### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs S ep te m be r 12, 200 6

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. DE RR ICK WA LTON
Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty No. 04-04268 Jam es C. Beasley, Jr ., Judge

No. W2005-01592-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled October 16, 2006

Following a jury

trial, the De fenda nt, Derrick Walton, was convicte d of one c ount of second de g ree murder. H e wa s sentence d to twenty -three y ear s in the Depa rtment of Corre ction. The De fenda nt’s sole issue on appea l is whether the trial court err ed in e nhancing his se ntence

. We a ffi rm the jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

D AVI D H. W EL L ES , J ., delivere d the opi nion of the court, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH and T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J J ., joined.

Marvin B allin, Memphis, Tennessee , for the a ppellant, Der

rick Walton.

Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; Da vidH. F ind le y , A ssi sn ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil lia m L

. Gi bbons, District Attorney Gene ral; and James Wax and Te resa McCusker, Assistant District Attorney s Gene ral; for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

F ac tu al B ac kgr ound On Novembe r 14, 2003, t h e v i ct i m, Brook D avis, was sitting in his ca r using his cellular telephone w hen thre e men, including the Def endant, a pproac hed and be g an shooting into the car

. The victim attempted to drive a way from the sc ene, but he ran his c ar into a tree . The victim later died, and the c ause of

death wa s determined to be from two g unshot wounds to the back.

Of fi c e r Wi lli e Sa nd e rs of

the Me mph i s P o l i c eD e p a r t m e n t w i t ne sse d th e sh oo tin g , a lon g wi th
sever al other individuals. Off icer Sanders pur sued the thr ee men flee ing f rom the sce ne, stopped their ca r, and found a .40 c aliber ha ndg un. The De fenda nt was ar rested and admitted that he shotW e n ot e t h at t h e l eg i s l at u r e h as a men ded s ev er al pr ov i s i on s of t h e Cr i mi n al Se n t en ci n g Ref or m Act of

1989, 1
sai d changes beco m i ng ef fect i ve June 7 , 20 0 5

. H o wever, t he D efend ant ’ s cri m es i n t hi s case, as well as hi s sent enci ng, p reda t e t he ef

fect i ve d at e o f

t hese ame nd m ent s. T herefo re, t hi s case i s no t af fect ed b y t he 2 0 0 5 am end m ent s, and t he

s t at u t es c i t ed i n t h i s opi n i on a r e t h os e t h at w er e i n e f fec t a t t h e t i me t h e i n s t an t c r i mes w er e commi t t ed.
-2- the vic tim

. Th e De fe nd a nt state d tha t the mot ive fo r the sh oo tin g wa s tha t the vic tim ha d s oldhim about a qua

rter of a kilog ram of c ounterfe it cocaine sever al wee ks befor e for $4200.00.

P r oc e dur al B ac kgr ound The De fe n d an t was indicted by a Shelby Countyg rand jury

for f irst deg ree murder. A fter a trial by jury , the Defenda nt was convicted of second deg ree murder. The De fenda nt was sentenc ed to twenty -three y ear s in the Department of Correc tion. The trial c ourt’s sentenc ing de termination was ba sed upon the e nhance ment fac tor of committing the offe nse with a firea rm. The De fenda nt filed a motion for a

new tria l, a lleg ing that his se ntence was “excessive.” The trial court de nied the Def endant’ s motion. This timely appea l followed.

Ana lys is Th e De fe nd a nt’ s so le iss ue on app e a l is wh e the r the tr ia l c ou rt pr op e rl y e nh a nc e d h is sentenc e for second deg ree murder based upon the s tatutory fac tor that the De fenda nt used a fir earm in t h e co m mission of the offense . The De fenda nt arg ues that the trial c ourt did not follow the statutory proce dures, did not make f indings of f

act, a nd g ave e x cessive weig ht to the enhanc ement fac tor. The State counter s that the trial court did adhe re to the statutory g uidelines, did make c lear 1 finding s of fa ct on the re cord, a nd did properly weig h the enha nceme nt fac tor heav i l y in the
se nte nc ing de te rm inatio n. We a g re e wi th the Sta te a ndc on c lud e that th e tria l c ou rt didno t e rr

in i ts sentenc ing de termination.

Be fore a trial c ourt imposes a sentenc e upon a convicted criminal defe ndant, it must consider (a) the evidence a dduced at the trial and the se ntencing hearing; ( b) the pre -sentenc e re port; (c) the principles of se ntencing and ar g uments as to sentenc ing a lternatives; (d) the nature and char acte ristics of the criminal conduct involved; (e) evidenc e and inf ormation offe red by

the parties on the enha nceme nt and mitigating fac tors set forth in Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tions 40-35- 113 and 40-35- 114; and (f) any statement t h e d ef

en dant wishes to make in the de fenda nt’s own behalf about sentenc ing. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210( b); State v. I mfeld, 70 S.W.3d 698, 704 (T e nn . 2 00 2) . T o f

a c ili ta te app e llate re vie w, the tr ial cou rt is r e qu ir e d to pla c e on the re c or d it s
rea sons for impos i n g t he spec ific sentenc e, including the identification of the mitigating and
e n h a n c e me n t f

a c to r s f o u n d , th e s p e c if

ic f a c ts s u p p o r ti n g e a c h e n h a n c e me n t f a c to r f o u nd, and the
me th od by which the mit ig a tin g a nde nh a nc e me nt f a c tor s h a ve be e n e va luate d a ndba la nc e d in determining the se ntence . See State v. Samuels, 44 S.W.3d 489, 492 (Tenn. 2001).
Upon a c halleng e to the sentenc e imposed, this Court has a duty to conduct a de novo revie w of the sentenc e with a presumption that the determinations made by the trial court a re c orre ct. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-401(d)

. Howeve r, this presumption “is conditioned upon the af firmative sh ow ing in the re c or d th a t 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 r e le va nt f a c tsThe trial court also foun d th at tw o ot her enhan cement f actors applied to the Def

endan t’s ca se: (1) T he Def endan t “has 2 a previous histo ryof crim

inal c on victions or crim

inal beh avior in addi tion to tho se nece ssary to establish th e a

pp rop riate range ” und er T enne ss ee

CodeA nnotate d se ction 40-35- 114(2) ; and (2) T he De f enda nt “ w as a le ade r i n the c ommis si on of a n of f ens e inv olv ing tw o (2) or m ore c rim

ina l a ct ors ” under

T enne ss eeCodeA nnotate d s ec tion 40-35- 114(3) . The tr ia l court dec line d to enhancethe Defen dant ’s s ent enc e bas ed upon the se a dditi onal f ac tors be ca

use his pri or c rim

ina l r ec ord i ncl uded “l ow -g ra de mis dem eanor of f ens es ” and bec aus e the State w as unabl e to prov e that the othe r m en pre se nt at the time of the s hooting “ had any

inv olv em

ent or any know le dg e w hat soe v er

that this of

f ens e w as g oing to occ ur or that t hey a ntic ipate d in any

m anne r i n [sic ] the c ommis si on of the of f ens e

. . . .”
-3- and cir cumstance s.” State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991) . I f our r eview r efle cts that the trial court followed the statutory sentenc ing pr ocedur e, that the c ourt imposed a lawf ul sentence afte r having g iven due c onsideration and pr oper w eig ht to the fa ctors and principles set out under the sentenc ing law, and that the trial court’s finding s of fa ct ar e ade quately supported by

the re cord, then the pre sumptio n i s ap p l i ca ble, and we may not modify

the sentenc e eve n if we w ould have pref err ed a dif

fer ent re sult. S ee State v. F letcher , 805 S.W . 2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). We will uphold t he sente nce imposed by the t rial court if (1) the sentenc e complies with the purpose s and princ iples of the 1989 Sentenc ing Act, and ( 2) the trial c ourt’s finding s are adequately supported by the re cord. See State v. Arne tt, 49 S.W .3d 250, 257 (Tenn. 2001) . The burden of showing that a sente nce is im proper is upon the appea ling pa rty . See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 401 Sentencing Commi ssion Com ments; Arnett, 49 S.W.3d at 257.

I n th e pr e se nt c a se , th e tr ia l c ou rt me tic ulo us ly

do c ume nte d the so ur c e s of ev ide nc e fo r i ts
s en t en ci n g d et er m i n at i o n

. T h e tr i al co u rt m ad e fi n d i n gs o f fa ct , ap p l i ed t h e p ri n ci p l es o f s en t en ci n g, analy zed the enhanc ement fa ctors, and assessed the weig ht to be g iven to the enha nceme nt fac tors as req u i red by

Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40-35-210(b). U ltimately , the trial court determined that one enhanceme nt fac tor merited a n incre ase in the D efe ndant’s sente nce. 2

Under Tenne ssee Code An n otated sec tion 40-35-114(10), the trial court may enhanc e the Def endant’ s sentence if he “ possessed or e mploy ed a f irea rm

. . . during the commission of the offe nse.” I d. Be cause the evidenc e showed that the Def endant did shoot the victim twice with a .40 caliber handg un, the trial court was justified in finding this enha nceme nt fac tor ap p l i ed. Furthermore , the trial court specifica lly stated on the re cord that this factor de serve d a “g reat deal of we ight” beca

use the victim would probably not be dec ease d had the De fenda nt not possessed a firea rm. The trial court did not find any mitigating fac tors to counterba lance the enha nceme nt fac tor.

After determining that only

one enhanceme nt fac tor would be a pp l i ed t o the Def

endant’ s sentenc e, the trial judge proper ly considere d the sentenc ing rang e for a Class A fe lony

to be fiftee n to twenty -five y ear s. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-112( 1). The D efe ndant’s pre sumptive sentence
was the midpoint of the rang e. See id. § 40- 35-210(c ). The trial judge then incre ased the sentenc e from the pr esumptive sentenc e of twenty y ear s to an enha nced se ntence of twenty -three y ear s based upon his discretionary

determination of the hea vy weig ht of the enha nceme nt fac tor.

B e c a us e we c on c lud e that th e tr ia l c ou rt pr op e rl y fo llo we d th e statut ory

re qu ir e me nts in imposing the Def

endant’ s sentence , we must presume that the sentenc e is corr ect. The Def endant-4-

has fa iled to establish that the sentenc e wa s otherwise imprope r. Ther efor e, we aff irm the sentenc e imp os e d b y

the tr ia l c ou rt

.
Conclusion Ba sed on the fore g oing authorities and re asoning , the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed

.

______________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, J UDGE