### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on

Briefs N ovembe

r 4, 2003
STATE OF TENN ESSEE v. JARVIS WILLIA MS and JOHN WILLIAMS

Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 01-08323-34 Joseph Dailey, Judge

No. W2002-03010-CCA-R3-CD - Filed December 23, 2003

Defendant

Jarvis Williams was convicted of seven counts of especially aggravated

kidnapping and four counts of

agg ravated robbery . He was sentenced to an effective term of 360 yea rs in the Department

of Correction for these offenses. I n this direct appeal, he challenges the leng th of his sentence. Co-defendant John Williams was con victed of five counts of especially aggravated kidnapping and three counts of agg ravated robbery . He was sentenced to an effectiveterm of 161 yearsin the Department of Correction for these offe nses. In this direct appeal, he challen ges the sufficiency

of the evidence and

the length of

his sentence. We affirm the judgments of the trial court in all respects. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Criminal Court Affirmed

D AV ID H. W ELLES , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which J OE G. R ILEY and J OHN E VERE TT W ILLI AMS , JJ., joined.

Charles Gilchrist, Jr., Memphis, Tennessee, for the appella nt, John Willia

ms. Robert

Wilson Jones, Memphis, T ennesse e, for the appell ant, JarvisWilliams.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral and Reporter; Kathy

D. Aslinger, Assistant

Attorney Genera l; William L . Gibbons, District Attorney Gene ral; and Jennifer Nichols, Assistant District Attorn e y General, for the appellee, State of Te nnessee.
OPINION
FACTS Kimberly Hancock testified that, on the night of January 11, 2001, she was with her fiancee, Divin Wright, Divin’s mother, Divin’s step-father Jerome Carpenter, and J erome Carpenter’s br other, Omar Coleman. Kimberly w anted to retrieve some clothes that were at the home of he r girlfriend, Marion Va

ughn. O mar ag

reed to d rive her to Marion ’s home, a

nd Divin accompa nie d them.1 At time s we will d ifferentiate b etwee n the two De fenda nts by re ferring to them b y their first nam es on ly.
-2- When they

arrived, Kimberly and Divin went into the house; Oma r waited in the car. I

n the house were Ma rion, the Defend ants John and Jarvis Willia ms, 1 Torrez Talley a

nd Thaddeus Brown. Kimberly went upstairs and began to gather he r clothes. She heard Defendant John coming up the stairs and heard him say, “ somebody is fixing to die.” Kimberly tried to run, but Defendant Joh n grabbed her by the ne

ck and threw her down the stairs. He followed her down and forced her to sit
on the couch. Defendant Jarvis then forced Divin to sit on thecouch ne xt to her. B oth Defe

ndants were armed.

Defendant

John accus ed Kimber

ly of having set

up a break-in of his home by Divin’s brother Oliver. Kimberly

denied a ny k nowledg e of any

break- in. Defe

ndant John a

nd Defe ndant Jarvis both told her that she was going

to die bec ause of h

er part icipation in the bre ak-in. Th

ey also told D ivin that he would pay for

his brother’s actions.

Torrez Talley and Tha

ddeus Brown left the house and returned with Omar. They made him strip and took his checkbook. Javon Bryant then arrived, pulling two guns and pointing one of the m at Kimberly . Javon told K im berly that she was going to help them find Oliver, and Javon and Defendant

Jarvis forced Kimberly into a bla ck car. Defendant Jarvis sat in the back seat with her and kept a gun on her. Javon Bryant drove.

Event ually, De fendan t Jar vis ca lled O liver and arr anged a m eetin g. Defendant Jarvis then calledDefendant John and told him about the meeting. Javon Bryant then drove to the meeting place and fo rced Kimberly

at gunpoint into Defendant Jarvis’ purple Dodge I ntrepid, which had been driven to the meeting place by Thaddeu s Brown. Defend ant Jarvis, Javon Bry ant, Thaddeus Brown and Keith Ezell got in the car with her; Ezell was also armed. After a short time , Bry ant and Ezell left the car and

patrolled the area. When Oliver pulled up for the meeting , Brya nt and Ezell got on either si de of Oliv er’s ca

r and told the two me

n in the ca

r to get out.

In the car with Oliver were Jerome Carp enter, Oliver’s fiancee Tony ell Somerall, and Tonyell’s seven-ye ar-old son, Jodeci. Oliver and Jerome were forced out of the car and told to strip. Javon Brya

nt hit Oliver in the head with a gun. Oliver was then forced into the trunk of the Intrepid, and Jerome was forced into the trunk of the car that Oliver had been d rivin g, a Neon. Ezell took the wheel of the Neon, in which Tonye ll and her son were still seated. Bryant returned to the Intrepid. Both cars then left the scene.

A short time later, both c ars pulled ov er. Defendant Jarvis told Ezell to get Tonyell’s identification and let her go. They g ot Jer ome out of the Neon’s trunk and placed him in the Intrep id’s trunk with

Oliver. T

hey told Kimbe

rly that they were g oing to le

t her go , but that th

e y were going to kill Omar and Divin. They threate ned to kill K

imberly and her d aughte

r if she to ld the police. The men then dropped Kimberly off near her mother’s house. She subsequently called the police. She testified that she was robbed of $120 that night by her assailants.-3-

Divin Wright also testified. He explained that Oliver is his older brother. He stat ed that , when he e

ntered M arion Va

ughn’s house, he

saw both Defendants; Defendant

John was Marion’s boyfriend. Thaddeus Brown and Torrez Talley were also there. As Divin wa ited for K imberly to gat her her clothes, he saw Defendant John follow her upstairs. Kimberly then came “ tumblin g down” the stair s, and Defendant Jarvis gr abbed Di vin and “s lammed [him] t o the floor.” Defendant Jarvis then for

ced him on

to the cou ch while D efenda nt John forc ed Kimber

ly onto the other end of the couch. Bo th De fe nd an ts we re po in ti ng gu ns at Di vi n a nd Ki mb er ly. The Defendants kept asking where Oliver was. Defendant John told Divin that they were g oing to ki ll him, Divin. Javon Bryant arrived and pointed two guns at them and asked Defendants John and Jarvis which one they wanted him to kill firs t. Divin te stifie d, “It wa s l ik e J ar vi s a nd [J oh n] we re th e l ea de rs .” Ev en tu al ly, Defendant Jarvis “put the gun on” Kimberly and forced her out of the house.

Before he left with Kimberly, De fendant Jarvis went outside and returned with Omar. Omar
was forced onto the couch with Divin. After Defenda nt Jarvis and Javon left, Defendant John held
a pistol on Divin and forced him to give him every thing in Divi n’s pockets. Keith Ezell then entered, wielding a shotgun. Ezell began bea ting Divin. Defendant Jarvis stripped Divi n naked; Omar was also stripped. At some point Oliver and Jerome were brought into the house, also naked. Divin testifie d that both

Defend ants bea

t on him with

their guns a

nd fists. They

also kick ed him. Divin saw the assailants beat

his brother Oliver as well. Defend ants John and Jarvis pic ked Divin up off of the floor at one point and forced his head into the smoldering firepla ce. Defendants John and Jarvis poured bleach on Divin and the ot her three victims. Eventually, De fendants John and Jarvis, tog ether wi

th Javon Bry

ant, Keit h Ezell, Torrez Ta

lley and Thad

deus Br own, for ced Divin into the trunk of a car

and told him that they

were going to take him and his brother to Mississippi and bu ry them. Divin was having trouble maintaining consciousness, and the ne xt thing he remembered was leaving the hospital.

Omar Coleman testified that he drove Kimberly and Divin to Kim

berly ’s friend’s house

on the night in q

uestion. K

imberly and Divin

went into t

he house , and he r

emained in the car. After about ten minutes, three men approached the car with guns and told him that he was “under arrest.” Omar identified Defendant Jarvis as one of the armed men. The men forced Omar into the house, where Omar saw Kimberly and Divin on the sofa. He also saw Defendant John in the hou se. Defendant

Jarvis told h

imto remove his clothes. Omar testified that, “before I could even take them off [Defendant Jarvis] just started ripping them off and kicking me in my side .” After Omar was stripped, he was to ld to sit on th e couch while his p ants pockets we re shaken empty . Defendant Jarvis and Defendant John were asking, “Where’ s my stuff?” and Omar saw Def endant Jarvis grab some of the money that fe ll out of his pants.

While he sat on the co uch, Omar heard Divin and Kimberly being asked about Oliver’s wherea bouts. Defendant Jarvis then accompanied Kimberly out of the house for the purpose of calling Oliver f

rom a pay

phone. Omar testif

ied that D efenda

nt Jarvis w as armed as he took Kimberly out of the house. After Defendant Jarvis left, Defenda nt John made some phone calls, and some other men arrived at the house. These men we re armed.2 Red Vo n was e lsewhe re ide ntified as J avo n B ryant.
-4- Ev en tu al ly, Jerome an d Oliver w ere brought into the house. Jerome and Oliver were naked. The assailan

ts, including the Defendants, forced the f our victims to lay on

the floor. Omar then saw the assailants beating Divin and Oliver. Omar was struck once in the head when he tried to escape

. After the beat ings, the assailan ts poured bleach on the victims. Omar and Jerome were then for ced outof the house and into the trunk of O mar’s Ford Focus. Defendant John was one of the men who forced Omar into the trunk, and was armed while doing so . Oliver a nd Divin we

re forc ed into another car. Omar

testified that one of

the other assailants, a man he knew as Red Von, 2 told them that they were

going to be driven to Mississippi and buried there. Tonyell Somerville, Oliver’s fia ncee, testified that she and Oliver and her son Jodeci were driving home from dinner on the night in question, and stopped to pick up Jerome. They then drove towardsome destination of which she was unaware, because she dozed off. When she a woke, she saw several men surrounding the ca r. The men were armed and we re yelling at t

hem to get out of the car. Oliver and Jerome got out of the car; one of the men approached her as she sat in the fr ont passenger seat and told her not to

move. She saw the men striking Oliver in the head, and the men
were telling O liver an d Jerome to remove their clothes. One of the armed men got into the back seat of the car with Tony

ell’s y oung son . She then

saw the me

n put Olive

r in the trunk of another car, an Intrepid. Tony ell testified that she was held at gunpoint and was very afraid. One of

the armed men got into the driver’s seat and began driving away . This man had a sawed-off shotgun. Tony ell pled for her life and her child’s life, and the man told her not to worry , that they were after Oliver. He askedher for money , and she gave h im what she

had in her

purse. She also g ave him a ring she was wearin g. The man pulled the car over in an area with which she was not familiar and told her to get outwith her so n and s tart w alkin g. She begged to keep her car because she did not know where she
was. At this point, another man came

up and told the driver to just get her identification, and then let her go withher car. She testified that she handed over her identification, and the man that had
come up to the c ar told

her, “Oka

y. We’ve got y our I D. We hav e you r ad dre ss and your nam e. If you go to the cops and

say any thing then we will come back and kill you and your son.” The men then removed something from her trunk; she did not know at the time what was in there. She then left and call ed the pol

ice at the first oppo rtunity . Tony

ell identified the Defendants as two of the men involved in her abduction.
Jodeci, Tony ell’s son, also testified. He was seven at the time of the offenses, a nd eight when he testified. He stated that he saw Oliver being hit with a g un.
Oliver Wright testified that he a

nd Tony ell and Jodeci and Jerome were in the car after dinner when he got a

phone ca ll from De

fendant Jarvis. Defend ant Jarvis told him that his car had broken down and aske d Oli ver to take him to an auto parts store for a battery . He recognized Defendant Jarvis’ voice because he had known him for about a y ear. He

drove to Defendant Jarvis’ location and recognized the purple I ntrepid; the hood was up. He got out of his car and began to approach-5-

Defendant

Jarvis’ car when he saw Defend ant J arvis an d two othe r men nam

ed Javon and Keith Ezell “jump around the corner with guns.” The men told him, “Don’ t move or, bitch, you’re g oing to die.” Javon then told him to “get naked” and hit him in the head with a pist ol. After he was naked, Javon hit him in the hea d again with the pi stol, and he and Defend ant Jarvis f

orced him into the Intrepid’s trunk

at g unp oin t. Ja

von broke Oliver’s leg with the trunk lid. The car wa s then driven a few blocks and stopped. At that point, Defendant Jarvis and Javon opened the trunk and placed Jerome in the trunk

with him. Jerome was also naked. They dr ove for another few minutes and stopped at Marion Vaughn’s house, where the trunk was opened by De fendant Jarvis and Javon. The men told Oliver and Jerome to get out; both men were armed as were two other men near the
car. The four

assailan ts took the two victimsinto the house, where Oliver saw Divin and Omar, bo th naked. Defendant John, who was in the house, walked up to Olive

r and hit him in the head with a pi stol. Subseque

ntly , Defen dant Jarvis , Javon, Defendant John, Thadd

eus and Ezell all be at him; he also saw them hitting Divin in the head with pistols. The men to ld Oliver that he wa s “going

to die” that night. Oliver testified that they “put cig arettesout” on hisback an d poured bleach o n him and the other victims. The four victims werethen forced back outside and put into the trunks of the Intr epid and Focus. Oliver

heard Defendant Jarvis’ and Javon’s voices in the I ntrepid. The car was driven off and stopped at a place where O liver could hea r a tr ain approaching. The police then arrived and let the victims out of the car trunks.

Oliver testi fied t hat he suffer ed vari ous i njuri es from the at tack, inclu ding a broke n leg, broken ribs and burns on hisback. He also testi fied tha

t his assailants took some money and jew elry from him.

Both De fendant s testified. Defe ndant John Will

iams testif

ied that he “wasn ’t involve d in
non e of these incidents” and had been “at home with [his] child and [the] baby ’s momma. ” Defendant

Jarvis Williams testified that he had “no knowledge of what’s g oing on” and had “no idea what this arises from.”

The jury convicted both De fendants John Wi lliams and Jarvis Willia

ms of the e specially aggravated

kidnapping of Jerome Carpenter; the especially aggravated kidnapping

of Oliver Wright; the e speci ally aggrava ted ki dnapp ing of O mar Co leman ; the e speci ally aggrava ted ki dnapp ing o f Divin Wright; the especially a

ggravated kidnapping

of Kimberly Ha

ncock; the aggrava

ted robbery of Oliver Wright; the aggrava ted robbery

of Omar Cole man; and t

he agg ravate d robber

y of Divin Wright. The jury

also conv icted Defendant

Jarvis Williams of the especially ag gravated kidnapping of Jodeci Somerall; the especially a ggravated kidnapping

of Tonyell Somerall; and the a ggravated robbery of Tony ell Somera

ll. The trial court subsequently sentenced Defendant

John Williams to
an effective term of 161 y

ears. Defendant Jarvis Williams was sentenced to an effective term of 360 ye ars.
In this direct appeal, Defendant John Williams challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. Both De fendant s c hallenge their sentences. We will first address the sufficiency

of the evidence.-6- SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 13(e) presc ribes that “[f] indi ngs of guilt in criminal actions whether by the

trial court or jury sha

ll be set aside if the evidence is insufficient to support the findings by the trie

r of fact of guilt bey

ond a reasonable doubt.” A convicted criminal defendant who challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal bears the burden

of demonstrating why

the evidence is in su ff

ic ie nt to su pp or t t he ve rd ic t, be ca us e a ve rd ic t o f g ui lt de st ro ys the presumption of innocence and imposes a presumption of guilt. See State v. Evans , 108 S.W.3d 231, 237 (Tenn. 2003); State v. Carruthers , 35 S.W.3d 516, 557-58 (Tenn. 2 000); State v. Tu ggle , 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). This Court must reject a convicted criminal defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency

of the evidence i f, afte

r conside ring the evidenc e in a lig

ht mo s t favorable to the prosecution, we determine that any rational trier

of fact could hav e found th

e essent ial eleme nts of the crime bey ond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virg inia , 443 U.S. 307, 3 19 (1979) ; State v. Hall , 8 S.W.3d 593, 599 (Tenn. 1999).

On appeal , the St ate is en titled to the strong est leg itimate vie w of the e

vidence and all
reasona ble and legitimate inferences which may be drawntherefrom. See Carruthers , 35 S.W.3d at 558; Hall , 8 S.W.3d at 599. A guilty verdict by the trier of fact accredits the testimony of the State’s witnesse s and res olves all c onflicts in the evi dence in favor of the prosecution’s theory

. See State
v. Bland , 958 S.W.2d 651, 659 (Ten n. 19 97). Questions about the credibility of witnesses, the weight and value of the evidence, as well asall factual issues raised by the evidence are

resolved by the trier of fact, and this Court will not re-weigh or re -evaluate the evidence. See Evans , 108 S.W.3d at 236; Bland , 958 S.W.2d at 659. Nor will this Court substitute i ts own in ferences drawn from circumstantial evidence for those drawn by the trier of fact. See Evans , 108 S.W.3d at 23 6-3 7; Carruthers , 35 S.W.3d at 557. Especia lly aggravated

kidnapping is committed when, using a deadly weapon, the accused knowingly re

moves or confines another unlawfully so as to interf

ere subs tantially

withthe other’s li be rt y. See Te nn. Code A nn. § 39-1 3-305(a )(1). A p erson acts “knowingly ” when he or she is “aware of the natu re of [his or her] c onduct.” Id

. § 39-11-3 02(b). F urthermo re, an a ccused i s criminally

responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if, “[a]cting with intent to promote o

r assist the commissi on of the o ffense , or to ben efit in the procee ds or results of t he offense, the [accused] solicits, directs, aids, or attempts to aid another person to commit the offense.” Id. § 39-11-402(2).

Defendant

John Williams was convicted of the esp ecially ag gravated kidnappings of Kimberly Hancock, Divin Wright, Omar Coleman, Oliver Wri ght, and Jerome Carpente r. With respect to Ki mberly, t

he proof established that Defendant John forced her a t gunpoint to sit on a couch in M arion Va

ughn’s house

while he interrogated her about Oliver Wright. Defendant John also kept Divin

Wright on the same couch at gunpoint, as well as later for cing Divin into a car trunk at gunpoin t. Defendant John also participated in holding Omar Coleman at gunpoint in the house, and in forcing Omar at gunpoi nt into the t r unk of a c ar. Def

endant John

behave d similarly

with Oliver Wright a nd Jerome Ca

rpenter , partic ipating

in confin ing thes e men in the house at gunpoint and later forcing them into car trunks. The De fendant’s argument that

the State failed to prove that-7-

he acted “knowingly” in these exploits is ludicrous. In short, the evidence is more than suffic ient to support

all of the se convictions, and this issue i s without me

rit.

Defend ant John Willia

ms was als o convicte d of the a ggra vated ro bberiesof Divin

Wright, Omar Coleman, and Oli ver Wright. Aggrava ted robbery

is “the intentional or knowing theft of propert y from the personof another by violence or putting the pers on in fea r,” acc omplished

with
a deadly weapon. Id. §§ 39-13-401(a), 39-13-402(a)(1). Divin, Oma r and Oliv er each testifie d that, in conjunction with being stripped, beaten and confi n ed at gunpoint, they were dispossessed of money and/or other valuables by their assailants, inc ludi ng Defendant John Williams. Thus, the evidence is more tha

n suffic ient to sup

port all of these c onvictions, and this issue is also without merit.
SENTENCING Especia lly aggravated kidnapping

is a Class A felony, se e id. § 39-13-305(b)(1), and aggravated

robbery is a Class B felony. See id. § 39-13-402(b). The p resumptive sentence for a Class A felony is midpoint in the applicable ra nge, see id. § 40-35-210(c), subject to being increa sed for applicable enhancement factors and decreased for applicable mitiga ting factors. See id. § 40-35- 210(e). The presumptive sentence for a Class B felony is the minimum in the applicable range, see id. § 40-35-210(c), likewise subject to being increa sed and decreased. See id. § 40-35-210(e).

Defendant

John was se

ntenced as a Rang e I o ffende

r. The pr esumptive

sentenc e for his especia lly aggravated kidnapping

convicti ons is th er efor e t we nt y yea rs , w it h a ma xi mu m o f t we nt yfive ye ars and a

minimum of f

ifteen y ears. See id. § 40-35-112(a)(1). The presumptive sentence for his aggravated robbe

ry convictions is eig

ht years, with a ma

ximum of twelve yea

rs. See id. § 40-35- 112(a)(2). After a

hearing , the tria

l court de termined that multip le enhanc ement fa ctors ap plied to all of Defendant

John’s conv

ictions, and accordingly

sentenced him to the maximum term for each offense.

Defendan t John does not challenge the length of each individual sentenc e. Rather, he challenges the trial court’s decision to run all of his sentences consecutively for an effective term of 161 years.

When a defendant is convicted of multiple offenses, the trial court may order some or

all of the sentences to run consecutively “if the court finds by

a preponderance of the evidenc e that . .

. [t]he defenda

nt is a dan gerou s offend

er whose behavior indicates little or no regard for human life, and no hesitation about committing a crim e in which the risk to human life is high.” Id. § 40-35- 115(b)(4). In this case, the trial court found D efendant John to be such a “dangerous offender,”

and that he “should not be a

llowed to l

ive in [the] community and in our society .” Defendant John now contends that the trial court erred in determining him to be a dang erous offender, and further arg ues that his effective 161 term is “not reasonably related to the offenses involved.”

Before a trial c ourt impose s a

sentence upon a convicted criminal defenda nt, it must consider (a) th e evid ence ad duced at the trial and th e sent encin g hearin g; (b) the presentence report; (c) the-8-

principles of sentencing and argume nts as to sentencing alternatives; (d) the nature a nd characteristics of the criminal conduct involved; (e) evidence and information offered by

the parties
on the enha

ncement and mitig ating f

actors s et forth

in Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40-35- 113 a nd 40-35-114; and (f) any statement the defendant wishes to make in the defenda nt’s ow n behalf about sentencing. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-210(b ); State v. I mfeld , 70 S.W.3d 698, 704 (Tenn. 2002). To

facilita te appellate rev

iew, the t rial cou rt is require d to place

on the re cord its
reasons for imposing the spe cific sentence, including the identification of the mitigating and enhancement

factors found, the specific facts supporting each enhance ment factor found, and the method by which the mitiga ting and enhancement factors have been evaluated and

balanced in determining the sentence. See State v. Sa muels , 44 S.W.3d 489, 492 (Tenn. 2001). Upon a challenge to the sentence imposed, this Court has a duty to conduct

a de novo review of the sentence with a presumption that thedeterminations made by the trial court are correct. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-4 01(d). H owever , this presumption “is conditioned upon the affirmative showing in the record that the trial court considered the sente ncing p rinciple s and all r

elevant facts and circumstances.” State v. Ashby , 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991). If our review r eflects that the trial court followed

the statutory sentencing

procedure, that the court imposed a lawful sentenc e after having given due consideration and pr oper weight to the fact

ors and principles set out under the sentencing law, and that the trial court’s findings of fact are adequately

supported by the record, then the presumption is applicable and we may not modify the sentence even if we wou ld have preferred a different result. See State v. Pike , 978 S .W.2d 904, 9 26-27 (T enn. 1998 ). We will uphol d the sentence imposed by the trial court if (1) the sentence complies with the p urposes an d principles of the 1989 Sentencing Act, and (2) the trial court’s findings are a dequately supporte d by the record. See State v. A rnett , 49 S.W.3d 250, 257 (Tenn. 2001). The burden o f sh owing th at a sentence is improper is upon the appeal ing p arty. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401 Sentencing Commission Co mments; Arnett , 49 S.W.3d at 257.

Before a trial court may

impose consecutive sentences on the basis of findin g a def

endant to be a “dangerous offende r,” the court must also “ dete rmine whether (1) the terms imposed are
reasona bly related to the severity of the

offenses committed, and (2) the impositionof consecutive sentences is necessary

in order to protec t the public from further criminal acts by the offender.” Arnett , 49 S.W.3d at 264. In Arnett , the def endant w as convicte d of ag grava ted rape , especi ally aggravated

kidnapping, aggrava

ted robbery , aggravated assa ult, and setting fire to personal pr op er ty. The defendant abducted the female victim and he r boyfriend a

t gunpoint, stealing their car in the process
. After being struck in the face f or resisting, the boy friend w as able t o escape a short tim

e later. The defendant drove the female victim to a secluded spot

and raped her. He then bound her and left her naked, driving away in the stolen car. The defendant later set fire to the vehicle.

The defendant was sentenced as a Range I

offender to themaximum twen ty- five y ear ter ms for the aggravated ra

pe and the especially

aggravated kidnapping , both Class A felonies. The trial court then determined the defendant to be a “dang erous offender” and ordered the sentences to run co ns ec ut iv el y, for an effective sentence of fifty y ears. Our supreme court affirmed the trial court’s sentenc ing dec ision, find

ing that-9- [t]he record

fully supports c onsecuti ve sente nces in th is case . As the trial court describ ed, this wa s a “horr ify ing crime with

horrifying

results,” and we agree that co nsecutive sentences are nece ssary to protect the public from further violent criminal conduct by the

defendan t. We also agree that the sentence ter ms are reasonably

related to the severity

of the crimes based

on the fact

that the defendant
was convicted of five separate criminal offe nses arising from the terrible events of that o ne even ing.

Id. at 264-65. Among the trial court’s observations during the sentencing hearing for Defenda

nts Jarvis and John Will iams a re the f ollo wing:

I mean where’s the cruelty

scale where you determine wh ether pouring bleach
on indi viduals , throwing them into f

ireplac es with hot

coals, bu

rning th em with cigar ettes, breaking canes over their bodie s, telling them that they’r e going to diethat night, that their

grave s have been dug, making t hem strip d

own, pile up in piles , making them walk out to the car nake d and ge t in trunks of cars to be driven away

. . . I think this isjust crue

lty t hat’s dif ficult to com prehen d. How human beings could do this to o ther human being s, I don’t understand . . . I don’t see how any rational human being could look at this record and the proof that was p

resente d in this case and not

conclude that these two men are dangerous off enders, that these two men should not be allowed to live in your community and in our society, . . .

Defendant

John Williams committed numerous horrifying crimes with horrify ing re sul ts, agains tfive indiv

idual vic tims. The r

eig n of terror i n which he participated requires a sever e sentence and dem ands th at he never be allowed to threaten other citizens again. The maximum effectivesentence allowable is appropriate in t his c ase, given the facts and circ umstances surrounding Defend ant John’s vicious cr ime spree . Accor

dingly , we aff

irm t he tr ial court’s determination that Defendant John is a “dangerous offender” and further affirm the trial court’s imposition o f an eff

ective s entence

of 161 y ears. Th is issue is without mer

it.

Defendant

Jarvis Willia

ms al so challenges his effective sentenc e of 360 yea rs. Defendant Jarvis was sentenced

as a Range I

I offender, w

hich classification he does not contest. He does a llege
error in the application of enhancement factors, however , and further complains that the imposition of consecutive sentences is improper.

The presu mpti ve Ran ge II sentenc e for es pecially

aggr avated k idnapping is 32.5 y ears, w ith
a maximum allowable term of forty y ears. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-210(c), 40-35-112(b)(1)

. The presump tive R ange II sentence for agg

ravated robbery

is twelve year s with a maximum allowabl e term of twenty y ears. See id. §§ 40-35-210(c), 40-35-112(b)(2). The trial court sentenced Defendant

Jarvis to the maximum term of forty years for each of his seven e spec ially ag gravated3 We recognize that t hree of Defendant Jarv is’ kidn apping vi ctims , Kimberly , Tonyell , and Jodeci , were r elease d volun tarily. Th e volu ntary rele ase o f the victim of an e spec ially aggra vated kidna ppin g is to be considere d as a mitigati ng factor at s entencing. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-305 (b)(2). In thi s case, whil e Kimberly and To nyell were volun tarily releas ed, the y were al so thr eatened wi th dir e consequences if they rep ort ed the Defendants’ crimes t o the police. In our view, also espo used by the trial c ourt, this les sened the weig ht of this mitigat ing factor s uch that, i n light of the multi ple enhanc ement f actors properly applied, the maxi mum terms ar e appropriat e.

-10- kidnapping convictions, relying on numerous enhancement factors. The trial cour talso sentenced Defendant

Jarvis to the maximum term of twenty years for each of his four ag gravat ed robberi es, again rely ing on numerous enhancement factors.

Defendant

Ja rv is co nc ed es th at th e t ri al co ur t p ro pe rl y app lied at least three enhancement factor s to each

of his sen

tences, to wit:

The defendant has a previous history of criminal convictions or crimin al behav ior in addition to those necessary to establish the appropriate range;

The defendant was a leade r in the commission of an offense involving two (2) or more criminal actors; and

The felon[ies] [were] committed while on . . . release status . . . from a prior felony conviction.

Id. § 40-35-1 14(2), ( 3), (14) . The pro of suppor ts the app lication o f these th ree enh anceme

nt facto rs, and they are

sufficient in and of themselves to justify imposition of the maximum terms allowable. We th er efor e d ee m i t u nn ec es sa ry t o addres s Defendant Jarvis’ allegations concerning the trial court’s application of other enhancement fa ctors, and affirm the individual sentences imposed. 3

We also affirm

the trial court’s determination that Defendant Jarvis is a dangerous offende r, and that t he imposi tion of consecutive sentences is necessary in order to protect the public from further cri mina l ac ts b y Def end ant Jarv is. With res pec t to D efe

nda nt Ja rvis’ content ion that an effective 360 ye ar term i s not rea sonably related to the sev erity

of these multiple vi olent off

enses, we disagr ee. We not

e that our supreme court has repeat edly upheld se ntencesconsecu

tive to a d eath sentence. See State v. Reid , 91 S.W.3d 247, 312 (Tenn. 20 02 ), an d c as es ci te d t he re in . O bv io us ly, particularly

brutal crimes justify sentenc es that actually e xceed the offender’s lifespan. Such is the case here.

Fi na ll y, as pointed out by the State, both of the Defendants were on probation at the time they committed the instan

t offens es. This ci rcumstance independently supports the imposition of consecutive sentences on both Defendants. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(6).

In conclusion, we affirm the Defendants’ convictions and sentences. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.-11- ___________________________________ DAVID H. WEL

LES, JUDGE