### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs D ec em be r 2, 200 8

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. MA RK AN THON Y B UN TLEY

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Bedf ord County No. 16182 Lee R ussell, Ju dge

No. M2008- 01538-CCA -R3-C D - F iled April 3, 2009

Th e de fe nd a nt, Mark

An th on y B un tle y , w a s c on vic te d b y a jur y of br ibi nga wi tne ss, a

Cla ss C felony . For

his conviction, the defe ndant was se ntence d to nine y ear s in the Tenne ssee De partment of Corre ction. On appe al, the def endant r aises the f

ollowing issues: (1) whether the evidenc e wa s sufficie nt to sustain his conviction; and (2) whether the trial cour

t imposed an excessive sentenc e.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

J.C. M C L IN , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS and C A M I LLE R. M C M UL L EN , J J ., joined.

A n dr e w J a c k s o nD e ar i n g , S h e l b yv i l l e , T e n n e s s e e , f o r t h e a p p e l l an t , M ar

k A n t h o n y B u n t l e y.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr

. , A tt o r

n e y G e n e r a l a n d Re po rt e r; B e nja

min A. B a ll, As sis tant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Charles Cra

wford, D istrict Attorney

Gene ral; and Michae l D

. Randles, Assistant D istrict Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

T h e d e f e n d an t w a s c o n v i c t e d o f b r i b i n g a w i t n e s s an d s e n t e n c e d a s a R an g e I I o ff e nd e r t o
s erve a nine y ear

sentenc e in the Te nnessee Depa rtment of Corre ction. The followingrele vant testimony was presented at the defendant’s trial. Detec tive Br ian C rew s of the Shelby ville Poli ce Depa rtment testified that in 2006, the defendant wa s char g ed with ag g ravated burg lary and thef t, and that his trial was set for

J anuar y 9, 2007. Detec tive Crews stated that Amy Merlo, and her nine or ten y ear old son, Sky ler Ha

rre ll, were schedule d to te stify at the def

endant’ s trial. Ms. Merlo was the def endant’ s former

g irlfriend a

nd the mother of his c hild. De t ec t i ve Crew s testified that

a pp ro xima te ly

on e we e k p ri or

to t he Janu ary

20 07 tr ia l, he and the pr os e c uto r me t wi th Ms. Me rl o and Sky ler. De tective Cre ws instructed Ms. Merlo to be in court on J anuar y 9, 2007 at 9:00 a.m., and to have Sky ler in cour t by 1:00 p.m. Neither Ms. Mer lo nor Sky ler a ppear ed in cour

t on J anuar

y 9, 2007. After

Ms. Merlo fa iled to appea r, Detective Crews contac ted other de tectives at his office and re quested that they

try to locate he r. The de tectives we re not a ble to locate Ms. Me rlo or Sky ler.-2-

When Ms. Merlo and Sk y ler fa iled to appea r af ter the lunc h brea

k, the def

endant’ s trial was continued to a later date. L ater on J anuar y 9, 2007, Ms. Merlo was loc ated, take n into custody , and held without bond.

Detec tive Crews fur

ther testified that up to, and on J anua ry 9 , 2 0 0 7, the def endant wa s an inmate in the Be dford County J ail. After Ms. Me rlo and Sky ler failed to a ppear in court to testify

on J anuar y 9, 2007, Detec tive Crews reque sted Trey Arnold, a Be dford County Sheriff’ s Depa

rtment employ ee, to r esea

rch the computer sy stem to determine if the defe ndant place d any calls in times leadingup to the J anuar

y 9, 2007 trial. Dete ctive Crew s confirme d that his request to L ieutenant Arnold included a

targ et number to be rese arc hed in the computer database . The tar g et number w as the listing for

Dea ls on W heels, a

business where J ames F arr ar, Jr., the def en d ant’s cousin, was employ ed. Dea ls on Wheels was owned by J ames Fa rra r, Sr., the def

endant’ s uncle, who a lso owned a loca l bonding c ompany . L ieutenant Ar no l d informed De tective Cre ws that he located five telephone c alls made on January 8, 2007 from the B edfor d County J ail t o De al s o n W h eels. At Dete ct i v e Crews’ r equest, L ieutenant Ar nold made a c ompact disc c ontaining r ecor dings of the telephone c alls. Detec tive Crews testified that upon list ening to the telephone c alls, he identified the voices of the defe ndant, J ames Fa rra r, J r., and Ms. Me rlo. Additionally , the three speake rs identified themselves in the calls. Detec tive Crews c onfirmed that the c ontents of the compa ct disc re ceive d from L ieutenant Ar

nold were fair a

n d ac cu ra te copies of

the ca lls that the detective r eviewe d. Detec tive Crews stated that he wa s awa re that during the investig ation leadingup to the J anuar y 9, 20 07 tr ia l, M s. Me rl o h a d p laced a re str ic tio n o n h e r t e le ph on e wh ic h b loc ke d c a lls fr om t he ja il. Detec tive Crews testified that the defe ndant contac ted Ms. Merlo throug h a thre e-w ay call, with the orig inal call made by

the de fe n d an t from the jail to Mr. F arr ar at Deals on Wheels, who then contac ted Ms. Merlo.

On cr oss-examination, Detective Cre ws stated that Ms. Merlo ha d been issued a subpoena by the state to appe ar in c ourt on J anuar y 9, 2007. Detec tive Crews de nied beingcontac ted by telephone or

rec eiving corr espondenc e fr om Ms. Merlo on J anuar y 8 or January

9, 2007.

L ieutenant Ar

nold testified that his duties with the Be d fo rd C ounty Sheriff’ s Depa

rtment included computer

work. L ieutenant Ar

nold confirmed that the def endant, a s an inmate in the Be dford County

J ail, had ac cess to an outg oing te lephone line. Outg oing c alls from the jail we re billed to the rec ipient of the ca ll, and a pre rec orded state ment notified the inmate a nd the re cipient of e a c h c a ll that c a lls we re su bje c t to mon ito ri ng and re c or din g

. Al l ou tg oin g c a lls we re di git a lly stored on a c omputer har d drive. On January 9 o r 1 0 , 2 0 07, L ieutenant Ar nold was conta cted by Detec tive Crews who r equeste d that he per form a se arc h for outg oing c alls to a targ et number provided by

Detec tive Crews. L ieutenant Ar nold perfor

med the sea

rch a nd notified Dete ctive Crew s that five c alls made to the tar g et number w ere located. A t Detec tive Crews’ r equest, L ieutenant Arnold made a disc and then compar ed the orig inal rec ording s of the ca lls on the hard drive to the

re c or din g s o f the c a lls on the c omp a c t disc and fo un d the re c or din g s w e re e xac tly the same . A c a ll log show ed ca lls from the defe ndant wer e made on J anuar y 8, 2007 at 11: 55 a.m., 12:10 p.m., 2:48 p. m., 2:5 1 p .m. and

3:0 9 p .m.-3-

The c ompact disc c ontaining r ecor dings of the five ca l ls was made a n exhibi t at trial and play ed for

the jury . The jury

was a lso pr ovided copies of transc ripts of the re corde d calls to revie w while listening to the r ecor dings. The rec ording s reve aled th at o n J an u ar y 8, 2007, the def

endant

c a lle d M r. F arr ar, wh o id e nti fi e d h ims e lf a s “B lue .” Th e de fe nd ant co uld no t dir e c tly c on ta c t Ms

. Merlo fr om Be dford County J ail beca use she had plac ed a “ block” of collect tele phone ca lls on her residential tele phone. The defe ndant i nformed Mr. Fa rra r t hat he was “ne rvous” a

bout his trial and commented that he thoug ht Ms. Merlo was “ g onna be up the re te stify ing a g ainst me.” The defe ndant then aske d Mr. Fa

rra r for “a f avor” and re quested that Mr. Far rar have Ms. Merlo ca lled “on a thr eeway .” Mr. F arr ar c omplied and the following conver sation took place:

MR. FARRAR: Yeah, he re, ma n. Call three- way

for [the defe ndant], will y ou? UN I DENT I F I ED SPEA KE R: Wh o d o y ou wa nt m e to c a ll? [THE DEFEN DANT]: Amy [Merlo] . Ithink she’s testifying a g ainst me.

. . . . After Ms. Merlo was c ontacted, the following conver sation occur red: [THE DEFEN DANT]: Hey , y ou comi n g t o co u rt to testify ag ainst me tomorrow, ain’t y ou? MS. MERL O: Mark? [THE DEFEN DANT]: Yeah. MS. MERL O: I ’m not like try ing to do all that, but I mean, but they -they come ove r and they like (inaudible) a

nd I ’m g onna have to do thi s o r t h i s i s going to ha ppen. And they talked to Sky ler.

. . . . Th e y wa nted to tal k to h im. Idid n’ t r e a lly have a c ho ic e the y

c ou ld s ub po e na

me
any wa y and the re wa sn ’t

no thi ngIc ou ld d o a

bo ut i t.

. . . . MR. FARRAR: This i s Blue. Y ou ain’t g oing up the re to testify ag ains t him, are y ou?

. . . . MS. MERL O: No, [I ]’m not t estifying a g ainst him, but m y son will be. [THE DEFEN DANT]: They ’re g onna call y ou to te stify tomorrow. You know that, don’t y ou? MS. MERL O: Yes, Mar k. MR. FARRAR: I mean, he ll, Amy , y ou don’t know nothing , though, do you?

. . . . Ime an, the bo y ’s g oin g to g e t ro y a lly f[-

-- ]ed tom or ro w if so me bo dy do n’ t a c t r ig ht. MS. MERL O: Blue
, I know what the f[

--- ]’s g oing on. I know what I ’m doing , too.

. . . . Y o ua c t l ik e I ’ m g o in g to c o me u p th e r e an d

f [-

- - ]i n g g o

-

ju s t l ik e te ll a ll th is s [-

- - ],

and I ’m no t.

. . . .-4-

The de fenda

nt placed a s econd call to Mr. Fa rra r. Prior to Ms. Merlo joining the call, the fo llo wi nge xch ang e too k p la c e be tw e e n M r. F arr ar a nd the de fe nd ant:

MR. FARRAR: L ord, she’ s g onna roy ally scre w y ou tomorrow. [THE DEFEN DANT]: Iknow it, man. I t’s f[---]ed up. I had a f[---]ing gut fee ling

s h e w a s g o in g to d o th a t s [-

- - ]. MR. F ARRA R: D id you he ar h e r l ie fi rs t and

sa y sh e wa sn ’t ? [THE DEFEN DANT]: Yeah.

. . . .
Th e se c on d c a ll con ti nu e d a nd Ms. Me rl o w a s c on ta c te d. A d isc us sio n w ithc omm e nts

re gar d i n g t h e b l o cko nM s

. M er l o ’s t el ep h o n e l i n e e n s u edan d i n cl u d edt h e f

o l l o wi n g d i al o g:
[TH E D EF EN DA

NT ]: Ig ue ss you

be tte r g e t on

that ph on e and cal l th e m and te ll them - - MS. MERL O: Ihave been, Mark. I called them like two day s ag o. My bill wasn’t but like $83 - - [THE DEFEN DANT]: I t don’t rea lly matter, be cause this is the only thing I neede d to talk to y ou about, rig ht here and we’ re ta lking a bout it and then I ’m f[---]ing ma d,

now. M S

. M E R L O : O k ay. [THE DEFEN DANT]: You’re fix ing to g et up there and g et me a lot of time . . . . MS. MERL O: All rig ht, Mark, whatever

. [ T H E D E F E N D A

N T ] : F o r r e a l
, A m y. MS. MERL O: All rig ht, we done ta lking then? [THE DEFEN DANT]: You k n o w how much time I ’m looking at rig ht now? S e r i o u s l y? MS. MERL O: Yea

h. [THE DEFEN DANT]: I ’m looking at ge tting 8 to 12 on one char g e and 3 to 6 on the other one , and I ’ve a lrea dy g ot four y ear s . . . . That’s a lot of time. MS. MERL O: Well, I wasn’t even going to g o and they said they could g et me for

c on te mpt of c ourt

. [THE DEFEN DANT]: They tell y ou a lot of thing s. M S

. M E R L O : S o t h e y

c an ’ tar r e s tm e i f Id o n ’ ts h o wu

p ? [THE DEFEN DANT]: You’re g onna have to show up now.

. . . . MR. F ARRA R: We ll- [THE DEFEN DANT]: They can’ t-they

can’ t make Sky ler g et on the stand. MR. FARRAR: Mark, Mark. As far as Amy and him, they

don’t have to show up tomorrow. The y

can’ t ge t in no trouble, neither . . . . [THE DEFEN DANT]: That’s what my lawy er - - my

lawy er sa id that they

don’t have to show up, sa id Sky ler don’t e ven have to - - MR. FARRAR: He - - he ’s a minor.-5-

MS. MERL O: They

said we w as subpoena ed. The y said that if I don’t show up that the y c ou ld g e t me fo r c on te mpt

. MR. F ARRA R: N o, the y c an’ t. [THE DEFEN DANT]: Sky ler c annot be subpoe naed - - MR. FARRAR: They -they tell y ou that kind of s[---], Amy , to scare y ou. Iain’t taking up for Ma

rk or nothing but he nee ds some help. [THE DEFEN DANT]: Yeah, I need a ll the help Ican f

[---]ing g et rig ht now. MR. FARRAR: W ell, the best thing to do is not show up tom orrow. [THE DEFEN DANT]: They can’ t arre st y ou for it (inaudible)

. MR. F ARRA R: T he y

c an’ t arr e st you

fo r i t. [THE DEFEN DANT]: They espec ially

can’ t arre st Sky ler . . . . MR. FARRAR: They

arr est y ou, I ’ll come up ther e and make your bond for fre e. MS. ME RL O: Wel l, you be tte r d a mn i t. MR. FARRAR: You just don’t go up there tomorrow. MS. MERL O: Then I ’m g oing to be violated. MR. FARRAR: You call me.

. . . . During the third ca ll, the d ef endant a nd Mr. Fa

rra r we re not a

ble to contac t Ms. Merlo, howeve r Mr. F arr ar state d to the defe ndant that he would “ g ive [Ms. Merlo and Sky ler] $50 and send the m to Na sh vil le

. Make sure so me bo dy g oe s wi th the m ou t of tow n. ” Duri ngthe fo ur

th c a ll, Ms. M e r l o w a s c o n t a c t e d

an d M r

. F ar r ar a g a i no f f e r e d “ [ b ] u t i f y o ug o t o j a i l
, w e ’ l l m a k e y o u r b o n d

. It won’t cost y ou a nicke l. But more or l ess t hey probably won’t even do that. That’s at the most.” Al so duri ngthi s c a ll, the de fe nd ant c on fi rm e d th a t Ms . M e rl o h a d s ig ne d a su bp oe na and wa s le g a lly obligated to arr ive at court the following day

. At one point, Mr. Fa rra r stated that he was putting the te le ph on e do wn

to a llo w the de fe nd ant a

nd Ms. Me rl o to ta lk. Th e de fe nd ant r e pe a te d to Ms. Me rl o Mr. Fa rra r’s stateme nt reg ardingthe pay ment of money

stating “ Blue said he was g oing to g ive y ou a h u n dre d d o l l ar s an d t el l y o u t o go t o Na s h v i l l e. ” T h e d ef en d an t s t at ed t h at M s

. M er l o s h o u l d “go up there and talk to B lue.”

Duri ngthe fi ft

h c a ll, the defend ant in for me d M r. F arr ar t

hat Ms . M e rl o a g re e d to c ome to Dea ls on W heels to see Mr. Fa rra r that af ternoon, a nd that she was not goingto appea r in court the following day

. Mr. Farra

r t old the defendant that they would call Ms. M erlo in the morningto “make sure she ain’t coming .”

Th e de fe nd ant de c lin e d to te sti fy on his ow n b e ha lf

. B a se d o n th e e vid e nc e pr e se nte d at tr ia l, t h e j u ry fo u n d t h e d ef en d an tgu i l t y

o f b ri b i n g a w i t n es s

. T h e d ef en d an twa s s en t en ce d

as a R an ge I I , multipl e off

ender to nine y ear s to be served at 35% i n the Tenne ssee De partment of Corr ection.

I . Sufficienc y

of the Evidenc e

T h e d ef en d an t ch al l en ges t h e s u ff i ci en cy o f t h e ev i d en ce as t o h i s co n v i ct i o n fo r b ri b i n g a witness. The de fenda

nt contends that he said nothing to Ms. Merlo to induce her to be abse nt from-6-

his trial. The def

endant a sserts that Ms. Merlo’s de cision not to show up an d t est ify was made ind e pe nd e nt o f a

ny dis c us sio n w ith him

. Th e de fe nd ant a sse rt s that on Janu ary 8, 20 07 , M s. Me rl o stated her intentions to be absent from the tria l during the first telephone call and of fer s to pay

her bond wer e made afte r she had “committed not to appea r.” The defe ndant ar g ues that his conviction

was e rrone ously

based on spe culative a

nd insufficient c ircumstantial evidenc e.

Our r e vie w be g ins wi th the we ll- e sta bli sh e d rul e that on c e a

jur y fi nd s a de fe nd ant guil ty , h is or her presumption of innoce nce is re moved and r eplaced wi t h a p resumption of g uilt. State v. Evans , 838 S.W .2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992) . There fore , on appea l, the convicted de fenda nt has the burden of demonstrating to this court why the evidenc e will not suppor t the jury ’s ver dict. State v. Car ru the rs , 3 5 S. W .3d 5 16 , 5 57 -5 8 ( Te nn . 2 00 0) ; Sta te v . Tu gg le , 639 S.W .2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). To mee t this burden, the defe ndant m ust establish that no “rational trie r of f act” could have found the e ssential elements of the crime bey ond a re asonable doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 4 43 U. S. 30 7, 31 9 ( 19 79 ); State v. Ev ans , 1 08 S.W. 3d 23 1, 23 6 ( Te nn . 2 00 3) ; see T e n n

. R

. A p p

. P

. 1 3 ( e )

. In contra st, the jury ’s v er d i ct appr oved by the trial judg e ac cre dits the state’s witnesses a nd resolves all conflicts in favor of the state. Sta te v . H arris , 8 39 S.W. 2d 54 , 75 (Tenn. 1 99 2) . T he state is entitled to the strong est leg itimate view of the e vidence and all re asonable infere nces w hich may be draw n from that evide nce. Car ru the rs , 35 S.W .3d at 558. Questions conc erningthe cr edibility of the wi tne sse s, c on fl ic ts i n tr ia l te sti mony , th e we ight and val ue to be g ive n th e e vid e nc e , a nd a ll fac t u al i s s u es ra i sed by

the evidenc e ar e re solved by the trier of

fac t and not this court. State v. Bland , 958 S.W .2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997) . We do not att empt to re-w eig h or re -eva luate the evidenc e. Sta te v . R e id , 91 S.W .3d 247, 277 (Tenn. 2002)

. L ikewise, we do not r eplac e the jury ’s infere nces dr awn f

rom the circ umstantial evidence with our own infer ence s. Id

. “A pe rson is criminally

responsible a s a par

ty to an offe nse if the offe nse is committ ed by the person’ s own conduc t, by the conduc t of another

for whic h the per son is criminally responsible, or by bo th. ” Te nn . Co de Ann. § 3 9- 11 -4 01 (a)(200 6). On e is c ri min a lly re sp on sib le fo r a

n o ff e ns e committed by another when, “[a] cting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense
, or to b e ne fi t in

the procee ds or

re su lts of the of fe ns e , th e pe rs on

so lic its , d ir e c ts, a ids , o r a tte mpt s to aid another

person to commit the offe nse.” Id . § 39 -1 1- 40 2( 2)

. Cr imi na l r e sp on sib ili ty is n ot a separ ate c rime but “solely a theor y by which the State may

prove the defe ndant’s guilt of the alleg ed offe nse . .

. based upon the conduct of anothe r per son.” State v. Dick ens , 123 S.W .3d 355, 389-90 (T en n

. C ri m

. A p p

. 2 0 0 3 ) ( qu o t i n g State v. Lemac ks , 996 S.W .2d 166, 170 (Tenn. 1999) ). To be

c ri min a lly

re sp on sib le fo r t

he a c ts o f a

no the r, th e defe nd ant m

us t “ in s ome wa

y a sso c ia te him se lf with the venture
, act with knowledg e that an offense is to be committed, and share in the criminal intent of t he principal in the first degr ee.” State v. Max ey , 898 S.W .2d 756, 757 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1 9 9 4 ) ( qu o t i n g He mb re e v . S tat e , 546 S.W .2d 235, 239 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1976) ).

Relevant to this case
, the offe nse of bribing a witness occur s when a person “ [o] ffe rs, conf

ers or ag ree s to confer

any thing of value upon a

witness or a person the defe ndant believe s will be called

as a witness in any officia l proce eding with intent to

. . . [i ]nduce the witness to be abse nt from an officia l proce ed i n g t o wh ich that witness has be en leg ally summoned[.] ” Te nn. Code Ann. § 39-16-107 ( a)( 1)(C).-7-

The de fenda

nt argues that Ms. Merlo stated her intention not to t estify

in the first telephone

conver sation and conte nds that he did not offe r any thing of value to her

to induce her

not to appear

. Howeve r, the evidenc e, viewe d in the light most favor able to the state , showed that on the da y befor e the def endant’ s trial, he called Mr. Fa rra r and stated that he was “ner vous” about the trial and that he thoug ht that Ms. Merlo was g oing to t es t i fy ag ainst him. The defe ndant then aske d Mr. Fa rra r fo r “ a fa vo r” to h a ve so meo ne th ere “ c a ll A my [Me rl o] on

the thr e e -w ay .” Th e de fe nd ant a g a in repe ated his conc ern r eg ardingMs. Merlo’s testimony to an unidentified spea

ker w ho was a sked by Mr. Fa rra r to “c all three -wa

y for the [defendant]” st ating he wanted t o call Ms. Merlo, a nd said he thought “ she’s testify ing a g ainst me.” Upon r eac hing Ms. Me rlo, the def endant immediately

asked her to c onfirm that she was “coming to court to testify ag ainst [t he defenda nt] tomorrow . . . .” The dialog that followed re flec ted that Ms. Merlo believe d that she had no c hoice in testifying at the defe ndant’s trial. Althoug h Ms. Merlo stated she w ould not be testi fying ag ainst the defe ndant, the defe ndant did not believe Ms. Mer lo. After the first conver sation with Ms. Merlo, the defe ndant stated to Mr. F arr ar “ Iknew she was f[---]ing g onna testify ag ainst me.” The defe ndant made thr ee
mor e a tte mpt s to c on ta c t Ms. Me rl o a nd sp ok e wi th h e r t

wo mor e tim e s. Duri ngthe se c on ve rs a tio ns , the de fe nd ant s a id “ [y ]ou’ re fi xing to g e t up the re and get me a lot of tim e .” Whe n M s. Me rl o indicated that she had bee n told she would be ar rested for contempt of cour t if she did not show up at the trial, the de fenda

nt indicated that his “ lawy er said that they don’t have to show up,” and that Skyle r c ou ld n ot b e su

bp oe na e d b e c a

us e he wa s a

min or. Mr. Farr ar f

ur the r r e sp on de d to Ms. Merlo’s conce rns about being arr ested for c ontempt and losing he r job and off eringto pay

her bond “for fre e.” O n another

occa sion, Mr. Fa

rra r stated, “ [ b ] ut if y ou g o to jail, we’ll make your bond. I t won’t cost y ou a nicke l.” The evidenc e showed that Mr. Farra r, S r., t he defenda

nt’s uncle, owne d

a ba il b on din g bu sin e ss a

t th e tim e . D ur ingthe thi rd c a ll, Mr . Fa rr a r tol d th e de fe nd ant t

hat he wo uld g ive Ms. Merlo fifty

dollars and se nd Ms. Merlo and Skyler out of town. I n the fourth c all, the de fe nd ant i nf

or me d Ms. Me rl o tha t Mr. F arr ar sa id he wa s g oin g to g ive he r m on e y and wo uld te ll her to g o to Nashville. The defe ndant instructed Ms. Me rlo “to g o up there and talk to Blue.” The telephone c onversations establish that the defendant knew Ms. Merlo was unde r subpoena to testify

and that he a tte mpt e d to inf

lue nc e he r t o b e a

bs e nt f ro m hi s tr ia l.

We are not persuade d by

the def endant’ s contention that Ms. Merlo had alre ady decide d not to a pp e ar t o te sti fy

be fo re any

of fe rs we re ma de , a

nd that th e re fo re his a c tio ns did no t in du c e Ms. Me rl o n ot t o a

pp e ar a s a wi tne ss at th e de fe nd ant’ s tr ia l. Th e statut e fo r br ibi ng a wi tne ss c le a rl y define s the offe nse as of fer ing a ny thing of value with intent

to i n d u ce

. T en n

. Code Ann. § 39 -1 6- 10 7 ( a )( 1) (C ) (e mph a sis a dd e d)

. A sh ow ing that the de fe nd ant’ s of fe rs a c tua lly

ind uc e d M s. Merlo not to testify was not ne cessa ry for his c onviction. T he jury was a lso instructed on criminal responsibility

for the c onduct of a

nother. In addition to the defe ndant’s ac ti o n s , Mr. Fa rra r made offe rs to Ms. Merlo in the course of telephone calls initiated by the def endant. The ref

ore, a rational trier of fac t could find that the def endant of fer ed something of value to Ms. Merlo, whom he knew

wa s le g a lly

su mmo ne d, wi th t

he int e nt o f i nd

uci ng her to no t te sti fy

a t th e tr ia l a g a ins t hi m. Acc ording ly , we c onclude that the e vidence at trial wa s sufficient to support the c onviction.

I I . L eng th of Sentence-8-

The de fenda

nt asserts that the sentenc e imposed by the trial cour t was excessive a

nd contra ry to l aw. I n support of his asser tion, the defe ndant g ives a g ener al citation to Tenne ssee Code Annotated se ction 40-35-103 a nd “the testimony

at Trial a nd the SentencingHea

ring .”

When a def

endant c halleng es the leng th and manne r of ser vice of a sente nce, this cour

t conducts a

de novo revie w of the record with a presumption that the trial cour t’s deter minations are

corr ect. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 401(d). This presumption of corr ectne ss is conditioned upon the

a ff ir ma tiv e sh ow ingin t

he re c or d th a t th e tria l c ourt c on sid e re d th e se nte nc ingpr inc ipl e s and a ll rele vant facts and circumstance s. State v. Pe ttus , 986 S.W .2d 540, 543-44 (Te nn. 1999). Howe ver, if the re cor d s h o ws that the trial cour t failed to consider

the sentenc ing pr inciples and a ll releva nt fac ts an d circ umstances, then a revie w of the c halleng ed sente nce is pure ly de novo without the presumption of cor

rec tness. State v. Ashby , 823 S.W. 2d 16 6, 16 9 ( Te nn . 1 99 1) . O n a pp e a l, t he pa rt y challeng ing the sentenc e imposed by the trial cour

t has the burden of establishing that the sentenc ing d e c is io nw a s improp 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 io nCo mm e n ts

. We will uphold the sentenc e im posed by the trial cour

t if: (1) the sente nce c omplies with our sentencing statutes, and (2) the trial court’s finding s are adequately supported by

the re cord. Se e Sta te v . A rn e tt , 49 S.W. 3d

25 0, 25 7 ( Te nn . 2 00 1) ; see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-210. I f this court dete rmines that the sentenc e is err oneous, it “may aff irm, vacate, set aside, i n cre ase or reduc e the se ntence imposed or re mand the ca se or dire ct the entr y of an a ppropriate order .” Id. § 40-35-402( c).

The mec hanics of a

rriving at an a

ppropriate s entenc e ar e spelled out in the Criminal SentencingReform Ac t of 1989 and its amendments. The trial court is fr ee to se lect any sentenc e within the applicable r ang e so long as the leng th of the sentenc e complies with the purpose s and p r in c ip le s o f th e Se n te n c in g A c t. Id. § 4 0-3 5- 21 0; see also State v. Carter , 254 S.W .3d 335, 343 (Tenn. 2008) (noting that such principles e ncompass themes of punishment fitting of the crime, d e te r r e n c e , an d r e h a

b il it a ti o n )

. H o w e v e r , th e tr ia l c o u rt is r e qu ir e d to p la c e o n th e rec ord “w hat enhanc ement or mitig ating fac tors wer e considered, if any , as well as t he reasons for the sentenc e, to ensure f

air a nd consistent sentenc ing.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40 -3 5 -2 1 0 (d). Onc e applied, the chosen enhanc ement fac tor become s a sentenc ing consideration subjec t to r eview unde r Tenne ssee Code Annotated se ction 40-35-401( c)( 2). Thus, while the c ourt can weig h enhanc ement fa ctors as it chooses, the cour

t may only apply the fa ctors if they

are “appr opriate f

or the of fe nse” a nd “not alre ady an esse ntial element of the offe nse.” Id. § 40-35-114.

I n conductinga de novo r eview of a sente nce, this cour

t m u st consider (a ) any

evidenc e
rec eived at the t ri al and/or sentencinghear ing, ( b) the pre sentenc e re port, (c) the principles of sentenc ing, ( d) the a

rg uments of counse l relative to sentencing alternatives, (e) the nature and char acte ristics of the off

ense, (f) any mitigating or enhance ment fac tors, (g ) any statements made by the ac cused in his own beha lf, and (h) the accused’ s potential or l ack of potential for r ehabilitation

or tr e a tme nt. Ten n. Co de Ann. §§ 40 -3 5- 10 3, -2 10 ; State v. Taylor , 63 S.W .3d 400, 411 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001).

I n the i nstant case , the defendant was convicted of bribing a witness, a Class C felony . Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16- 107(d). At the se ntencinghear ing, the parties stipulated that the de fenda nt was-9-

a Rang e I Ioffe nder, w hich subjecte d him to a sentence of six to ten y ear s. Id. at § 40-35-112( b)(3)

. As to enhanc ement fa ctors, the trial court found that the defe ndant had a pre vious history of cr iminal convictions evidenc ed by the prese ntence repor t a nd additional exhibi ts f

iled by the state which provided proof

of cr iminal convictions not included in the presentence repor t. The court also found that th e de fe nd ant f

a ile d to c omp ly

wi th t he c on dit ion s o f a pr e vio us se nte nc e inv olv ingre le a se int o
a c omm un ity ba se d o n th e re vo c a tio n of his pr ob a tio n upo n a convic tio n of p os se ssi on of a Sc he du le I V controlled substanc e. The court fur ther noted that the defe ndant was inc arc erated at the time of the insta n t o ff

en s e. T h e cour

t found that the def

endant wa s the leade r in the commission of the i n s t an to f f e n s e

. A s p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d
, t h i s f i n d i n g i s s u

p p o rt e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e i nt h e r e c o r d

. F i n a l l y, the tr ia l c ourt

fo un d th a t th e de fe nd ant h a d b e e n c on vic te d a s a juv e nil e of fr a ud ule nt use of

a c re dit

car d in the amount of $1,000 - $10,000, which would have been a felony had the de fenda

nt been a n adult at the time of the offe nse. The c ourt found one mitig ating fac tor, that the cr ime neither c aused nor threatened se rious bodily injury but did not give the f

actor “any signific ant weig ht.”

Th e re c or d s up po rt s th e tr ia l c ourt ’s fi nd ing s of fa c t, a nd the de fe nd ant’ s se nte nc e wa s w ith in the appr opriate r ang e desi gn ated by the sentenc ing guidelines. Ther efor e, we conclude that the defe ndant’s sente nce w as not e x cessive or contra ry to our sentenc ing la

ws. The de fenda

nt is without relief as to this issue.

I I I . Conclusion

Ba sed on the for eg oing, w e af firm the trial c ourt’s convic tion and sentenc ing o f t he de fe nd ant.

___________________________________ J .C. McL I

N, J UDGE