### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE O ct obe r 25, 200 5 S es sio n
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. AL FON Z O THOM AS PE CK, AL IAS T OM PECK

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

No. 241695 Rebec ca Ster n, Jud ge

No. E2005-00342-CC A-R3- CD - F iled J anuary 30, 2006

A Hamilton Countyjury convicted the defe ndant, Alfonz o Thomas Peck, of two counts of

a g g ra vate d r ape (a

Cla ss Afe lon y ), a ndthe tr ia l c ou rt se nte nc e d h im a s a

re pe a t vi ole nt o ff

e nd e r t o
concur rent sente nces of

life without the possibili ty of re lease . On direc t appea l, the defendant raises multipl e issues for our review, including t he sufficiency of t he evidence, c halleng es to the admission of a prior conviction, a limiting instruction, and sentenc ing. Upon revie w, we conclude that the trial court e rre d in al l o wi n g the def endant to be c ross-examined re g arding his prior conviction of ag g ravated ra

pe. Howe ver, g iven the over whelming proof of the defe ndant’s g uilt notwit hstanding the conviction, we further conclude that the er

ror was harmless. Moreove r, we find no err or in the balanc e of the issues prese nted. Ther efor e, we aff irm.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nts of

the Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., delivere d the opi nion of the court, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and J OS EP H M. T I PTON , J ., joined.

J ohn G. McDoug al (on a ppeal) and Mela nie R. Snipes (at trial), Chattanoog a, Te nnes s ee , for the appellant, Alf

onzo T. P eck, A lias Tom Peck.

Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; B lin d A kr a wi , A ssi stant At to rneyGe ne ra l; Wil liam H. Cox , I I I , Distr i ct Attorney Gene ral; and D avid W. Denny , Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.
OPI NI ON

Fa cts and Proce dural History

I n th e la te e ve nin g ho ur s of Sep te mbe r 14, 20 02 , the vic tim , Alis a Hu sb a nd , w a s w a lki ng to her sister’ s house af

ter playing car ds with friends in the Orc hard Knob are a of Chattanoog a. As she

crosse d a fie ld adjace nt to the Carver Recre ation Center, she hear d a man she did not know y elling-2-

at her , but she chose to ignor e him

. The man continued to pursue the victim, eventua lly catc hing up to her a nd knocking her to the g round with an unknown object. The victim strugg led to esca pe and struck the a ssailant with a pair of pliers she ha d in he r purse. Despite the victim’s eff orts, the man

ov ert oo k he r, re mov e d h e r c lothin g , a ndpr oc e e de d to pe ne tr a te he r d ig ita lly a ndto r ape he r b oth vag inally and ana lly

.
Du ri ng thi s tim e , Sha dric k L ow e wa s drivi ng his c ar wi th Ste ve n T ho ma s, An ton io T ho ma s,
a ndNathan Ree se a s pas se ng e rs

. B e lie vin g that a hea dli g ht mig ht be ou t, L ow e sto pp e d th e c ar t o chec k and hea

rd the victim scream i ng for he lp. L owe de tache d “The Club,” an auto a nti-theft device , into two pieces a nd g ave the m to Antonio and Steven for pr otection while the g roup we nt to investigate. As they

drew closer to the vic tim’s voice , the witnesses obser ved the a ssailant on top of the unc lothed victim as she pleade d for hel p

. T h e as s ail ant told the witnesses that he and the victim were marrie d and orde red the m to lea ve, but they ref used. L owe then w alked ba ck towar d the c ar t o c a ll the po lic e a nd me t Ke vin Mc Go wan, a y ou ng ma n liv ing ne arb y wh o w a s le a vin g his house to attend a

friend’ s party . McGowan allowed L owe to use his cellular phone to c all the police as he c autiously

joined the rest of the g roup. When McGowan g ot to the scene , the man wa s leaving and the e y ewitnesses informed McGow an that the victim had be en ra ped.
The y oung men helped the victim gather he r clothes a nd, with the victim’s permission, McGowa n used his digital c amer a to take ph o t o gra p h s o f the injuries to her fac e. Responding office rs Dale Anthony

Tay lor and Chad Rowe inspected an d p h o t o gra p hed the c rime sce ne, and

rec overe d a pa i r of ey eg lasses, a w rist watch, a nd wire c utters, all of whic h wer e sent to the Tenne ssee B ureau of I nvestig ation (TB I ) lab for fing erprint a naly sis. De tective Rowe also collec ted the dis k c on ta ini ng Mc Go wan’ s dig ita l ph oto g ra ph s o f the vic tim . L ow e , M c Go wan, a ndAn ton io

a ndSte ve n Th oma s a ll de sc ri be d the a ssaila nt to po lic e a s mid dle -a g e d, be tw e e n 5’ 5” a nd5’ 6” ta ll, and balding

.
The victim was transported by ambulance to Erlang er Medical Center , wher e she w as treated f o r a la c e r a ti o n o n h e r

n o s e a n d th e n s e n t to th e Se xu a l A s s a u lt Ce n te r f o r a n e xa mi n a ti o n b y

B r e e zy F i n l e y, a n u r s e p r a c t i t i o n e r

. T h e e x a m i n a t i o n r e v e a l e d m u l t i p l e l a c e r a t i o n s o n t h e v i c t i m ’ s b o d y,
ecc hy mosis (hemorrha g ing unde r the skin), a bite mark betwee n the victim’s ne ck and left shoulder, and injuries consistent w i t h fo rc ed vag inal and ana l penetration. The victim’s injuries were cate g orized as L evels I I I

and IV on a sc ale f

rom one to five.

De te c tiv e Cha

rl e s Ma rt in s e nt the fo llo wi ng ite ms to the TB I la b f or DN A t e sti ng : a

ra pe kit pe rf orme d on the vic tim ; the c lothin g of bo th the vic tim a nd de fe nd a nt; a nd the wrist watc h, g la sse s, and wire cutter s fo u n d on the sce ne. The examination failed to indicate the pr esenc e of se men or b l o o d f o r t e s t i n g o n a n y o f t h e i t e m s ; t h e r e f o r e , n o D N A e v i d e n c e w a s o b t a i n e d

. A d d i t i o n a l l y, fi ng e rp ri nt ana ly sis of

the g la sse s a ndfa c e of

the watc h f

a ile d to y ie ld any

re su lts

. Approxim ately eig hteen hours afte r the incident occur red, the defe ndant telephoned t he police to re port that his gla sses, watc h, and $47 we re stolen a fter he bec ame too intox icated to drive and lef t his car unlocke d at appr ox imately 8:00 p.m. the night bef

ore.-3-

After determining that the de scripti o n of the pe rpetrator matche d the def endant, De tective Row e inc lud e d h im i n a

c omp ute r- g e ne rate d p ho tog ra ph ic lin e up , w hic h w a s v ie we d b y the vic tim and all five witnesses. The victim, S teven Thoma s, and Shadrick L owe a ll unequivocally identified the def endant out of the lineup within ten day s of the incident.
Two day s after

the incident, Investig ators Charle s Martin and B ill P hillips advised the defe ndant of his rig hts, which he waived, and questioned him. During the interview , the def endant contra dicted the information give n in the telephone r eport, stating that he had be en working on a truck be tween 8:00 a nd 9:00 p.m., when he took his watc h and g lasses off and plac ed them in the truck. He further

indicated that he left the doors unloc ked and when he returne d, the i tems had bee n taken.
At trial, the def

endant recanted bot h prior st atements and testified t hat he a nd the victim had

c on se ns ua l in te rcou rse . Sp e c if ic a lly , h e state d th at th e vic tim app ro a c he d a ndpr op os iti on e d h im in exch an ge fo r ro ck cocaine. He further stated that he paid an individual twenty dollars for the

cocaine; that the victim smoked it; and that they had sexu al interc ourse ne ar Carver Rec reational Center. The defe ndant testified that the victim then “sta rted hollering for more cocaine,” a nd when he tol d he r he did no t hav e a ny mor e mon e y , “sh e ho lle re d r ape .” He state d th a t he g a ve the fa lse statement to police be cause he wa s afr aid of his father, who boug ht his gl as s es fo r hi m. The defe ndant testified that, in a ctuality , the victim took his g lasses and his watch and r efuse d to return them to him. Finally , he stated that no one other tha n him and the victim were prese nt at the sce ne.

On cr oss-examination, the defe ndant admit ted t hat he a nd his twin brother we re c onvicted of ag g ravated ra

pe per petrated in the Orc hard Knob are a in J an u ar y 1 983. He a cknowledg ed that he wa s convicted of

raping the victim while a

rmed with an ic e pick a nd that the pre vious victim had multipl e bite mar

ks on her ba ck. The defe ndant stated, howe ver, that there w as no DNA evidenc e linking h im

w ith th e r ap e a n d th a t h e f il e d a p e ti ti o n f

o r p o s t- c o n v ic ti o n r e li e f, w h ic h h a d b een denied. He also admitted that he li ed to the pol ice in his interview reg arding the pre sent ca se. The defe ndant s tate d th a t a f

te r h e le f t th e s c e n e , h e s tay e d f

o r tw o h o u r s a t a

f r ie n d ’ s h o u s e , a n d th en went home to stay

with his mot her w hile his father went to wor k

. He re i terated that no one other than he a nd the victim were on the sce ne but ac knowledg ed that he wa s intox icated at the time and had consume d “about a

case ” of alcohol. Finally , the def endant testified that he did not know how the vic tim wa s in jur e d a ndde nie d ha vin g a ny inj urie s on his ha nd s at the tim e of his int e rv ie w w ith police. F ollowing the pr esentation o f proof , the def endant wa s convicted a s char g ed and w as sentenc ed to conc urre nt terms of life without the possibilityof re lease

.
An a ly sis

I . Sufficienc y

The de fendant challeng es the sufficie ncy of the e vidence to support the convictions. When

an ac cused c halleng es the suff iciency of the e vidence , this court must review the rec ord to determine if the evide nce a dduced during the trial was sufficie nt “ to support the finding by the trier of

fac t of-4-

g uil t be y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t.” Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 3( e ). Th is r ule is a pp lic able to fi nd ing s o f g uil t predic at ed upon dire ct evidenc e, cir cumstantial evidenc e, or a combination of direc t and circ umstantial evidence . State v. Br ewe r, 932 S.W.2d 1, 18 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).

I n determining the suff

iciency of the e vidence , this court doe s not rewe igh or ree valuate the

e vid e nc e . St a te v. Ca

bb a g e , 5 71 S.W. 2d83 2, 83 5 ( Te nn . 1 97 8) . N or ma y thi s c ou rt su bs titute its infere nces f

or those dra wn b y t h e t rier of fac t from circ umstantial evidence . L iakas v. State, 286 S.W .2d 856, 859 (Tenn. 1956) . To the contra ry , this co u rt is require d to affor d the State the strong est leg itimate view of the e vidence contained in t h e re co rd as we ll as all rea sonable a nd leg itimate infere nces w hich may be draw n from the evidenc e. State v. Elkins, 102 S.W .3d 578, 581 (Tenn. 2003)

.
Th e tr ie r of fa c t, no t thi s c ou rt , re so lve s qu e sti on s c on c e rn ing the c re dib ili ty of the wi tne sse s, the weig ht and value to be g i ven the e vidence , as we ll as all fac tual issues raised by the evidenc e. Id

. a t5 8 1

- 8 2

. In S t a t e v

. G r a c e , o u r s u p r e m e c o u r ts t a t e d t h a t“ [ a ] g u i l t y v e r d i c tb y t h e j u r y,
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 wi tnesses fo r the Sta te a ndre so lve s a ll conflicts in fa vor of the the ory of the State.” 493 S.W .2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973)

.
Be cause a ver dict of gu i l t re m o ves the pre sumption of innocenceand re place s it with a pr e su mpt io n of

g uil t, the a c c us e d h a s th e bu rd e n inthi s c ou rt of ill us tr a tin g wh y

the e vid e nc e is insufficient to support the verdic t r eturne d by the trier of

fac t. State v. Tug g le, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982) ; Grac e, 493 S.W.2d at 476.
Ag g ra vate d r ape is d e fi ne d, in p e rt ine nt p art , as the “ un la wf ul se xua l pe ne tr a tio n o f a

vic tim by the de fe nd a nt or

the de fe nd a nt b y

a vic tim a c c omp a nie d b y

a ny of the fo llo wi ng c ir c ums ta nc e s: . . . The de fend an t ca u s es bodily injury to the victim.” T.C.A. § 39-13-502( a)( 2) (2002)

. Not w ith s tan d in g th e e v id e n c e o f th e d e f e n d a n t’ s p r io r c o n v ic ti o n a n d th e la c k o f D N A evidenc e linking him to the crime, w e conc lude that the evide nce w as suffic i en t t o d etermine that the intercour se wa s unlawful and r esulted in bodily injury to the victim.
At trial, three ey ewitnesses te stified that they hear d the victim screaming for help and, upon fu rt h e r i n v es t i gat i o n , fo u n d a m an o n t o p o f t h e v i ct i m , wh o wa s u n cl o t h ed , b l ee d i n g, an d cr y i n g. Although the assailant attempted to p er s u ad e the y oung men to leave the sce ne, they ref used and forc ed him to flee. Four of the witnesses described the perpe trator as betwee n 5' 5" and 5' 6", middleag ed, and ba lding, a

description that matched the defe ndant, who was known to fre quent the ar ea. A sea rch of the crime scene y ielded a pair of ey eg lasses and a watch, both a dmittedlyowned by the defe ndant. The vic tim, S h ad ri ck L owe, a nd Steven Thomas all unequivoc ally identified the defe ndant as the pe rpetrator from a computer- g ener ated photog raphic lineup within d ay s of the incident and ag ain at trial. F inally , the re cord r efle cts that the victim sustained injuries consistent exclusively with forc ed vagina l and anal penetr ation, as well as a lace ration ac ross the bridg e of he r nose that re quired a

two-lay er c losure. F or these r easons, we conclude that the evidence pr esente d

wa s su ff ic ie nt t o c on vic t th e de fe nd a nt.T h e d e fen d a n t ad d iti o n a lly c o n te n d s tha t th e tr ia l c o u rt e rr e d in a llo w ing the S ta te to inq u ire a s to the fac ts 1

o f t he p rev i o us co nv i cti o n, rely i ng ex clusively o n S t ate v. T aylo r, 9 9 3 S .W .2d 3 3 (T en n. 1 9 9 9 )

. H o w ev er, t ha t ca se
n ot ed t h at i mpea ch men t w i t h c on v i ct i on s un der R u l e of E v i den ce 609 i s l i mi t ed on l y “ t o t h e f ac t of a for mer c on v i ct i on
a n d the c rim e tha t wa s c o m m itt e d .” Id . at 3 4 . In th is c a s e , h o w e v e r , the c o n v ic tio n w a s a d m itt e d p u rs u a n t t o R u le 4 0 4 (b), whi ch d o es not s o l i m i t us e o f t he co nvi ct i o n.
-5- II. C r o s s

- E x a m i n a t i o n o n P r i o r C o n v i c t i o n ( D e f

e n d a n t ’ s Is s u e s I a n d II)
Next, the defendant contends that the trial c ourt err ed in allowing the State to cross-e x amine him reg ardin g h i s p ri or convic tion for ag g ravated ra pe. Tenne ssee Rule of E vidence 404(b) 1 provides that evide nce of other crimes or ac ts, although not a dmissibl e to prove the cha rac ter of a person in orde r to show ac tion in conformity with the char acte r trait, may be admissible for othe r pu rp os e s. Pr ior

to a llo wi ng su ch p ro of

, th e tr ia l c ou rt

mus t c on du c t a

jury -o ut h e ari ng , mu st de te rm ine wh e the r the re is a ma te ri a l is su e oth e r tha n c on du c t c on fo rm ing wi th the c ha ra c te r t rait, and must exclude the evidenc e if its probative va lue is outweig hed by the dang er of unfair pr ejudice. Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b); State v. West, 844 S.W .2d 144, 149 (Tenn. 1992)

.
Gene rally , Rule 404(b) is one of exclusion, b u t t h er e ar e exceptions. State v. J ones, 15 S.W .3d 880, 894 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) . The g ener ally rec og nized ex ceptions to the rule a llow

e v id e n c eo f

f e red to prove motive, identity , intent, absenc e of mistake, opportunity , or a c ommon plan or sche me. Bunc h v. State, 605 S.W .2d 227, 229 (Tenn. 1980). Our standard of re view of the trial court’s de terminations under Te nnessee Rule of Evidence 404(b) is whether the trial court’s ruling

was a n abuse of

discretion. State v. Dubose , 953 S.W .2d 649, 652 (Tenn. 1997)

.
At the conc lusion of t he direct examination of t he def endant, the State r equeste d a jury -out hearing on the admissibili ty of the de fendant’s prior conviction for ag g ravated ra pe. Af ter he aring arg uments from both parties, the trial court found that both the fac t of the convic tion and the circ umstances of

the crime wer e admissible: I n light of the fact that [t he defenda nt] has j ust testified t hat t his was a consensua l act for money , I

think the prior conviction, the pr obative value outweig hs the prejudicia l eff ect in this case and I

will give a

limit ing instruc tion that they are not to take it as p r o p e n s i t y.

. . . .
. . . I find that the prior bad act or crime he committed g oes to his intent and motive in this case and on the issue of consent. I will inst ruct the jury that they are t o c o n s i d e r

i tf o r t h o s e p u rp o s e s o n l y. On appe al, the defe ndant contends that the conviction was far more prejudicia l tha n probative a nd amounted to propensity evidenc e. S ee T enn. R. Evid. 404(b). The State counter s that the evidenc e is more probative than pre judicial beca

use t he def

endant r aised the issue of consent on dire ct examination. The State further aver s that if err or is prese nt, it is harmless.-6-

We first note that the re cord is devoid of any indication that the previous conviction bore any relation to the de fendant’s motive or intent in the prese nt c ase except to pr ove conformitythere with. I ndeed, it appe ars that the trial court a dmitted the prior conviction to disc redit the defe nse of c onsent by showing that the def

endant ha d committed the same off ense pr eviously , a pra ctice that Rule 404 was de signe d to prev en t

. W e wo uld further note the hig hly

prejudicial nature of

the pre vious conviction, which pr esente d the identical of fense with which the def

endant wa s char g ed: When an impeac hing c onviction is subst antially simil ar to the cr i m e fo r which the defe ndant is being tried, there is a dang er that jurors will errone ou s l y u t i l ize the impeaching conviction as prop ensity evidenc e of g uilt and conclude that since the de fe nd a nt c omm itt e d a

sim ila r o ffense, he or

sh e is p ro ba

bly g uil ty of the of fe ns e char g ed. State v. Ba

rnar d, 899 S.W .2d 617, 622 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) ; State v. Fa rmer, 841 S.W .2d 837, 839-40 (Te nn. Crim. App. 1992); L ong v. State, 607 S.W .2d 482 (Ten n

. C rim. App. 1980). Ac cording ly , the unfa irly prejudicia l effe ct of an impe ac h i n g conviction on the substantive issues g reatly incre ases if the impeaching conviction is substantiallysimil ar to the c rime for which the de fendant is being tried. Ther efor e, trial c ourts should care fully balanc e the probative value of the impeac hing c onviction on cre dibilit y ag ainst its unfairly

prejudicia l effe ct on
su bs ta nti ve iss ue s. State v. Mix on, 983 S.W .2d 661, 674 (Tenn. 1999). I n this instance, the prior convic tion amounted to pr opensity evidenc e and was certainly far more pre judicial than probative. As such, the tria l court

e rr e d ina dmi tti ng it.

Noneth e le s s , in lig ht of the over whelming evidenc e of the defe ndant’s g uilt, we conclude that the er ror wa s harmless. Err or base d upon an evide ntiary rule may not r equire reve rsal if it “was more probably than not harmless.” State v

. M ar t i n , 964 S.W .2d 564, 568 (Tenn. 1998) . Moreove r, a
c on vic tio n w ill no t be re ve rs e d u nle ss the e rr or “ a ff ir ma tiv e ly

app e ar[s ] to h a ve a ff

e c te d th e re su lt of the trial on the me rits.” Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(a) . There fore , in determining an er ror’ s eff ect on a trial, we are to analy ze the err or in lig ht of the proof in its entirety . State v. Gilliland, 22 S.W .3d 266, 274 (Tenn. 2000)

.
I n this case, f

ive ey ewitnesses came upon the scene and obser ved the attack, four of which g ave a description of the perpe trator that matc hed the d ef en d an t

. At trial, the witnesses f urther testified as to the frighte ned and distraug ht demea nor of the vi ctim and the lace ration on t he victim’s fa c e

. Tw o of the wi tne sse s, a lon g wi th the vic tim , p os iti ve ly ide nti fi e d th e de fe nd a nt f ro m a ph oto lineup and at tria l. Finally , an examination following t h e at t ac k reflected that the victim suffere d L e ve l I I I a ndI V i nju ri e s, c on sis te nt w ith fo rc e d v a g ina l a nda na l pe ne tr a tio n. Th e re fo re , b e c aus e of the ove rwhe lming evide nce of the defe ndant’s g uilt, which inc luded a positive identification by the v ic ti m and two disinterested e y ewitnesses, w e conc lude that the admission of the prior conviction was ha rmless.-7- I I I . L imiti ng I nstruction
Next, the defendant co ntends that the limiti ng instruction give n reg arding the prior aggr av at ed ra p e c o n v i ct i o n wa s i n erro r. A d ef en d an t h as a ri gh t t o a co rr ec t an d co m p l et e c h ar ge of the law, see St ate v. Tee l, 793 S.W .2d 236, 249 (Tenn. 1990) , so eac h issue of fa ct ra ised by the evidenc e will be submitted to the j ury on proper instructions, see Poe v. State, 212 Tenn. 413, 416, 37 0 S. W.2 d 4 88 , 489 (T e nn . 196 3) . In e va luatin g c la ims of e rr or in j ury ins truc tio ns , c ou rt s mu st
reme mber that “ ‘jurors do not sit in solitary isolation booths parsing instructions for subtle shade s of mea ning’ ”. State v. Vann, 976 S.W.2d 93, 101 (quoting B oy de v. California , 494 U.S. 370, 380- 81 , 1 10 S. Ct . 1 19 0, 11 98 (1 99 0) ). Th e re fo re , we re vie w e a c h jury c ha rg e to de te rm ine if

it f a ir ly define d the l eg al i ssues involved and did not mislead the jury . See State v. Ha ll, 958 S.W .2d 679, 696 (Tenn. 1997)

.
I n this inst ance , the trial court issue d both a spontaneous instruction immediately afte r the defe ndant was c ross-examined re g arding his prior conviction and a more c onventional instruction g ive n a ft e r the pr e se ntatio n o f p ro of . T he fo rm e r w a s st a te d a s f oll ow s: [ Trial Court]: [ Y]ou have hea rd evide nce of

what we call a prior bad a ct or prior criminal behavior

. The law does not a llow a jury to c onsider prior ba d acts or prior

c ri min a l be ha vio r to es ta

bli sh that on this part ic ula r oc c a sio n the de fe nd a nt a c te d in conformityor had a

propensity t o perf

orm this type of c rime. I know that sounds

c r a z y, t o l a y p e o p l e t h a ts o u n d s c r a z y.
But y ou are not to consider this for propensity

evidenc e at a ll. W hat y ou are
su pp os e d to c on sid e r is whe the r or no t – wh a t I a m a llo wi ng is f

or wh e the r o r n ot i t g oe s to oth e r i ssu e s in the tr ia l.

One of the issues y ou have g ot to determine is what his intent or motive was in this case. His testimony is that this was a consensua l act be tween himself and the victim. You a

re only to c onsider this testimony as to w hether or not it g oes to what his intent or motive in commit ting this crime w as.

You ar e no t t o t ake it in t erms of, w ell, if he did that bef ore, he must have do ne thi s. Th a t is no t a llo we d u nd e r the la w. Yo u c a nn ot s a y be c a us e so me bo dy

did something in the pa st they nece ssarily

did something e lse.

Th is c a se ha s to stand alone on its e lf a ndthe State ha s to pr ov e the ir c a se b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t an d y o u c a n n o t s a y b e c a u s e s o me o n e d ids o me thing be fo re the y

did it a g a in. B ut y ou c a n c on sid e r it on the lim ite d iss ue of wh a t onthi s p ar t i c u l ar o c c a s i o n h i s i n t e n to r

m o t i v e w a s

. D o e s t h a ts e e mc l e ar t o e v e r y b o d y ? I will give y ou further

instruction but keep that in mind. The latter inst ru ct i o n, g iven at the c lose of proof , trac ked the pe rtinent lang uag e conta ined in the Tenne ssee Pattern J ury

I nstructions. See T.P.I . - Crim. 42.10 (8 Ed.). th-8-

On app e a l, the de fe nd a nt p art ic ula rl y c ha lle ng e s th e part of

the sp on ta ne ou s in str

uc tio n in which the tria l court st ated that, “You a re only to consider this testimony as to whethe r or not it g oes to w hat hi s in te nt o r m oti ve in c omm itt ing th is cri me was .” Th e de fe nd a nt c on te nd s th a t th is

s tate me n t w a s p r e

ju d ic ia l, a s it

in s in u a te d to th e ju r y

th a t h e committed th e p r e s e n t o f f e n s e s

. We initiallynote t hat, while this was ce rtainly a misstatement on the part of the trial court, the trial court

we nt o n to state that: This case has to stand alone on itself and the State has to prove their c ase be y ond a

re a so na ble do ub t a ndy ou c a nn ot s a y be c a us e so me on e didso me thi ng be fo re the y did it ag ain. B u t y o u c a n c o n s id e r it o n th e li mi te d is s u e o f

w h a t o n th is p ar ti c ular

oc c a sio n h is i nte nt o r m oti ve wa s.

At the c los e of

pr oo f, the tr ia l c ou rt

fu rthe r i ns truc te d th a t, i n o rd e r to r e turn a ve rd ic t of g uil t, the State must prove ea ch ele ment of the c onvicted off ense be y ond a rea sonable doubt. T here fore , we must conc lude that the instructions, taken a s a whole, fairly define d the State’s burde n of proof and did not mislead the jury reg arding the intended pur pose of the prior conviction.

I V. B lakely

v. Washington

The defe ndant also challeng es the sentenc es imposed in lig ht of the Supreme Court’s r ece nt holding in B lakely

v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2 5 3 1 (2 0 0 4 ). Blakely require d that enhanc ement factors be either admitted by the defendant or found by a jury determination bey ond

a re asonable doubt. Blakely , 542 U.S. at 303, 124 S. Ct. at 2538. An ex ception to this rule is that state law may

authorize a trial judg e to incre ase a sentenc e bey ond the maxim um based upon “ ‘the fa c t of a prior c on vic tio n. ’” I d. a t 30 1 ( qu oti ng Ap pr e nd i v. Ne w Je rs e y , 5 30 U. S. 4 66 , 4 90 , 120 S. Ct. 2348, 2362 (2000))

. On appeal, t he defenda nt contends that his sentenc es were issued in error, as he should have had a jury determination of whether or not he was a re peat of fende r. Howe ver,
ou r s up re me c ou rt

ha s p re vio us ly

de te rm ine d th a t Te nn e sse e ’s se nte nc ing pr oc e du re s do no t vi olate the Six th Amendment rig ht to trial by jury described i n Blakely . See State v. Gomez, 163 S.W.3d 632, 661 (Tenn. 2005) . There fore , the sentenc e wa s not issued in error.

V. Cumulative Error

I n his final issue, the def

endant c ontends that the cumulative eff ect of all err ors merits a ne w trial. Howe ver, this ar g ument must f ai l b ec au se we have f

ound only

one er ror, whic h we ha ve conclude d was ha

rmless.

Conclusion

For the fore g oing r easons, we af fi rm t h e judg ments of the Criminal Court of Hamilton County

.

___________________________________ J OHN EV ERETT WI LL I AMS, J UDGE