### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON Se pte m be r 11, 200 7 S es sio n
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. DE WAY NE JONES

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty No. 03-06157 Ar thur T. Benn ett , Judge

No. W2006-01026-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Dece m ber 3, 2007

A Shelby County jury convicted the defe ndant, Dewa y ne J ones, of two counts of ag g ravated ra pe, a Class A fe lony . Be cause the two counts alleg ed alter native theor ies of the same offe nse, the trial
c ourt me rg e d th e tw o c on vic tio ns and se nte nc e d th e de fe nd ant a s a Rang e I , v iol e nt o ff

e nd e r t o tw e n ty

- tw o y e ar s in th e D e p artm e n t o f Co r r e c ti o n

. T h e d e f

e n d an t a p p e a ls , a ll e g in g th a t ( 1) the evidenc e wa s insufficient to support his conviction, including that the State did not prove ve nue wa s in Shelby County ; (2) the tria l court er red in not re quiring the State to e lect which of the ag g ravated rape counts it wished to proce ed upon; and ( 3) the trial c ourt misapplied one enhan cement fac tor. F oll ow ingour r e vie w o f t he re c or d, we a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., delivere d the opinion of t h e co u rt , in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES and J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J J ., joined.

Mart y B . McA fe e (o n ap pe a l) and Ros s Samps on (at tr ia l) , M e mph is, Te nn e sse e , f or the a pp e lla nt, De wa y ne Jone s.
Rob e rt E. Coo pe r , Jr

. , A tt o r

n e y Ge ne ra l and

Re po rt e r; Da

vid H. F ind le y , A ssi sta

nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; Wil liam L

. Gibbons, District Attorney Gene ral; and Stac ey

McEndre e, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

F AC TSB e c a u se o f t h e na tur e o f t h is m a tter , w e re fer to the vic tim b y he r in iti a ls o n ly. 1

-2- Th e vic tim , S. S., te sti fi e d th a t in May 20 03 sh e liv e d in De Sot o County , Mis sis sip pi, wi th 1 her mother and worked as a waitress at a r estaura nt on Be ale Stree t in Memphis. On May 5, 2003, S.S. ca lled and asked the defe ndant, whom she had met about six wee ks ear lier, for a ride home from work whe n her shift e nded at 10:00 p .m. S.S . said she had a cce pted rides f rom the def

endant on thr e e oc c a sio ns be fo re May 5 b ut h a d n ot d a te d o r h a d s e x with him

. Th e de fe nd ant, dr ivi ng a wh ite Gra nd Marquis, picke d up S.S. promptly at 10: 00 p.m. Rather than take her di rec tly home, he made
a fe w s top s b e fo re dr ivi ngto a pa rk on Th ir d Stre e t in

Me mph is, whe re the y

kis se d b ri e fl y . S. S. asked the defe ndant t o stop beca use she did not want their encounte r t o lead to sex . The de fenda nt the n s pe d o ut o f t

he pa rk and turn e d in to a

n a pa rtme nt c omp le x on T hir d Stre e t. S .S. be c a me frig htened be cause the def endant wa s driving e rratically , and she c alled her mother. When her mothe r an s wer ed, the de fenda nt took the phone from S.S., ended the c all, and punche d her in the fac e. Her mother immediately called back, and the defe ndant hit S.S. in the fa ce twic e more as she attempted to re claim her

phone. When her

mother ca lled ag ain, the def endant a nswere d and told her that S.S. was “okay” and that he was g oing to br ing he r home. The defe ndant then drove out of the apar tment complex, t hroug h a g as station parkinglot, and back to th e park on Thir d Street whe re he re peate dly

struck S.S. in the head with a black metal flashlig ht. S.S . attempted to run fr om the vehicle, but the de fenda

nt caug ht her, knoc ked her down, and drag g ed her back to the ca r by her ha ir. He f orce d her to remove her clothes and place d them in the trunk of the ca r. They left the pa

rk and went to another

g as station wher e the de fenda nt e x ited the car , enter ed the g as station briefly , and returne d befor e the victim could esc ape. T he d efe ndant next drove to a third g as station, pumped g as, and e ntere d the store. T h e v i ct i m m an aged to ge t out of the ca r and trie d to esca

pe, but the defe ndant forc ed her

to return to the c ar.
After depar ting the third g as st ation, the defendant drove the victim to a vac ant lot on Holmes Roa d n e ar R ive rd a le Roa d in Me mph is. He or de re d h e r t o p os iti on he rs e lf in t he c ar, un fa ste ne d h is belt, and pene trated the victim digitally . At t h at t i m e, a p assing car slowed down a s it neare d the defe ndant’s ca

r which a ppare ntly unnerve d the def

endant, be cause he drove off and pulled into an ad j ac en tl o t

. T h er e, h e c h o k edt h e v i ct i m an d p en et ra t ed h er wi t h h i s p en i s , o n ce wh i l e w ea ri n g a condom and a g ain without a condom. After war ds, the def

endant g ave the victim her clothes f rom the trunk and told her

he should kill her. The de fenda nt drov e t h e v i ct i m h o m e, and he r mother
c a lle d th e po lic e wh o e sc or te d th e vic timto M e tho dis t H os pit a l–German tow n a nd the Me mph is Sex ual Assault Resourc e C enter for treatment and te sting. The victim said that her jaw a nd lip were swollen.

On cr oss-examination, S .S. admitted that the rea son she initially exchang ed phone numbe rs with the defe ndant was so she could purcha se marijuana from him. Asked if she rec alled say ing that the se xua l a ssa

ult too k pla c e “ on Ho lme s Roa d – wh ic h is Ol ive B ra nc h – in De [S]oto County ,” S.S. replied in the affirmative. Howeve r, on re direc t examination, S .S. reaf firmed that the r ape took plac e on Holmes Road and said she under stood that Holmes Road and the other locations she desc ribed in her dire ct testimony

wer e in Shelby

County , Tenne ssee.-3-

The victim’s mother, A.S., testified that in Ma y 2003 she and the victim lived on St ateline Road in Olive Branc h, Mississ ippi. She said that the victim called he r ar ound 9:30 p.m. on May 5, 2003, and said she w as leav ing w ork and w ould be home shortly . When the victim did not arrive home, A.S. called her and could hear a “tre mble” in her voice, but the victim told her she w as on her
wa y ho me

. Af

te r wa iti ng “ so me tim e ,” A. S. c a lle d the vic tim a g a in. A man ans we re d a nd tol d A .S. that he had the victim and was g oing to br ing he r home, but he w ould not allow A.S. to speak to the victim. She called the victim’s phone sever al more times, but no one a nswere d. She said that when the victim arrive d home, she wa s bloody and bruised a

nd said she had been raped. A .S. testified that the victim told the police that s h e wa s ra p ed on Holmes Road and be aten se vera l times with a flashlig ht on Third Street. A.S. ne ver hear d the victim tell any one that the rape occur red a ny wher e other than H olmes Road. A.S. said that the vi ctim had a broken jaw, “knots all upside her head . . . hair pulled out in the top, just in a plug, just taken out, a nd her f ace was just swollen.” Shelby County Deputy Sheriff James Peterson testified that he re sponded to a c all at Methodist Hospital–Germantown to investig ate a criminal assa

ult at ar o und 2:30 a.m. on May 6, 2003. He met with the victim and obse rved that her fa ce a nd ch i n we re s wol len and that she
a pp e a re d t o e xp e r i e n c e d i s c o m f

o rta s s h e w a l k e d

an d t o b e i ns h o c k

. T h e v i c t i m t o l d D e p uty Pe te rs on that a man n a me d D e wa

y ne pic ke d he r up fr om wo rk , dr ov e he r to a pa rk of f Th ir d Stre e t, attempted to ra

pe her , beat he r with a flashlight when she attempted to flee his vehicle, drug her ba ck to t h e v eh icle and r aped he r, and dr ove her to severa l more locations, including one ne ar the intersec tion of Riverdale a nd Holmes Roads wher e he r aped her a g ain. Deputy Peterson testified that Holmes Road ru n s para llel to St ateline Road, the two roads a re se parated by

approximately

onequarte r mile, and no pa

rt of Holmes Road is in Mississ ippi. He said that eac h of the locations the
v i c t i m d e s c r i b e d

t o h i m , i n c l u d i n g w h e r e s h e w a s r a p e d , w a s i nS h e l b y C o u n t y.
Rache ll Copeland, the ac ting c oordinator of nursing service s and a fore nsic nurse e x aminer at the Memphis Sexual Assault R esourc e C en t er , testified that she e x amined the victim on the morning of May

6, 2 0 0 3

. S he said that the vic tim’s injuries included rig ht fac ial mandibular swelling , swelling to he r chin and ear , bruising to he r rig ht e y e, three knots on the bac k of her head, br uis ingon he r l ips and

g um, and an ab ra sio n on he r le ft kn e e

. She sa id that th e vic tima pp e a re d to be ale rt and oriented but ha d difficulty speakingbeca use of he r injuries. The vic tim tol d Copeland that she had acc epted a ride from a black male named De way ne, who be at her

with a flashlig ht and his fist at a park near Third Street and rape d her on Holmes Road nea r Riverda le Road. Copeland
a lso c oll e c te d v a g ina l sw a bs fr om t he vic tim and ob se rv e d spe rm c e lls in the vic tim ’s va g ina l va ult

.
L ieutenant Ma

rjorie Anne Fe ather stone of the Shelby C o u n t y Sheriff’ s Depa

rtment int e rv ie we d th e vic tima t th e Me mph is Se xua l As sa ult Re so ur c e Ce nte r o n M ay 6, 20 03 . Sh e c ou ld t e l l t h e v i c t i m w a s i n

j u r e d , u p s e t , a n d i ng r e a tp a i nw h e ns h e i n t e r v i e w e d h e r

. T h e v i c t i m tol d L ie ute na nt F e a the rs ton e that the de fe nd ant a g re e d to g ive he r a ri de ho me bu t, i ns te a d, too k h e r t o tw o p ark s n e ar T hir d Stre e t, b e a t her wi th h is f ist s and a fl a sh lig ht w he n s he re fu se d to have se x with him, made her

undress a

nd put h er clothes in the trunk of his ca r, and took he r to an a

partment
co m p l ex i n East Memphis and locations on Ri verda le Road and H olmes Road. L ieutenant F e a the rs tone s aid that

the loc a tio ns the vic timde sc ri be d w e re no t se arc he d b e c a us e he a vy ra ins ,-4-

duri ngand

imm e diate ly fol lo wingthe inc ide nt, wo uld have wa sh e d a

wa y mos t of the a va ila

ble evidenc e. She said that a ll of the locations the victim descr ibed wer e in Shelby County

.
Dr . Q a dr iy

y ah D e bn a m of

the Te nn e sse e B ur e a

u o f I nv e sti g a tio n ( “ TB I ” ), an ex pe rt in serolog y and DNAanaly sis, testified that she perf ormed DN A testing on the vaginal swa bs taken fr om t he vic tim , w hic h r e ve a le d th e pr e se nc e of sp e rm . Sh e c omp are d D NA fr om the sp e rm wi th DNA f rom a blood sample take n from the de fenda nt and deter

mined that the DNA f

rom the sper

m matched the defe ndant’s DNA

. She testified that TB ISpecial Ag ent Scientist Donna Ne lson verified her f indings a nd that the proba

bility of anothe r human be ing ha ving the same DNA as the de fenda nt was less than one in six billion.

Marke itsha Allen, mother of the defe ndant’s child, wa s the only witness for the defe nse. She testified t hat s he picked up the defendant’s car from the Memphis Police Depa rtment impound lot on May 26, 2003, the day afte r he was arre sted. She saw no evidenc e of blood in the c ar w hen she picked it up. I t appea

red to he r that someone ha d “g on[e] throug h” the c ar. The jury found the de fenda

nt guilty of one c ount of ag g ravated ra pe with a we apon and one count of a g g ravated ra

pe involving bodily

injury , which the tria l court subseque ntly merg ed. Af

ter applying se vera l enhanc ement fa ctors and no mitig ating fac tors, the tri al co urt sentenc ed the de fe nd ant a s a

Rang e I , v iol e nt o ff

e nd e r t o tw e nty -t

wo y e ars

. AN AL YSI S

I. Suffic ie nc y o f the Evi de nc e /V e nue

B e c a us e the de f

e n d a nt ’ s a r g u m e nt i n th is r e g ard

is i ne xtri c a

ble fr om h is f

ir st two a ssi g nme nts of er ror, we first ana ly

ze whether

venue w as p ro v en to be in Shelby County . The Te nnessee Constit ution provides criminal def endants with the rig ht to a jur y t ri al i n the county wher e the offe nse wa s committed. Tenn. Const. art. I , § 9; State v. Young , 196 S.W .3d 85, 101 (Tenn. 2006)

. A c c o r d i n g l y, “ [ a ] l t h o u g h v e n u e i s n o t a n e l e m e n to f t h e c r i m e , t h e [ S ] t a t e m u s tp r o v e b y a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e t h at the offe nse wa s committed in the county alleg ed in the indictment.” State v. Ander son, 985 S.W .2d 9, 15 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (citations omitted); see
a lso Te nn . Co de Ann. § 3 9- 11 -2 01 (e ) ( “ No pe rs on may be c on vic te d o f a

n o ff e ns e un le ss v e nu e is proven by

a pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e .” ); Te nn . R. Cr im. P. 1 8( a ) ( “ Exc e pt a s o the rw ise pr ov ide d b y

statut e or by the se ru le s, of fe ns e s sh a ll be pr os e c ute d in the c ounty

wh e re the of

fe ns e was c ommitt ed.”)

. “Ve nue is a que stion for the jury ,” Young , 196 S.W .3d at 101 (c iting State v. Hamsley , 672 S.W .2d 437, 439 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984), and c an be e stablished by circ umstantial evidence . I d. at 101-02 (c iting State v. B ennett, 549 S.W.2d 949, 950 (Tenn. 1977)). To deter mine venue, the jury i s p e r m i t t e d t o dr aw r e a s o n a

b l e i n f e r e n c e s b a s e d o n t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d

. Id

. a t 102 ( c iti ngState v. J ohnson, 673 S.W .2d 877, 882 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984) ).-5-

I n this case, a s evidenc ed by their ver dict, the jurors found by a pre ponderan ce of the evidenc e that the of

fense occur

red in Shelby

County ; and t his finding is supported by the re cord. The victim testified that she wa s beate n at a pa rk nea r Third Stree t and ra

ped on Holmes Road ne ar Riverdale Roa d. She descr ibed the locations where she was attacked with consistency to her mother, Deputy Peterson, Ms. Copeland, a nd L ieutenant F eathe rstone. F urther, D eputy P et erson and L i e u t e n an tF e a t h e r s t o n e t e s t i f i e d t h a te a c h o f

t h e l o c a t i o n s S

. S

. d e s c r i b e d w a s i nS h e l b y C o u n t y.
For his claim that the rape occur red in Mississippi, the defe ndant relies upon the f ollowing te sti mony e lic ite d b y de fe ns e c ouns e l on cr os s- e xami natio n, wh e n c ouns e l qu e sti on e d S. S. a bo ut a
s t at em en ts h e ap p ar en t l y

m ad e i ngen er al s es s i o n s co u rt d u ri n g t h e p re l i m i n ary

h ea ri n g: Q: Okay

. Ma’a

m, do y ou rec all saying that? That the sexual assault was on Holmes R o a d – w h i c h i s O l i v e B r an c h –

i nD e [ S ] o t o C o u n t y?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Yo u d o r e c a ll s ay ingthat?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Ok ay . So y ou

re me mbe r that bec a

us e thi s d id h a

pp e n in De [S]oto County , r ig ht,
ma ’a m?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Okay . So all the sex ual ac ts that we’r e talking about her e today , they happene d in D e [S]oto County , r ig ht, ma ’a m?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Okay

. So whe n y ou testified ear lier that they happene d out her e o n Ho l mes Roa d, that w a s a

lie , w a sn ’t

it, ma ’a m?
A: No, sir.
Q: Ok ay . B ut you re me mbe r – y ou re me mbe r c le arl y that it ha pp e ne d in De [S]oto County , r ig ht?
A: Yes, sir.

As we w ill ex plain, this court d o es n o t entirely understand the intent of this series of questions. The initial question, that the rape occur red “ on Holmes Road – which is Oli ve B ranc h – in De[S] oto County ,” appare ntly was based, as we have said, on a question aske d the victim during-6-

the pre liminary

hear ing in g ener al sessions court. Howe ver, it is not clear exactly what question the vict i m h ad been aske d in ge nera l sessions court and what defe nse counse l at the cr iminal trial contributed to the original question. For instance, w e ca nnot determine w hether , in ge nera l sessions court, the vic tim had ag ree d to any thing other

than that the rape occur

red on H olmes Road. I f she
ear lier had a g ree d only

that the ra

pe occur red on Holmes Road, the question, as propounde d in the criminal cour

t trial, relied upon a

false as sumption for, as we ha ve take n judicial notice and a s Deputy Peterson testified at trial, Holmes Road is e ntirely in Tennesse e. The ref

ore, the defe ndant’s claims in this reg ard are without f oundation. Acc ording ly , we conclude that there wa s s u ff i cient evidenc e in the re cord f

or the jury

to conclude that the rape occur red in Te nnessee

. Next, the defenda

nt alleg es that the e vidence was insuffic ient as a matter of law to s upport his c onviction f

or ag g ravated rape

. I n consideringthis iss ue, we apply the familiar rule that whe re sufficie ncy

of the convicting evidenc e is c halleng ed, the r eleva nt question for the re viewing court is “whe ther, after viewing the evidence in the l ight most favor able to the pr osecution, anyrational trier of fac t could have f

ound th e es s en tial elements of the c rime beyond a re asonable doubt.” J ackson v. V irg inia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979); see also Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e) (“F indings of guilt in criminal actions whether by the trial cour

t or jury shall be s et as i de if the
e vid e nc e is i ns uf

fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

the fi nd ing s b y

the tr ie r o f f

act of guilt

be y on d a

re a so na ble doubt.”); State v. Evans, 838 S.W .2d 185, 190-92 (Tenn. 1992); State v. Ander son, 835 S.W .2d 600, 604 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992)

. All questions involvi ng the cr edibility of witnesses, the w eig ht and value to be g i v en the evidenc e, and a ll factua l issues are r esolved by the trier of

fac t. See State v. Pappas, 75 4 S.W .2d 620, 623 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987) . “A guilty verdic t by

the j u ry , ap p roved by

the trial judg e, acc redits the testimony

of the witnesse s for the State and resolves all conflicts in favor of the the ory of the State.” State v. Gra ce, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973)

. Ou r s u p re m e co urt stated the rationale for this rule:

This well-settled rule rests on a sound fo u n d at i on. The trial judg e and the jury see the witnesses fa ce to f ace , hear their testimony and observe their de meanor on the s tand. Thus the trial judg e and jur y are the primary

instrumentality

of justice t o d e t e r m i n e t h e w e i g h t an d c r e d i b i l i t y t o b e g i v e n t o th e t e s t i m o n y o f w i t n e s s e s

. In the trial fo ru m al o n e is there human atmosphere and the totality of the e vidence cannot be repr oduced w ith a written re cord in this Court.
Bolin v. State, 219 Tenn. 4, 11, 405 S.W .2d 768, 771 (1966) ( citing Ca rroll v. State, 212 Tenn. 464, 370 S.W .2d 523 (1963))

. A jur y c on vic tio n re mov e s the pr e su mpt ion of inn oc e nc e wi th w hic h a

de fe nd ant i s in iti a lly cloake d and replace s it with one of g uilt, so that on appea l, a convicte d defe ndant has the bur den of d emons trating that the evidenc e is insufficient. See State v. Tug g le, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982).-7-

Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 39-13-502 sets out the eleme nts of ag g ravated ra pe: (a) Ag g ravated ra

pe is unlawful sexual pe netration of a victim by the defe ndant or the de fe nd ant b y

a vic tima c c omp anie d b y

any of the fo llo wi ngc ir c ums tanc e s: (1) F orce or coe rcion is used to ac complish the act and the de fenda nt is armed wi th a w e a

p o n o r an y art i c l e u s e d o r f a s h i o n e d i n a m an n e r t o l e a d t h e vic tim
rea sonably

to believe it to be a w eapon; (2 ) T he de fe nd ant c a

us e s b od ily

inj ur y to t he vic tim ; (3) The defe ndant is aided or a betted by one (1) or more othe r per sons; and (A) F orce or coe rcion is used to ac complish the act; or (B ) T he de fe nd ant kno ws or ha s re a so n to kn owthat th e vic tim is m e nta lly

de fe c tiv e , me nta lly

inc a pa c itate d o r p hy sic a lly

he lpl e ss. ( b ) A g g r a v a t e d

r a p e i s a C l a s s A f

e l o n y.
Th e de fe nd ant a sse rt s th a t t h e c o nv i c t inge vid e nc e wa s in su ff ic ie nt b e c a

us e the vic tim“ c ou ld not clear ly es t abli sh throug h her te stimony what [the defe ndant] did i n eac h specific location, nor whether these a cts occ urre d in Shelby County , Tenne ssee or

De[S] o t o C o u nty , Mississ ippi.” Acc ording to the defe ndant, “Ea ch stateme nt that [ the victim] g ave to the au t h o ri t ies, and e very version she g ave in trial, conflicte d with e ach other.

. . . [Her] testim ony was not consistent in any sense of the word.” As we ha

ve set out pre viously , the evidenc e supports the jury ’s conclusion that the ra pe occ urre d in Shelby County

. I n the l ight most favor able to the State, the e vidence adduce d at trial showed that the defe ndant att ac k ed t h e victim with his fists and a flashlig ht at a par k near Th ir d St r e e ti nM e mp h i s an d r a p e d h e r a ta v a c an tl o to nH o l m e s R o a d , a l s o i nM e mp h i s

. T h is evidenc e wa s sufficient f

or a rational t rier of fac t to find the elements of a g g ravated ra pe beyond a
re a so na ble do ub t. T his a ssi g nme nt i s w ith ou t me ri t.

II. Election of

Of fenses

The de fenda

nt argues that the trial c ourt should have r equire d the State to elec t offense s a lle g e d in the ind ic tme nt to c lari fy to the jur y wh ic h a lle g a tio ns we re pr ov e n o r n ot p ro ve n at tr ia l. The Tennessee Constit ution safe g uards the rig ht of a criminal defendant to a unanimous j ury verdic t befor e a c onviction may

be imposed. State v. L emac ks, 996 S.W .2d 166, 169-70 (Te nn. 1999). Where the State pr esents evide nce show ing that more than one offe nse occur red, but the indictment is not specific a s to which offe nse the def endant is beingtried for , it is t he re sponsibili ty of the trial
c ourt to r e qu ir e the State to e le c t w hic h o ff e ns e is b e ingsu

bmi tte d to the jur

y . I d. a t 17 0; s e e a lso State v. Br own, 823 S.W.2d 576, 583 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) ( “[ I ] n case s involving evide nce which shows a rea l pote ntial that a conviction may occur as a r esult of diffe rent juror s concluding-8-

that the def

endant c ommitt ed diffe rent a cts, ea ch of w hich s ep ar at el y showing the commission of an off ense, the trial court must aug ment the g ener al unanimity instruction to insure that the jury understands its duty

to ag ree unanimously

to a par ticular set of

fac ts.”).

I n S tate v. B rown, 992 S.W.2d 389, 391 (Tenn. 1999), our supreme c ourt explained the purp os e fo r r e qu ir ingthat th e re be an e le c tio n o f o ff e ns e s:
The re quirement of e lection serve s numerous intere s t s : i t enables the de fe nd ant t o p re pa

re for the sp e c if

ic c ha rg e ; it pr ote c ts a

de fe nd ant a g a ins t do ub le jeopar dy ; it enable s the trial judge to r eview the weig ht of the evidenc e in its role as thirteenth juror; a

nd it e nables an appellate court to r eview the leg al sufficie ncy of the evidenc e. See Tidwell [v. State], 922 S.W .2d [497,] 500-01 [(Tenn. 1996)]; Burlison [v. S tate], 501 S.W .2d [801,] 803 [(Tenn. 1973)]. The m ost important interest ser ved by elec tion, however , is to ensure that the jurors deliberate over and re nder a

verdic t based on the same off

ense[.]

As we un de rs tand , the de fe nd ant argue s that the tr ia l c ourt sh ou ld h a ve dir e c te d th e State to
e le c t th e of

fe ns e of a ssa

ult be c a us e , in the de fe nd ant’ s vie w, that is the on ly of fe ns e wh ic h th e State proved oc curr ed in T ennesse e. This argument is without m erit for sever al re asons. Fir st, as we have previously deter

mined, the State established that venue on the ag g ravated ra pe cha rg es wa s proper in Shelby County

. Fur

thermore , the defe ndant cites no authority for the proposition that t h e trial
c ourt may re qu ir e the State to e le c t an o ff e ns e no t c ha

rg e d in the ind ic tmen t. F ina lly , it is w e llse ttl e d in Ten nes se e that “ [t]he State is n ot r e qu ir e d to e le c t up on se pa rate c ha rg e s in the same indictment.” State v

. He n l ey , 7 74 S.W .2d 908, 916 (Tenn. 1989) (first deg ree murder a nd felony
m u r d e r , b a s e d o n s a m e o c c u r r e n c e , c h ar g e d i n s a m e i n d i c t m e n t ) ; s e e a l s o S t a t e v

. G e n o r e D a n c y, No. W2001-02451-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 W L 4 0 2 7 8 8 , at *7 (Te nn. Crim. App. Feb. 18, 2003) (ag g ravated rape wit h a weapon and ag g ravated rape wit h the aid of one or more persons); State v. Delfr o Wil lis, No. 02C01-9810- CC-00336, 1999 WL 487032, at *2-3 (Te nn. Crim. App. J uly 12, 1999) (DU I– under influe nce of intox icant and DUI – alcohol conc entration), perm. to appe al denied (T e nn . N ov . 2 2, 19 99 ). I n the pr e se nt c a se , th e State c ha rg e d a lte rn a tiv e the or ie s o f t he same of

fe ns e in Counts 1 and 2 of the defe ndant’s indictment. B eca use the de fenda

nt was ultimately

subjected to only one punishment for the single occur renc e of ag g ravated rape , this proc edure was prope r. See Ge no re Da

nc y , 2 00 3 WL

40 27 88 , at *7 . T his iss ue is w ith ou t me ri t. III. Misapp lication of

Enh ancem ent F actor

Of the six enhance ment fac tors deter mined by the t rial court to be applicable, the de fenda nt ob je c ts o nly to the c ourt ’s a

pp lic a tio n of enha

nc e me nt fa c tor (1 6) , tha t he ab us e d a po sit ion of tr us t. See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 114(16) ( 2003).

At the sentenc ing he aring , the trial cour t found six enhanc ement fa ctors to be a pplicable:-9-

(1) The defe ndant has a previous his tory of criminal convictions or cr iminal behavior in addition to thos e nec essar y to establish the appropr iate ra ng e; (2) The defe ndant treated the victim with exceptional crue lty during the commission of the off ense; (3 ) A s to Count 1 of

the ind ic tme nt, the pe rs on a l in jur ie s in fl ic te d u

po n th e vic tim
we re pa rt ic ula rl y g re a t; (4 ) A s to Count 2 of the ind ic tme nt, the de fe nd ant p os se sse d o r e mpl oy e d a de a dly
wea pon during the commission of the offe nse; (5 ) T he de fe nd ant a

bu se d a po sit ion of pr ivate tr us t; (6 ) T he de fe nd ant w a s a dju dic a te d to have c omm itt e d a de lin qu e nt a c t a s a juv e nil e that w ou ld c on sti tut e a

fe lony if c omm itt e d b y

an a du lt.

See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114(2), (6) , (7), ( 10), (16) , (21) ( 2003). B ased on the se fa ctors and the abse nce of

any mitigating fac tors, the trial cour t enhanc ed the de fenda

nt’s sentenc e to twenty -two y ear s.
When a

n acc used challeng es the leng th, r ang e, or manner of service of a sente nce, it is the duty of this court to conduc t a de novo revie w on the re cord w it h a p re s u m p t i o n that “the deter minations made by

the cour t from which the a

ppeal is take n are corr ect.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401( d). This presumption is “conditioned upon the a ffirmative showing in the rec ord that the trial court c onsidered the sentenc ing principles and all releva nt fac ts and circ umstances.” State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991) . The pre sumption does not apply to the leg al conc lusions
rea ched by

the trial cour

t in sentencing the ac cused or to the deter minations made by

the trial cour

t wh ic h a re pr e dic ate d u

po n unc on tr ov e rt e d f

a c ts. State v. B utl e r, 90 0 S. W.2 d 3 05 , 3 11 (T e nn . Cr im. App. 1994); State v. Smith, 891 S.W .2d 922, 929 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994); S tate v. B onestel, 871 S.W .2d 163, 166 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) , overr uled on other g round s b y S t at e v. Hoope r, 29 S.W .3d 1, 9 (Tenn. 2000). Howeve r, t his court is require d to give g reat weig ht to the trial court’s deter mination of controver

ted fac ts a s the trial court’s deter mination of these fac ts is pre dicated upon t h e w i t n es s es ’ d em ea n o r a n d ap p ea ra n ce wh en t es t i fy i n g.

I n conductinga de novo revie w o f a s en t ence , this court must consider (a ) any evidenc e rec eived at the trial and/or se ntencinghear ing, ( b) th e p re sentenc e re port, (c) the principles of sentenc ing, (d) the arguments of counsel relative to se ntencing alternatives, (e) the nature and char acte ristics of t he offense, (f) any mitigating or enhance ment fac tors, (g ) any statements made by the ac cused in his own behalf, and (h) the acc used’s potential or la ck of pote ntial for re habilitation or treatment. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40- 35-103, -210 ( 2003); State v

. T aylor, 63 S.W .3d 400, 411 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) . Enhanc ement fa ctors may be conside red only if they are “appr opriate f

or-10-

the offe nse,” a

nd “not t hemselves e ssential elements of the offe nse.” Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 114 (2003). The pa

rty challeng ing the sentenc e imposed by the t rial court has the burde n of establishing that the sentenc e is err oneous. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401, Sentencing Commi ssion Cm ts.; Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169

. I n t h is case, the defe ndant has the bur den of illustrating the sentenc e imp o s ed b y t h e trial court is er roneous. I f our r eview r efle cts that the trial cour t, following the statutory sentenc ing pr ocedur e, im posed a lawful sentence, after having g iven due c onsideration and proper weig ht to the factors and principles set out under the sentenc ing la w and made finding s of fa ct that are a de qu a te ly

su pp or te d b y the re c or d, the n w e may

no t mo dif

y the se nte nc e e ve n if

we wo uld have pr efe rre d a diffe rent re sult. S tate v. F letcher , 805 S.W .2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).

We a g re e wi th t

he de fe nd ant t

hat th e tr ial cou rt im prope rl y a pp lie d th e po sit ion

of tr us t enhanc eme nt fac tor to the defe ndant’s sente nce. T he natur e of the relationship between the defe ndant and the vic tim was found not by the j ury bey ond a reasonable doubt, but by the trial cour

t by a p r e p o n d e r an c e o f th e e v id e n c e

. I n Cun n in g h a m v

. Ca li f o r n ia , 5 4 9 U

. S.

_

_ , 1 2 7 S. Ct . 856 (2 00 7) , th e Un ite d St a te s Su pr e me Court

he ld u nc on sti tut io na l Ca lif

or nia ’s se nte nc ingsc he me b ec au s e i t al l o we d

a t ri al co u rt t o en h an ce a d ef en d an t ’s s en t en ce b as edo nfa ct s fo u n d b y t h e j u d ge by a pre p o n d e r an c e o f

th e e v id e n c e

. I d

. a t 8 6 8

. T h e Co u rt h e ld th a t C a li f

o r n ia ’ s la w w as inconsistent w ith its holding in B lakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), that
a cr iminal defenda

nt’s Six th Amendment rig ht to a jury trial requir es t hat any fac t other than a prior
c on vic tio n u se d to e nh anc e a de fe nd ant’ s se nte nc e be y on d th e pr e sc ri be d s ta tut or y ma ximummus t b e p r o v e nt o a

j u r y b e y o n d a r e a s o n a

b l e d o u b t

. C u n n i n g h a m , 5 4 9 U

. S

. a t

_ _ , 1 2 7 S

. C t

. a t 8 7 1

. In light of Cunning ham, the Te nnessee Supreme Court h as h el d that Tenne ssee’ s 1989 sentencing
sc he me , p ri or

to i ts 2 00 5 ame ndme nt, a lso vio la te d th e Sixth A me ndme nt t o th e e xten t th a t it permitted sentenc e enha

nceme nt on the basis of judicially -found f acts other than the fa ct of a

prior
c on vic tio n. State v. Go me z, _ _ S. W.3 d __, 20 07 WL29 17 72 6, a t *5 (T e nn . 2 00 7) . T he re fo re , it
was e rror for the tr ial court to apply the position of trust enhance ment fa ct o r to the defe ndant’s sentenc e.
This conclusion does not re quire us to re mand the def endant’ s case for r esente ncing . On
a pp e a l, the de fe nd ant d oe s n ot c on te st the a pp lic a tio n o f t

he re ma ini ngfi ve e nh anc e me nt f a c tor s. The rec ord is c lear that application of fa ctor (2) , previous history of cr iminal convictions in addition to those nece ssary to establish the appropriate rang e, was justified. We need not consider whe ther the oth e r f

our f a c tor s w e re pr op e rl y

a pp lie d, fo r a

sin g le fact or can justi fy

se nte nc e e nh anc e me nt. State v. Mic ha e l Burn e tte , No. E2 00 5- 00 00 2- CCA -R 3- CD , 200 6 WL 72 13 06 , at *8 (T e nn . Cr im. A p p

. M ar

. 2 2 , 2 0 0 6 ) , p e r m

. t o a p p e a l d e n i e d ( T e n n

. S e p t

. 5 , 2 0 0 6 )

. T h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ s e r r o r i n imp ro pe rl y

a pp lyingthe po sit ion

of tr us t e nh anc e me nt f

a c tor wa s h arm le ss.-11- CO NC LU SION Following our re view of the defe ndant’s convic tion a n d s entence, we aff irm the judg ment of the tr ia l c ourt

.

___________________________________ AL AN E. GL ENN, JUDGE