cr ime, committed t he off ense under su ch unusual circumstances thatitis unl ikel y th at a sus tai ned int ent to v iol ate t he law moti vated his con duct. T enn . Cod e An n. § 40 -35-11 3(11).

As the commissi on of t he off ens e of r ec kless homici de does not require the use of

a fi rearm, we also f ind t hat t he enhancement f actor found i n Tennessee Cod e Annot ated sect ion 40- 35-114(9 ) al so appli es, t hat t he defendantpossessed or employed a f ir earm, ex plosive de vice , or o the r de ad ly we apo n du ring th e co m m ission of the offen se.

On app eal, the De fend ant a rgue s tha t the fo ll owing miti gati ng fact or s should have been appli ed by t he tr ial courtto r educe the s entence:

1. Upon reali zi ng what had happen ed, t he Def endan t immediat ely c all ed the pol ice and cooperat ed in t he inv esti gati on, 2. Defendantha s be en ga infu llyemployed f orall of h is ad ult li fe, 3. Defendants upport s chil dr en of his own as well as those of the woman wit h whom he reside s, and 4. Defendant is a us eful member of socie ty, support ing him se lf and others.
Regarding the f irst mit igat ing f actor li sted abov e which Defendant says sho uld ap ply , we note t hat t he record ref lect s thatone wit ness who overhe ard Defendantphone the pol ice afterthe shoot ing t esti fi ed thatDefendant-9-

call ed the pol ice and “to ld t hem he got somebody i n his f rontyard t hat he want ed to get o ut or s om ethin g like th at. ” The poli ce responded wit hin a f ew minutes aft erthe shoot ing. Defendantwas on the scene, spoke to t he inv esti gators at t he resi dence, and lat er gave a stat ement at t he jai l. Even i f t he miti gati ng fact or s whi ch Defendanturges shoul d have been appl ied are appli cable, theyare e ntitle d to li tt le, ifany wei ght under the parti cular

fact s and ci rcumstances of t his ca se.

A Range I sentence fora Class D f elonyis between two ( 2) years and four (4) yea rs. Ten n. Co de A nn. § 40 -35-11 2(a)( 4). If t here ar e no enhancement or m itigating factors fou nd by th e trial court, the pre sum ptive sentence fora Clas s D felon y is the m inimum senten ce in the ra nge . How ever, ifthere are b oth enhancement and miti gati ng fact ors, the t ri al court must st artat the minimum sentence in t he range, enhance wit hin t he range as app ropri ate f or the enhancement f actors, and t hen reduce wi thi n the range as appropr iat e for m itigating facto rs. T enn . Co de A nn. § 40-3 5-21 0(c) a nd (e ) (Su pp. 1 996 ).

In sentenci ng Defendant , t he tr ial courtmerelystat ed the appli cati on ofthe two (2) e nhancement factors and one (1) m itig ati ng fact or, wit hout any expl anati on as to whythese factors appli ed and o the r fac tors did no t ap ply in rea ch in g the s entence offorty ( 40) months i n the Tennessee Department of Correct ion. There i s no “affi rmati ve showi ng in the r ecor d that the trial cou rt considered th e sentencing pri ncipals and al l rel evant fact s and circumstances” in r eaching t he sentenc e. Therefore, ther e is no presumpti on tha t th e deter minati ons made bythe trial c ourt a re co rrect. State v. Ashby , 823 S. W .2d 1 6 6, 16 9 (T en n. 1 99 1). W hile we find in th is pa rticu lar c as e th at th ere is-10-

su ff ici ent evide nce in the re cord to su ppo rt this se nten ce, e ven witho ut th e presumpti on ofcor rect ness, we note t hat when t ri al courts f ail to properl y fo ll ow the procedure setforth i n the sent encing statut es, thatthere i s a substanti al ri sk thatthi s courtwil l hav e no cho ice o ther th an to reduce sent ences i n cert ain cas es orremand foran addit ional sentenci ng heari ng, which is notan insubstanti al cost to jud icial tim e an d ec ono m y.

The mid-poi nt ofa Range I sent ence for a Class D f elonyis thir ty-six (36) months. The Def endant was s entenced t o serv e forty ( 40 ) m onths i n the Tennessee Departmentof Correcti on. Consi deri ng the t hree ( 3) enhancement factors thatwe concl ude are appl icabl e (i ncludi ng one enhanc ement fac tornot found bythe t ri al court), and all ofthe mit igat ing factors urged bythe Def endant orfoun d by th e tr ial cou rt, and the proper wei ght t o be plac ed upon both t he enhancement and miti gati ng fact ors, we concl ude thatthe sent ence of forty (40) m onth s is ap prop riate.

In declining to grant altern ative sen tencing , the trial court stat ed that its reas ons were bec aus e of d eterre nce , the p rior crim inal re cord of D efen dan t, alternative sentencing would depreci ate the seri ousness of t he off ense, and the Defendantwas on p roba tion a t the tim e of th e off ense. We ini ti all y not e that there is ab so lute ly no pro of in the r ecord what soever regardi ng deter rence, and therefore we w ill not conside r deterren ce as a factor to de ny pro ba tio n in this parti cu l arcas e. See Sta te v. Sm ith , 735 S. W .2d 859, 864 (Tenn. Crim. App. 198 7).-11- Alt hough probat ion must be automati call y consi dered i n sentenci ng D efendan t for a Cla ss D felo ny, th is do es no t m ea n th at D efe nd an t is automati cal ly e ntitled to prob ation as a ma tter of law
. State v. Fl etcher , 805 S.W .2d 7 85, 7 87 (T enn . Crim . App . 199 1).

A defendantwho “i s an especi all y mit igat ed or st andard offenderconvi cted ofa C lass C, D , or E felo ny is presumed to be a fav orabl e candidat e for alternative sentenci ng options i n the absence of ev idence t o the cont rary .” Tenn. Code An n. § 40-35-102(6). Our sentencing law al so provides tha t “ convi cted fel ons com m itting the m os t se vere offe ns es , po sse ssin g cri minal hi stor ies evi dencing a clear disreg ard forthe l aws and morals of soci ety, and evi dencing failure o f past eff ort s at rehabil it ati on, shal l be gi ven f irst pr ior ity regarding sentences involvi ng in carc eratio n.” T enn . Co de A nn. § 40-3 5-10 2(5) . Th us, a defendantsentenced to eightyear s or l ess who i s not an o ff ender f or whom incarcerat ion is a pri ority is presumed eli gible f or alt ernativ e sentencing unless suff ici ent ev idence rebuts t he presumpti on. However , t he act does not provi de thatall off ender s wh o m ee t the crite ria a re e ntitle d to suc h re lief; ra the r, it requi res that sent encing issues b e deter mined by t he fact s and ci rcumstances present ed in eac h ca se. See State v. Tay lor , 744 S. W .2d 919, 922 ( Ten n. Cr i m. Ap p. 19 87).

Add itionally, the p rinciple s of se nten cing reflec t that the sen te n ce sh ou ld be no great er t han thatdeserv ed for the offense committed and shou ld be the least sev ere measure necessary to achieve t he purpose s fo r whi ch the sentence i s imposed. Tenn. Code Ann . § 40-35 -103(3 ) - (4). The c ourt sho uld-12-

also consi der t he potent ial forrehabi li tat ion or tr eatment ofthe d efendantin dete rm ining the s ente nce altern ative. T enn . Co de A nn. § 40-3 5-10 3(5)
.

Wh e n impo sing a s enten ce of total co nfinem ent, our C ri mina l Sentenci ng Reform Act mandat es the t ri al court t o base i ts deci sion on the cons idera ti ons set forth in Tenne ssee Code A nnotated secti on 40-35-103. These considerati ons which mi li tat e againstalt ernat iv e sentenci ng incl ude: the need to protectsocietyby restraining a defendant hav ing a long hi st ory o f cri minal con duc t, whetherconfi nemen t is part icul arl y appropr iat e to effect iv elydeter others likely to co m m it a sim ilar offen se, t he need to avoid depreciat ing t he seriousness of the offense, and the need to order confinement in cases i n which less restrictive measures have often or recent lybeen unsuccessf ull y appl ied to the d efen dan t. Te nn. C ode An n. § 40-3 5-10 3(1)
.

In dete rm ining whe ther to grantprobat ion, the j udge must consi der the natur e and ci rcumstances of t he off ense, t he defendant ’s cr iminal record, his background and soci al hi story, h is present cond it ion, incl uding hi s physi cal and mental condit ion, the det errenteff ect on ot her cr iminal acti vi ty, and the l ikel ihood thatprobation i s in t he best int erest s of bot h the publ ic and the d efen dan t. Sti ll er v. State , 516 S.W .2d 6 17, 6 20 (T enn . 197 4). The burden i s on the De fend ant to show th at the s ente nce he re ceive d is im prop er an d tha t he is e ntitled to prob ation
. State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 1 66, 1 69 (T enn . 199 1).

The record ref lect s thatDefendantwas on probat ion f rom thr ee (3) prior Class B fel ony conv ict ions where he had served a porti on of the sentence in con finem ent. T he D efen dan t was dilato ry i n his pa yment ofthe f ines f rom-13-

these pri or conv ict ions ev en though he wasgainf ull y em ploye d. Th e reco rd strongl y infe rs th at th e D efe nd an t reg ula rly ke pt th e lo ad ed pisto l in his possessi on even t hough he was on supervi sed p r obation from felony convict ions. The De fend ant’s crim inal re cord , the n ature and circum sta nce s of t he present off ense, and the fact t ha t the o ff ense was committ ed whil e on superv ised probat ion just if ied t he denial of probati on and the i mpositi on ofa sentence of t otal con finem ent in this ca se.

On appeal t he Defendanthas argued thatthe trial court shou ld have considered pla ce m en t in Com mu nity Corr ecti ons. However , t he factthat Defendantwas convicted ofreck l es s h omi cide by the use and pos ses sion of a firearm makes him statu torily inelig ible for a sen tenc e pu rsua nt to the C om m unity Co rre cti ons Ac t. Te nn . Co de An n. § 40 -36 -10 6(a )(2) an d (4 ). T his issu e is witho ut m erit.

Findi ng no reve rsib le e rror in the sent encing of Defendant , and t hat the evi dence issuff ici ent t o sustai n the conv ict ion, we aff ir m the judgmentofthe trial cou rt.

____________________________________ THO MAS T. W OOD ALL, Judge

CONCUR:

___________________________________ GARY R . WA DE, Judge-14-

___________________________________ JOHN H . PEAY, Judge