### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A pr il 5, 200 5 S es sio n
STATE OF TENNESS EE v . DARRYL AMMONS

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Dickson Coun ty

No. CR 6686 G eorgeSexton, Jud ge

No. M2004- 01956-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Jun e 9, 2005

Th e d e f e n d a n t , D arr y l A m m o n s , w a s i n d i c t e d a n d tr i e d f o r o n e c o u n t o f a t t e m p t t o c omm it f ir st deg ree murder and ag g ravated assault. He was subseque ntly convicted by

a jury of attempted criminally

neg lige nt homicide an d agg ravated assault. The trial court mer g ed the c onviction for attempted criminallyneg lige nt homicide into the convi ct i o n fo r ag g ravated assault and se ntence d the def endant to ten y ear s as a Rang e I I multipl e offender

. Upon re view, we vacate the def endant’ s conviction for attempted criminally negli gen t h o micide but aff irm his conviction for ag g ravated
a ssa ult

. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Ci r c uit

Co ur t R e ve r se d in P ar t a nd Aff irm ed in Par t

J.C. M C L IN , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES and J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J J ., joined.

Michae l J . Flana g an, (on ap p eal) Nashville Tenne ssee, a nd J ames O. Ma rtin, (at trial) N ashville, Te nn e sse e , f

or the app e lla nt, Da

rry l A mmo ns
. Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; El iza be th T. Ry a n, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Dan M. Alsobrooks, District Attor n ey General; and Suzanne L ockert, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
. OP IN ION

I. F acts

Th e Sta te ’s pr oo f at trial e sta bli sh e d th a t th e de fe nd a nt l ive d w ith his e x-w if e , Ch arl ott e Ammons, in her re sidence in Whi te B luff, Te nnessee
. Also living with the def endant at the time was Ms. Ammons’ daug hter, Micha ela. On the evening of Apri l 2 1 , 2 0 0 3, afte r eating dinner and drinking alcohol, the de fenda nt and Ms. Ammons beg an to ar g ue over NASCAR gifts the de fenda nt
was rece iving from another woman. As the a

rg ument continued, the de fenda nt announce d he wa s-2-

leaving . Be fore the def

endant lef t the house, M s. Ammons asked for a ce ll phone she lent to the defe ndant. When he re fused to g ive the phone ba ck, Ms. Ammons fo l l o wed him out side of the ho us e in atte mpt

to r e tr ie ve it.

Michae la, alarmed by the s houting, walked to t he fr ont door to see what was happe ning. A s she watched he r m other and the defendant arg ue she hear d her mother say “if y ou’re g oing to shoot me, Dar ry l, shoot me.” Michae la saw the defe ndant push her mother to the g round. I n response , her mother told Michaela

to call 911. Michae la ra n to the bathroom t o hide; she tried to ca ll 911 but
c o u l d n o tb e c a u s e th e p h o n e w a s n o tw o rk i n g p r o p e r l y.
Meanw hile, an alter cation ensued betwee n the def endant a nd Ms. Ammons. The defe ndant pu sh e d M s. Am mon s to the g ro un d a cou ple of tim e s, a ndthe tw o b e g a n to wr e stl e . A t th is p oin t, the defendant went to his truck and retrie ved a g un. Seeing the def endant with a g un, Ms. Ammons made the statement “if y ou’re g oing to shoot me just shoot me,” which he r d au gh t er h ear d befor e ru n n i n g t o h i d e. In re s p o n s e, t h e d ef en d an ts h o tM s
. Am m o n s i n t h e e l b o w. M s
. Am m o n s , b l ee d i n g, a sk e d th e de fe nd a nt f

or he lp, bu t th e de fe nd a nt i g no re d h e r, g ot i nto his truc k a ndle ft

. After hearing the g unshot, Michaela he ard he r m o t h er ’s voice in the kitche n. Her mother asked her if she had called the police. Michae la t old her mother that she had tried, but the phone wa s not working . Her

mother told her to g et help fr om the neig hbors next door. Phy lli s Wil ls a ndRob e rt

L arr e ntr e e liv e d n e xt doo r to Ms. Am mon s. Ar ou nd10 :00 p. m. M s. Wil ls answer ed a phone ca ll from the Ammons residenc e, but no one wa s on the other line. Af ter waiting a couple minutes, she called back but the line wa s busy . Shortlythere afte r, she he ard a g unshot. Peering out her window, Ms. Wills noticed the defe ndant l eave in his truck. Upon see ing Michae la run to her

house, Ms. Wills c alled 911. Ms. Will s comforte d Michae la by wra pping he r in a blanket. She then walked ove r to the Ammons residenc e to see if Ms. Ammons needed he lp. Ms. Wills fo un d M s. Am mon s in Mi chael a’s be dr oo m on the ph on e wi th a 91 1 d isp a tc he r. Ms. W i l l s h el p ed “p ac k ” M s
. Am m o n ’s ar mi n o rd ert o s t o p t h e b l ee d i n g.
Acc ording to Ms. W ills, a couple day s befor e the s h o o t ing, Ms. Ammons ca lled her a nd threatened to kill herself . Ms. Ammons was depre ssed beca use the defe ndant had walked out on he r. Ms. Wil ls w a lk e d o v e r

to th e A mm o n s r e s id e n c e a n d f o u n d M s
. A mm o n s s it ti n g in h e r k it c hen holding a g un. After

some discussion, Ms. W ills convinced M s
. Am m o n s t o g ive her the g un, wher eupon Ms. Will s took it and pla ced in the trunk of her car
. The ne x t day , Ms. Ammons called Ms. Wills a nda sk e d h e r t o r e turn th e g un to the de fe nd a nt w ho ha d c ome ba c k to the ho us e . M s. Wills wa lke d o ve r t o th e ho us e a ndg a ve the g un to the de fe nd a nt w ho app e are d s ur prise d w he n M s. Wills ha nd e d th e g un to h im.

After Ms. Ammons wa s s h o t , s h e was take n to a hospital for surg ery . Dr. Ke vin Hag an tr e a te d Ms. Am mon’ s in

jurie s. Dr . H a g a n n ote d th a t Ms . A mmo ns re c e ive d a g un sh ot w ou ndto the elbow r eg ion of her right a rm, which re sulted in d i s fi g ureme nt and ner ve dama g e. Dr . Hag an did not believe that the wound w as self-inflicte d beca use Ms. A mmons wa s rig ht-hande d, the bullet-3-

wound was to he r rig ht elbow reg ion, and som e of the bul let’s casing was found buried in her rig ht
armpit . D r. Ha g a n b e lie ve d th a t c on sid e ri ng the ph y sic a l a sp e c ts o f M s. Am mon ’s wo un ds , it wo uld have be en v e r y d if

f ic u lt f o r h e r to s h o o t h e r s e lf

. D r
. H a g a n a ls o n o te d th a t th e e me r g e n c yroom re po rt ind ic a te d th e pr e se nc e of a lc oh ol i n M s. Am mon s. Following the S t at e’s pr oof, the de fenda nt moved for judg ment of ac quittal, which was de nie d. Af

te r be ing c ha

rg e d by the tr ia l cou rt , the jury de lib e rate d a ndfo un d th e de fe nd a nt g uil ty of attempt to commit criminally neg lige nt homicide and ag g ravated assault. The trial court mer g ed the conviction in c ount one for attempted criminally neg lige nt homicide into c o u n t t wo for ag g ravated assault and se ntenc ed t h e defenda nt to ten y ear s as a Rang e I I multipl e off

ender . The de fe nd a nt r e ne we d h is m oti on fo r j ud g me nt o f a c qu itt a l a ndfi le d a mot ion for a new tr ia l. B oth mot ion s w e re de nie d. Th e re a ft e r, the tr ia l c ou rt re du c e d th e de fe nd a nt’ s se nte nc e to n ine y e ars
. II. Ana lys is On appe al, the def

endant c ontends that the trial court erre d in not gr anti n g j u d g ment of acquittal. I n making his arg ument, he relies on State v. Kimbroug h, 924 S.W .2d 888 (Tenn. 1996) to a rg ue that hi s c on vic tio n f or a tte mpt to c omm it c ri min a lly

ne g lig e nt h omi c ide is n ot a via ble offe nse in Tenne ssee a nd must be vacated. The de fenda nt further arg ues t h at bec ause the jury specific ally

acquitted him of attempted first and sec ond degr ee m u rder and attempted voluntary manslaug hter – e ach of

fense requiring intentional or knowing conduct – the trial court erre d in not
ac q u itti n g th e d e f

e n d a n t o f h is a g g r a v a te d a s s a u lt c o n v ic ti o n , w h ic h a ls o r e q u ir e s in te ntional or knowing conduct. The State conce des i n its brief that, base d on the holding in Kimbroug h, the defe ndant’s conviction for attempted criminally neg lige nt homicide must be vacated. Howe ver, the Sta te arg ue s th a t th e jury ’s c on vic tio n f or a tte mpt e d c ri min a lly

ne g lig e nt h omi c ide , a lbe it e rr on e ou s, did not preclude the jury

from conc luding that the de fenda nt was g uiltyof ag g ravated assault.

This Court has previously observe d that “[t] he st andar d by which the tria l court dete rmines
a motion for judgme nt of acquittal at the end of all the proof is, in e ssence , the same standa rd which applies on appe al in determining the suff iciency of the e videnc e af

t er a co nviction.” State v. Thompson, 88 S.W .3d 611, 614-15 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). Ther efor e, we addre ss the defe ndant’s arg uments under a

sufficie ncy

of evide nce sta ndard of

revie w.
Ou r r e vie w b e g ins wi th the we ll- e sta bli sh e d r ule that onc e a jury fi nd s a def e nd a nt g uil ty , h is or her presumption of innoce nce is re moved a n d replaced w ith a presumption of g uilt. S tate v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992). The ref ore, on appea l, the convicted de fenda nt has the burden of demonstrating to this Court w hy the evidenc e will not support the jury ’s verdic t. State v. Carruthe rs, 35 S.W. 3 d 516, 557-58 (Te nn. 2000); State v. Tug g le, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). To meet this burden, the de fenda nt must establish t hat no “r easona ble trier of

fac t” could have fo un d th e e sse nti a l e le me nts of the c ri me be y on d a r e a so na ble do ub t. Ja c ks on v. Vi rg ini a , 4 43 U. S. 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ; S t a t e v
. E v a n s , 1 0 8 S

. W

. 3 d 2 3 1 , 2 3 6 ( T e n n
. 2 0 0 3 ) ; T e n n
. R

. A p p
. P

. 1 3 ( e )

. In contra st, the j ury ’s verdict approve d by the trial judg e ac cre dits the St ate’ s witnesses and r esolves
a ll c on fl ic ts i n f

a vo r o f the Sta te . St a te v. Ha rris, 83 9 S. W.2 d 5 4, 75 (T e nn . 1 99 2) . T he Sta te is-4-

entitled to the strong est leg itimate view of the e vidence and all re asonableinfere nces w hich may be draw n fr o m t h at evidenc e. Carr uthers, 35 S.W.3d at 558; Tugg le, 639 S.W.2d at 914. Questions
conce rning the cr edibilityof the witnesse s, conflicts in trial testimony , the weig ht and value to be g iven the evide nce, and all fac tual issues raised by the evidenc e are resolved by the trier of

fac t and
n o tt h i s C o u rt

. S t at e v
. Bl an d , 9 5 8 S

. W

. 2 d 6 5 1 , 6 5 9 (T en n
. 1 9 9 7 ). W e d o n o t at t em p t t o re -w ei gh
or re -eva luate the e vidence . State v. Reid, 91 S.W .3d 247, 277 (Tenn. 2002) ; Bla n d , 958 S.W .2d at 659. Likewise, we do not r eplac e the jury ’s infer ence s drawn f rom the circ umstantial evidence with our own i nfer ence s. See S tate v. Elkins, 102 S.W .3d 581, 582 (Tenn. 2003) ; Reid, 91 S.W .3d at 277.

A. At te m pt e d Cr im ina lly Ne gli ge nt Hom ic ide

I nitially , we a g ree with the first part of the def endant’ s arg ument that h i s conviction for attempt to commit criminallyneg lige nt homicide must be vacated. Criminallyneg lige nt homicide can be described as follows: A person commits c riminally neg lige nt homicide when his conduc t or the re sult of that conduct causes the de ath of a nother pe rson, and by his conduct it is evident that he failed to pe rce ive a substantial and unjus tifiable risk that a result would occur (name ly , death) . “The risk must be of such a nature and deg ree that the fa ilure to perc eive it constitutes a g ross deviation from the stand ar d o f

c ar e th a t an o r d in ar y

p e r s o n w o u lde xe r c is e u n d e r a ll th e c ir c u ms tan c e s as viewed f rom the ac cused pe rson’s standpoint.” Te nn. Code. Ann. §§ 39-11- 106(a) (4) & 302(d).

Cr imi na l a tte mpt

is d e fi ne d b y

Te nn . Co de . A nn . § 39 -1 2- 10 1, wh ic h s ta te s: A p e rs on c omm its c ri min a l a tte mpt wh o, a c tin g wi th the kin d o f c ulp abil ity oth e rw ise
re qu ir e d f or the of fe ns e : (1 ) Inte nti on a lly

e ng a g e s in a c tio n or caus e s a re su lt that w ou ld c on sti tut e a n o ff e ns e if the circ umstances surrounding the conduct wer e as the person believes them to be; (2) Ac ts with intent to cause a result that is an element of the off ense, a nd believes the conduc t will cause the r esult without further c onduct on the per son' s part; or (3 ) A c ts w ith in ten t to c omp le te a c ou rs e of

a c tio n o r c a us e a

re su lt that w ou ld constitute the offe nse, under the circumstances sur

rounding the conduc t as the per son believes the m to be, and the c onduct constitutes a substantial step t o wa rd the commission of the offe nse.
I n Stat e v. Ki mbr ou g h, ou r sup re me c ou rt a na ly zedwh e the r the c ri me of fe lon y mur de r c ou ld pr ov ide a fo un datio n for c ri min a l atte mpt lia bil ity . The c ou rt

he ld that a tte mpt e d f

e lon y mur de r i s not a cog nizable cr i m e i n T ennesse e. I d. at 892. The c ourt rea soned that criminal intent requires specific intent wher eas the crime of felony murder require s only rec klessness. I d. at 891. The c ourt stated that it was “impossible to conce ive of a n attempt wher e a c rime by definition may

be
c omm itt e d n e g lig e ntl y

or re c kle ssl y

bu t no t in te nti on a lly .” I d. Th e c ou rt c on c lud e d tha t an o ff e ns e of attempted f

elony murder w ould require an ac tor to intend to commit an unintentional act. I d. at 892.-5-

Ba sed upon the supre me court’s analy sis in Kimbrough, thi s Court has consistently held that attempt to c ommit criminally neg lige nt homicide is not a rec og nized c rime in T ennesse e. See e .g ., Sta te v. John Ma

rk B urns , N o. W20 03 -0 14 64 -C CA -R 3- CD , 2 00 4 WL 21 08 23 6, a t *6 (T e nn . Crim. A p p
. , a t Ja c k s o n , Se p t. 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 ) ; St a te v. Mauric e L amont Davidson, No. M2002-00178-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 151202, at *4 (Te nn. Crim. App., at Nashville, J an . 22, 2003), perm app. denied ( Tenn. May 1 9 , 2003); State v. Christopher Todd B rown, No. M1999-00691-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 262936, at *2 (Te nn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Mar ch 9, 2000), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Sept. 10, 2001) ; State v. Dale Nola n, No. 01C01-9511-CC-00387, 1997 WL 351142, at *9 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, J une 26, 1997), perm. app. denie d (Tenn. Marc h 2, 1998). Our r ationale is simple. To be g uiltyof an attempt crime, a n actor must have the sp e c if ic int e nt t o c omm it the un de rl y ing of fe ns e . F or

e xamp le , th e me nta l sta te s in vo lve d w ith fi rs t and sec ond degre e m u rder (intentional and knowing ) involve a le vel of c onscious awa rene ss and volitional affirmative c onduct. For a homicide of

fense based upon the ment al s tate of c riminal neg lige nce, the actor is c harg ed for acting without a war eness, or in othe r words, the actor is charg ed wi th f a ili ng to p e rc e ive that hi s c on du c t in vo lve s a su bs ta nti a l a ndun jus tif ie d risk of de a th. Th us , attempted criminallyneg lige nt homicide is not a co gnizable crime in Tenne ssee be cause criminal neg lige nce doe s not meet the consc ious mental state re quired f o r an attempt crime. A s the Kimbroug h court e x plained, “one cannot intend to ac complish the unintended.” I d

. at 892. Consequently , we c onclude that the de fenda n t ’s conviction for attempted criminallyneg lige nt homicide must be vac ated.

B. A gg r av at e d As sa ult

As to the defend a nt’ s a rg ume nt that th e tr ia l c ou rt sh ou ld h a ve a c qu itt e d h im o f h is ag g ravated assault convic tion in li g ht of his c onviction f or attempt to commit criminally neg lige nt ho mic ide , w e dis a g re e . In th e ins ta nt c a se , th e Sta te c ho se to ind ic t the de fe nd a nt on tw o s e pa rate
c ou nts : a tte mpt e d fi rst deg re e mur de r anda g g ra vate d a ssa ult . Crimi na l ho mic ide is g e ne ra lly define d as the unlaw ful killing of a nother person and may be classified as first deg ree murder, se cond deg ree murder, voluntary

manslaug hter, c riminally neg lige nt homicide, or vehicular homicide. See Te nn . Co de An n. § 39 -1 3- 20 1. As pr e vio us ly ind ic a te d, a n a tte mpt c ri me re qu ir e s o ne to a c t w ith the in t en t t o ca use a r esult that is an element of the offe nse. See Te nn. Code Ann. § 39-12- 101. Ag g rava ted assault is an intentional or knowing as s au lt resulting in serious bodilyinjury or acc omplished through the use or displ ay o f a weapon. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 13-102(a )(1)

. Pur su a nt to Te nn e sse e la w, a g g ra vate d ass a ult is not a le sse r inc lud e d off e ns e of the c ha rg e d o ff e ns e of attempt to commit first deg re e m u rder . See State v.Trusty , 919 S.W .2d 305, 311-312 (Te nn. 19 96 ), o v e rru l e d o n o t h e r g r o u n d s b y

S t a t e v
. D o m i n y , 6 S

. W

. 3 d 4 7 2 , 4 7 5 ( T e n n
. 1 9 9 9 ) ; s e e a lso State v. Geor g e L ebron J ohnson, No. E2004-00834- CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL468503, at *2 (Te nn. Crim. App., at Knoxvi lle, Marc h 1, 2005); Crenshaw v. State, No. M2004-00045-CCA-R3CD, 2004 WL 29 84 85 6, a t *7 (Te nn . Crim . App ., a t Na sh vil le , D e c . 1 6, 20 04 ); Sta te v. Joshu a L e e Willi a ms, No. W2000-01435-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 721056, at *6 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, June 27, 2001), perm app. denied ( Tenn. Oc t. 29, 2001); Br own, 2000 WL 262936, at *2.-6-

Af te r c on sid e ri ng the ev id ence in the lig ht m os t f a vo ra ble to the Sta te , w e c on c lud e that a rational trier

of fac t could have found the e ssential elements of a g g ravated assault bey ond a
rea sonable doubt. At trial, the e vidence established that the de fenda nt r etrieve d a g un from his truck and shot Ms. Ammons in the elbow. This evidence clea rly supports all the nec essary elements for the def endant’ s ag g rav at ed assault conviction. Moreover , the jury ’s finding that the def endant’ s conduct did not support his attempted murder char g e did not prec lude them from f indin g the defe ndant g uiltyof ag g ravated assault. Ac cording ly , this iss ue is without merit.

III. Conclusi on
Ba sed upon the for eg oing a uthorities and re asoning , the defendant’s conviction for attempt to commit crimina l l y n eglig ent homicide is vac ated. How ever , the def endant’ s conviction and sentenc e is, in all other re spects, af firmed.

___________________________________

J .C. McL I N, J UDGE