C o- defendan t s Andrade and B ai l ey al s o pl ed gu i l t y t o t he s ame offens es . Co

- defendan t Andrade r ece i ved a n 1 ef f ect i ve f o ur- y ear s ent ence wit h one y ear of i ncarcerat i o n f o l l o wed by pro b at i o n. C o - d ef end ant B ai l ey rece i v ed an ef f ect i ve six -yea r se n te n c e to b e se rv e d in c o n fine m e n t. 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ma y 18, 200 4 STATE OF TENNESS EE v . TONY LEVEL LE FORD Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Blou nt County No. C-13552 D . Ke lly Th om as, Jr., Judge

No. E2003-01725-CC A-R3- CD June 4, 2004 Th e de fe nd a nt, To ny L evelle F or d, e nte re d g uil ty ple a s to a g g ra vate d b ur g lary a ndc on sp ir a c y

to commit ag g ravated robbe ry . The B lount Count y trial court or dere d the def

endant to ser ve conc urre nt five-year sentenc es in confine ment as a Rang e I standard of

fender. On appea

l, the defe ndant contends his se nte nc e s a

re e xce ssi ve . We a ff

ir m th e jud g me nts of

the tr ia l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nts of

the Circ uit Court Aff

irm ed J OE G. R I L EY , J ., delivere d the o p i n i o n of the c ourt, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., joined. David M. B oy d, Mary ville, Tennesse e, for the appe llant, Tony

L evelle F ord. Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; B re nt C . Ch e rry , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Michae l L . Fly nn, District Attorney Gene ral; and Micha el A. Galleg os, Assistant D istrict Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee . OP IN ION The de fenda nt entere d an open g uilty plea to one count of conspira cy to commit agg ravated robbery and one c ount o f aggravated bur g lary , Class C felonies, for driving c o-def endants Robert An dr a de a ndCorne ll B a ileyto andfr om M ic ha e l F a nn ’s re sid e nc e wh e re the c o- de fe nd a nts committed an ar m ed robbe ry . See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39- 12-103 (c onspiracy ), 39-13- 402 (ag g ravated robbe ry ), 39-14- 4 0 3 (a ggravated burg lary ). F ollowing a sentenc ing he aring , the trial c ou rt imp os e d c on c ur

re nt s e nte nc e s o f fi ve y e ars fo r ea c h off e ns e to be se rv e d in c on fi ne me nt a s a Rang e I standard of

fende r. 1-2- I. SENT ENCING HEARING Michae l Fann te stified he, along with his son, Kevin, and Kevin’s g irlfriend, Misty Morton, wer e pre sent at the re sidence on May 23, 2001, when the robbery occur red. He stated B ailey

and two o t h e r m e n c a m e i n h i s r e s i d e n c e a n d c o m m i t t e d t h e r o b b e r y. The de fenda nt testified that on May 23, 2001, while drinking alcohol at Andr ade’ s residenc e, Ba iley arr ived and a sked them i f t hey were int ere sted in making some money . The de fenda nt expl ained that someone ha d taken money from Bailey ’s friend. The defenda nt stated hi s role in t he off enses was to drive the other participa nts to the residenc e and return f or them at a

later time. The defe ndant and the c o-def

endants then pic ked up two men, neither of whom the def endant kne w. The de fenda nt s tate d th a t a lth o u g h h e d id n o t p o s s e s s a w e ap o n , h e k n e w th e o th e r me n p o s s e s s e d wea pons and planned to “g o bursting” into the residenc e while Andra de re mained outside. The de fenda nt further stated he did not know Micha el Fann, Kevin F ann, or Misty Morton. Th e de fe nd a nt t e sti fi e d th a t a ft e r the c o- de fe nd a nts a ndthe tw o othe r me n exite d th e ve hic le at the residenc e, he parke d the vehicle at a location down the road and waited. T h e d ef en dant subsequently

rec eived a

“wa lkie-talkie c all” instructing him to pick up the other pa rticipants at the residenc e. The defe ndant did so and re turned the two unide ntified men to their vehic le. The de fenda nt testified that afte r he was arre sted, he gave a stateme nt to the police re g arding eac h participa nt’s role in the incide nt. The def endant state d he did not attempt to di s co ver the identities of the other two me n and did not discover anyinformation re g arding the two men. The defe ndant furthe r stated hewas to re ceive $5,000 for his role in the offe nses but did not rece ive any m o n e y. Th e de fe nd a nt a dmi tte d h e wa s con vic te d in 1993 in S ou th C aro lin a fo r m a lic iou s in

jury to persona l property , drunk and disorderly conduct, and resisting arr est. The de fenda nt further testified he last used cocaine and marijuana afte r the plea hearing but prior to the sentenc ing heari n g. He ma int a ine d h e no lon g e r u se d d ru g s. The pre sentenc e re port, which wa s entere d into evidenc e at the sentencing hearing, r evea led the def endant a lso had prior misdemea nor convic tions in S outh Carolina for f ail u re to appea

r and criminal domestic violence . The re port also re veale d the conviction for ma licious injury to personal property resulted in a two-y ear suspended sentenc e. The report f urther noted the def

endant a dmitted using c ocaine and marijuana and r efuse d to take a dr ug scre en. Co- de fe nd a nt B a ile y

te sti fi e d th e ro bb e ry

wa s p la nn e d in ho pe s of

re c ov e ri ng app ro xima te ly $80,000 from drug transac tions that alleg edly had been stolen by Kevin Fa nn from one of B ailey ’s friends. B ailey

testified he c ontacted the defe ndant, the co- defe ndan t , and two other men and direc ted them to the Fann residenc e. B ailey and the other

two men wer e armed and e ntere d the residenc e. Co-def

endant Robert Andrade testified hi s role was to wait out side the re sidence , and he also possessed a

handg un at that time.-3- II . T RI AL CO URT ’S FINDI NGS At the conc lusion of the se n te n c in g h e a rin g , th etr ial court a pplied the following enhanc ement fac tors to the defe ndant’s convic tions for ag g ravated burg lary and conspira cy

to commit agg ravated robbery : enhanc ement factor (2), “[ t] he defenda nt has a previous his tory of criminal convictions or criminal beha vior in addition to those nece s s ary to establish the appropriate ra ng e”; e nhance ment fac tor (4), “ [t ]he of

fense involved more than one . . . victim”; and enha nceme nt fac tor (11), “ [t ]he defe ndant had no he sitation about committ ing a crime w hen the risk to human life wa s high.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114( 2), (4), (11) (2003). The trial court further noted it considered that “the pr oof established mitig ation on [t he def endant’ s] behalf as it rela tes to assisting the authorities and being truthful in [hi s] statements.” The trial court sente nced the defe ndant to five y ear s for e ach conviction to be ser ved conc urre ntly as a Rang e I

standard of

fende r. III . STA ND AR D O F RE VI EW A defen d an t who cha lleng es his or her sentenc e has the burden of proving the sentenc e impos e d b y

th e trial c o u r t i s imp r o p e r . T e n n . Co d e A n n . § 4 0

- 3 5

- 4 0 1 , Se n te n c in g Co mm is s ion Com me nts ; State v. As hb y , 8 23 S.W. 2d16 6, 16 9 (T e nn . 19 91 ). I t is thi s c ou rt ’s du ty to c on du c t a de novo revie w of the r ec o rd with a pre sumption t he trial c ourt’s dete rminations are corr ect whe n a def endant a ppeals the le ng th, rang e, or ma nner of service of his or her

sentenc e. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401( d). The pr esumption of corr ectne ss is conditioned upon the aff irmative showing in the rec ord that the trial c ourt consider ed the s en t en cing principles a nd all rele vant fa cts and circ umstances. State v. Pettus, 986 S.W .2d 540, 543-44 (Te nn. 1999). IV . A NA LY SIS Th e de fe nd a nt c on te nd s th e tr ia l c ou rt mis app lie d c e rt a in e nh a nc e me nt f a c tor s a ndfaile d to apply certain mitigating fac tors. The de fenda nt further submits t he trial court err ed in w eig hing the app lic able e nh a nc e me nt andmit ig a tin g fa c tor s. A. Waiver The fa cts and c ircumstance s of the off ense w ere important to the trial court’s se ntencing determ i n at i o n s; however , the transc ript of the g uiltyplea pr ocee ding is a bsent from the r ecor d. Gene rally , our prope r cour se of a ction is to su a s po nte pr e su me the tr ia l c ou rt ’s de c isi on is c or re c t. State v. Kee n, 996 S.W .2d 842, 8 4 4 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) . Neve rtheless, the e vidence int ro du c e d a t the se nte nc ing he ari ng pr ov ide s us wi th a n a de qu a te re c or d in thi s c a se . Th us , w e wi ll re vie w the iss ue s o n th e ir me ri t. B. En hancem ent and Mitigating Fac tors The de fenda nt maintains the trial court misapplied enhanc ement fa ctor (2) , previous history of criminal convicti o n s o r criminal beha vior. See T e n n . C o d e A n n . § 4 0

- 3 5

- 1 1 4 ( 2 ) ( 2 0 0 3 )

. In-4-

apply ing this enha nceme nt fac tor, the trial court noted that a lt h o u g hth ed e f

e n d ant’s prior convic tions wer e “r elatively

minor,” it g ave g reat wei gh t to the defe ndant’s history of illeg al drug use. The rec ord indicate s the defe ndant had f our prior c onvictions spanning f rom 1991 until 1997. Furthermore , the defendant acknowledg ed a history of m arijuana and cocaine use and stated he had continued to use the d ru gs afte r ente ring the pleas in the pr esent c ase. O ne does not ha ve to be convicted in or der to e stablish “criminal beha vior” unde r this e nhance ment fac tor. State v. Carico, 96 8 S.W.2 d 280 , 2 88 (T e nn . 1 99 8) ; se e als o Sta te v. Va nd e rf or d, 98 0 S.W. 2d 39 0, 40 7 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 97 ) ( ho ldi ng thi s e nh a nc e me nt f a c tor wa s p ro pe rl y

app lie d w he n th e de fe nd a nt a dmi tte d to a history of drug use). The trial court proper ly applied this e nhance ment fac tor to the defe ndant’s convictions. Furthermore , the weig ht give n to an enha n ceme nt or mitigating fac tor is within the discretion of the trial court if the findi ng s are supported by the re cord. State v. Ma dden, 99 S.W.3d 127, 138 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002) . The trial c ourt did not err in g iving this enha nceme nt fac tor g reat we ig ht. Th e de fe ndant nex t con te nd s th e tr ia l c ou rt mis app lie d e nh a nc e me nt f a c tor (1 1) , h ig h r isk to human life. See Te nn . Code An n. § 4 0- 35 -1 14 (1 1) (2 00 3) . A g g ra vate d b ur g lary , a s a pp lic able to the prese nt c ase, is the entering of a habitation with the intent to commit thef t. See id. §§ 39-14- 4 0 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , - 4 0 3 ( a )

. E n h a n c e m e n tf a c t o r ( 1 1 ) i s n o ta n e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n to f a g g r a v a t e d b u r g l ar y. S t a t e v . J a m e s R u b e n C o n y e r s , N o . M 2 0 0 2

- 0 1 0 0 7

- C C A

- R 3

- C D , 2 0 0 3 T e n n . C r i m . A p p . LE X IS 765, at **64-65 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 5, 2003), perm. to app. denie d (Tenn. 2004) . Furthermore , the fa c ts de mon str a te that by drivi ng the oth e r pa rt ic ipants to a

re sid e nc e kn ow ing the se pa rt ic ipa nts wer e armed and planne d to “g o bursting” into the residenc e, the def endant ha d no hesitation about c omm itt ing a

c ri me in w hic h th e ri sk

to h uman li fe wa s h ig h. Th e re fo re , th e tr ia l c ou rt pr op e rl y applied enhanceme nt fac tor (11) to the de fenda nt’s ag g ravated burg lary conviction. The de fenda nt was als o c o nvicted of c onspiracy to commit agg ravated robbe ry acc omplished with a dea dly

wea pon. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39- 12-103, -13-402( a)( 1). B eca use the off

ense of ag g ravated robbery acc omplished w ith a deadly wea pon nece ssarily

entails a hig h risk to human life, thi s e n h a n c e me n t f

a c to r is in h e r e n t in a g g r a v a te d r o b b e r y . St a te v . Cl a y b r o o k s , 9 1 0 S.W.2d 868, 87 3 ( Te nn . Crim . A pp . 1 99 4) . F urthe rm or e , th e hig h risk to h uman li fe is o rd ina

ri ly inh e re nt t o conspirac y to c ommit ag g rava ted robbery . See Sta te v. To ny Wayne Sny de r, No . 0 3C0 1- 94 03 -C R00 10 1, 19 95 Te nn . Crim. Ap p. LEX I S 92 7, a t *2 4 (T e nn . Cr im. Ap p. No v. 21 , 19 95 ) ( ho ldi ng thi s e nh a nc e me nt f

a c tor or din a ri ly is i na pp lic able to co ns pir a c y

to c omm it f

ir st d e g re e mur de r b e c a us e the ri sk to the int e nd e d v ic tim

is i ne vitabl e in thec on sp ir a c y , b ut w a s p ro pe r i n th e c a se be c a us e someone other

than the intended vic tim was endang ere d), perm. to app. denie d (Tenn. 1996)

. Th e sta t e c o n t e n d s t h a tK e v i n F a n n w a s t h e o n l y i n t e n d e d v i c t i mo f

t h e r o b b e r y , y e tb o th Michae l F ann and Misty Morton wer e also e ndang ere d by the robbe ry

itself. See State v. I mfeld, 70 S.W .3d 698, 707 (Tenn. 2002) (holding this enhance ment fac tor may be applied w here persons other than the named victim ar e at risk). Howeve r, the indictment spec ifically alleg ed that “Mic hael F ann, Kevin F ann and Misty

Morton” we re r obbed “in f urtherance of

the co n s p i racy .” I n light of the indictment, we conc lude that all three persons we re na med victims. There fore , the trial court e rre d-5-

in applying e nhance ment fac tor (11) to the de fenda nt’s conviction for c onspiracy to c o mm it a g g rava ted r o b b e r y. The de fenda nt seeks a r eduction in his sentenc e, contending his cooper ation with the police qualified unde r both mitigating fac tor (9), “ [t ]he defendant assisted the authorities i n uncovering offe nses committed by

other pe rsons . . .”; and mitigating fac tor (10), “ [t ]he defendant assisted the authorities in locating or re covering any property or per son involved in the crime.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113( 9), (10). However, the trial court expressly considere d the def endant’ s cooper ation wi th the po lic e in m iti g a tio n. Whe the r that c oo pe ratio n li te ra lly fe ll within the a mbi t of on e or bo th mitigators ha s no signific ant impact. The failure to specify that both miti g ators mig ht be implicated does not, in our view, lea d to a furthe r re duction in the sentenc e. The wr ong ful ap p l i ca t ion of one or mor e enhanceme nt fac tors by the trial court does not nece ssarily

lead to a reduc tion in the leng th of the sentenc e. State v. Winfield, 23 S.W .3d 279, 284 (Te nn. 2000). This determination requires that we re view the e vidence supporting any rema ining enhanc ement fa ctors, as w ell as the e vidence supporting any mitigating fac tors. I mfeld, 70 S.W.3d a t 70 7. Th e de fe nd a nt w a s c on vic te d o f t wo Cla ss C fe lon ie s a s a Ra ng e I sta nd ardof

fe nd e r w ith a sentencing rang e of thre e to six y ear s. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-112( a)( 3). Considering the g reat weig ht assigne d to enhanc ement fa ctor (2) and the defe ndant’s cooperation in mitigation, we conclude the trial court did not err in sentencing the def endant to five y ear s for e ach of fense , which is two y ear s above the minimum sentenc e and one y ear less than the maximum sentenc e. Ac c or din g ly , w e a ff

ir m th e jud g me nts of

the tr ia l c ou rt

.

____________________________________ J OE G. RILEY, JUDGE