### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ja nuary 24, 200 6
MIC HELLE AL LEN & M AR K A LLEN v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Robertson County No. 02-0333 & 02- 0333A Michael R. Jones, Judge

No. M2 0 0 5 -0 0 6 0 1 -C CA -R 3 -PC - F iled Marc h 13, 2006

Th e Rob e rt so n Co un ty

Gr a ndJury

ind ic te d M ark

Al le n w ith on e c ou nt o f e xhibi tio n o f m a teria ls harmful to a minor, one count of e specia lly ag g ravated sexual ex ploitation, a n d one count of rape of a c hil d. Mic he lle Al le n w a s indi c te d with thr e e c ou nts of ra pe of a c hil d. F oll ow ing a jury tr ia l, Mr. Allen wa s convicted of all three counts, and Mrs. Alle n was c onvicted for two counts of ra

pe of a child. The third count was dismiss ed. The trial court sentenc ed Mr. Allen t o an effective sentenc e of twe nty -four

y ear s and Mrs. Allen to an ef fec tive sentenc e of twe nty -one y ear s. The de fe nd a nts app e a l th e jud g me nts of the tr ia l c ou rt . The y arg ue that th e e vid e nc e wa s in su ff ic ie nt t o su pp ort the ir c on vic tio ns a nd that the tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d in se nte nc ing the m. We a ff ir m th e jud g me nts of the tr ia l c ou rt

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

the Circ uit Court are Aff irm ed

J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , and R O BERT W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.
Roge r E. Nell, Dis trict Public Def ender , Clarksville, Tenne ssee, for t he appe llant, Mark Allen a nd L inda S. Fizer, Spring field, Tenne ssee f or the a ppellant, Michelle A llen
Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; J ane L . Be ebe, A ssistant Attorney Gene ral; John Carney , District Attorney Gene ral; and D ent Morriss, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appellee , State of Tenne ssee.It i s t he p o l i cy o f t his C o urt t o refer t o m i no r victi m s b y t he i r i nit i als. 1

-2- OP IN ION

The victim’s mother met defe ndant Mr. Allen though a friend at work. B eca

use the victim’s fathe r lived in F lorida and did not have much contac t with D.M. , the twelve- y ear -old victim, D.M.’s 1 mothe r w a s h op ing that Mr. Al le n wou ld be a g oo d mal e inf lue nc e fo r D. M. On se ve ra l oc c a sio ns , in the winter of 2001 a nd spring of 2002, D.M. visited the t wo defendants, Mr. a nd Mrs. Allen, at the ir ho me . I n July

of 20 02 , D .M . to ld h is m other th at the de fe nd a nts ha d b e e n e ng a g ing in inappropriate sexual a ctivity with him. The victim’s mother ca lled the police. Using a tape rec order g iven t o her by the pol ice, she rec orded a telephone conver sation betwee n Mr. Allen and D .M. The victim’s mother then took this recor ding to the police . After hearing the rec ording , Detec tive Mike Carlis le a n d a f

e w o th e r o f

f ic e r s w e n t to th e A ll e n ’ s h o me

. M r

. A ll e n s ig n e d a c o n s e n t to se arc h form. The off

icer s found a pornog raphic videotape de scribed by D.M. as the one he had vie wed, oth e r po rn og ra

ph ic vid e ota

pe s, a nd oth e r se xua l pa

ra ph e rn a lia

. Mr . A lle n w a ive d h is M ir a nd a ri g hts and wa s questioned at the Robertson CountySheriff’ s O ff i ce on J uly

16,2002. The following interview w as conduc ted by Detec tive Carlisle:

Carlisle: Today

is J uly the 1 6 o f 2002, i t’s approximately 6:15 in the th afte rnoon. This is Detec tive Mike Carlisle alo ng with Mr. Mark Allen. Mr. Allen has agr ee d to sit down and g ive me an interview. Ma rk I be lie ve y ou ha ve be e n r e a d y ou r ri g hts a nd y ou didsig n th a t, is tha t c or re c t?

. . . . Ca r li s le : OK. N o w y o u ’ r e s it ti n g a n d lo o k in g a t a n o f f e n s e r e p o r t th a t [the vi ctim] h a d ma de a

re po rt to the She ri ff ’s of

fi c e abo ut s ome inappropriate things g oing on and I think y ou want to g ive y our side of the sto ry . I s th a t c or

re c t?

. . . . Allen: OK. The ug h, the statement that he g ives, the complainant stated that

he wa s over at Mark Allen’ s house a family friend and that he has a nd that Mr

. Al le n a sk e d him to loo k a t his po rn o ma g a zine

. I did n’ t a sk him to l oo k a t a ny

po rn o ma g a zine s. He a c tually c a me a c ro ss s ome porno mag azines and then he asked y ou know if he c ould see them
a ndI wa s li ke we ll n o y ou are too y ou ng a nd I wo n’ t tell so on a ndso o n u n t i l y e s , I

d i d a g r e e t o l e th i ml o o k a tt h e p o r n o ma g a zine s. Ag ainst my

better judg ment but anyhow. S o , ug h, talked about-3- d if f e r e n t th in g s to d o w h il e h a v in g s e x, y e s w e d id talk ab o u t s e x. Uh m, a s to ho w t o h a ve it. I do n’ t r ememb e r a ll o f that, u g h, that I would make him touch his body in private a

rea s is g etting into an ar ea that I want to hold on down ‘til . . . .

. . . . Carlisle: Now let me a sk y ou this whil e we ’r e, while y ou’re looking at that

statement. Did [the victim] at y our re sidence did he look at and view po rn og ra ph ic ma te ri a l a s f

ar a s mo vie s a ndthi ng s li ke that? Allen: I

don’t know how much . . . . Carlisle: I

understand . . . . Allen: beca

use I was not in the house at all times but ugh . . . Carl isl e : He didlik e to w a tc h th os e ty pe s o f m ov ie s? Allen: I

think he did, y eah.

. . . . Carl isl e : Th e oth e r s itu a tio n th a t [th e vic tim ] tol d u s a bo ut. Allen: About me touching him and him touching me? Carl isl e : Rig ht. Allen: Ug h, that did happen. Carlisle: That did happe n. Was there mutual ora l s ex ? Di d y ou place [t he

vic tim ’s ] pe nis in y ou r m ou th and di d [ th e vic tim ] pla c e y ou r p e nis in h is m ou th? Eve n f

or a sli g ht m ome nt. Allen: There was sexual . . . Carlisle: But it did happen? Al le n: Ye s.

. . . . Carlisle: I t ’s s ometime, I think y ou’ve be en knowing [t he victim] for
app ro xima te ly

tw o y e ars , is that c or

re c t? Allen: Yeah. Carlisle: You kind of met [t he victim] throug h his mom who y ou work with at

y ou r p la nt. Al le n: Rig ht. Carlisle: Ug h, was there any other situations where y ou and [the victim] may

have g ot mutual masturbation or anything like that or did all of that h ap p e n th e s a me in c id e n t th a t y a ’ ll h a d th e o r a l s e x? Allen: I

think it happened the sa me incident. I

. . . Carlisle: OK. Allen: I ’m thinking it did.-4- . . . . Al l en : W el l ca n I s ayo n e m o re t h i n g? Carlisle: Yes sir y ou sure c an.

. . . . Allen: Any thing that ug h, anything that my wife might have done was total

c oe rc ion a ndma nip ulatio n o n my pa rt

.

Also on J uly

16, 2002, the def

endant Mrs. A llen made a written statement. She state d:

Approxim ately

1 y ear ag o , [t he victim], who is a 12 [y ear old] boy from [ ], st ay ed
a t my ho me in R ob e rt so n Co un ty Te nnesse e on e F ri da y

or Sa tur da y nig ht. My h u s b an d and I

and [the victim] wer e setting in floor [sic] of living r oom play ing
car ds. [The vic tim] is a lway s [si c] “ that” night wanted to r un around the house nude. On that nig ht, both [ the victim] and I ended up nude , at some point, I perf ormed Or al Sex on [t he victim], m y

husband wa s prese nt. Also, I don’t rec all exactly but I think [the vic tim ] pe rf

orme d O ra l Se x on me . Als o [the vic tim ] at te mpt e d to ha ve se x with
me , a ndhe did pe ne tr a te me wi th his pe nis ,. [sic ] I do n’ t r e c a ll i f h e pe ne tr a te d me with his finge r or not. That i s the onl y time I ever had sex with [ the victim] . A short time later my

husband Mark had sex with [ the victim] as we ll. Mark videotape d the sex, Isaw the vide o and Mar k was laying dow n and [the victim] was g iving Ma rk a blow job. I believe the bed was in the living room at that time. The videotape was d e s t r o y e d “ e r a s e d ” a s h o r t t i m e l a t e r

. [T h e v i c t i m ] s t i l l t o d a y i s c a l l i ng wa nti ng to come ba ck to our home.

On September

25, 2002, the Robertson CountyGra nd J ury indicted Mr. Allen with one c ount of exhibit ion of m aterials harmful to a mi nor, one count of especially ag g ravated sexual ex ploitation,
a ndon e c ou nt o f r ape of a c hil d. On the sa me date , the Rob e rt so n Coun ty Gr a ndJury ind ic te d M rs

. Allen with three counts of ra pe of a child. The de fenda nts went to trial on October 13 and 14, 2003. At the c on c lus ion the e vid e nc e , th e tr ia l c ou rt dis mis se d c ou nt tw o of

the ind ic tme nt a g a ins t Mr s. Allen. The jury

found the de fenda nts guilty of all other c ounts. The trial court held a sente ncing hearing on N ovember

21, 2003 for both def

endants. The trial court se ntence d Mr. Allen to eleve n mon ths a ndtw e nty -n ine da y s f or e xhibi tio n o f m a te ri a l ha rm fu l to a min or , te n y e ars fo r e sp e c ia lly
a g g ra va te d s e xua l e xploi ta tio n, a nd tw e nty -f ou r y e ars fo r ra

pe of a c hil d, to r

un c on c ur re ntl y . M rs

. Allen was c onvicted of two c ounts of child rape , howeve r, the trial c ourt merg ed the two c ounts for sentenc ing pur

poses bec ause the conduct oc curr ed in the sameepi s o d e. The trial court se ntence d Mrs. Allen to twenty -one y ea rs fo r one c ount of rape of a c hild. Defe ndant Mrs. Allen filed a petition for post-conviction re lief on November 19, 2004 and De fenda nt Mr. Allen filed a petition-5-

for post-c onviction relief on N ovem b er 2 2 , 2 0 04. The trial c ourt order ed that both def endants be g ra nte d a de la y e d ap pe a l on Fe br ua ry 4, 20 05 . The de fe nd a nts the n f ile d a no tic e of app e a l to thi s Cou rt

. AN AL YSI S

The de fenda nts in thi s case filed sepa rate briefs. Howeve r, both de fenda nts a rg ue on appea l that the evidenc e wa s insufficient to supp o rt their convic tions, the sentence s imposed by the trial
c o u r tw e r e u n r e a s o n ab l e a n d v i o l a t e d t h e i r S i x t h A m e n d m e n tr i g h tt o tr i a l b y j u r y.
Suf fi ciency of the Evidence

When a def

endant c halleng es the sufficiency of t he evidence, this Court is obliged to r eview that claim ac cording to certai n well-settled principles. A ver dict of g uilty , rende red by a jury and

“ app ro ve d b y

the tr ia l ju dg e , a c c re dit s th e te sti mon y of the ” Sta te’s wi tn ess es a ndre so lve s a ll conflicts in the testimony in f avor of the State. State v. Cazes, 875 S.W .2d 253, 259 (Tenn. 1994) ; State v. Har

ris, 839 S.W .2d 54, 75 (Tenn. 1992). Thus, althoug h the accused is originally cloake d with a pre sumption of innocence , the j ury verdic t of guilty remove s this presumption “and re place s it with one of g uilt.” S t at e v

. Tug g le, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). He nce, on a ppeal, the burden of proof r ests with the defe ndant to demonstrate the insufficie ncy of the c onvicting e vidence

. I d. Th e re le va nt q ue sti on the re vie wi ng c ou rt mus t a ns we r i s w he the r any ratio na l trie r o f f

a c t c ou ld have f ound the ac cused g uiltyof eve ry element of

the offe nse bey ond a reasonable doubt. See Te nn. R. App. P. 13(e); Ha

rris, 839 S.W.2d at 75. I n making this decision, we ar e to ac cord the State “the strong est leg itimate view of the evidenc e as w ell as all re asonable and leg itimate infere nces tha t may be dra wn there from.” See Tug g le, 639 S.W. 2 d at 914. As such, this Court is precluded from reweig hing or

rec onsidering the evidenc e when e valuating the convicting proof. State v. Morg an, 929 S.W. 2d38 0, 38 3 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 96 ); Sta te v. Ma tth e ws , 8 05 S.W. 2d77 6, 77 9 (T e nn . Crim. App. 1990). More over, w e may not substit ute our own “infer ence s for those drawn by the trier of fac t from circ umstantial evidence .” Matthew s, 805 S.W .2d at 779. Further, que stions concerning the cr edibility of t he witnesses and the we ight a nd value to be g iven to evidenc e, as w ell as all fa ctual iss ue s r a ise d b y

su c h e vid e nc e , a

re re so lve d b y the tr ie r of fa c t a ndno t th e app e llate c ou rt s. Sta te v. Pruett, 788 S.W .2d 559, 561 (Tenn. 1990)

. Th e e vid e nc e a t tria l sh ow e d tha t Mr. Al le n sho we d D.M . a por no g ra ph ic vid e o an d th a t bo th de fe nd a nts ha d s e xua l r e la tio ns wi th the vic tim

. Mr s. Al le n a ndD. M. e ng a g e d in fe llatio , a s w e ll as vag inal intercour se on the same evening

. At a later date, Mr. Allen a nd D.M. eng ag ed in mutual fellatio, which Mr. Allen videotaped. Mr. Allen showed this tape to his wife, the n era sed the tape

. D. M. c on tin ue d to vis it the Al le ns on oth e r o c c a sio ns fo llo wi ng the se a c ts.

Mark Allen-6-

I n his brief, Mr. A llen asks t his Court to revie w t he sufficiency of t he evidence. He doe s not make a n arg ument with reg ard to a ny specific insufficienc y . The State a rg ues that the e vidence was su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt

his c on vic tio ns

. The jury convicted Mr . Allen of one count of exhibi tion of materia ls ha rmful to a minor, one count of e specia lly

ag g ravated sexual ex ploitation, and one count of r ape of a child. Ex hibition of
ma te ri a ls ha

rm fu l to a min or is fo un d a t Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d se c tio n 39 -1 7- 91 1 wh ic h s ta te s,

“ (a ) It is un la wf

ul f or a ny pe rs on to kno wi ng ly se ll or loan fo r mon e tary c on sid e ratio n o r o the rw ise exhibi t or make a

v a il a ble to a minor; (1) A ny

picture, photog raph, dr awing , sculpture, motion picture film, video g ame, computer softwar e g ame, or simil ar visual repr esenta tion or imag e of a pe rson or portion of the human body , which depic ts nudi t y , sexual conduct, excess violence , or sadomasochistic abuse , and which is ha rmful to minors . . . .”

At trial, the victim testified that the defe ndant showed him a n adult ca rt o o n

. Detective Carlisle testified that the victim t o l d him about the tape, a nd when the of fice rs sea rche d the d e f e n d a n t s ’ h o m e , t h e y w e r e ab l e t o s e i z e t h e t ap e

. T h e t ap e i n q u e s t i o n w a s t h e n s h o w n t o t h e j u r y. I n addition, in his i nterview the def endant a dmitted showing the vic tim pornogr aphi c ma teria l, which had been transcribed and was admitted into e vidence at trial. The vic tim’s testim ony and De tective Carlisle’s testimony

wer e uncontr overte d and cor robor at ed by

the def endant’ s own interview. There fore , we c onclude that there was overw helming evidence for a rational trier of fa ct to determine that th e de fe nd a nt s ho we d th e vic tim a vid e ota pe wh ic h d e pic te d n ud ity a ndse xua l c on du c t.

The off ense of espec ially

ag g ravated sexual ex ploitation of a mi n o r i s fo u n d at Tenne ssee Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 3 9- 17 -1 00 5, wh ic h s ta te s, “ (a ) It is un law ful for a pe rs on to kno wi ng ly promote, employ , use, assist, transport or pe rmit a minor to participate in the perf ormanc e or in the production of mate rial which inc ludes the minor eng ag ing in: ( 1) Sex ual activity

. . . .” At trial, the victim testified that he and the de fenda nt eng ag ed in mutual fellatio. He also stated th at t he de fe nd a nt, Mr . A lle n, vid e ota pe d th e se xua l a c t w ith his kn ow le dg e. Th is te sti mon y wa s a lso uncontrove rted a t trial. I n addition, Ms. Al l en s t at ed in her written statement that the de fenda nt vid e ota pe d h im self e ng a g ing in m utu a l f e llatio wi th the vic tim . Sh e a lso state d th a t sh e sa w this vid e ota pe be fo re he r h us ba nde ra se d it . We c on c lud e that th e e vid e nc e is m or e than s uff ic ie nt t o support a convic tion for espe cially ag g ravated sexual ex ploitation of a minor.
Rape of a child is found at Tenne ssee Code Annotated sec tion 39-13-522, which state s, (a) Rape of a child is the unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the def endant or the defe ndant by the vic tim , if

su c h v ic tim

is l e ss t han th ir tee n (13 ) y e ars of a g e .” At

tr ia l, the vic tim ’s birth
certificate was admitted into evidence . Also, the victim testified that he wa s thirteen at the time of the trial on Oc tober 13, 2003. The incidents occ urre d more th an a y ear befor e the tria l, theref

ore, the victim wa s clea

rly less than thirteen y ear s of ag e at the time of the incidents leading to t he defe ndants’ indi ctments. As stated above, the vi ctim testified at trial that he and the de fenda nt, Mr. Al le n, e ng a g e d in mutua l f e llatio . T his te sti mon y

wa s un c on tr ov e rt e d. B othde fe nd a nts , in se pa rate interviews with the police , admitted that Mr. Allen had se x ual re lations with the victim. Once ag ain,-7-

we c onclude that the evidence was more than suffic ient to support Mr. Allen’s convic tion for ra pe of a c hild.

Michelle Allen

Mrs. Allen also ar g ues that the evidence was insufficient to support her c onvictions for ra pe of a c hil d. Rape of a c hil d is fou nd a t Ten ne sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 3 9- 13 -5 22 , w hic h s ta te s, (a) Rape of a

child is the unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the def endant or the def endant by the victim, if such victim is less than thirteen (13) y ears o f age .” As we conclude d above, the vic tim wa s c le arl y

un de r thirte e n y e ars of

a g e a t th e tim e of

the inc ide nts le a din g to the ind ic tme nts

. The victim testified at trial that he and the de fen d an t , M rs. All en, eng ag ed in both oral sex and vag inal sex. This testimonywas unc ontroverte d. I n addition, in her statement, the de fenda nt admitted to having both oral and va g inal sex wit h t h e v i cti m. There fore , there is overwhe lming evidenc e to support Ms. Allen’s convic tion for two counts of r ape of a child.

For the above rea sons, we find that there is suf ficient e vidence to support the convictions of bo th d e fe nd a nts . T he re fo re , th is i ssu e is w ith ou t me ri t.

Se nt e nc ing

Both de fenda nts arg ue that their se ntence s wer e excessive. “ When review ing se ntencing issues . . . , the appe llate court s h al l co nduct a de novo revie w on the re cord of such issues. Such revie w shall be c onducted with a pr esumption that the determinations made by the court from which the appe al is taken a

re c orre ct.” Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 401(d). “ Howeve r, the pre sumption of
corr ectne ss which ac companies the trial court’s action is conditioned upon the af firmative showing in the rec ord that the trial c o u rt co n s i d ered the sentenc ing principles and a ll releva nt fac ts and circ umstances.” State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991). I n conducting our re view, we must consider the de fenda nt’s potential for reha bilitation, t he trial a nd sentenc ing he aring evidenc e, the pre- sentenc e report, the sentenc ing principles, sentenc ing alternative arg uments, the nature and char acte r of the of

fense , the enha ncing and mitigating f actor s, and the de fenda nt’s statements. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35- 103(5), - 210(b); Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169. We are to also rec og nize that the defe ndant bea

rs “the bur den of de monstrating that the sentenc e is improper.” Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169.

I n balanc ing the se conce rns, a trial court should start at the presumptive sente nce, e nhance the se nte nc e wi thi n th e ra ng e fo r e xistin g e nh a nc e me nt f a c tor s, a ndthe n r e du c e the se nte nc e wi thi n the ra ng e for

exis ting mitigating f

actor s. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(e). N o particula r we ight fo r e a c h f a c tor is p re sc ri be d b y

the statut e

. Se e Sta te v. Sa nti a g o, 91 4 S. W.2 d 1 16 , 1 25 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 95 ). Th e we ig ht g ive n to ea c h fa c tor is le ft to the dis c re tio n of the tr ia l cou rt a s long a s itW e n ot e t hat t he T en ne ssee S up rem e C our t ha s det er mi ned t hat des pi t e t he abi l i t y of t r i al j udges t o s et 2

s en t en ce s a bov e t h e pr es u mpt i ve sent enc e bas ed on t h e f i n di n g of

e n h an ce men t f ac t or s n ei t h er fou n d by a j u r y or adm i t t ed by a def

endan t , T enn es s ee’ s sen t enc i ng st r uct ur e d oes not vi ol at e t he Si xt h A mendm ent an d do es not conf l i ct wi t h t h e h ol di n g s of

B l ak el y v

. W as h i n g t on , 542 U

. S. 296 ( 2004), U ni t ed S t at es v

. B ook er , 543U

. S. 220 ( 2005) , or U nit ed S t ates v. F an F an , t he ca se c o nso l i d ated wit h B o o ke r, b ec au se “t he R efo rm A ct [o f T en ne ssee ] au t ho rizes a d i scr et i o nary , non-mand at o ry s ent enci ng pro ced ure and requir es t ri al judges t o co nsi d er t he p ri nci p l es of s ent enci ng and to e n g a g e in a q u a lit a tive a n a lysis o f en h a n c e m e n t an d m iti g a ting fac to rs

. . . all o f w h ic h s e rv e to gu id e trial ju d g e s in

exe r ci s i ng t hei r di s cr et i on t o s el ect an appropri at e s ent enc e wi t hi n t he r ang e s et by t he Legi s l at ur e. ” St at e v

. G om ez, 1 6 3 S.W

. 3 d 6 3 2 , 6 6 1 (T enn. 2 0 0 5 ). E f fect i ve Jul y 1, 20 0 5 , t he T enness ee G eneral A ss em b l y am end ed t he sent enci ng
ac t t o refl ec t t he ad viso ry nature o f en ha nc em en t f ac t o rs.
-8- comports with the sentenc ing principles and purp o s es o f o ur code and as long as its findings a re supported by

the re cord. I d. 2

Mark Allen

The trial c ourt sentenc ed Mr. Allen to e leven months and twe nty -nine da y s for e x hibition of
m at er i al harmful to a minor w hich is a Class A misdemeanor , ten y ear s at thirty perc ent for espec iall y aggr av ated sex ual exploit ation of a minor, whic h is a Class B fe lony , and twenty -four y ear s at 100 perc ent for r ape of a child. All these sentence s wer e to run conc urre ntly . The de fenda nt arg ues on appe al that the trial c ourt did not give ade q u at e we ight to the mitigating f actor s and misapplied two enhanc ement fac tors, (1) that the defe ndant was a leade r in the commission of the
o ff en s e and (2) that the offe nse wa s committed to gratify the def endant’ s desire f

or plea sure or e xcit e me nt.

T h e t ri al co u rt m ad e t h e f o l l o wi n g fi n d i n gs at t h e s en t en ci n g h ea ri n g:

We’ve g one over

the ra ng es of punishment at the be g inning of this; I ’ll redo that. Cla ss A misd e me a no r in co un t fou r of e xhibi tio n o f m a te ri a l ha

rm fu l to min or s; and count five is espec ially ag g ravated s exual exploi tation, which is that videotape that Mr. All en st ates that he erased and was not found in the sea rch of his home, that is a class B felony

with a rang e of punishment of eig ht to 12 y ear s. That’s not a 100 perc ent sentenc e. Tha t is a rang e one sta ndard.

And then in count six is the child ra pe, it’s 15 to 25 with presumptive sentenc e of 20 y ear s. The pre sumptive sentence means the beg inning point, and f rom that po int

the Cou rt

mus t w e ig ht the mit ig a tin g a nde nh a nc e me nt f a c tor s. Presumptive sentenc e for

a cla ss A felony shall be the mid point of the rang e if ther e are no e nh a nc e me nt o r m iti g a tin g fa c tor s.

. . . .-9- When y ou rea d ex h i b i t two and y ou compar e it to the evidenc e re ceive d at trial it’s like this isn’t the same pe rson. Mr. Allen c erta inly had many

things g oing on his behalf a nd he at lea st outwa rdly showed to e very one that he wa s a very g ood person a nd, no doubt, also was showing that to the victim’s mother.

I h av e r ea d t h e p re s en t en ce re p o rt , co n s i d er i n g th e p ri n ci p l es o f s en t en ci n g, the nature and cha

rac teristics of the c riminal conduct involved. I also am considering the statement that Mr. A llen has made on his own behalf.
Now, I ’m g oing to find that there are some mitigating fac tors. Number one that the conduc t ne ither cause d nor threa tened se rious bodily injury . I went bac k and
rea d the def

inition of serious bodilyinjury and do not bel i ev e t h at this conduct
c re a te d – or ne ith e r c a us e d –

sta rt ov e r. Mr . A lle n’ s c ri min a l c on du c t did no t c a us e nor t hreaten s erious bodil y injury as defined under our code section. I will find that that is true; howeve r, I

g ive it very

littl e we ight unde r the fa cts of this case

.

. . . . Number 11, w e look a t t h e ful l rang e her e of the first eve nt involving the
w i f e , M i c h e l l e A l l e n

. F r o m t h e tr i a l a n d t h e v i d e o o r t h e p l a yi n g c ar d s –I’ ms o rr y; play ing c ards on the f

loor; that being one episode when Mr. Allen was pre sent; then there being a second e pisode which this videotape w as pre pare d and the c hild rape by Mr . A lle n it ’s app are nt tha t he – th a t th e se we re no t un us ua l c ir c ums ta nc e s to him in the sense that he did in fact sustain an intent to violate the la w.

. . . . 13 has applica t i o n : He did make a sta tement; he has no c riminal history . I be lie ve the c a se la w re qu ir e s that that be pa rt of nu mbe r 13 a nd I wi ll g ive it so me we ig ht.

As I stated before ex hibit number two provides many g ood things a bout Mr. Allen including his employ ment and re lationship with o t h er people. He has today
e xpre sse d s ome de g re e of re mor se . T he Cou rt wi ll c on sid e r a ll o f tho se in mitigation.

As far as enha nceme nt fac tors . . . .

Number thre e, the showing of this videotape to this y oung man, g etting a ll of this started, ce rtainly

to me, shows that he wa s the leade r. The le ader in the sense of the leade r betwe en he a nd his wife, Mi chelle A llen. So that enhance ment fac tor number thre e is found.

. . . .-10- Eig ht is the offense involved a vi ct i m and wa s committed to gratify the defe nd a n t’ s d e s ir e f

o r p le a s u r e o r e xc it e me n t. T h e s h o w in g o f th is v id e o , the eng ag ing of these acts has bee n established, child ra pe. Showing of the video to the minor; this happening on mor e than one occa sion; the evidence certainly establishes that this offense, a nd particula rly the offe nse of e x ploitation and child rape , wer e for ple a su re or

e xcit e me nt.

. . . . That bring s us to 16. Testimony is ve ry clea r in this case that Ms. Meadows trus te d M r. Al le n p art ic ula rl y to p re se nt a

ma le fathe rl y imag e that th is v ic tim neede d. I t’s appar ent from the proof that this victim was in the home of the Allens on many occa sions not jus t two occa sions, and that Mr. Allen pa rticularly was trusted by the mother of this child and a llowed this child to be in the home.

Mr. Allen abuse d that position of private trust and showed this video that the jur y sa w t o t h e v i c t i m , w a t c h e d a s h i s w i f e a n d t h e v i c t i me n g a g e d i n c e r t a i n a c ts, the n o n a dif fe re nt o c c a sio n c omm itt e d th e of fe ns e of c hil d ra

pe a nd vid e ota

pe d it

. Th e Cou rt

wi ll f indthat he didin f

a c t vi olate a

private trus t.

. . . . So I ’ll find the mitigating fac tors apply to a ll of the offe n s es

. The enhanc ement fa ctors also would a pply to all of these – or

all three of these.

. . . .
I n s e nte nc ing Mr . A lle n, a s I sa id I ’v e do ne a

g re a t de a l of

tho ug ht a bo ut this

. I n count four, w hich is the class A misdemeanor, Mr. A llen will have a se ntence of 11 months and 29 day s; of course , he has more than satisfied that sente nce by pretria l
c on fi ne me nt. Especia lly

ag g ravated sexual ex ploitation, the pre sumed sentenc e is eig ht y ear s. Ba sed on the we ight of the mit i gat i ng and enhanceme nt fac tors, and I am g iving a g reat deal of w eig ht to that under th e circumstances of the trust that was provided to Mr. Allen by the m other of this child, and sentence Mr. Allen to ten y ear s as a r ang e one of

fende r.

I n count six , presumptive sente nce is 20 y ear s. Weighing the mitigating and enhanc ement fa ctors I ’m g oing to sentence Mr. Alleg e [sic] to 24 y ear s. That is a one hundred pe rce nt sentence as re quired by law.T he nu mb er i ng of t he enh anc ement f act or s t at ut e, T enn es s ee C od e A nn ot at ed s ect i on 40- 35

- 11 4 has ch ang ed 3
si nce t he sent enci ng heari ng. E n h a n c e m e n t fa c to r ( 3 ) as ref erred t o by t he t ri al co urt i s no w f act o r ( 2 ), enhancem ent f act o r ( 8 ) i s n ow f ac t or ( 7) an d en h an ce men t f ac t or ( 16) i s n ow en h an ce men t f ac t or ( 14)

. W e wi l l r ef er t o t he enhancem ent f act o rs as t he same num b ers as t he t ri al co urt t o m i ni m i ze co nf usi o n.
-11- Now, I ’m g oing to r

un all of these c oncurr ent with eac h other. It’s my belief that M r

. A ll e n h a s

– is g o in g to b e in h is 5 0 s w h e n h e is r e le a s e d ; h e w il l be sentenc ed to c ommunity supervision for life. He’ s g oing to be close to 60 and there ’s
rea lly no purpose to be serve d by ordering consec utive sentenc es, so I will not order
co n s ec u t i v e s en t en ci n g.

Th e de fe nd a nt s pe c if

ic a lly arg ue s th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt mis app lie d tw o e nh a nc e me nt f a c tor s: enhanc ement fa ctor (3) , that “the defe ndant was a leade r in the commission of an off ense involving tw o (2 ) o r m or e c ri min a l a c tor s” a nde nh a nc e me nt f a c tor (8 ), the “ [t]he of

fe ns e inv olv e d a

vic tim and wa s committed to gratify the def endant’ s desire f

or plea sure or

excitement.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114 ( 3) & (8). 3

As for f actor (3), the de fenda nt was a le ader i n the commission of the offe nse, we have revie wed the r ecor d and found a mple support for the trial court’s a pplication of this fac tor. During the trial, De tective Car lisle testified that he took a stateme nt from the def endant, Mr. A llen. A written copy

of the statement was included as evidenc e at trial. I n that statement, Mr. Allen stated,

“ a nythi ng my

wi fe mig ht h a ve do ne wa s to ta l c oe rc ion a ndma nip ulatio n o n my pa rt .” Cle arl y , th is supports the applica tion of this factor.

Def endant Mr. Al l en also arg ues that the trial c ourt err ed in apply ing f actor (8), that the offe nse wa s committed to satisfy the def endant’ s desire for plea sure or excitement. The def

endant
arg ue s th a t th e re is n oth ing in the re c or d to su pp ort thi s e nh a nc e me nt fa c tor

. Mr Al le n c ite s State
v. Ki ssi ng e r, 92 2 S. W.2 d 48 2 (T e nn

. 19 96 ), to su pp ort his po sit ion

. Ki ssi ng e r inv olv e d tw o s e pa rate defe ndants, Michae l R. Kissinge r and Guy Phelan R oberson. Kissinge r was convicted of one count of ag g ravated ra

pe and one count of a g g ravated sexual battery ag ai n s t ch i l dren unde r the a g e of thirteen. Rober son was convic ted of a g g ravated ra pe ag ainst a child under the ag e of thirtee n, which
was re duced on a

ppeal to ag g ravated sexual battery and re manded f

or resentenc ing. I n both case s that trial courts a

pplied as an e nhance m en t fa ct o r that the offe nse “w as committed to g ratify the defe ndant’s desire for pleasure or excitement.” Our supreme court held t hat t his enhanc ement fa ctor could not apply

to sex ual battery b ec au s e i t i s an ele ment of the off ense. A s to Kissinger ’s ra pe conviction, the supre me court held that the fa ct that the def endan t h ad reac hed org asm was not enoug h, in itself, to support the application of this fac tor. I d. at 49 0 -9 1

. Rather, ther e must be additional evidenc e as to a perpe trator’ s purpose. I d. at 490.

I n a ca se subseque nt to Kissinger , State v. Arne tt, 49 S. W.3d 250, 262 (Tenn. 2001), the Tenne ssee Supre me Court stated that t he S tate mus t “provide a dditional objective evidenc e of the defe ndant’s motivation to seek pleasure or excitement” when apply ing this e nhancem en t fac tor.-12-

Additional evidence can inc lude “se x ually expli cit rema

rks and overt sexual display s made by the defe ndant, such a s fondling or kissing a vic tim or othe rw i s e b eh av i n g in a sexual manner . . . .” Arne tt, 49 S.W .3d at 262.

There was no evidence as t o any sexually expli cit rema rks. However, repeatedly

showing the victim pornog raphic videotapes could be considered as behaving in a sexual manner. It also appea rs that the sexual relations betwe en the de fenda nt and the victim wer e not forced upon the vic tim by the defendant. Af

ter be ing e x posed to sexuallyexpli cit media and se x ual re lations with the defe ndant, the victim continued t o go t o the def endants’ home . Also there w as evide nce that Mr. Al le n a ndhis wi fe watc he d the vid e ota pe of the vic tim a ndhim se lf e ng a g ing in mutu a l f

e llatio . M rs

. Allen also stated in her written statement that she watche d this video with her husband be fore the videotape w as er ased. The re w as also evide nce in the se ntencing reports that the def endants we re “swing ers” and had an “open m arriag e.” There was evidence that the def endants e ng ag ed in what mig ht b e c on sid e re d b y

ma ny to b e a n u nu su a l s ex life . T his ha bit of op e n s e xua l be ha vio r c ou ld
certainly lead to the c onclusion that the defe ndant was e x cited by s u ch b eh avior. The ref ore, w e conclude that the defe ndant Mr. Allen eng ag ed in e x posing the victim to sexually expli cit media, vid e ota pin g se xua l a c ts w ith the vic tim a nda c tua lly

e ng a g ing in s e xua l r e la tio ns wi th the vic tim to g ratify the def endant’ s desire f

or plea sure. This enhanceme nt fac t o r wo u l d t h ere fore apply to the defe ndant, Mr. Allen.

The trial court followed the procedure as set out in our statutes for de termining a def endant’ s sentenc e. The ref

ore the re is a pr esumption that the trial court’s f indings a nd determinations are
corr ect. We conc lude that the trial c ourt corr ectly ap p l i ed t h ese e nhance ment fac tors. We have revie wed the trial court’s f indings, a s well as, the rec ord and conclude that there was a mple support for Mr. A llen’s sentenc e as imposed by the trial court.

Michelle Allen

At Mr s. Al le n’ s se nte nc ing he ari ng , th e tr ia l c ou rt ma de the fo llo wi ng fi nd ing s:

Th e c ou rt is r e qu ir e d to make c e rt a in f ind ing s. Th is is a cla ss A fe lon y

. I t is a child ra pe. The rang e of punishment is 15 to 25 y ear s howeve r, as a c lass A fe lony the pr e su mpt ive se nte nc e is the midpo int of the rang e , w hic h is 20 y e ars . As a c hil d rape it is required by

law that ther e is no parole , there is no good time a nd a per son se rv e s o ne hu nd re d p e rc e nt o f the se nte nc e . T he c ou rt is w e ll a wa

re of that.

. . . . Number two – so I

will find that there is a mitig ating fac tor of neither causing nor threatening serious bodily injury ; however , I

do not believe it ha s much weig ht in this case.-13- . . . . Certain ly the letters a

re sig nificant in providing under a ny other fa ctor consistent with the purposes of t his Chapter. She had no prior record, she has a g ood work hist ory ; clog g ing instruc tor, churc h attendant, a ll of those are just ex amples of those matters that a

re c ontained in exhibit two.

Under 40-35-114 – let me go ba ck to 40-35-113, mitig ating fac tors so that the re wi ll b e no mis un de rs ta nd ing . I do fi ndthat nu mbe r o ne app lie s, wh ic h is ref ere nce to serious bodily injury , and number 13; and I find that none of the others
are found by

the evidenc e.
Under 40-35-114, a nd I ’m using the new c ode n u mber so that one a ct of terrorism has no application.

. . . . Number eig ht is the offense involved a victim and wa s committed to gratify the de fe nd a nt’ s de sir e fo r ple a su re or e xcit e me nt. No w, thi s d oe sn ’t a lw a y s a pp ly in rape or child ra

pe ca ses. B ut the statement is J uly 16 , ag ain, 2002, Michelle A llen: th My husband and I and [t he victim] wer e sitting in the floor of the living room play ing
car ds. [ T h e v i cti m] , as alway s, that night wa nted to run ar ound the house nude . I ended up nude . At some point I perf ormed ora l sex on [t he victim]; my husband wa s prese nt. Also I

don’t rec all exactly , but I think [ the vict i m ] performed or al sex on
me . A lso [the vic tim ] at te mpt e d to ha ve se x withme , a ndhe didpe ne tr a te me wi th his pe nis

. I

do n’ t r e c a ll i f h e pe ne tr a te d me wi th f ing e r o r n ot. Th is i s th e on ly tim e th a t I e v e r h a d s e x w ith [t h e v ic ti m]

. That and the description as give n by this victim is suc h that it – Court finds that it wa s c omm itt e d to g ratif

y the De fe nd a nt’ s d e sir e fo r e xcit e me nt.

. . . . Then we can ba ck [sic] to 16. The evidenc e is – as prese nted in the trial of this case wa s that this victim had bee n in the home on many occa sions. His mot her ha s te sti fi e d that sh e wa s loo kin g fo r a ma le ima g e to b e a

g uid e fo r this vic tim . M s. Allen was cer tainly

in a position of private trust under those circ umstances whe n down on the floor pla y ing c ards with her h u s b an d an d this victim , ended up be ing nude, ac cording to her stateme nt, and the proof in this m atter.

17 does not apply

. 18 does not

. 19, 20, 21,22 and 23 do not apply . So, I am finding that number e ight a nd number 16 do a pply in this case under

40-35-114.T he nu mb er i ng of t he enh anc ement f act or s t at ut e, T enn es s ee C od e A nn ot at ed s ect i on 40- 35

- 11 4 has ch ang ed 4
si nce t he sent enci ng heari ng. E nhancem ent fact o r( 8 ) i s no w f act o r ( 7 ) and enhance m ent f act o r ( 1 6 ) i s no w enhance m ent f act o r ( 1 4 ). W e wi l l ref er t o t he enhancem ent f act o rs as t he same num b ers as t he t ri al co urt t o m i ni m i ze co nf usi o n.
-14- The leg islature has se t that this i s a sen t en ce that must be served in the Tenne ssee De partment of Corr ection s

. T his is no probation available; it must be
serve d.

B a la nc ing the mit ig a tin g fa c tor s ver su s the e nh a nc e me nt f a c tor s I ’m g oin g to sentenc e Ms. Allen to 21 y ear s in the state penitentiary . S h e’ll have cre dit for the time that she has ser ved. . . .

The de fen d an t , Mrs. Allen, ar g ues that enha nceme nt fac tors eig ht and six teen we re misapplied by

the trial court. Fa ctor e ight is that the off ense w as committed to g ratify the 4 defe ndant’s desire for plea sure or excitement. As stated above , this factor r equire s additional proof of the de fe nd a nt’ s des ir e to se e k ple a su re . Ar ne tt, 49 S.W. 3da t 26 2. Un de r Kiss ing e r andArne tt, there must be “additional objec tive evidenc e.” H aving revie wed the rec o rd , we find that the
e vid e nc e lis te d a

bo ve fo r M r. Al le n, in cludin g the fa c t th a t th e de fe nd a nts we re “ sw ing e rs ,” Mr s. Allen watc hed the videota pe of the mutual fellatio betwe en Mr. Allen and the vi ctim, and that the
se xua l r e la tio ns be tw e e n Mrs . Alle n a ndthe vic tim we re c on se ns ua l, i n a dd iti on to the de fe nd a nts ’ sexual behavior, lea d to the conclusion that Mrs. Allen had se x ual re lations to gratify her de sire for pleasure and excitement. We find that this enhance ment fac tor was pr operly applied.

Th e se c on d e nh a nc e me nt f a c tor , th a t th e de fe nd a nt w a s in a po sit ion of

private trus t, i s clea rly appropriate in this case. T he def endant a nd her husband invited the vi ctim to their house a nd kn e w the vic tim ’s mothe r. Cle arl y , th e de fe nd a nt w a s in a po sit ion of

private trus t.

The trial c ourt followed the se ntencing proce dures se t out in the s tatute. After starting at the presumptive sente nce of

twenty y ear s, which is the mid-rang e o f a C l as s A fe lony as a Rang e I offe nder, the trial court e nhance d the def endant’ s sentenceby

only one y ear

. We have de termined the tr ia l c ou rt

pr op e rl y app lie d th e tw o e nh a nc e me nt f a c tor s.
Th e re fo re , th is i ssu e is w ith ou t me ri t.

Blakely v. Washington

B othde fe nd a nts arg ue that th e tr ia l c ou rt a p p l i e d th e e nh a nc e me nt f

a c tor s c on tr ary

to B lake ly v. Washi n g to n , 5 2 4 U

. S. 2 9 6 ( 2 0 0 4 )

. T h e T e n n e s s e e Su p r e me Co u r t r e c e n tl y d e te r mi n e d that Blakely did not announce a new rule of law a nd that “the Te nnessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Act does not authoriz e a s en tencing proce dure w hich violated the Six th Amendment rig ht to jury trial.” State v. Gome z, 163 S .W.3d 632, 651 n.16 (Tenn. 2005). I n Gomez, the court de termined-15-

that despite the a

bilityof trial judg es to set sentenc es above the presumptive sentenc e based on the fin d i n g o f enhancement f actor s neither f

ound by a jury or admitted by

a def endant, Te nnessee ’s
s en t en ci n g s tru ct u re d o es n o t v i o l at e t h e S i x t h Am en d m en tan d d o es n o tco n fl i ct wi t h t h e h o l d i n gs of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), U nited States v. Booke r, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), or United States v. Fa nFa n, the ca se consolidated w ith Booker , beca use “[t] he R ef

o rm Ac t [of Tenn e s s e e ] a

u th o rizes a

discretionary , non-manda tory sentenc ing pr ocedur e and r equire s trial judge s to consider the principles of sente ncing and to eng ag e in a qualitative ana ly sis of enhanc ement and mit ig a tin g fa c tor s.

. . . [A ]ll o f w hic h s e rv e to g uid e tr ia l ju dg e s ine xer c isi ng th eir di scre tio n to selec t an appr opriate se ntence within the rang e set by the L eg islature.” Gomez, 163 S.W .3d at 661. Thus, in or der to de termine a def endant’ s sentence , a trial c ourt starts at the pr esumptive sentenc e, enhanc es the sente nce w ithin the rang e for exis ting e nhanc em en t fac tors, and then r educe s the sentenc e within the ra ng e for exis ting mitigating f

actor s in acc ordanc e with Tenne ssee Code Annotated se ction 40-35-210( e). N o particula r we ight f or ea ch fa ctor is pr escribed by the statute; the weig ht give n to eac h fac tor is left to the discre tion of the trial court as long as it comports with the
sen t en ci n g p ri n cipl es and pur poses of our Code and as long as its findings a re supported by

the
rec ord. See State v. Santiag o, 914 S.W .2d 116, 125 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995)

. Th e re fo re , th is i ssu e is w ith ou t me ri t.

CO NC LU SION

F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , w e a ff irm the j ud g me nts of

the tr ia l c ou rt

wi th r e g ardto b oth de fe nd a nts

.

___________________________________ J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE