### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs D ec em be r 10, 200 3
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. SA LVA TOR E BR UN ETTI
Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Dickson Coun ty No. CR6099 Allen W. Wallace, Judge

No. M2003- 00476-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Jun e 1, 2004

The de fenda nt, Salvator e Br unetti, was convic ted of voluntary manslaug hter. The trial court imposed a sentence of

five y ear s in the Depa

rtment of Corre ction. I n this appeal, the de fenda nt
asserts that the trial court e rre d by deny ing an alternative sentenc e. The judgme nt of the trial court is affirme d. Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Affirm ed

G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES and D AVI D G. H AYES , J J ., joined.

Willi a m B . ( Jake ) L oc ke rt , I I I , D ist ri c t Pu bli c De fe nd e r, fo r the app e lla nt, Sa lvator e B ru ne tti

. Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; Jenn if e r L . B le ds oe , A ssi sta nt At torne y Ge ne ra l; and Suzanne L ockert, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
. OP IN ION On April 28, 2002, De puty Casey Grove s of t h e Di ckson C ounty Sheriff' s Depa

rtment
rec eived a

report that the defe ndant had sh o t his wife and thr eate ned suicide. D eputy Grove s and t wo o t h er of

fice rs drove to the residenc e, close d the roa d to traff ic, and surr ounded the r esidenc e. As Off icer Humphrey s knocked on the front door and announce d "Sheriff' s Offic e," Deputy Grove s took cover

in the front y ard. When the def endant ope ned the door , he wa s place d on the g round and handcuf fed. U pon entering the residenc e, the officer s discovere d the vi ctim, Tressia Wallace, ly ing fac e down on the kitche n floor. A ha ndg un lay on a nea rby table. While s ea rc h i n g t h e upst airs bedr o o m s, the offic ers f

ound a mentally

disabled woman w ho boarde d with the victim. She was
unawa re of the situation. Deputy J ohn Suddeath, who ar

rived on the sc ene just af ter De puty

Gra ves and O ffice r Humphrey s, stood gua

rd over the def endan t while the other

two office rs enter ed the r esidenc e.-2-

Acc ording to Deputy Suddeath, t he defenda nt, who was wearing only underpa nts, smelled of alcohol and had slurr ed spee ch.
Patricia Walsh, an EMS f irst r esponder , was the first of the medical personne l to a rrive on the sce ne. S he ex amined the victim and did not find a puls e. After other medic al per sonnel wer e unable t o d et ect a ny

vital signs, the victim was de clar ed dea d. The medic al examiner' s report
e sta bli sh e d th a t th e c a us e of

de a th w a s a

sin g le g un sh ot w ou ndto the c he st.

Detec tive Rick Smi th te stified that sever al g uns, including a Rossi .38 caliber handg un found in the kitchen, we re se ized from the def endant' s residenc e. The defe ndant, wh o appea red to the office r to be intox icated, a dmitted using the five -shot revolve r t o shoot the victim but claimed it was
an acc ident. Detec tive Smit h stated that the defe ndant contende d that he and the victim we re a rg uing and that whe n he picke d up the g un, it discha rg ed. De tective Smith concede d that the def endant wa s very cooper ative during the investig ation and h ad as s i s t ed the police by draw ing dia g rams of the
scene
. The de fenda nt t es t i fi ed t h at on the day of the shooting , he and the victim had purcha sed fl ow e rs a ndpo tti ng so il a nddr a nk be e r a s the y plante d the fl ow e rs . H e c la ime d th a t he re turne d to the re sidence afte r a short time and eventually called the victim to dinner. The def endant c ontended that when she came inside, s h e wa s ang ry beca use he ha d not helped with the flowe rs and a n arg ume nt e ns ue d. Th e de fe nd a nt e xpla ine d tha t he pic ke d u p th e g un be c a us e he fe are d th e vic tim mig ht t ry to u se it. Th e y c on tin ue d to ar g ue a s he he ld the g un . T he de fe nd a nt a dmi tte d th a t he tol d the victim to "shut up" but denied any intention to fire the g un or shoot the victim. According to the defe ndant, he did not r ealize he had shot he r until she g rabbe d her c hest and fe ll to the floor. The defe ndant t el ep h o n ed 911. He testified that he did not leave beca use he did not wa nt to leave the mentally disabled woman whom his wife had c are d for " for ove r 20 y ear s." The defe ndant claimed that he continued to drink alcohol until the police ar rived.

The de fenda nt testified that he did not attempt to make bail pending trial bec ause he did not want to re turn to the reside nce he share d with the victim. He stated that he had continued to pay the mortg ag e and othe r bills out of his own acc ount e ven while he wa s incarc erated. Acc ording to the defe ndant, he did not g ain financ ially from the victim' s death beca use the house wa s hers, they had
no joi nt b a nk

a c c ou nts , a ndhe wa s n ot the be ne fi c iary of he r w ill or

a ny lif e ins ur a nc e po lic ie s.
At the sentenc ing hearing, the victim's daug hter, Yvonne Gra dy , testified that the def endant pursued the vic tim and "told her he would pay

off her house and they

would trave l the world and live the g ood life." Shortlyafte r moving into the victim's residenc e, howeve r, the defe ndant quit his job
a s a c ar s a le sma n. Ms. Gr a dy te sti fi e d tha t he r r e la tio ns hip wi th the vic tim wa s st raine d a s a

re su lt
o f t h e v i c t i m ' s m arr i a g e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t

. M s
. G r a d y r e c a l l e d t h a tt h e v i c t i mv i s i t e d h e r i n t h e d a ys be fo re sh e wa s k ill e d a ndsa id tha t sh e " ma de a g ra ve e rr or " a nd wa nte d the de fe nd a nt to mov e ou t. Whil e a c kn ow le dg ing that th e vic tim ha d "a te mpe r, " Ms. Gr a dy c la ime d tha t the vic tim wa s n ot a heavy drinker and became ang ry only if provoked.-3-

I n this appeal, the de fenda nt assert s that the trial court erre d by deny ing an alternative sentenc e. The state di sag ree s. When there is a cha lleng e to the leng th, rang e, or ma nner of service of a se ntence , it is t he duty of this court to co n d u ct a d e novo revie w with a pre sumption t hat the de te rm inatio ns ma de by

the tr ia l c ou rt

are c or re c t. T e nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 35 -4 01 (d ). Th is presumption is "c onditioned upon the af firmative showing in the rec ord that the trial c ourt considere d 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); see State v. Jones, 883 S.W .2d 597, 600 (Tenn. 1994) . "I f the trial court a pplies inappropria te fa ctors or othe rwise f ails to follow the 1989 S en t en ci n g Act, the presumption of cor

rec tness falls." State v. Shelton, 854 S.W .2d 116, 123 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992)

. The Sentenc ing Com m i s s i o n Comments provide that the burden is on the de fenda nt to show the imp ro prie ty

of the se nte nc e . T e nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 35 -4 01 , Se nte nc ing Com mis sio n Co mme nts

. Our re view re quires an a naly sis of (1) the evidenc e, if any , rec eived at the trial and sente ncing hearing; (2) the prese ntence report; ( 3) the principles of sentenc ing and the arg ument s o f c o u n s el relative to sentenc ing alternatives; (4) the nature and cha rac teristics of the of

fense ; (5) any

mitigating or enha ncing fac tors; (6) any statements made by

the def endant in his own beha lf; and (7) the defe ndant' s potential for re habilitation or treatment. Te nn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35 -1 0 2, -103, -210; State v. Smit h, 735 S.W .2d 859, 863 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987)

. I n calc ulating the sentenc e for a cla ss C felony conviction, the pre sumptive sentence is the minimum in the rang e if ther e ar e no enhanceme nt or mit i gat i n g fa ct o rs. Tenn. Code A nn. § 40-35-210( c). I f there areenhanc ement but no mitigating fac tors, the trial court may set the sentenc e above the minimum , but stil l within the rang e. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-3 5 -210(d) . A sentenc e involving both enha nceme nt and mitigating fac tors require s an assig nment of re lative weig ht for the enhanc ement fa ctors as a

means of inc rea sing the sentenc e. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 210( e). The sentenc e must then be re duced w ithin the rang e by any weig ht assigne d to the mitigating fac tors prese nt. I d.

I n arriving at a sentenc e of f ive y ear s, the trial court found enha nceme nt fac tor (9), tha t the defe ndant employ ed a fi rea rm during the commission of the offe nse, applica ble. See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114( 9) (1997). I n mitigation, the trial court conclude d that the def endant ha d no prior felony convictions and that the def endant wa s remorse ful. See id. § 40-35- 113(13). The defe ndant
asserts that the trial court e rre d by deny ing an alternative sentenc e.
An a lte rn a tiv e se nte nc e is an y se nte nc e that do e s n ot i nv olv e tot a l c on fi ne me nt. Se e Sta te v. Fields, 40 S.W.3d 435 (Tenn. 2001). As a st andar d offe nder convicted of a Class C felony , the defe ndant is presumed to be a fa vorable candidate for alternative sentenc ing. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-102( 6). I n addition, because the sente nce imposed is eig ht y ear s or l ess, t he trial court wa s require d to consider pr obation as a se ntencing option. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-303(b)

. The trial c ourt’s dete rmination of whethe r the de fenda nt is e ntitled to an alternative sentenc e a ndwh e the r the de fe ndant is a su ita ble c a nd idate fo r f

ull pr ob a tio n a

re dif fe re nt i nq uirie s w ith differ ent burde ns of proof. State v. B og g s, 932 S.W .2d 467, 477 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) . When,-4-

as her e , th e d e f

e n d a n t is e n ti tl e d to th e s tatu to r y p r e s u mp ti o n f a v o r in g a lt e r n a ti v e s e n te n c in g , the state must overc om e the pre sumption bythe showing of “e vidence to the contra ry .” Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169; State v. Bing ham, 910 S.W .2d 448, 455 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) , overr uled in part on other gr o u n d s b y S tate v. Hoope r, 29 S.W.2d 1 (Tenn. 2000); see Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-102( 6), -103 (1997). Conversely , it is the defendant who has the burde n of demonstra ting his suitabili ty for total probation. Bing ham, 910 S.W.2d at 455; s ee T enn. Code Ann. § 40-35-303( b) (1997)

. As indicated, this def

endant is entitled to a presumption in favor of an alternative se ntence “abse nt ev i d en ce t o the contra ry .” See T enn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-102(6) . What constitut es such evidenc e can be found in Te nnessee Code Annotated s e c tion 40- 35-103, which pr ovides, in pertinent pa rt , a s f oll ow s:
Se nte nc e s in vo lvi ng c on fi ne me nt s ho uldbe ba se d o n th e fo llo wi ng c on sid e ratio ns : (A) Confine ment is nece ssary to protect socie ty

by restra inin g a defenda nt wh o h a s a lon g his tory

of c ri min a l c on du c t; (B ) Confinement is nec essary to avoid depre ciating the seriousness of the of fe ns e or c on fi ne me nt i s p art icul arl 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 c omm it s imi lar c ri me s; (C ) Me a su re s le ss re stric tiv e than c on fi ne me nt ha ve fr e qu e nt ly or re c e ntl y been a pplied unsucce ssfully

to the defe ndant[.]
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-103(1)

. I nitially , neither subse ction (A) nor subsection (C) is applica

ble. The defe ndant has only one prior convic tio n , a m i s d emea nor that occ urre d nearly twenty y ear s befor e the of

fense at issue. Further, mea sures less re strictive than confinement have not freque ntly or re cently

been a pplied
unsucce ssfully

to the defe ndant. The tria l court based its denial on subsection (B ). The trial court made the f

ollowing obse rvations re g arding the seriousne ss of the off ense: I tr ie d th is c a se . I lis te ne d to the pr oo f i n th is c a se . I ' ve dr a wn a c on c lus ion in this
c a s e t h a t n e i t h e r s i d e h a s m e n t i o n e d

. I ' v e l i s t e n e d t o th e p r o o f o f h o w t his de a th
occur red up the re. I watche d [t he defe ndant]. [The de fenda nt] is a volatile person. He ne e ds a

g un abo ut l ike a ho g ne e ds a sid e sa dd le

. Th e fo rtun a te thi ng abo ut this
case , he could ne ver ha ve a g un any more. He can' t even sleep in a house w here there is a g un. He' s volatile. He showe d that here in the courtroom. A w itness testified to something that I

didn't think had a ny thing much to do with the ca se, nothing to ge t up se t a bo ut a ndhe jus t e xplod e d in the c ou rt ro om. So y ou take his ac tion in the courtroom and the action that' s described the day of that killing a nd the way he desc ribed that, ther e is so much similarity betwee n the two and not only

that the pre -sentenc e rep o rt shows that sometime in the past for
so me re a so n h e ha d to g o to fa mil y the ra py or we nt o n h is o wn
. An y way he we nt t o family thera py . I can' t assume it was bec ause of his vola t i l ity . But whe n I see the-5-

wa y he a c t e d i n t h e c o u r tr o o ma n d I s e e t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f

t h a ti n c i d e n tu p t h e r e it does make him a volatile person. Kee ping that in min d i n sentenc ing, I rea liz e that is not an enha nceme nt fac tor. I n mitiga t ing f

actor s I can look at any thing, but that' s not an enha nceme nt fac tor so I don' t want the appe als court to think that I ' m using that a s an enha nceme nt fac tor. I ' m just showing that when I consider de preci at i n g t he seriousness of the offe nse I ' m dealing with a man her e that is a volatile pe rson. Finally , the trial court observed that the defe ndant lacke d candor : Now, he say s he wa s in the Air For ce f rom ' 54 to '59. H e testified at trial he was in the Air For ce. There is no othe r proof in this record w here he wa s stationed, wh at h e d i d , an d as a s i d e l i n e I've n ev erh ea rd o f as ec u ri t y cl ea ra n ce ca l l ed a r at i n g. I would like to look at a DD F orm 214, but I haven' t seen it. I ' ve never h ea rd o f a
c le ara nc e c a lle d a

ratin g be fo re a ndI ' ve de a lt w ith tho us a nd s.

Be fore a trial c ourt may

deny an alternative sente nce ba sed upon the ci rcumstances of the offe nse, those cir cumstance s "must be ' espec ially violent, horrifying, shocking , repr ehensible, of fe ns ive , o r o the rw ise of

a n e xce ssi ve or

e xag g e rate d d e g re e ,' a ndthe natur e of the off ens e mus t outweig h all fac tors favoring [an a lternative se ntence ]." State v. Cleavor, 691 S

. W .2d 541, 543 (Tenn. 1985) ; State v. Hartley , 818 S.W .2d 370, 374-75 ( T en n
. C ri m. App. 1991). The pr oof
es t ablished that the de fenda nt shot the unarmed victim in their home while the y arg ued. The defe ndant, orig inally

char g ed with first deg ree murder, was g rante d leniency by the jury in the form of a c onviction for the lesse r off ense of voluntary manslaug hter. He will be elig ible for r elea se af ter
se rv ic e of thi rt y pe rc e nt o f a

fi ve -y e ar s e nte nc e . In o ur vie w, to f

urthe r l e sse n h is s e nte nc e wo uld depre ciate the seriousness of the offe nse.
Fu r th e r , la c k o f c a n d o r is a n ap p r o p r iate c o n s id e r a ti o n
. " A d e f e n d a n t’ s tr

u th f u lness or mendac ity

while testify ing on his own be half, a lmost wit hout exception, ha s been de emed pr obative of his attitudes toward soc iety and prospe cts for r ehabilitation an d hence rele vant to sentenc ing." Un ite d St a te s v . G ray so n, 43 8 U .S. 41 , 5 1 ( 19 78 ). " ' [A] f a c t li ke the de fe nd a nt’ s rea din e ss t o li e under oath before the judg e who will s entenc e him would seem to be a mong the more pre cise a nd
concr ete of

the ava ilable indicia.' " I d. (quoting United States v. Hendrix , 505 F.2d 1233, 1236 (2nd Cir . 1 97 4) ). I t is ou r v ie w tha t th e la c k o f c a nd or , w he n co mb in ed wi th the ne e d to a vo id d ep r ec i at i n g t h e s er i o u s n es s o f t h e o ff en s e, i s s u ff

i ci en ti n t h i s i n s t an ce t o s u p p o rt t h e t ri al co u rt 's denial of a n alternative sentenc e.
Acc ording ly , the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed.

___________________________________ GARY R. WADE, PRES I DING JUDGE