### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A pr il 18, 200 6 S es sio n STATE OF TENNESS EE v . EDWARD JANK OW SKI , SR.
Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Sequ atchie County No. 4431 Bud dy Pe rry, Judge

No. M2005- 01251-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Jun e 2m2006

Th e De fe nd a nt, Ed wa

rdJank ow sk i, S r. , a

pp e a ls f ro m th e se nte ncing decis ion of the Se qu a tc hie Cou nty C i r c u i t C o u r t

. T h e D e f e n d a n t p l e d g u i l t y t o o n e c o u n t o f i n c e s t

. T h e v i c t i m w a s h is eig hteen- y ear -old daug hter. Pursuant to the terms of the plea a g ree men t , he re ceive d a six -y ear sentenc e as a

Rang e I , standard offende r, and the m anner of service was to be determined by the trial court. F ollowing a sentenc ing he aring , the trial court ordere d the sentenc e to be se rved in the De p ar t m en to f C o rr ec t i o n
. On ap p ea l , t h e De fe n d an tar gu es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erre d b y o rd er i n g a sentenc e of total c onfinement rather than a less restric tive alternative. After revie w, the sente ncing decision is aff

irmed. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed
D AVI D H. W EL L ES , J ., delivere d t h e opinion of the court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON and J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J J ., joined.
Rob e rt Mo rg a n, As sis ta nt P ub lic De fe nd e r, Jasp e r, Te nn e sse e , for the app e lla nt, Ed wa rdJank ow ski, Sr. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral and Reporter ; Pre ston Shipp, Assistant A ttorney Gene ral; and J . Michae l Tay lor, District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
. OP IN ION
F ac tu al B ac kgr ound A Sequatchie County g rand jury returne d an indictment ag ainst the Def endant in September of 2004, cha

rg ing him with five counts of rape and five counts of ince st. On J anuary 31, 2005, the Def endant, a Rang e I , standar d offe nder, ple d g uiltyto one count of inc est, a Class C felony . See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 15-302. The ple a agr eeme nt provided for a six -y ear sentenc e with the manne r of ser vice to be de termined by the trial court.It was d evel o p ed at t he sent enci ng heari ng t hat t he D efend ant vo l unt ari l y s ub m i t t ed a bloo d s am p l e and t hat 1
t he hos pi t al “ di d not wan t t o .
. . do i t wi t hout a c our t order [

. ] ” -2- Th e of fi c ia l ver sio n of the e ve nts c on ta ine d in th e pr e se nte nc e re po rt su mma ri zes the fa c ts a s f oll ow s: On 1/13/04, [ the v i ct i m ] , ag e 18, wa s taken to Grandview Medic al Center E m e r g e n c y R o o mb y h e r

b o yf r i e n d , J o h n n y C ar t e r
. H e r c o m p l a i n t w a s t h a t t w o d a ys prior, on 1/11/04, she had be en ra ped by her father , [t he De fendant] , and that she w as in severe pain. Emerg ency room personne l utili zed a ra pe kit, and evide nce of vag inal bleeding and cuts wer e found. On 1/14/04, I nvestig ator Ke ith [ Her ron] of the Sequatchie County

Sheriff’ s Depa

rtment inte rv i ew ed the victim at the she riff’ s of fi c e
. Th e vic tim state d that he r f a the r h a d b e e n h a vin g se x withhe r a g a ins t he r w ill reg ularly for the pa st two y ear s; she estimated t hat he had raped her between fifty and one hundre d times ove r the past two y ear s. The victim ha d turned 18 on 12/12/03. The most re cent occa sion w as around noon on 1/11/04. The victim, who was living in the home wit h her mother and father at the time of these incide nts, stated that her fathe r h a d a sk e d h e r t o c ome ou t to the sh e d o n h is p ro pe rt y ; he state d, “ I ne e d to us e y ou ag ain,” whic h is what he would usually say when he wanted to r ape he r. When she we nt out there , he put her on a table sa w and ha d sex wit h her. The victim stated that she complaine d to the Def endant r epeatedl y t h at he wa s hurting he r, but he would not stop, and would state, “It w on’t take long.” After war ds, he told her that she would g et into trouble if she told any one. The victim told h er boy friend that e v e n i n g w h a th a d h ap p e n e d , a n d w h e n s h e c o n t i n u e d t o c o m p l a i n o f p a i n t w o d a ys later, he took her to the hospital.
Semen taken from the victim’s panties was se nt to the Tennesse e B ureau of I nv e sti g a tio n lab or a tory in Na sh vil le . The De fe nd a nt w a s o rd e re d b y the Se qu a tc hie CountyCircuit Court on 5/28/04 t o submit t o DNA testing. The laboratory report 1
was c ompleted on 9/2/04 and it indicated a positive match betwe en the De fendant’s DNA a nd the DNA f

ound in the semen in the [victim’s] panties.
A sentenc ing he aring was he ld on April 13, 2005, at the conclusion of whic h the trial court ordere d that the sentenc e be se rved in the D epartment of Correc tion. This appeal followe d.

AN AL YSI S I n this appeal a s of rig ht, the Def endan t ar gu es : (1) “ the sentenc ing c ourt committed reve rsible er

ror whe n it relied upon inadmissible hear say evidenc e in orde r to deny the def en d ant alternative sentenc ing” and (2) “the s entenc ing c ourt failed to c omply with the 1989 Sentencing Reform Ac t when it denied the de fendant an alternative sente nce.”-3-

A. Hearsay F ir st, the De fe nd a nt co nte nd s the tr ia l cou rt ba se d its s e nte nc ing de te rm inatio n o n u nr e lia ble hear say ; specifica lly , relianc e on the victim’s stateme nts contained in the pre sentenc e re port that the she wa s rape d “betwe en fifty and one hundr ed times” a nd that the Defenda nt stated t o her, “I need to use y ou ag ain[.] ” The Def endant c oncede s that he made no objection to use of the vic tim’s statements; howeve r, the De fenda nt arg ues that any relianc e on these hear say statements rises to the level of pla in error

. The State arg ues that the issue is waived be cause the Def endant f ailed to make a timely objection and, a dditionally , that the re cord doe s not support plain error revie w. “Objec tions must be timely and spec ific.” Te nn. R. Evid. 103 , Advisory Commi ssion Com me nts . Re lie f i s n ot a va ila ble to a pa rt y wh o is re sp on sib le fo r, or fails to t ake a c tio n to pr e ve nt, a n er ro r. Te nn . R. A pp . P. 36 (a ). Th e re fo re , th e De fe nd a nt’ s c ha lle ng e to any he ars a y state me nts contained in the pr esente nce r eport is waive d.
I n addition, the issue prese nted by the Def endant f ails to meet the re quirements nec essary for a finding of plain er

ror. A finding of plain er ror will only

be pre dicated upon c onsideration of the fo llo wi ng fa c tor s: (a ) the re c or d mu st c le arl y e sta bli sh wh a t oc c ur

re d inthe tr ia l c ou rt ; (b ) a c le ar andun e qu ivo c a l rule of la w m us t ha ve be e n b re a c he d; (c ) a su bs ta nti a l r ig ht o f the a c c us e d mu st h a ve be e n a dv e rs e ly a ff e c te d; (d) the a ccuse d [m ust not have wa ived] the issue for tac tical re asons; and (e) consideration of the err or [must be] “nec essary to do substantial just ice.” State v. Adkisson, 899 S.W .2d 626, 641-42 (Te nn. Crim. App. 1994).

Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 4 0-35-209( b) addr esses the se ntencing hearing and pr ov ide s, in p e rt ine nt p art :
The rule s of evidenc e shall apply , except that reliable hear s ayincluding, but not limit ed to, ce rtified copie s of convictions or documents, may be admitted if the op po sin g pa

rt y is a c c or de d a

fair op po rtun ity

to r e bu t a ny

he ars a y e vid e nc e so admitted; provided, that this subsection s h all not be construe d to authorize the introduction of any ev i dence secur ed in violation of the constitution of the United States or of Te nnessee
.W e n ot e t hat t he l egi s l at ur e h as r ece nt l y amended s eve r al provi s i ons of t he C r i mi nal Sent enc i ng R eform Act 2

o f 1 9 8 9 , sa id c h a n g e s b e c o m in g e ff e c tive J u n e 7 , 2 0 0 5 . H o w e v e r, the D e fen d a n t’s cr im e s in th is c a se , as w e ll a s h is
sen t en cing , p red ate t he eff ec t i ve d ate of t he se a m en d m en t s. T he refo re, t his case i s no t aff ec t ed b y t he 2 0 0 5 am en d m en t s, and t he s t at ut es ci t ed i n t hi s opi ni on ar e t hos e t hat wer e i n e f fect at t he t i me t he i ns t ant cr i mes wer e c om mi t t ed -4- This Court has consistently held that information in a presentenc e re port is reliable he arsay which may be admitted if the opposing party is offer ed the opp ortunity to rebut the same . See State v. Ba ker, 956 S.W .2d 8, 17 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997); State v. Richardson, 875 S.W.2d 671, 677 (Tenn. Crim

. A p p
. 1 9 9 3); Sta te v
. Ra n d o lp h Sc o tt Je n n in g s , N o
. E 2 0 0 1

- 0 2 1 1 8

- CC A

- R3

- CD , 2 0 0 2 WL 31 73 08 84 , at *5 (T e nn. Cr im . App ., Kn oxvil le , D e c . 6 , 2 00 2) . T he tr ia l c ou rt is a lso re qu ir e d to consider the prese ntence report before imposi n g s entence. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 210(b)( 2) (2003). Moreove r, the Te nnessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Ac t of 1989 contemplate s that much

2 of the information contained in a p re sentenc e re port will be hea rsay . Ba ker, 956 S.W.2d at 17. Howeve r, the information is reliable bec ause it is “base d upon the presentence office r’s re sear ch of the re cords, contac t w ith r eleva nt a g encie s, and the g athering of information which is re quired to be included in a pr esente nce r eport.” I d.
Th e De fe nd a nt a lso c on te nd s th a t he did no t hav e a n opp ortun ity to r e bu t th e e vid e nc e ; th us , violating his c onstitut ional rig ht to confr ont w itnesses ag ainst him. Following the t ri al court’s ref er ence to “two thing s in the victim’s statements,” counse l for the De fendant stated that “we haven’ t rec eived a victim’s statement.” The trial court c larified that it was ref ere ncing the offic ial version of e vents as stated in the pr esente nce r eport, not a vic tim im pact statement. I t is clear f rom the re cord t h at t h e De fe ndant had a cce ss to the presente nce r eport, a nd he chose not to make a statemen t o r

c a ll a n y w it n e s s e s o n h is b e h a lf

a t th e s e n te n c in g h e ar in g
. T h e D e f e n d a n t w a s n ot denied a n opportunity

to rebut this evidence

. The trial c ourt properly

relied o n t h e p resentence report and any information containe d there in. The De fenda nt is not entit led to relief under the plain err or doctrine beca use a c l ear and un e qu ivo c al ru le of

la w w a s n ot b re a c he d, no su bs ta nti a l r ig ht o f the De fe nd a nt w a s a dv e rs e ly aff ecte d, and conside ration of the e rror is not necessa

ry to do substantial justice. See Adkisson, 899 S.W .2d at 641-42.
B. T ot al C onfine m e nt Next, the Defe ndant submits that the trial court fa iled to comply with the p urposes a nd p ri n ci p l es o f t h e 1 9 8 9 S en t en ci n g Ac t an d erro n eo u s l y d en i ed h i s re q u es tfo r a l t er n at i v e s en t en ci n g. A def endant who does not posse ss a criminal history showing a clea r disreg ard for society ’s laws a nd morals, who has not f

ailed past reha

bilitation ef

forts, and who “ is an espec ially mitigated or

standard offe nder c onvicted of a

Class C, D, or E felony is presumed to be a favorable c andidate f or alternative sentenc ing options in the absenc e of evide nce to the c ontrary .” Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 102(6) ( 2003); see a lso St at e v
. Fi el d s , 40 S.W .3d 435, 440 (Tenn. 2001) . The following c on sid e ratio ns pr ov ide g uid a nc e re g ard ing wh a t c on sti tut e s “ e vid e nc e to the c on tr ary ” wh ic h w ou ld re b u tt h e p re s u m p t i o n o f a l t er n at i v e s en t en ci n g:-5-

(A) Confine ment is nece ssary to protect socie ty

by restraining a defe ndant who has a lon g his tory

of c ri min a l c on du c t; (B ) Confinement is nec essary to a void de prec iating the seriousness of the offe nse or c on fi ne me nt i s p art ic ula

rl y su ite d to pr ov ide a n e ff

e c tiv e de te rr e nc e to oth e rs lik e ly to commit si milar offe nses; or (C) Mea sures less re strictive than conf inement have fre quently

or recently

been applied unsucc essfully

to the defe ndant[.] Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-103(1) ; see a lso St ate v. Hoope r, 29 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tenn. 2000).

Additionally , the principles of sentenc ing r efle ct that the sentenc e should be no g reater than that deser ved for the offense commit ted and should be the least seve re me asure nece ssary to achieve the purposes f

or which the sentenc e is imposed. See Te nn
. C o d e Ann. § 40- 35-103(2) , (4). The court should als o co n s i d er the defe ndant’s potential for reha bilitation or treatment in determining the appr opriate se ntence . See id. § 40-35-103( 5). Upon a challeng e to the sentenc e imposed, this Court has a duty to conduct a de novo revie w of the sente nce w ith a presumption that the determinations made by the t rial court are corr ect. See T e n n
. Co d e A n n
. § 4 0

- 3 5

- 4 0 1 ( d ) ( 2 0 0 3 )

. H o w e v e r , th is p r e s u mp ti o n “ is c o n d it io n e d upon the a ff ir ma tiv e sh ow ing in the re cord that th e tr ia l c ou rt c on sid e re d th e se nte nc ing princ ipl e s a nda ll re le va nt f a c ts a ndc ir c ums ta nc e s. ” Sta te v. As hb y , 8 23 S.W. 2d 16 6, 16 9 (Tenn. 1 99 1) . We wi ll uphold the sentenc e imposed by the trial court if (1) t h e s en t en ce complies with the purposes a nd principles of the 1989 Sentencing Act, and ( 2) the trial c ourt’s finding s are adequately supported by the re c or d. Se e Sta te v. Arne tt, 49 S.W. 3d 25 0, 25 7 (Te nn . 2 00 1) . T he bu rd e n o f s ho wi ng that a sentenc e is improper is upon the a ppealing party . See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 401, Sentencing Commi ssion Com ments (2003); Arne tt, 49 S.W .3d at 257.
I n concluding that total confineme nt was appr opriate, the trial court f ound: [I ]f I l o o k at the fa cts in this case whe re I ’ve g ot the victim say ing this we nt on betwee n a 150 times [si c] and the day that this occurr ed, the event that occurr ed, he say s to her, “I

need y ou ag ain.” And use d her a s [hi s] personal s ex o b j ect. I f that doesn’t fit [repre hensible] or excessive shocking [si c] sufficient t o o v ercome the pr e su mpt ion that alte rn a tiv e se nte nc ing is ap pr op ri a te the n I do n’ t thin k Ic ou ld s ta te a set of f acts that a re.
At the sentenc ing hearing, the forty -four -y ear -old Def endant enter ed into e vidence copies of his tw o h on or able dis c ha

rg e s f ro m th e mil ita

ry ; ho we ve r, he de c lin e d to make a ny state me nt at his sentenc ing hearing. The prese ntence report r efle cted that the Def endant had no prior c riminal rec ord-6-

and had g rad u a te d f

r o m h ig h s c h o o l. H e w a s u n ab le to w o rk d u e to a b a c k in ju r y
. T h e parties stipulated that the Def

endant ha d a plac e to live upon his relea se.
The risk a ssessment of this Defe ndant found that ther e wa s a low r i s kthat the Def endant would reof

fend. It was stated in the risk assessment report that the Def endant would “ do best if . . . incar cer ated f

or a period of time and then g iven an elong ated probation that included treatment and ca s e m an ag e m e n t

. ” T h e tr i a l c o u r ta c k n o w l e d g e d t h e D e f e n d a n t ’ s p o t e n t i a l f

o r r e h ab i l i t at i o ns t at i n g, “The best thing y ou’ve g ot going is his report. His report is rea lly quite favor able. . . . Yeah, but the report is very

favor able to him.”
Th e re c or d s up po rt s th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s de te rm inat ionthat c on fi ne me nt i s n e c e ssa ry to a vo id depre ciating the ser i o u s n ess of the of fense . The fa cts of this case establish that the Def endant’ s conduct wa s repr ehensible, of fensive, and of an e x cessive de g ree
. See State v. Ha rtley , 818 S.W .2d 37 0, 37 4- 75 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 91 ). As no te d by the tr ia l c ou rt , “ us ing y ou r s ome wh a t sl ow c hil d a s y ou r p e rs on a l ple a su re ob je c t [is] abo ut a s re pr e he ns ibl e a s y ou c a n g e t.” Mo re ov e r, the vic tim was in such e x treme pa in two day s after the incident that she soug ht medical tre atment, and e vidence of vag inal bleeding and cuts wer e found. She repe atedly complained of pain during t he incident, but the Def endant state d to her, “ I t won’t take long .” Although en h an cement and mitigating fac tors are proper ly considere d when de termining whether to g rant an alterna

tive sentenc e, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 210(b)( 5), consider ation of the s e f a c to r s , c o n tr ar y

to th e ap p ar e n t a s s e r ti o n s o f th e D e f e n d a n t, is n o t c r it ic a l t o a n a lt e r n a ti ve s e n te n c in g d e te r mi n a ti o n
. St a te v
. T e rr y E d w ar d Jo n e s , N o
. E 2 0 0 4

- 0 1 3 0 0

- CC A

- R3

- CD , 2 0 0 5 WL 1219979, at *6 (Te nn. Crim. App., Knox ville, May 24, 2005). None theless, as the vic tim’s father, the De fe nd a nt o c c up ie d a

po sit ion of

trus t. Chi ldr e n tru st the ir pa re nts to c are fo r andpr ote c t th e m. The Def endant, in this case , abused that trust. State v. Richard L

. Thompson, N o. M2000-01429- CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL1028822, at *7 (Te nn. Crim. App., Nashville, Sept. 7, 2001) (de fendant’s incestuous acts over a period of months, c oupled with his abuse of a private trust, dire ctly

rele vant to the seriousness of the offe nse and wei gh ed i n favor of conf inement). More over, upon de novo re vie w, we c on c lud e that th e se nte nc e imp os e d is no g re a te r tha n th a t de se rv e d f or the of fe ns e committed and is the l east seve re me asure nece ssary to achieve the purposes f

or which the sentenc e i s i m p o s ed

. T h e r ec o rd am p l y s u p p o rt s t h e tri al co u rt ’s d ec i s i o n i n d en y i n g al t er n at i v e s en t en ci n g. Se e id. a t *8 . T his iss ue is w ith ou t me ri t.

CO NC LU SION Ba sed upon th e f

o r e g o in g , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e tria l c o u r t d idn o t e rr ino r d e r in g to ta l confine ment. The judg ment of the Sequatchie County Circuit Court is affirmed.

___________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, J UDGE