### IN THE COURT OFCRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE ATJAC KSON June2, 200 9 S es sio n STATE OF TENNESS EE v . CHARLES SH ARP Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelb y County No. 06-02077 Jame s C. Beasley, Jr., Judge

No. W2008-01656-C CA-R3-CD - Filed February 22, 2010

T h e S h e lb yC o u n tyG ra n d Ju ryin d icte d A p p e llan t, C h a rle s S h a rp , f o r o n e c o u n t o f

e sp e c ially ag g rav ated sex u al ex p loit ati o n o f a m ino r, fo u r c o u n ts o f rap e, o n e co u n t o f se x u al ba tt ery byan author i t yfi gur e, and one c ountof vanda l i s m . A n i ni t i al t r i al r es ul t ed i n an ac qu i t t al foral l char ges exce ptt he es peci al l yaggr avat ed s exual expl oi t at i on of a m i nor . A t t he s econd t r i al , a keyw i t nes s w as unavai l abl e. O ver t he obj ect i on of A ppel l ant , herr edac t ed t es t i m ony fr om t he fi r s tt r i al w as r ead t o t he j ur yand pr es ent ed as evide n ce . T h e j ur yconvi ct ed Ap p e l l a n t a s c h a r g e d

. He wa s s e n t e n c e d t o n i n e y e a r s a s a Ra n g e I , s t a n d a r d o f f e n d e r . On appea l , A ppell ant ar gues t hathi s cons t i tut i onal r i ghtof conf r ont at i on w as vi ol at ed byt he St at e’ s pr es ent at i on of the pr evi ous t es t i m onyof thi s w i tnes s, t hatt he evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor thi s convi ct i on, t hatt he tr i al cour t err ed i n s ent enci ng A ppel l antt o ni ne y ear s as a R ange I , s t andar d offe n d er , and thatt he tr i al cour terr ed i n deny i ng pr obat i on. A f ter a th o ro u g h re v iew o f th e re c o rd , w e h a v e d e ter m in e d th a t th e e v id e n c e is s u f f icie n t to su sta in th e v e rd ict a n d th a t A p p e llan t w a s p ro p e rlyse n ten c e d . T h e S tate ’s f a ilu re to adequa t el y pr ove t hat i t had m ade a good fai t h eff or t t o l ocat e t he mi s s i ng w i t nes s ’ t es t i m ony from A pp el l ant’ s fi rs t t ri al viol at ed A pp el l ant’ s con st i tuti on al ri gh tt o co nfron tt he w i t ness. T h e re f o re , this c a se is re v e rse d a n d re m a n d e d f o r a n e w trial. Te nn. R. App. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e ntof t heTr ialCo ur t i s Re ve r se d and Re m ande d. J ERRY L. S MI TH , J
. , del i ver ed t he opi ni on of t he cour t , i n w hi ch J OH N E VERETT W I L L I AMS and C AMI L L E R. M C M UL L EN , J J ., jo in e d

. C hr i s t i ne W
. St ephens and B r ett A

. Schuber t , M emphi s , T ennes s ee, at t or ney s fort he appel l ant , C har l es Sharp. R ober tE
. C ooper , J r . , A t t or ney G ener al and R epor t er ; C l ar ence E
. L ut z, A s s i s t antA t t or ney G ener al ; W i l l i am L
. G i bbons , D i s t r i ctA t t or neyG ener al ; and D avi d Pr i t char d, A s s ist ant D i s t r i ctA t t or neyG ener al ; fort he appe l l ee, St at e of Tennes s ee.Iti s t h e p o l i cy o f t h i s C o u rt t o refe r t o m i n o r v i cti m s b y t h eir i n i t i als. 1 -2- OP I NI ON A ppel l a n twas e mpl o y e d b yt h e Te n n e s s e e Dep a r t me n to f Chi l d r e n ’ s Se r v i c es ( “D C S”)

. St an Lang w as hi s s upervi s or . I n 2005, D C S w as hol di ng “Teen Panel ” meet i ngs in M e m p h is du rin g w h ich f o ste r ch ild re n a n d in d iv id u a ls w h o h a d b e e n in f o ste r c a re w o u ld d iscu ss the irex p erien ce s w ith p o tential fo ster pa ren ts. M r. L an g as ked A p p ell an t t o tr an sp o rt s ever al i ndi vi dual s w ho w er e i n fos t er car e at t he t i m e or w ho had bee n i n fos t ercar e t o t he T e e n P a n e l m e e tin g s. A p p e llan t d ro v e a v a n th a t h a d a d riv e r’s se a t an d p a ss e n g e r se a t in th e f ro n t an d tw o ro w s o f

b e n c h se a ts b e h in d th e d riv e r’s se a t. I n J anuary , February and M ar ch 2005, A ppel l antdr ove s ever al i ndi vi dual s i ncl udi ng D ’ A r m yW at s on, D ai s yW i ns t on, and D

. F. t o t he Teen Panel m eet i ngs . O n M ar ch 23, 2005, 1 t he mee t i ng w a s he l d at t he Cent e na r y M e t ho di s t Chur c h. A t t he t i me of the mee t i ng , D
. F. w as four t een, M s . W i ns t on w as ei ght een, and M r . W at son w as t w enty - one. M r . W at s on br oughta vi deo ca m er a w i t h hi m t o vi deot ape the meet i ng. A ft ert he meet i ng, A ppel l ant d ro v e se v e ra l m e e tin g p a rticip a n ts h o m e . M r. W a tso n b e g a n to v id e o tap e th e in d iv id u a ls in th e v a n . E v e n tu a lly , M r. W a tso n , M s. W in sto n a n d D .F . w e re th e o n lym e e tin g p a rticip a n ts left i n the v an that A p p ell an t w as d ri v ing

. M r. W atso n g av e M s. W inston the v ideo ca m era a n d a sk e d h e r to re c o rd . D .F . an d M r W a ts o n w e r e sittin g in th e f irst b e n c h se a t d ire c tly behi nd A ppel l antand bega n t o fl i r tand t ouch each ot her

. M s . W i ns t on w as vi deot api ng t he e n c o u n te r. D
. F. and M r . W at s on m oved t o t he r earm os tbench s eat, an d D
. F. w as l y i ng on her back. M r . W at s on began t o fondl e D
. F. ’ s br eas t s aft erher s hi r t w as r emoved. M r . W at s on p ro c e e d e d to re m o v e D .F ’s p a n ts a n d u n d e rw e a r a n d b e g a n to d ig itally p e n e tra te h e r. W h ile t hi s act i vi t yw as occurr i ng, M s . W inst on w as i n t he benc h s eati m m edi at el ybehi nd t he dr i ver ’ s s eat , vi deot api ng M r . W at s on and D

. F. M s . W i ns t on w as us i ng t he l i ghts our ce on th e c a m e ra to ill u m in a te th e a c tiv ityb e tw e e n M r. W a tso n a n d D .F . w h ile s h e w a s f ilm in g it. M s . W i ns t on m oved ar ound s o as t o getdi ffe r entangl es of the s exual act i vi tyfort he vi deot ape. D
. F. s t at ed thati t w oul d have been “i m pos s i bl e not t o be not i ced. ” T he van w as e q u ip p e d w ith a f

u n c tio n a l r e a rv ie w m ir ro r. M r . W at s on t ol d M s . W i ns t on t o s t op fi l m i ng, and he a nd D
. F. began t o have s exual in ter c o u rse in th e re a rse a t o f th e v a n . D .F . tes tifie d th a t th e b a c k o f th e se a t im m e d iate ly b eh ind t he dr i ver ’ s s eat came t o t he m i ddl e of her back w hi l e s he and M r . W at s o n w ere h av ing interco u rse. A p p ell an t t o ld M r. W atso n an d D
. F
. to n o t l et an y o n e see w h at th eyw ere d o ing an d told them h e w o u ld g et o n the ex p ressw ay so itw o u ld b e h ard er f o r oth er d ri v ers-3-

t o s ee them. A ccor di ng t o t es t i m onyatt r i al , M s . W i ns t on t ook t he ca m er a t o t he fr ontof the van and rep lay ed p or t i ons of the vi deot ape f orA ppel l ant
. A ppel l antnevert ol d t he thr ee p a rt ic ip a n ts to s to p . A p p e lla n t to o k M r. W a ts o n h o m e f ir s t a f te r t a k in g a n in d ir e c t r o u te
. A ft er D
. F. arr i ved hom e, L i eut enant W i l t on C l evel and w i t h t he M emph is Po li ce D epart m ent beca m e i nvol ved i n t he cas e. A s a r es ul t of t he i nves t i gat i on , L ie ut enant C l evel and obt ai ned the vi deot ape f r om M r . W at s on. M r . W atso n w as l at erarr es t ed and char ged w i t h s t atut or yr ape. I n J anuary2006, t he Shel byC ount yG r and J ur yi ndi ct ed A ppel l antfor one countof es peci al l yaggr avat ed s exual expl oi t at i on of a mi nor , fourcount s of r ape, one countof s exual bat t erybyan author i t yfi gur e, and one c ountof vanda l i s m . A t r i al w as h el d on M ay31, 2006, w hi ch r es ult ed in a hung j ur yw i t h r egar d t o t he es peci al l yaggr avat ed s exual e x p lo ita tio n o f

a m in o r c h a rg e a n d a c q u itta ls f o r t h e re m a in in g c h a rg e s . O n A p ril 2 8 to M a y 1 , 2 0 0 8 , a n e w trial w a s h e ld so lelyo n th e c h a rg e f o r e sp e c ially a g g r a v a t e d s e x u a l e x p l o i t a t i o n o f a mi n o r . T h e j u r y f

o u n d Ap p e l l a n t g u i l t y a s c h a r g e d

. On M ay29, 2008, t he tr i al cour thel d a s ent enci ng hear i ng. A t t he conc l us i on of the hea r i ng, t he t r i al cour ts ent ence d A ppel l antt o ni ne y ear s as a R ange I , s t andar d offe nder

. A ppel l antfi l ed a tim e lyn o tice o f

a p p e a l. A N A L Y S IS

U n av ail ab l e W i tness A ppel l ant ’ s fi r s ti s s ue i s t hatt he tr i al cour terred in decl ar i ng M s . W i ns t on as an unavai l abl e w i t nes s i n t he s econd tr i al and al l ow i ng her r edac t ed t es t i m ony t o be r ead t o t he j ur yat the sec o n d t r i al beca us e the tr i al cour tr el i ed s ol el yon r epr es ent at i ons byt he St at e. T he St at e ar gues t hatdes pi t e i t s good fai t h eff or t s , t he w i t nes s coul d not be l ocat ed, and the t r i al cour tdi d notabus e i tdi s cr et i on. T he C ons t i tut i on of t he U ni t ed St at es pr ovi des t he ac cus ed i n a cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on t h e ri g ht“t o be conf

r ont ed w i t h w i t nes s es . ” U

. S. C ons t
. amend. V I
. T he Tennes s ee C ons t i tut i on pr ovi des t he r i ght“t o m eetw i t nes s es fac e t o fac e. ” Tenn. C ons t
. ar t
. I , § 9. T hes e guar ant i es w er e cr eat ed i n or dert o: ( 1) have the w i t nes s t es t i fyunderoath and s ubj ectt o t he pena l t i es forper j ury ; (2) enabl e the fa ct
- fi ndert o obs erve the manneror d e m e a n o r o f th e w itn e ss a n d a ss e ss h is o r h e r c re d ib ili ty ; an d (3 ) h a v e th e w itn e ss a v a ilab le f o r c ro s s -e x a m in a tio n . S e e O h io v . R o b e rts , 4 4 8 U .S . 5 6 , 6 3 -6 4 , (1 9 8 0 ), over r ul ed on other gr ounds by C r aw

f or d v. W

as hi ngt on , 5 4 1 U
. S

. 3 6 (20 0 4 ) (i n terna l qu o ta tio n o m itted);-4-

C a li f or ni a v. G r een , 3 9 9 U .S . 1 4 9 , (1 9 7 0 ); Stat e v. H ughes , 713 S. W
. 2d 58 ( T enn. 1986 ). N otw i t hst and i ng t hese obj ect i ves, t he ri gh tof co nfron t at i on i s not abso lu te a n d m ust o c c a s io n a lly g iv e w a yto c o n s id e ra tio n s o f p u b lic p o lic ya n d n e c e s s itie s o f th e c a s e . S ta te v. Kennedy , 7 S. W
. 3d 58, 65 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1999) ( ci t i ng J e n k in s v . S ta te , 627 N
. E
. 2d 7 8 9 , 7 9 3 (In d . 1 9 9 3 )). T h u s, th e U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt h a s re p e a ted ly ref u se d to appl ya l i t er al i nt erpr et at i on of the C onfr ont at i on C l aus e w hi ch w oul d bar the us e of a ny h e a r s a y. I

daho v. W

r ight , 4 9 7 U .S . 8 0 5 , 8 1 4 (1 9 9 0 ); se e a lso Sh e rm a n v . Sc o tt , 62 F. 3d 136, 1 4 0 (5 th C ir .1 9 9 5 ), cer t
. deni ed , 5 1 6 U
. S

. 1 1 8 0 (19 9 6 ). T he Tennes s ee Supr eme C our thas addr es s ed the s t andar ds and cr i t er i a t hatm us tbe m e t in o rd e r f

o r o u t-o f -c o u rt sta tem e n ts to sa tisf yth e C o n f

ro n tatio n C lau se o f

b o th th e S ix th A m endment of t he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on and A r t i cl e I , Sect i on 9 of t he T en n essee C o n s titu tio n . See State v. A rm es , 6 0 7 S .W .2 d 2 3 4 , 2 3 6 (T e n n . 1 9 8 0 ); Stat e v. Hender s on , 554 S. W
. 2d 117 ( T enn. 1977)

. I n Hender s on , o u rs u p r e me c o u r tr e c o g n i z e d t h a tv a l i d c l a i ms of an unc ons t i tut i onal abr i dgementof the r i ghtt o confr ontw i t nes s es ar i s e w hen: ( 1) [T]he hear s ayevi dence i s cruci al t o pr ovi ng t he Stat e’ s cas e, i

. e. , t he evi dence i s offe r ed t o pr ove an es s ent i al el ement of t he cr i m e ori tconnec t s t he defe ndantdi r ect l yt o t he comm i s s i on of the cr i m e; ( 2) t her e i s no pr oof thatt he w i t nes s i s unavai l abl e, i

. e. , t he St at e mustm ake a g o o d f a ith e f f o rt to se c u re th e p re se n c e o f th e p e rso n w h o se sta tem e n t is to be off er ed aga i ns tt he def

endant ; and ( 3 ) t h e h e a r s a y e v i d e n c e i s l a c k i n g i t s o w n i n d i c i a o f r e l i a b i l i t y.

Hender s on , 554 S. W
. 2d at120. A s stated a b o v e, th e p rose cu tor an d A p p ell an t’ s att o rne yrea d M s. W inston ’s t es t i m onyfr om t he pr evi ous t r i al i nt o evi dence

. M s . W i ns t on t es t i fi ed that att he t i m e of the f i r s tt r i a l s h e wa s n i n e t e e n - y e a r s - o l d a n d t h a t s h e h a d b e e n i n f o s t e r c a r e s i n c e s h e wa s t wo m ont hs ol d. W hen s he t es t i fi ed s he w as no l ongeri n fos t ercar e and w as li v ing w i t h her s i s t er . I n 2005, herca sew o rke r, a M s . C ol eman, as ked M s . W i ns t on t o par t i ci pat e i n t he T een Pane l m eet i ngs . S h e stat ed t hatt he purpos e of the meet i ngs w as forpot ent i al fos t er par ent s t o as k ques t i ons of the fos t er chi l dr en on the pane l

. She s t ar t ed part i ci pat i ng i n t he p a n e l m e e tin g s in J a n u a ry. S h e w e n t o n c e a m o n th

.-5-

A ppel l antpr ovi ded tr ans por t at i on t o t he meet i ngs . M s . W i ns t on t es t i fi ed t hat he w as a D C S w ork e r w h o w o rked i n the I nd epen den tL i ving prog ram . O t her chi l dren al so part i ci pated i n the m eet i ng s, b u t s h e d id no tkn ow t hem ou t si de o f t he m eet i ng s. M s. W i nst on w ent t o the m eet i ng s in Jan uary , F ebruaryand M arch. T he v i ct i m al so w ent t o these m eet i ngs . W hen A ppel l antpi cked up M s . W i ns t on for t he M ar ch m eet i ng, M r . W at s on w as al r eadyi n t he van. T he vi ct i m w as t he l as t per s on t o be pi cked up. T he m eet i ng l as t ed an hourand a ha l f. A ft ert he m eet i ng, A ppel l antbegan t o dr i ve eve r y one home. E very one on t he bus w as pr et t yexci ted. M r . W at s on had a vi deo ca m er a and be gan t api ng on t he van. E ventual l y , M r. W atso n, M s . W i ns t on, and the vi ct i m w er e the onl yi ndi vi dual s l efti n t he van. A t t hi s poi nt , M r . W at s on and the vi ct i m began t ouchi ng eac h ot her

. T heyw er e l ocat ed behi nd t he dr i ver ’ s and pas s enger ’ s s eat s . T he van cont ai ned i ndi vi dual s eat s fort he dr i ver and passeng er an d t hen t w o row s o f ben ch seat s. S he st at ed thatt he row s w ere “verycl ose to g e th e r.” M s . W in s to n w a s in th e p a s s e n g e r’ s s e a t a t th is tim e . M r . W at s on as ked M s . W i ns t on t o vi deot ape hi s encount erw i t h t he vi ct i m . She began t o vi deot ape them w hi l e s he w as s eat ed i n t he pas s enger s eat
. A ts om e poi nt , M r . W at s on and the vi ct i m m oved t o t he bac k r ow of t he van. M s . W i ns t on m oved t o t he fi r s tbench s eat in o rd e r to v id e o tap e th e m . M s. W in sto n tes tifie d th a t as sh e w a s v id e o tap in g th e c o u p le t her e w oul d have been not hi ng t hat s he knew of t o obs t ructA ppel l ant ’ s vi ew of w hatt hey w er e doi ng. T her e w as a func t i onal r earvi ew m i r r or i n the van. A ts om e poi nt , M s . W i ns t on w as nots i t t i ng on t he s eatvi deot api ng, butr athers t andi ng i n t he w al kw aybetw een the s eat and t he door t o fi l m fr om a di ffe r ent angl e. She s t at ed t hat t her e w as not hi n g to o b s t ruct A pp el l ant’ s vi ew of h e r sta n d i ng i n the w al kw ay . E ven tuall y , M r. W at son aske d M s. W i ns t on t o s t op vi deot api ng. A tt hi s poi nt , M s . W i ns t on t es ti fied , s he t ook t he vi deo t ape t o t he fr ontof the van a nd hel d i t up for A ppel l ant t o w at ch. A s he w as vi ew i ng t he vi deo t ape, A ppel l antt ol d M s . W i ns t on t hat s he “w as m ovi ng t oo m uch. ” W hi l e s he w as s how i ng t he vi deo t o A ppel l ant , M r . W at s on and t he vi ct i m w er e havi ng s exual i nt er cour s e i n t he bac k row of the van

. A pp el l ant w as t el l i ng t he c o u ple t o ch ang e po si t i on s so that no on e el se o u ts id e th e v a n c o u ld s e e th e m . T h e c o u p le e n g ag ed in interco u rse u n ti l th eyarrived at M r. W atso n ’s ho u se. B o th M r. W at s on and the vi ct i m puton t hei rcl ot hes , and M r . W at s on got out of t he van. T he pol i ce cam e to M s. W i nst on ’s ho use l at er that ni gh t , and she t old them w hat had h app ened

. M s. W in sto n th e n id e n tifie d A p p e llan t. A ppel l ant ’ s at t or ney r ead M s . W i ns t on’ s cr os s - exami nat i on i nt o evi dence

. She w as i ni t i a l l y qu e s t i on e d r e ga r di ng t he J a nu a r y Tee n Pa ne l mee t i ng . A pp e l l a nt pi c ke d up M s. W inston fro m h er h o u se t o g o to th e Jan u ary m ee ti n g . B o th M r. W atso n an d the v ict im w ere t her e al ong w i t h s om e other i ndi vi dual s . A ft er t he meet i ng, A ppel l antdr ove eve r y one home. T h e re w e re n o o th e r D C S e m p lo y e e s in th e v a n .-6-

Fort he February m eet i ng, A ppel l ant once agai n dr ove M s . W i ns t on, M r . W at s on and t he vi ct i m and otheri ndi vi dual s t o t he m eet i ng. T her e w as notanotherD C S w or keri n t he van. A ft ert he meet i ng, t heys t opped atC hur ch’ s C hi cken w her e M r . W at so n w or ked and a t e c h i c k e n . A f

t e re a t i n g a tC h u r c h ’ s , A p p e l l a n th a d t o f i n d s o m e o n e w h o h a d r u n a w a y. H e t ook t he chi l dr en i n t he van w i t h hi m t o l ook for t he runaw ay . H e dr ove t o an apa r t m ent compl ex and gotoutof the van. H e l eft t he chi l dr en fr om t he T een Panel m eet i ng i n t he van. W h ile h e w a s a w a yf

ro m th e v a n , M r. W a ts o n a n d th e v ic tim “ b e g a n to u c h in g e a c h o th e r.” T h e v ict im also ask ed M s. W inston to tou ch h er, a n d sh e d id. M s. W inston test ifi ed that M r. W at s on and the vi ct i m “w er e goi ng t ogether

. ” A p p ell an t c ame back t o t he van a nd as ked th e m w h a t th e yw e re d o in g . Fort he M ar ch meet i ng, once a gai n, A ppel l antw as t he onl y D C S w or keri n t he van. A ppel l antdr ove s ever al i nd ivi dual s t o t hem m eet i ng. W hen he pi cked up M s . W i ns t on, every one exc eptt he vi ct i m w as al r eadyi n t he van. T hey pi cked up the vi ct i m and pr ocee ded to th e m ee ti n g . W ith reg ard to the v an , M s. W inston ag ree d that the s ea t bac k o f th e d ri v er’s s eatcame t o t he back of A ppel l ant ’ s head. She al s o agr eed thatt her e w er e tw o cus hi ons on ei t her s i de of the fi r s tbench s eat
. She t es t i fi ed thats he w as i n t he w al kw ay . She s t at ed that if h e lo o k e d in th e re a rv ie w m ir ro r h e c o u ld s e e M r. W a ts o n a n d th e v ic tim

. M s . W i ns t on t es t i fi ed thats he di d notknow w hyM r . W at s on br oughtt he vi deo ca m era that n igh t. S h e st ated that sh e did n o t ow n o n e, bu t she h ad see n them b ef o re. M r. W atso n sh o w ed h er h o w to op era te it

. M r. W atso n h ad alread yturn ed o n the c am era fo r he r. H e to ld h e r h o w to sto p it. M s. W in sto n tes tifie d th a t sh e d id n o t k n o w h o w to re w in d it. M r . W at s on as ked M s . W i ns t on t o vi deo t ape hi s s exual act i vi t i es w i t h t he vi ct i m . H e as ked her w hil e she w as si t t i ng i n the passeng er seat and A pp el l ant w as i n the dri ver’ s seat
. M s. W in sto n w a s e ig h tee n a t th e tim e o f th e M a rc h m e e tin g . S h e w a s n o t su re h o w o ld th e v ictim w as beca us e the vi ct i m kept t el l i ng every one di ffe r ent ages . M s . W i ns t on di d not fi nd out h o w o ld th e v ic tim w a s u n til s h e s p o k e w ith th e p o lic e . O n cr os s - exami nat i on, M s . W i ns t on agr eed thatw hi l e she w as fi l m i ng, s he t ol d t he v ictim to p u ll h e r s h ir t b a c k u p a n d to ld M r. W a tso n to o p e n th e v ictim ’s v a g in a w ith h is f in g e rs. M s. W in sto n tes tifie d th a t sh e sh o w e d th e v id e o to A p p e llan t b e c a u se h e w a n ted to s ee i t
. W hen theyarr i ved atM r . W at s on’ s hous e, t he vi ct i m al s o g o tout
. A ppel l ants ai d, “don’ tbe as l ong as y ou al l w as t he l as t t i m e. ” T he vi ct i m w as t al ki ng t o M r . W at s on and h is b ro th e r w h ile A p p e lla n t s p o k e w ith M r. W a ts o n ’s m o th e r. I ti s cl eart hatM s . W i ns t on’ s t es t i m onyi s cruci al t o t he St at e’ s cas e. H ert es t i m ony d em o n str ates tha t A p p ell an t kn ew that sh e w as v ideo tapin g M r. W atso n ’s a n d the v ict im ’s s exual act i vi t y . She s t at ed thatA ppel l antw ou ld h av e b ee n abl e t o s ee he rvi deot api ng;-7-

w oul d have been ab le to s ee M r . W at s on and the vi ct i m engagi ng i n s exual act i vi t y ; and w ant ed t o s ee the vi deo. She al s o t es t i fi ed thats he s how ed hi m t he vi deo and he t ol d hert hat s he w as “movi ng t oo m uch. ” T hi s t es t i m onypr oves t hatA ppel l antw as perm i t t i ng a mi nor t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f a v i d e o t a p e s h o w i n g t h e m i n o re n g a g i n g i n s e x u a l a c t i v i t y, w hi ch ar e the r equi r ement s for a v i ol at i on of Tennes s ee Code A nnot at ed s ect i on 39- 17- 1 0 0 5 (a), esp ec ial lyag g rav ated ex p loit ati o n o f a m ino r. I n Cr a wf o r d v . W as hi ngt on , 5 4 1 U
. S

. 3 6 (20 0 4 ), the U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rt announce d t he t es tt o det erm i ne admi s s i bi l i t yundert he C onfr ont ati o n C lause of he ar s ay off ered againstan acc used. Test i m on i al st at em ents such as redact ed tr anscri pt i n thi s case m aynotbe off

er ed i nt o evi dence unl es s t w o r equi r ements a re sat i s fi ed: ( 1) t he decl ar ant/w i t nes s m us tbe unava i l abl e and ( 2) t he def endantm us thave ha d a pr i or o p p o rt u n ity to c ro ss-ex am in e th e d e c la ra n t/w itn e s s . I d. a t 6 8 . “W h e re tes tim o n ial s tate m e n ts ar e ati s s ue, t he onl yi ndi ci um of re l i abi l i t y s uffi ci ent t o s at i s fy cons t i tut i onal demands i s t he one the C ons t i tut i on actual l ypr es cr i bes : confr ont at i on. ” I d. at68- 69. T her e i s no ques t i on i n t he cas e at hand t hat M s . W i ns t on’ s pr i ort es t i m onyw oul d be cons i der ed t es t i m oni al

. R ather , t he ques t i on r ai s ed i s w hetherornott he S tat e pr oved that M s . W i ns t on w as “unava i l abl e. ” A s s t at ed above , ours upr eme cour ts t at ed i n Hen ders on t hat the S t at e m ustprove thati tm ade a goo d fai t h eff ortt o secure t he p res ence o f t he w i t ness i n qu est i on . “G oo d fai t h” has been defined as “[t] he lengt hs t o w hich the p rosecut i on m ust go t o pr oduce a w i t nes s . . . [and] i s a ques t i on of r eas onabl enes s . ” R o b e rts , 448 U
. S. at74. T h e d e c is io n o f th e tr ia l c o u rt w ill b e a f f ir m e d a b s e n t a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . Hick

s v . S ta te , 4 9 0 S

. W
. 2 d 1 7 4 , 1 7 9 (T en n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 7 2 ). I n Stat e v. A r m es , 607 S. W
. 2d 234 ( T enn. 1980) , ours upr eme cour tvi s i t ed the i s s ue as t o w hat cons t i tut es a good fa i t h eff or t
. 607 S. W
. 2d at237. I n A r m es , t he St at e att empt ed to s u b p o e n a th e w itn e s s b e f o re tr ia l a n d d is c o v e re d th a t th e w itn e s s h a d d is a p p e a re d

. I d. at 2 3 6 . T h is d is a p p e a ra n c e re s u lte d in a m is tr ia l. I d. O ne w eek b efor e the s econd tr i al and agai n one dayb e f

o r e t h e s e c o n d t r i a l , t h e St a t e a t t e mpt e d t o s u b p o e n a t h e wi t n e s s . Not s u rp ri s in g ly, th e S ta te w a s u n a b le to lo c a te th e w itn e s s . I d. A t trial th e S tate a ttem p ted to p re s e n t th e te s tim o n y o f th e w itn e s s a t th e p re lim in a ry h e a ri n g . I d. T o p rov e the w itn ess’s u n a v a ilab ili ty , the S tate f a iled to p ro v id e a n yin d e p e n d e n t ev id e n c e o f a n a ttem p t to lo c a te t h e w i t nes s ot hert han a s t at ementbyt he pr os ecut or . O urs upr eme cour ts t at ed, “The p rose cu ti n g a tto rn ey ’s st atem en t t o the C o u rtco n ce rnin g the e ff o rt s o f th e S tat e’s i nves t i gat ort o l ocat e the w i t nes s cannotbe cons i der ed as evi dence of pr oof on the i s s ue of t he S t at e’ s good fai t h eff or t
. ” I d. at237. O urs upr eme cour tal s o s t at ed thatt he St at e w as on not i ce thatextr a ef

for t w oul d be r equi r ed t o l ocat e the w i t nes s beca us e he di d notappea r f o r t h e f ir s t tr ia l d a te
. I

d.-8-

A s i n A r m es , i n t he cas e at hand, t he S t at e di d not pr ovi de anyi ndepende ntevi dence of i t s eff or t s t o l ocat e M s . W i ns t on. A copyof the s ubpoena da t ed Sept ember4, 2007, w as i ncl uded i n t he re cor d. H andw r i t t en on t he subpoena w as a not at i on t hat M s . W i ns t on had m oved t o A t l ant a, G eor gi a. A t a hea r i ng on t he mat t er , t he St at e pr es ent ed the s ubpoena then s t at ed on the rec or d aft ercont act i ng M s . W i ns t on’ s fos t erm ot hert he St at e ac qui r ed a tele p h o n e n u m b e r a n d h a d re p e a ted lytried to c o n tac t M s. W in sto n b y tele p h o n e o v e r a six t o ei ghtm ont h per i od. A ts om e poi nt , acc or di ng t he ass i s t ant di s t r i ct att or ney , t he t el ephone w a s d is c o n n e c te d

. B y th e S tate ’s o w n a d m iss io n , it h a d b e e n a ttem p tin g to lo c a te M s. W in sto n f o r six t o ei ghtm ont hs

. I tappea r s t hat t he St at e s houl d have r eal i zed ear l y on t hat pl aci ng t el ephone c a lls in a n d o f it s e lf w o u ld n o t b e su f f icie n t to c o n tac t th e w itn e ss in q u e stio n . T h e S tate fai l ed to presentanyotherw i t nesses t o d em on strat e t he effo rt s ex t end ed to l ocate the w i t ness. W e con cl ud e t hat the S t at e has no tproven t hat i tm ade a g oo d f a ith e ffo rtt o locat e M s. W i ns t on and, t her efor e, cannot m eet t he r equi r ement t hat i thas pr oven thatM s . W i ns t on w as unavai l abl e underthe test s etouti n C raw f ord . T h e trial c o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in a llo w in g h e r t e s tim o n yf ro m th e p ri o r t ri a l to b e re a d a t tr ia l a n d e n te re d a s e v id e n c e . A ppel l ant ’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o confr ont at i on has been br eac hed, and thi s r equi r es t hathi s convi ct i on be r ever s ed bas ed up o n this f ac t a l one. H ow ever , as r equi r ed byour suprem e cou rt , w e add res s A pp el l ant’ s ot her i ssues. Suff i ci ency of t he E vi dence A ppel l antal s o ar gues t hatt he evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entto su p p o rthi s convi ct i on. T h e S tate c o n ten d s th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s s u f f icie n t. W h e n a d e f

e n d a n t c h a llen g e s th e su f f icie n c y o f th e e v id e n c e , th is C o u rt is o b lig e d to r evi ew t hat cl ai m acc or di ng t o cert ai n w el l

- s et t l ed pri nci pl es . A ver di ctof gui l t y , r ender ed bya j ur yand “a ppr oved byt he tr i al j udge, acc r edi t s t he t es t i m onyof the” St at e’ s w i t nes s es a n d re s o lv e s a ll c o n f

lic ts in th e te s tim o n y in f a v o r o f th e s ta te
. Stat e v. C az es , 875 S. W
. 2d 2 5 3 , 2 5 9 (T e n n . 1 9 9 4 ); S ta te v . H a rr is , 839 S. W
. 2d 54, 75 ( T enn. 1992)

. T hus , al t hough t he a c c u se d is o rig in a llyc lo a k e d w ith a p re su m p tio n o f in n o c e n c e , the ju ryv e rd ict o f g u ilty r emoves thi s pr es um pt i on “and r epl ace s i t w i t h one of gui l t
. ” S ta te v . T u g g le , 639 S. W
. 2d 9 1 3 , 9 1 4 (T e n n . 1 9 8 2 ). H e n c e , o n a p p e a l, th e b u r d e n o f p ro o f re sts w ith th e d e f

e n d a n t to d e m o n s tr a te th e in s u f

f ic ie n c yo f

th e c o n v ic tin g e v id e n c e . I d. T he r el evant ques t i on the r evi ew i ng cour tm us tans w eri s w hetheranyr at i onal t r i erof fa ct coul d have f ound t he a c c u s e d g u ilty o f

e v e ry e le m e n t o f

th e o f f e n s e b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. See T enn. R
. A pp. P . 1 3 (e ); H

a rr is , 839 S. W
. 2d at75. I n m aki ng t hi s deci s i on, w e ar e t o acc or d t he s t at e “the s t r onges tl egi t i m at e vi ew of t he evi dence as w el l as al l r eas onabl e and l egi t i m at e i nfer ence s-9-

t h a t ma y b e d r a wn t h e r e f r o m. ” S e e T

u g g le , 6 3 9 S .W .2 d a t 9 1 4 . A s s u c h , this C o u rt is pr ecl uded fr om r e- w ei ghi ng or r econs i der i ng t he evi dence w hen eva l uat i ng t he convi ct i ng p ro o f

. Stat e v. Mor

gan , 9 2 9 S .W .2 d 3 8 0 , 3 8 3 (T e n n . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ); S ta t e v . Ma t th e ws , 8 0 5 S .W .2 d 7 7 6 , 7 7 9 (T e n n . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ). F u rth e r, q u e stio n s c o n c e rn in g th e c re d ib ili ty of the w i t nes s es and the w ei ghtand val ue t o be gi ven t o evi dence , as w el l as al l fac tual i s s ues ra is e d b ys u c h e v id e n c e , a re re s o lv e d b y th e tr ie r o f f a c t a n d n o t th e a p p e lla te c o u rt s . S ta te v . P ru e tt , 7 8 8 S .W .2 d 5 5 9 , 5 6 1 (T e n n . 1 9 9 0 ). A p p e lla n t a rg u e s th a t th e e v id e n c e p re s e n te d b yth e S ta te is p u re ly ci rc u m s ta n tia l. A c ri m in a l o f

f e n s e m a y b e e s ta b lis h e d e x c lu s iv e ly b yc ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . Stat e v. Tharpe , 7 2 6 S .W .2 d 8 9 6 , 9 0 0 (T e n n .1 9 8 7 ); Stat e v. Jones , 901 S. W
. 2d 393, 396 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1995)

. H ow ever , t he t r i er of fac t m us t be abl e t o “det erm i ne fr om t he p roo f th at all o t her r e a s o n a b l e t h e o r i e s e x c e p t t h a t o f g u i l t a r e e x c l uded .

. . . ” Jones , 9 0 1 S .W .2 d a t 3 9 6 ; s ee al s o, e. g. , Tharpe , 72 6 S

. W
. 2d at 90 0. W e m ayno tsubst i tute our ow n “inferences for tho se dr aw n byt he tr i erof fa ctfr om ci r cumst ant i al evi dence

. ” M a t th e ws , 8 0 5 S .W .2 d a t 7 7 9
. In addition, we p oint out that the United States Supreme Court has held that when a c onvic tio n is revers e d d

ueto t hea dmi tta

nc e of inadmi ssible e vide nc e the a pp e llate c ourt

mus t still consider theevidenc e in question when determiningwhether the evidenc e wa s sufficient to support he convic tion. Lockhart v. Nelson , 488 U.S. 33, 40-42, 109 S. Ct. 290-91 (1988). With this in m ind, we now tur

n to our review. A ppel l antw as convi ct ed of v iol at i ng T ennes s ee Code A nnot at ed s ect i on 39- 17- 10 05 (a) , especi al l y ag gravat ed ex ploi t at i on of a m i no r, w hich st at es: (a ) It is u n law fu l fo r a p e rso n to k n o w in g ly p ro m o te, e m p lo y , u se , as sis t, tr ans por torper m i ta m i nort o p arti ci pat e i n t he per for m ance of , ori n t he pr oduct i on of , act s orm at er i al t hati ncl udes t he m i norengagi ng i n: ( 1) Sexual act i vi t y; or ( 2) Si m ul at ed s exual act i vi t y t hati s pat ent l y of fens i ve.
W hen t aken i n t he l i ght m os t favor abl e t o t he S t at e, t he evi dence s how s t hatA ppel l ant w as tr ans por t i ng t he v i ct i m and otheri ndi vi dual s i n a van t o t hei rhom es f r om an eve ni ng m eet i ng forpot ent i al fos t erpar ent s s etup by D C S. W hen onl y t he vi ct i m , M s . W i ns t on, and M r . W a t s o n r e m a i n e d i n t h e v a n , t h e v i c t i m a n d M r . W a t s o n b e g a n t o e n g a g e i n s exual conduct
. M s . W i ns t on began f i l m i ng t he enc ount erunderM r . W at s on’ s di r ect i on. D ur i ng th e film in g th e v ictim w a s u n d r e ss e d , an d M r. W a tso n fo n d led h e r b re a sts a n d d ig itally-10-

p en etr at ed her
. T he w i t nes s es attr i al t es t i f i ed thatt he vi deo ca m er a had a n at t ache d l i ght s our ce thatw as us ed dur i ng t he fi l m i ng. T hi s f i l m w as s how n t o t he j ur y. T he vi ct i m and M r. W a ts o n w e r e in th e re a rm o st s e a t o f th e v a n . A c c o rd in g to th e w itn e ss e s a t trial, A ppel l antt ol d M r . W at s on and the vi ct im to n otl etot herdr i ver s on t he r oad s ee thatt hey w er e havi ng i nt er cour s e and thathe w oul d geton t he expr es s w ay. T her e w as al s o evi dence pr es ent ed thatM s . W inston s how ed the vi deo of M r . W at s on’ s and the vi ct i m ’ s s exual e n c o u n te r i m m e d ia te ly a ft e r film in g it. W e c o n c lu d e th a t a re a so n a b le trier o f fac t c o u ld d e ter m in e th a t A p p e llan t h a d a m p le know l edge of

M r . W at s on’ s and the vi ct i m ’ s s exual act i vi t i es t w o r ow s behi nd h im in the van. It i s r eas onabl e f

r om t he evi dence pr es ent ed, fort he j ur y t o concl ude thatA ppel l ant knew of bot h t he vi deo t api ng and t he s exual act i vi t y occurr i ng t w o r ow s behi nd hi m i n t he van. A s s t at ed above , w e m ay nots ubs t i t ut e ourow n j udgm entfor that o f t he j ur y. Suff i ci entevi dence w as pr es ent ed t o s uppor tt he j ur y’ s concl us i on. T h e re fo re , this iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit.
Se nt e nc i ng A p p e llan t als o a rg u e s o n a p p e a l th a t th e trial co u rt e rre d in d e n y in g p ro b a tio n a n d in im p o sing a n ine y ea r sen tenc e. T h e S tat e a rgu es th at t h e tri al co u rtd id n o t err. “W hen r evi ew i ng s ent enci ng i s s ues . . . , t he appe l l at e cour ts hal l conducta de novo r evi ew on t he re cor d of s uch i s s ues . Such r evi ew s hal l be conduct ed w i t h a pr es um pt i on t hat th e d e te rm in a tio n s m a d e b y th e c o u rt fr o m w h ic h th e a p p e a l is ta k e n a re c o rr e c t.” T .C .A . § 4 0- 35- 401( d)
. “H ow ever , the pr esu m p ti o n o f co rrectne ss w h ich a cc o m p an ies t h e tri al co u rt ’s ac tion is co n d ition ed u p o n the a ffi rm ati v e sh o w ing in the rec o rd th at t h e tri al co u rt co ns i der ed the s ent enci ng pr i nci pl es and al l r el evantfact s and ci r cum s t ance s . ” S ta t e v. A s hby , 823 S. W
. 2d 166, 169 ( T enn. 1991)
. I n conduct i ng our r evi ew , w e m us tcons i dert he def endant ’ s pot ent i al forr ehabi l i t ati o n , the tr i al and s ent enci ng hear i ng evi dence , t he p rese n tenc e re p o rt , the s en tenc ing p ri n ciples, sen tenc ing alt ern ati v e a rgu m en ts, the n ature an d ch ara cter o f t h e o ffen se, t h e e n h an cing an d m it igating fac tors, an d the d efe n d an t’ s sta tem e n ts. T .C .A
. § § 4 0 -3 5 -1 0 3 ( 5 ) , - 2 1 0 (b ); A s hby , 82 3 S
. W
. 2d at16 9. W e are t o als o re c o g n iz e th a t th e d e fe n d a n t b e a rs “ th e b u rd e n o f d e m o n stra tin g th a t th e se n ten c e is i m pr oper . ” A s hby , 823 S. W
. 2d at169. I n m aking it s sen t enci ng det er m i nat i on, t he tr i al cour t , att he conc l us i on of t he s ent enci ng hear i ng, det er m i nes t he r ange of s ent ence and then det er m i nes t he s peci f

i c s ent ence and the pr opr i et y of s ent enci ng al t er nat i ves by cons i der i ng: ( 1) t he evi dence , i f

any, r ece i ved att he tr i al and the s ent enci ng hear i ng; ( 2) t he pr es ent ence r epor t ; ( 3) t he pr i nci pl es of s ent enci ng and ar gum ent s as t o s ent enci ng al t er nat i ves ; ( 4) t he natur e and char act er i s t i cs of t he cr i m i nal conduct i nvol ved; ( 5) evi dence a n d i nfor m at i on-11-

of fer ed by the par t i es on t he enha ncem entand m i t i gat i ng fact or s ; ( 6) any s t at em ent s t he def endantw i s hes t o m ake i n t he def endant ' s behal f

abouts ent enci ng; and ( 7) t he pot ent i al fo r re h a b ili tatio n o r tre a tm e n t. T .C .A . § § 4 0 -3 5 -2 1 0 (a ), (b ), -1 0 3 (5 ); S ta t e v . Wi l l i a ms , 920 S
. W
. 2 d 2 4 7 , 2 5 8 (T en n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ). I n r es pons e t o B l akely v. Was hi ngt on , 542 U
. S. 296, 124 S. C t
. 2531( 2004) , t he T e n n e s s e e L e g is la tu re a m e n d e d T e n n e s s e e C o d e A n n o ta te d s e c tio n 4 0 -3 5 -2 1 0
. C ompa re T
. C
. A
. § 4 0 -35 -21 0 (c) (20 0 3 ) w ith T
. C
. A. § 4 0

- 3 5

- 2 1 0 ( c ) ( 2 0 0 6 )
. T h i s a me n d me n tb e c a me e ffe c tiv e o n Ju n e 7 , 2 0 0 5 . T h e leg isla tu re a lso p ro v id e d th a t th is a m e n d m e n t w o u ld a p p ly t o def endant s w ho com m i t t ed a c r i m i nal of fens e on oraf

t erJ une 7, 2005. 2005 T enn. Pub. A c t ch . 3 5 3 , § 1 8
. In a d d iti o n , if a d e fe n d a n t c o m m itt e d a c rim in a l o ffe n se o n o r a fte r Ju ly 1, 1982 and w as s ent ence d af t er J une 7, 2005, s uch def endant can e l ectt o be s ent ence d under th e s e p ro v is i o n s b y e x e c u tin g a w a iv e r o f t h e ir e x p o s t fa c to p ro te c tio n s . I d. A ppel l ant her ei n com m i t t ed the of fens es pr i ort o J une 7, 2005, and ther e i s no ex pos tfac to w ai ver exec ut ed by A ppel l anti n t he r ecor d her ei n. T hus , t he am endm ent s t o T ennes s ee Code A n n o tate d se c tio n 4 0 -3 5 -2 1 0 d o n o t ap p ly to A p p e llan t.

L ength of

Sent ence A ppel l a n t d i d n o t r a i s e a t t h e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g o r o n a p p e a l a n y c l a i m t h at t he j udge’ s f i n d ing s of

t he above

- des cr i bed enha ncem entfact or s vi ol at ed hi s r i ght s undert he Sixth A m endm entpur s uantt o B l akely v. Was hi ngt on , 5 4 2 U
. S
. 2 8 6 (20 0 4 ). H o w ev er, w it houtr eci t i ng t he l ong l i ne of j ur i s pr udence begi nni ng w i t h B la k e ly and end i ng in th is S tat e w i t h Stat e v. G om ez , 2 3 9 S. W
. 3 d 7 3 3 ( Te n n . 2 0 0 7 ) , i t n o w a p p e a r s t o b e s et t l ed l aw t hatundert he Si xt h A m endm ent ’ s pr ovi s i on for a r i ght t o a j ur y tr i al onl y a j ur y m ay m ake t he factual f

i ndi ngs nece s s ar y t o l engthen a s ent ence beyond the s ent ence actual l y author i zed b y th e v e rd ic t o f g u ilt. I d. at740. T he onl y exce pt i ons t o t hi s r equi r em entar e enha nci ng a s ent ence bas ed on a r ecor d of pr i or convi ct i ons ori f t he def endantadm i t s t o t he enha ncem ent fa c to rs . C u n n in g h a m v . C a lif o rn ia , 5 4 9 U .S . 2 7 0 , 2 7 5 , 1 2 7 S . C t. 8 5 6 , 8 6 0 (2 0 0 7 ). A ppel l antw as convi ct ed of T ennes s ee Code A nnot at ed s ect i on 39- 17- 1005(a), esp ec ial ly ag g rav ated ex p loit ati o n o f a m ino r, w h ich is a C lass B felon y . T h e tria l co u rt det er m i ned thatA ppel l antw as a R ange I , s t andar d of fender
. A tt he s ent enci ng hear i ng t he tr i al cour t appl i ed t he enhanc em ent fact or s t hat A ppel l ant had a pr evi ous hi s t or y of cr i m i nal c o n v ict io n s o r c rim in a l b e h a v io r a n d th a t A p p e llan t ab u se d a p o sitio n o f p u b lic o r p riv a te tru st. T
. C
. A
. § 4 0 -35 -11 4 (1), ( 1 4 ) (20 0 3 ). T h e tri al co u rt d id n o t fi n d an y stat u tory m i t i gat i ng fact or s buts t at ed t h at A p pel l ant ’ s “educ at i onal abi l i t y, ” hi s m ai nt enanc e of em pl oym entfora s ubs t ant i al t i m e per i od, and s eeki ng and obt ai ni ng cus t ody of hi s chi l dr en w eigh ed in h is fa v o r. A ft er a p p lying en h an ce m en t and m it igating fac tors the tri al co u rt s e n te n c e d A p p e lla n t to n in e y e a rs .-12-

A s stat ed ab o v e, a tr ial co u rtis al low ed to ap p ly en h an ce m en t fac tors u n d er B la k e ly a n d its p ro g e n y th a t a re e ith e r pr io r crim in a l h isto ry o r fac ts ad m itt e d b y th e d e fe n d a n t. T h ere is no d ispu te t h at t h e tri al co u rt p ro p e rl y a p p li ed thes e tw o fac tors. A p p ell an t’ s pr es en tence r epor tcl ear l y s how s t hathe has a hi s t or y of pr i orcr i m i nal convi ct i ons and conduct
. A ttr i al , A ppel l antt es t i f i ed thatas par tof

hi s em pl oym entw i t h D C S he w as r equi r ed t o tr ans por t t he m i nor vi ct i m and the otheri ndi vi dual s t o a D C S m eet i ng hel d for p o ten tial fo ste r p a re n ts. W e a g re e w ith th e trial c o u rt th a t A p p e llan t w a s in d e e d p lac e d in a p o sitio n o f tru st i n th a t h e w a s en tru ste d w ith th e c a re o f th e in d iv id u a ls h e tra n sp o rte d in t he van. W e fin d th a t th e a p p lica tio n o f th e se tw o e n h a n c e m e n t fa c to rs s u p p o rts th e trial c o u rts i ncrease of the m i nim um sent ence b y o ne y ear f rom ei gh tyears t o n i ne y ears . T h e re fo re th is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. Pr obat i on A p p e lla n t a ls o a rg u e s th a t t h e t r i a l c o u rt e rr e d in re fu s in g to g ra n t p ro b a tio n . A def endantconvi ct ed underT ennes s ee Code A nnot at ed sec t i on 39- 17- 1005 at t hi s t i m e i s not el i gi bl e forpr obat i on. T
. C
. A
. § 40- 35- 303 ( Supp. 2008)
. H ow ever , att he t i m e A ppel l ant com m i t t ed the of

fens e, i t w as not a pr ohi bi t ed of fens e i n r egar d t o t he gr ant i ng of pr obat i on. T h e re fo re , the c u rre n t p ro h ib iti o n d o e s n o t ap p ly to A p p e llan t. A tt he t i m e A ppel l antcom m i t t ed the of fens e i n t hi s cas e Tennes s ee Code A nnot at ed § 4 0-35-10 2(5) pr ov i ded as foll ow s:

I n r ecog n it ion t hats t at e pr i s on capa ci t i es and the f unds t o bui l d and m aintain th em are li m it ed , co n v ict ed felon s co m m itti n g the m o st sev ere o f fe n s e s , p o s s e s s i n g c r i mi n a l h i s t o r i e s e v i n c i n g a c l e a r d i s r e g a r d fo r t h e l a ws a n d m o ra ls o f so c iety , a n d e v in c in g fa ilu re o f p a st e ffo rts a t r e h a b ili tatio n sh a ll b e g iv e n fi rs t p ri o ri ty re g a rd in g s e n te n c in g in v o lv in g in c a rc e ra tio n . . . .
T
. C
. A
. § 4 0 -35 -10 2 (5)(2 0 0 3 ). A d e fe n d a n t w h o d o e s n o t fa ll w ith in th is c las s o f o ffe n d e rs “ a n d w h o is a n e sp e c ially m i t i gat ed of

fender or s t andar d of

fender convi ct ed of a C l as s C , D , orE fel ony i s pr es um ed t o be a favor abl e ca ndi dat e foral t er nat i ve s ent enci ng i n t he abs ence o f evi dence t o t he contr ar y. ” T. C
. A
. § 40- 35- 102( 6) ( 2003)
. Fur t her m or e, unl es s s uf f i ci entevi dence r ebut s t he presum pti on , “[t ]he tri al cou rtm ustpresum e t hat a defendan tsent enced t o eightyears or l ess-13-

a n d n o t a n o ffe n d e r fo r w h o m in c a rc e ra tio n w o u ld re s u lt in s u c c e s s fu l r e h a b ilita tio n . . . .” Stat e v. B yrd , 8 6 1 S .W .2 d 3 7 7 , 3 7 9 -8 0 (T e n n . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ); s e e als o T .C .A . § 4 0 -3 5 -3 0 3 (a ). A l l of fender s w ho m eett he cr i t er i a ar e not ent i t l ed t o r el i ef ; i ns t ead, s ent enci ng i s s ues m u st b e de term ined b y the facts an d circu m stan ce s o f ea ch c a s e . See Stat e v. Tayl or , 744 S. W
. 2d 919, 922 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1987) ( ci t i ng Stat e v. M oss , 727 S. W
. 2d 229, 235 ( T enn. 1 9 8 6 ) )
. Ev e n i f

a d e fe n d a n ti s p r e s u m e d t o b e a fa v o r a b l e c a n d i d a t e fo ra l t er nat i ve s ent enci ng under T ennes s ee C ode A nnot at ed § 40- 35- 102( 6) , t he s t atut or y pr es um pt i on of an alt ern ati v e se n tenc e m ay b e o v erc o m e if:
( A ) C onf i nem enti s nece s s ar y t o pr ot ects oci et y by r es tr ai ni n g a def endantw ho h a s a lo n g h isto ry o f c rim in a l co n d u c t;
( B ) C onf i nem enti s nece s sary to a voi d depr eci at i ng t he s er i ous nes s of t he of fens e orconf

i nem enti s par t i cul ar l y s ui t ed t o pr ovi de an e f fect i ve det err ence t o ot her s l i kel y t o com m i ts i m i l arof fens es ; or (C ) M e a su re s le ss re stric tiv e th a n c o n fin e m e n t h a v e fre q u e n tly o r re c e n tly b e e n a p p lie d u n s u c c e s s fu lly to th e d e fe n d a n t . . . .

T
. C
. A
. § 40- 35- 103( 1) ( A )

- ( C )
. I n choos i ng am ong pos s i bl e s ent enci ng al t er nat i ves , t he tr i al c o u rt sh o u ld a lso c o n sid e r T e n n e ss e e C o d e A n n o tate d § 4 0 -3 5

- 1 0 3 ( 5 ) , w h ich sta tes , in per t i nentpar t , “The pot ent i al orl ack of pot ent i al fort he r ehabi l i t at i on ortr eat m entof t he d efe n d an t sho u ld b e c o n side red in d eterm ining the s en tenc e a lt ern ati v e o r len g th o f a term t o be i m pos ed. ” I

d. § 4 0 -3 5 -1 0 3 (5 ); Stat e v. D ow dy , 894 S. W
. 2d 301, 305 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1994)
. T he tr i al cour tm ay cons i dera def endant ’ s untr ut hf

ul nes s and l ack of candoras t hey re la te to th e p o te n tia l fo r r e h a b ilita tio n . See Stat e v. N unl ey , 22 S. W
. 3d 282, 289 ( T enn. C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ); s ee al s o Stat e v. B unch , 6 4 6 S
. W
. 2 d 1 5 8 , 1 6 0 -61 (T en n . 1 9 8 3 ); Stat e v. Ze o lia , 9 2 8 S .W .2 d 4 5 7 , 4 6 3 (T e n n . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ); Stat e v. W i l l i am s on , 919 S. W
. 2d 69, 8 4 (T e n n . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ); Stat e v. D ow dy , 894 S. W
. 2d at305- 06. I n t hi s cas e, A ppel l antw as convi ct ed of a C l as s B fel ony and sent ence d t o m or e than ei ght yea r s . Th u s , h e i s n o t p r e s u m e d a fa v o r a b l e c a n d i d a t e fo r a l t e r n a t i v e s e n t e n c i n g i n t he abs ence of

ev iden ce t o t he contr ar y. T he tr i al cour tnot ed thatA ppel l anthad vi ol at i on of pr obat i on f

r om a pr i orconvi ct i o n . T h e tr ia l cour tw as m or e tr oubl ed by the factt hat A ppel l antcont i nued t o deny any r es pons i bi l i t y for t he of fens e and f

ort hatr eas on ques t i oned A ppel l ant ’ s pot ent i al forr ehabi l i t at i on.-14-

W e f i nd t hatt her e i s am pl e suppor tfort he tr i al cour t ’ s r ef us al t o gr antpr obat i on. T h e re fo re , this iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON For t he for egoi ng r eas ons , t he j udgm entof t he tr i al cour ti s r ever s ed.

___________________________________ J E RR Y L
. S M I T H, J UDGE