### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs N ove m be r 2, 200 4

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. R ONA LD HAR RISO N

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty

No. 03-03860 Chris Cr aft, Jud ge

No. W2003-00685-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Dece m ber 2, 2004

The De fenda nt, Ronald Harr i son, was indicted f or ra pe, and he pled g uiltyto the lesser- included offe nse of se x ual battery

. After holding a sentenc ing he aring , the trial court denied the De fenda nt’s reque st for judicial diversion, s u s p e n d e d sentenc e and pr obation, and sente nced the Def endant to two
y ear s in the county workhouse. The Def endant appea ls, c ontending that the trial court erre d when it: (1) denied his applica tion for judicial diversion; and ( 2) sentenc ed him t o two y ear s. After thoroug hly

revie wing the re cord, w e concl u d e t h at t h e trial c ourt did not err w hen it denied the De fe nd a nt’ s a

pp lic a tion for ju dici a l di ve rs ion . F urthe r, we ho ld tha t th e tr ia l c ou rt imp ro pe rl y enhanc ed the De fendant’s sentenc es in lig ht of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S. C t. 2531 (2004), a nd we r educe the Defenda nt’s sentenc e in acc ordanc e with this opinion t o the pre sumptive minimum of one y ear . We remand the case for the e ntry of appr opriate judg ments of conviction.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed in Par t, Re ve r se d in P ar t, and R e m ande d.

R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH a nd J.C. M C L IN , J J ., joined.

J eff ery L . Stim pson, Munford, Te nnessee , for the a ppellant.

Pa ul G. Sum me rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; John H. B le ds oe , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil liam L . Gibbons, District Attorney Gene ral; and Miche le Parks
, As sistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION I. F acts

This case arises out of

the Def endant’ s conviction for se x ual battery , a cla ss E felony . On J une 5, 2003, the Def

endant was indicted by the Shelby County Gra nd J ury on one count of ra pe, and he pled g uiltyto sex ual battery . At the Def endant’ s sentencing hearing, the following occur red.It is the p o licy o f t h is C o u rt to re fer to vic tim s o f sex u a l o ff e n se s b y the ir initials o n ly

. 1

-2- Th e vic tim , T .T
., te sti fi e d th a t, at th e tim e of the he ari ng , she wa s thirty y e ars old . She sa id 1 that, in Sep te mbe r o f 2 00 2, sh e wa s w or kin g a t F or e st H ill F un e ra l H ome a s a n a pp re nti c e wh ile g oing to sc hool to be a mortician. The victim said that the Defe ndant was he r super visor/manag er at the home. She sa id that approxim ately six or seve n months a fter she beg an wor king at the funer al home, during September of 2002, the Def

endant se x ually

assaulted he r. She said:

W e w er e i n t h e c h ap el

. W e h ad t u rn ed o ff t h e l i gh t s i n t h e b u i l d i n g i n o rd ert o go ho me . A ndwe we re in the c ha pe l w he re we we re turnin g of f the lig hts in order

to le a ve

. An d it wa s re a l da

rk in the c ha

pe l. A ndI

ha d ma de so me c omm e nts abo ut i t be ing [sic ] s pirits a nd sc ary a nd sp oo ky in the c ha pe l. An d [the De fe nd a nt] t oldme to c ome ba c k to the ba c k pa rt wh e re the tw o do or s are in the mid dle of t he cha pe l. And he told me it’s darke st back he re. A nd so when we went bac k there , we stood back the re. And I was like, I ’m scar ed being back here beca use it wa s dark and the sp ir its , a ndhe ma de a

c omm e nt. He did n’ t sa y it in a man ner th a t w a s, I g ue ss supposed to make me sc are d, it was a joking manner

. The only thing y ou have to fear is me. And he didn’t say it in a wa y to intim idate me. B ut then afte r that, he r ubbed my brea st area

and m y s t omach. He was be hind me. And he a sked me if I —if he could kiss me. And I said huh-uh. He kissed me a ny way . I t’s the pews or benche s lik e tho se ou t the re in the c ha pe l. H e tol d me to s it d ow n. I sa t do wn . A ndhe tol d

me he wa nte d me to t ou c h h im. I wa s just sc are d. So I tou c he d h im .

. . his g e nit a ls.

The victim said that she wa s scar ed bec ause the Def endant was her supervisor, and she asked “ who

a m I g oin g to t e ll?” T he vic tim sa id tha t th e De fe nd a nt u nzip pe d h is p a nts a nd pu lle d ou t hi s p e nis

. She said that he pulled he r hea d to it and put her hands on it. She said the De fenda nt w al ked her around the bench, be nt her ove r, and ha d sex wit h her. She a g ain said she wa s scar ed.

The victim testified that she did not immediately tell the pol ice a bout the incident, but a fe w day s later, she told her uncle , who is a police of fice r. She said that it took a fe w day s to tell any one about the incident bec ause she “just thought he made me do some thing I didn’t want to do. I

thought

ra pe wa s g e tti ng be a t[e n] up a nd br uta l.” Th e vic tim

sa id tha t sh e sa id “ hu h- uh ,” be fo re sh e “ jus t froze.”

The victim testified about the impac t that this i ncident has ha d on her life . She said that she g oe s to c ou ns e lin g a ndha s b e e n d ia g no se d wi th po st t ra umatic str e ss d iso rd e r. She te sti fi e d th a t, beca use of this assault, s he attempted to kill herse lf twice, once by taking a lot of pills and another tim e by c utt ing he rs e lf . The vic tim sa id she is stil l in c ou ns e lin g a nd g oe s onc e a we e k. She sa id that she is taking anti-depr essants and tranquilizers. She testified that she has to start he r life ove r be c a us e sh e no lon g e r w a nts to b e a mo rt ici an, eve n th ou g h s he g ra du a te d a t th e top of he r c la ss. The v ic ti m s a id th a t th e D e f e n d a n t h u r t h e r , a n d s h e is s c ar e d to b e in a c lo s e d e n v ir o n me n t. She said that she ca nnot trust any one.-3-

On cr oss- ex am i n at i o n , t h e v i ct i m t es t i fi ed t h at s h e t o l d t h e D ef en d an t“h u h -u h ” o n e t ime, and then she fr oze. The victim said that “huh-uh” means “no.” The victim said that the room was da rk, and she did not know if the D efe ndant could see her f ace

.

The De fenda nt testified that he pled g uiltyto sex ual battery , and he w as asking the trial court for judicial diver sion or probation. He said that when the victim said “huh-uh” he understood her
to s a y “ uh -h uh ,” bu t “ loo kin g ba c k, y ou kn ow , ma y be I sh ou ld ha ve re c og nize d s he did n’ t me a n th a t. But she offe red no other resistanc e. I had no rea son to think otherwise.” He said that, now that he has see n what this encounte r has done to the vi ctim, he reg rets his ac tions “terribly .” The Def endant

apo log ize d to the vic tim a nd to he r fa mil y

. He sa id tha t he us e d p oo r j ud g me nt, a ndhe wa s d e e ply sorry . He sa id that he re g retted his ac tions every day

.

Th e De fe nd a nt t e sti fi e d th a t he un de rs too d th a t th e vic tim ha d f ile d a c ivi l su it a g a ins t hi m and that his statement would prove her ca se. He said that there was a lso another se x ual har assment lawsuit pending ag ainst his company , but the suit was stay ed by the company ’s bankr

uptcy . The Def endant sa id that he has never been arr ested befor e and has only had a few speeding tickets in the past. The De fenda nt said that he just wanted to g et this behind him and never g o throug h any thing l i ke this ag ain. He sa id that he under stood that he could be r equire d to reg ister as a sex offender wher ever he lives for

the re st of his life.

On cross-examination, the Defenda nt stated t hat, s ever al y ear s ag o, he had c onsensual sexual rela tions with t wo other f emale e mploy ees. The Def endant said that, when he was first questioned by the police a

bout this case, he sa id that he had “neve r touched” the victim. He sa id that he “ha d g ive n [hi s] e mpl oy e r a

state me nt that no thi ng ha d ha pp e ne d be c a us e [he ] kne w [h e ]wo uldlos e [his ] job if [he ] tol d th e m oth e rw ise .” Th e De fe nd a nt sa id that, a ft e r he wa s arr e ste d, he a dmi tte d to his wife a nd his attorney

that he had inter course with the victim. The De fenda nt said that he under stood the victim to have said “ uh-huh” a nd that he kis sed her and thi ng s just prog resse d from there. He

sa id tha t sh e of

fe re d n o o the r r e sis ta nc e

. He te sti fi e d th a t he didno t pl a n to “ make a mov e . It ju st h ap p en ed

. ” On re -d i re ct ex am i n at i o n t h e De fe n d an t s ai d t h at t h e i n ci d en to cc u rr ed i n a “ fa i rl y l ar ge room” that ha d sever al exits

. When sentencing the Def endant, the tr ial court stated:

Well, looki ng at the diver sion considera tion in S tate v[.] Bone st el

. . an d State v. Park e r. Hi s [ame na

bil ity ] to co rr e c tio n, I

thi nk is a qu e sti on mark . I

do n’ t kn ow if he’ll be a ble to stop this s exual activity . I think he’ll probably

if he we re pla ced on probation, proba

bly wouldn’t violate out of fe ar. I ’m not sure he wouldn’t start rig ht ba c k late r. Th e c ir c ums ta nc e s of th e of fe ns e s a re e xtre me ly

a g g ra va te d in my opinion, especia lly

the los[s ] to this woma n of her car eer . He ha s no criminal re cord other than smoking dope in the past a fe w t imes. His social history is somewhat

su sp e c t g ive n p a st se xua l ha ra ssm e nt of e mpl oy e e s a nd pe op le that he wo rk e d w ith wh ic h is jus t an ab so lut e ly ho rribl e thi ng . H is p hy sic a l a ndme nta l he a lth app e ars to be no rm a l.-4- A k e y he re to d ive rs ion is d e te rr e nt v a lue to the a c c us e d. I jus t do n’ t se e him doing this and f

eeling like nothing ha

ppened. T h at h e can ge t away with it. And whether judicial diversion wou l d s er v e the inter est of the public a s well as the

acc used, it seems to me that this man needs a felony rec ord bec ause I have a distinct fe e lin g , g ive n h e r t e sti mon y a ndhis te sti mon y , [th e De fe nd a nt] i s lying . A ndit’ s ju st almost as clea

r as I can be , the diffe renc e betwe en his testimony and her s, is this lady is telling the truth. And I just cannot g ive this man diversion for violating her the

w a y h e d i d

. H e k n e w i tw a s w r o n g a n d j u s td i d i ta n yw a y.

A s t ri k i n g thing a

bout this case is looking at the [D] efe ndant’s ver sion of these facts which are , althoug h the [ D]efenda nt testified and ac ts like well, y ou know, I thought she said uh-hu h . And she said huh- uh, and re ally , we r eally ag ree on the same thing s, it was just a mistake. And I noticed the [D]efenda nt’s testimonywher e he said I made a mistake. This wasn’t a mistake. This was a purposef ul violation of another human being . Treating them a s meat whe n y ou we re c ontrolling them a s superv is o r

. A n d a

p ar ti c u la r o th e r q u o te h e s a id
, s h e o f

f e r e d n o o th e r

r e s is ta nce. When a lady is w orking at a work place and her boss is in control of her c are er tha t sh e ’s g on e to s c ho ol fo r, wh a t kin d o f r e sis ta nc e is s he su pp os e d to of fe r? Ho w i n the world c an any

body be justified in putting somebody in that positi on?

Suppose one of my

cler ks here , I asked the m to have sex with me after court today ? What are the y

g oing to do? Realizing that if they complain ag ainst me, the y ’r e no t e ve r g oin g to g e t pr omo te d in the c le rk ’s of fi ce. L aws uit s, a ll o f the se po lit ic ia ns ma d a t th e m, them mad at me . A ll o f this stu ff g oin g on . It’ s ju st absolutely

inexcusable in today ’s world. But here’ s what he sa y s. Here ’s the story he te lls in his pr e se nte nc e re po rt

. [T. T. ] a nd I

. . . we re the la st t wo e mpl oy e e s le ft to

c los e do wn the bu ild ing a t 5 p. m. Af te r turnin g of

f the lig hts in the c ha

pe l, s he sa id it was scary in the re. I told he r there was nothing to be afr aid of. She wa lked over and stood close be side me. I asked if I could kiss her. She said un-huh. I kissed her and then I touched he r brea st. I

sat down on one of

the pews. She stra ddled my lap. Okay . None of

th i s wa s mentioned by

this [ D]efenda nt just a minut e ag o. She
str a dd le d my

lap. I unbu tto ne d h e r s hirt, l if te d h e r b ra , b e g a n to uc hin g he r b re a st. Af te r a sh ort ti me , I

a sk e d if sh e wo uldtou c h me . We ll, ob vio us ly if sh e ’s g oin g to g e t on his lap a ndstr a dd le it an d give hi m a lit tle la p d a nc e , o bv iou sly

he wo uld think, y eah, sure, g o for it. But that’s not w hat happene d. No. This fellow’s just flat ly ing a bout what happe ned. And he needs to re al i z e t h at h e’s not telli ng the truth. His wife need s t o re ali ze that he’s ly ing. She g ot off my lap and sa t on the pew. I stood in front of her

and unzipped my

pants. S h e t o o k o ut my penis and beg [an] g iving me or al s ex. After a short time I

told her we should stop because Dub Nanc e and Wendel Smit h should be rig ht—in other words, he ’s the one tha t said let’s stop, not her. [W e] [ w]ent to the funera l direc tor’s work of fice afte r we fix ed our

c loth e s

. D u b a n d W e n d e l arr i v e d a t t h a t t i m e

. A n d t h e n 2 0 m i n u t e s w e nt b y wi th-5-

other pe ople ar ound them. And then they clocke d out and l eft. And we went bac k in the chape l. I took of

f my pants and she be g an g iving me or al sex ag ain. I remove d her pa nts and g ave he r ora l sex

.
Now, somehow the victim f org [ot ] to leave out the fac t that she took off he r cl o t h es and he g ave he r ora l sex for a while. That just—it just flat didn’t happe n. This man is a liar. I

stood up and wa lked ar ound behind the pew and motioned for her to follow me. She w alked around and stood in front of me. She be nt over a nd I penetr ated he r vag ina from be hind. After w e we re f inished, I picked up my

clothes and we nt to the m en’s room to clea n up. She went to the l adies room to clean up and g e t dr e sse d. Af

te r w e we re dr e sse d, sh e c loc ke d o ut a ndwe le ft

. This is just —there ’s just no way this is a true version. This man wa nts to ge t here and say , J udg e, I ’m g oing to c ommit perjury in front of y ou and commit a fe lony ri g ht i n f ro nt o f y ou r e y e s. An d I

wa nt p ro ba tio n, div e rs ion . I t’ s ju st no t g oin g to happen, [Def

endant]. I f y ou’d take n the stand and y ou’d told the truth ab[o] ut what

wa s go i n g o n , t h en m ayb e w e w o u l d d o s o m et h i n g fo r y o u

. Bu ty o u ’r e s t i l l l y i n g. You’re still perse cuting this y oung lady

. And that’s the proble m. You still can g et

a job some wher e, but a ll those y ear s of work she ha[s] have come to no ava il. She offe red n o o th e r r e s is ta n c e

. T h a t’ s th e q u o te th a t I w r o te d o w n

. A b s o lu te ly no div e rs ion , n ot onl y be c a us e of the pa st e pis od e s w hic h w e re n’ t c ri me s, bu t be c a us e y o u ’r e l y i n g t o d ayo n t h e s t an d
, ab s o l u t e l ac k o f c an d o r. Yo u wa n tt o s ayj u s ten o u gh
to w he re e ve ry

bo dy wi ll b e lie ve that it

wa s a n h on e st m ist ake. Th is w a s n ot a mistake. I t was a c rime. And whe n y ou were i n char g e – one of our enha nceme nt f a c t o r s a n d I’ l l j u s tr e a d i tf r o m t h e s t a t u e t h a tI c a n u s e t o ap p l y.

I abs olu te ly

fi ndin this c a se that th e [D]e fe nd a nt a bu se d a po sit ion of

pr ivate trust in this case . L ooking at the probation considerations, there’s a presumption of an alternative sente nce. I ’ve c onsidered the prese ntence repo rt ; his phy sical and mental condition, his social history as I ’ve de scribed. T he fa cts and c ircumstance s surrounding the offe nse; the nature and cir cumstance s of the criminal conduc t which

wer e ag g rava

ted for a sexual ba ttery case

. This wasn’t just a ca se whe re somebody walked up to somebody

sta n d i n g at a stop sig n and g rabbe d their bre ast. This was

a ca lculated, intimida t i o n of someone e lse that was unde r y our ca re. To ta

ke

a d v a n t a g e o f

h e r a n d b a s i c a l l y b e a

p r e d a t o r o f h e r b o d y.

I ’ve c onsidered y our lac k of criminal hist ory other than this marijuana smoking. The previous ac tions of th e [ D] efe ndant. The f act that the othe r complaints were g oing on. That y ou wer e doing this to people w ho wer e wor king f or y our employ er a s well as being their super visor. Wheth er or not y ou might

rea sonably

expect to be rehabilitated. I just, beca use of the l ies, I don’t rea lly think that th is m a n is re ha

bil ita te d. An d I

thi nk that this ma n will pr ob ably re -o ff e nda g a in

so me da y a s so on a s h e ’s in a po sit ion of po we r ov e r wo me n. Whe the r or no t y ou ’l l-6-

abide by the terms of pr obation, and I think he will. I think he’s scare d. And I think he’ ll ab id e b y th e te r ms o f p r o b a ti o n

. Wh e th e r o r n o t th e in te r e s t o f s ocietyand being protec ted from possible future criminal conduc t from the [D]efend[ ant] are g reat. I would say y es, t hey are

. No m easur es l ess restrictive than conf inement have been a pplied beca

use he’ s never

been pr osecute d befor e.

Whether or not a sentence of full proba tion would undulydepre ciate the

se ri ou sn e ss o f the of

fe ns e

. Ab so lut e ly

y e s. I t w ou ld m a ke him

fe e l li ke he ’s no t a criminal, and w hat he did is rea lly not rig ht and that he’ s t h e one that’s be ing misunderstood. Whethe r

o r n o t c o n f in e me n t is particularly

suited providing e ffe ctive de te rr e nt to oth e rs

. I t ma y be

. I re a lly c a n’ t fi nd that fr om the re c or d, bu t it ve ry we ll

ma y be if this ge ts a

ro un d in the fu ne ra l ho me bu sin e ss. I tho ug ht i n th is c a se beca use of [the] presumption of an alternative sentenc e, that may be he would deserve some kind of alter native sente nce a nd not full probation.

The proble m I

see in this, thoug h, is with thi s man ac tually having the g all to ge t on t h e s t an d an d s ay , y es , s h e t o l d t h e t ru t h

. W e j u s th ad a m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g, completely

mitigates a g ainst g iving this man any probation wha tsoever.

The trial c ourt then sentenc ed the De fenda nt to two y ear s in the work house.

II. Ana lys is

The De fenda nt pr esents two issues for revie w, both of which involve his sente nce. F irst, he

c on te nd s th a t the tr ia l cou rt e rr e d whe n it de nie d his re qu e st fo r j ud ic ia l di ve rs ion . N e xt, he a sse rt s that the trial court erre d when it orde red e nhance d his sentence

. When a def endant c halleng es the leng th or manner of service of a sentence, it is the duty of this Court to conduct a de novo r eview of the re c or d w ith a

pr e su mpt ion that “ the de te rm inatio ns ma de by the c ou rt fr om w hic h th e app e a l is taken a re c orre ct. ” T enn. C ode Ann. § 40- 35-401(d) (2003). This pre sumption i s “‘c onditioned upon the af

firmative showing in the rec ord that the trial court c onsidered the sentenc ing principles and all re levant fa cts and c ircumstance s.’” State v. Ross, 49 S.W .3d 833, 847 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v

. Pe ttu s , 9 8 6 S. W. 2 d 5 4 0
, 5 4 3 ( T e n n

. 1 9 9 9 ) ) ; S tate v

. A s h b y , 8 2 3 S. W. 2 d 1 6 6
, 1 6 9 (Tenn. 19 91 ). Th e pr e su mpt ion do e s n ot a pp ly to the le g a l c on c lus ion s r e a c he d b y th e tr ial c ou rt in
sentenc ing a

defe ndant or to t h e d eter minations made by the trial court that are predic ated upon
uncontrove rted fac ts. State v. Dea n, 76 S.W .3d 352, 377 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) ; State v. Butler, 90 0 S. W.2 d 3 05 , 3 11 (T e nn . Crim . App . 1 99 4) ; State v. Smith 8 91 S.W. 2d92 2, 92 9 ( Te nn . Crim. App. 1994). I n conducting a de novo revie w of a sentenc e, we must c onsider: (a) an y ev i dence

rec eived a t the trial and/or se ntencing hearing; ( b) the pre sentenc e re port; (c) the principles of
sentenc ing; ( d) the a

rg uments of counse l re l at i v e to sentenc ing a lternatives; (e ) the na ture a nd

c ha ra c te ri sti c s o f the of

fe ns e ; ( f) a ny

mit ig a tin g or

statut ory e nh a nc e me nt f

a c tor s; ( g ) a ny

state me nts made by the defendant on his or her own behalf; and (h) the def endant’ s potential or lack of potential for r ehabili t at i o n o r t reatment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-210 (2003) ; State v. Tay lor, 63 S.W .3dSexu al bat t er y i s not a “ s exu al offens e” as def i ned by t hi s s ect i on of

t he s t at ut e. 2

-7- 400, 411 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). The party challeng ing a sentenc e imposed by the trial court ha s the burde n of establishing that the sentenc e is er ro n eo us. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-401(d)
, Se nte nc ing Com m’ n Cm ts.

I n the ca se under

submissi on, we c onclu d e that there is ample evidenc e that the tria l court considere d the sentenc ing principles and a ll releva nt fac ts and circ umstances. The ref ore, we re view its d e c is io n d e n o v o w ith a p r e s u mp ti o n o f c o rr e c tn e s s

. A c c o r d in g ly
, s o lo n g a s the trial court complied with the purposes a nd proce dures of the 1989 Sentencing Act and it s fi n d i n gs are supported by

the fa ctual re cord, this Court may not di s turb this sentence even if we would ha ve pref err ed a dif

fer ent re sult. S ee T enn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-210, Sentenc ing Comm’n Cmts; S tate v. Fletc her, 805 S.W.2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). We note that the de fenda nt b ea rs the burden of sh o wi n g t h at the sentenc e is improper. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 401, Sentencing Comm’n Cm ts.; Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169.

A. Judicial Diversion

The De fenda nt arg ues that the trial c ourt abus ed it s discretion in dec lining to impose a

se nte nc e pu rs ua nt t o T e nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 4 0- 35 -3 13 (2 00 3) , c omm on ly re fe rr e d to

as “j u d i ci al d i v er s i o n

. ” Ac co rd i n g t o t h i s s t at u t e, t h e t ri al co u rt m ay , at i t s d i s cr et i o n , fo l l o wi n g a deter mination of g uilt, defer f urther pr ocee dings a nd place a qualifie d defe ndant on probation without entering a judg ment of guilt. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-313(a )(1) (A). A qualified de fenda nt is o ne wh o:

(a) I s found g uiltyof or plea ds g uiltyor nolo contende re to t h e off ense f or which de fe rr a l of

fu rthe r p ro c e e din g s is so ug ht; (b ) I s n ot s e e kin g de fe rr a l of fu rthe r pr oc e e din g s fo r a se xua l of fe ns e or a Cla ss A 2 or Class B f

elony ; and (c) Has not pre viouslybeen c onvicted of a felony or a Class A misdemea nor.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-313(a )(1) (B ) ( i) ( a ) , (b), ( c) ( footnote inserte d). When a de fenda nt contends that the t rial court committed error in refusing to gr ant judicial diversion, we must determine whe ther the tr ia l c ou rt

abu se d it s d isc re tio n b y

de ny ing the de fe nd a nt’ s r e qu e st f or jud ic ia l di ve rs ion . St a te v. Electropla ting, I nc., 990 S.W.2d 211, 229 (Tenn. C rim. App. 1998); State v. Cutshaw, 967 S.W .2d 332, 344 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). J udicial diversion is similar to pretrial diver sion; however, jud ic ia l di ve rs ion fo llo ws a det erm inat ion of g uil t, a ndthe de c isi on to g ra nt j ud ic ia l di ve rs ion is ini tia te d by the tr ia l c ou rt , no t the pr os e c uto r. Sta te v. An de rs on , 85 7 S.W. 2d 57 1, 57 2 ( Te nn . Cr im. App. 1992). When a de fenda nt challeng es the trial c ourt’s denia l of judicial diversion, we may not revisit the i ssue i f t he record contains any substantial evidenc e supporting the trial c ourt’s dec ision. C u t s h a w , 9 6 7 S

. W

. 2 d a t3 4 4 ; S t a t e v

. P ark e r , 9 3 2 S

. W

. 2 d 9 4 5
, 9 5 8 ( T e n n

. C r i m

. A p p

. 1 9 9 6 )

. In An de rs on , th is C ou rt

state d:-8-

We c on c lud e that judi c ia l dive rs ion is simi lar in p ur po se to p re tr ia l di ve rs ion a ndis to b e imp os e d w ith in the dis c re tio n o f the tr ia l c ou rt su bj ect on ly to the sa me constraints applica

ble to prosec utors in a

pply ing pretria l dive rsion under Te nnessee Code Annotated § 40-15-105. The ref ore, upon r eview, if

“any substantial evidence to support the ref

usal” exis ts in the re cord, w e will g ive the trial c ourt the bene fit of its discretion. Only

an abuse of that discre tion will allow u s t o o v erturn the trial
court.

Ander son, 857 S.W .2d at 572 (c itation omit ted).

The c riteria tha t the trial court must c onsider in de termining whether a qualifie d defe ndant sh ou ld b e g ra nte d ju dic ia l di ve rs ion inc lud e the fo llo wi ng: (1) the de fe nd a nt’ s a me na bil ity to

corr ection; (2) the circ umstances of the offe nse; (3) the defe ndant’s criminal re co rd ; (4 ) the defe ndant’s social history ; ( 5) the defe ndant’s phy sical and mental health; and (6) t h e d eter renc e value to the de fenda nt and others. Cutshaw, 967 S.W .2d at 343-44; Parker , 932 S.W .2d at 958. An

a dd iti on a l c on sid e ratio n is wh e the r j ud ic ia l dive rs ion wi ll se rv e the e nd s of jus tic e , i.e
., the int e re sts of the public a s well as the de fenda nt. Cutshaw , 967 S.W .2d at 344; Parker , 932 S.W .2d at 958; State v. Bone stel, 871 S.W .2d 163, 168 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993)
, overruled on othe r grounds by State v. Hooper , 29 S.W .3d 1, 9 (Tenn. 2000)

.

I n the c a se un de r s ub mis sio n, the tr ia l c ou rt fo un d th a t th e De fe nd a nt’ s a me na bil ity to

corr ection wa s a “que stion mark,” bec ause it did not “know if he ’ll b e able to stop thi s sexual

a c tiv ity .” Th e tr ia l c ou rt a lso fo un d that the c ir c ums ta nc e s of thi s of fe ns e were “e x tr e me ly ag g ravated” c onsidering the victim’s loss of her c are er. The trial court state d that the Def endant’ s social history

was “ suspect g iven past sexual hara ssment of employ ees a nd people that he worke d with . . . .” Fina lly , the trial court c onsidered the deter renc e value to the Def

endant a nd others and fo un d, “ I jus t don’ t see him do ing thi s and fe e lin g lik e no thi ng ha pp e ne d. Th a t he c a n g e t a wa y wi th it.” Further, the c ourt fo u n d that the Def endant ne eded a

felony rec ord in order

to appre ciate the serious n e s s o f h is a c ti o n s , b e c a u s e it w a s ap p ar e n t th a t th e D e f e n d a n t li e d to th e c o u rt. After considering these fa ctors and f indings, the tria l court denie d the Def endant’ s reque st for diversion. We conclude that there is evidenc e in the record to support these finding s by the trial court and that it did not abuse its dis cre tion by deny ing the Def

endant’ s reque st for judicial diversion.

B. En hanced Sentence

The De fenda nt next asserts that the trial court e rre d whe n it ordere d that the Def endant be
sentenc ed to the enha nced se ntence of two y ear s. I n cal cu l at i ng the sentenc e for a Class E fe lony conviction, the pre sumptive sentence is the statutory minimum for a

Rang e I offe nder if the re a re no enhanc ement or mitig ating fac tors. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210( c). I f there are enhanc ement bu t no mit ig a tin g fa c tor s, the tr ia l c ou rt ma y se t th e sen ten ce a

bo ve the min imu m, b ut s til l w ith in the ra ng e. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 210(d). A s entenc e invol ving both enhanc ement and miti g ating fac tors require s an assig nment of rel at i v e we ight f or the e nhance ment fac tors as a me ans of incr e a s in g th e s e n te n c e

. T e n n

. Co d e A n n

. § 4 0

- 3 5

- 2 1 0 ( e )

. T h e s e n te n c e mu s t th e n b e r educe d-9-

within the rang e by any weig ht a ssigne d to the mitigating fac tors prese nt. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35- 210(e) . The sente nce r ang e for a R ang e I offe nder for a class E felony is not less than one ( 1) nor more than two ( 2) y ear s. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-112 (2003)

.

The United St ates S upreme Court’s rec ent opi nion in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S
. __, 124 S. Ct . 2531 (2004), c alls into question the continuing validity of our curr ent sentenc ing sc heme. I n that ca s e, t h e C o u rt, apply ing the rule in Appre ndi v. New Jersey , 566 U.S. 466, 490 (2000),
str uc k d ow n a

pr ov isi on of

the W ashi ng ton se nte nc ing g uid e lin e s th a t pe rm itt e d a tr ia l ju dg e to impose an “e x ceptional sentence ” upon the finding of ce rtain statutorily enumer ated e nhance ment fac tors. 124 S. Ct . at 2537. The Court obser ved that “th e ‘s t atut ory maxi mum’ for Appr endi purposes is the maximum sentenc e a judg e may impose so le ly on the ba sis of t he fac ts re fle c te d in the jur y v e rd ic t or

ad mi tte d b y the de fe nd an t. ” 124 S. Ct . at 2537. Fina lly , the Court conclude d that “eve ry defe ndant has a right to ins ist that th e pr os e c uto r p ro ve to a jury [be y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t] all fac ts leg ally

essential to the punishment.” I d. at 2539.

I n the ca se under submissi on, the t rial court enhanc ed the Defe ndant’s sente nce ba sed upon its finding that one e nhance ment fac tor applied, that the D efe ndant abuse d a position of trust. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114 (16). This e nhance ment fac tor was not submitted to a jury or admitted by the Defenda nt. There fore
, the rule in Blakely prec ludes the applica tion this fac tor. Be cause there

are no enhanc ement fac tors that wer e proved to a jury bey ond a rea sonable doubt or admitted by the Def endant, the se ntence must be modified to the presumptive minimum of one y ear

.

III. Conclusi on

I n acc ordanc e with the for eg oing r eason i ng and author ities, we af firm the trial c ourt’s judgme nt in part, reve rse in part, and re mand for entry of a judgment modify ing the sentenc e to the presumptive minimum of one y ear

.

___________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE