# FILED
Jul y 9, 1996 Cec il Crow son , Jr . Ap p e l l a te C o u rt C l e rk IN THE CO UR T OF CR IM IN AL AP PEALS OF TENN ESSEE

AT KN OXVILLE APR IL 19 96 SE SSIO N
STATE OF TENN ESSEE , * No. 03C 01- 9507- CR -0 0194

AP PE LL EE , * KN OX C OU N TY VS. * Hon . M ar y Bet h Lei bow it z TIMM YL. LASTER , * (E spec ial ly Ag g ra v ated Ki dnappi ng ; Ag g ra v ated Burg lar

y ; Ag g ra v ated Ass aul t) AP PE LL AN T. *
For the Appel lan t: For the Appel lee Ma rk E. Stephe ns Cha rl es W . Bu rs on Di str ict Pu bli c D efender Atto rn ey Gene ra l & R epor

ter Si xth J udi ci al Di str ict 450 J ames R ober tso n Par kw ay Nas hv il le, TN 37243- 0493 Lesl ie Nas si os Ass t. Publ icD efender Mi chael J. F ahey , I I 120 9 Euclid Avenu e Asst. At torne y Gene ral Knoxv il le, TN 37921 450 J ames R ober tso n Par kw ay Nas hv il le, TN 37243- 0493 Rand all E. Nichols Di str ict Attor ney

Gene ra l Robe rt L. Jolley, Jr
. Ass t. Di str ict Attor ney

Gene ra l Ci ty C ounty Bui ldi ng Knoxv il le, TN 37902

OPIN ION F ILED : ___

________ AFF IR ME D W ill ia m M. B a rke r, Ju d ge1 T h e p u n is h m e n t fo r a cl a s s Afe lo n y u n d e r R a n ge I is f ift e e n t o twe n t y-f ive y ears. T enn . Code Ann. § 40-35 -112 (a)(1).

2 T he p unish me nt for a class C fe lony unde r R a n ge I I i s six to ten y ears. T enn . Code Ann. § 40-35 -112 (b)(3). 2 OPIN ION The appel lan t, TimmyL. Last er , ent ered pl eas of gu il ty to th re e c o unts of espec ial ly

a gg ra v ated ki dnappi ng , a cl ass A fel ony , tw o c ounts of ag g ra v ated ass aul t, a cl ass C felony , and one countof agg ra v ated burg lar

y , a cl ass C felo ny . He w as sent enced as a Range I, sta nda rd of fend er to tw ent y -tw o y e a rs for each of the th ree esp ecially ag g ra v ated kid n a p p ing s i n c ase number 55799; one of the s entenc es is to ru n

1 cons ecut iv ely

to the o thers, for an effect iv e tot al of forty -four y ears. He w as sent enced as a Range II, m ultiple o f

fend er to con current six y ear sen ten ces for t he aggravated a ssault a n d t h e a ggrav ated burg lar y i n c ase number

55800, and to s ix

y ears for

the ag g ra v ated assau lt in ca se num ber 558 01. T he six -y ear sen ten ce for the a gg rav ate d bu rg lary in case 2 number 55800 is to ru n c onsec uti v ely to the s entenc es in cas e number 55799. The tota l effect iv e s entenc e i s fifty -s ix y ears i n the D epar

tment of Cor re cti on. On ap p e a l, the appel lan t c ontends thatthe tr ial co urt app li ed an improper enh ance me nt facto r, fa iled to ap ply app ropriate mitigatin g facto rs, and e rroneo usly impos ed c onsec uti v e sent ences . He als o arg ues that the t ri al cour t’ s fai lure to appl y

the purp oses a nd p rinciples of sente ncin g re s u lt ed in a se nte nce th at w as no t reason ably re lat ed to the ser iou snes s o f the offenses . W e find no er ro r and affirm the j udg ments of the t ri al cour

t.
The facts w ere sti pul ated. On June 21, 1994, the appell ant forced his w ay int o the h o m e of Kathy F ost er by threateni ng her

w it h a l oaded . 22 c ali ber handg un. Fos ter ’s se v en month ol d baby w as als o present
. After w ar nin g F ost er not to c a ll the police, the ap pellan t f led. Minute s later, the app ellantstopp ed a car driv en b y Elean or3

Ca gl e . He st ru c kt h e win d o w wit h h is f is t a n d p o in t e d h is gu n a t Ca gl e t h ro u gh t h e win d o w. Cag le acc ele ra ted t he c ar , drag g ing the appel lan t a shor t dis tanc e before he let g o of the door
. Approx imat ely

fifteen mi nutes l ate r, t h e appell ant forced his w ay i nto t he home of Al len and Carol Car li n. He hel d Car o l Ca rlin and her si xteen y ear

ol d s on, B ri an, a t g unpoi nt. W hen Al len C ar li n l ater ar ri v ed home, the appel lan t t hreatened hi m w it h the g un and kept all three individuals at g unp oint fo r som e three hou rs. Eventua ll y, A ll e n Ca rlin w as abl e to conv inc e the appel lan t t o s u rrend er hi s g un and to l eav e the home. The app ellantw as late r fo und bypolice an d he confessed to the crimes.
I W h e n a d e fendantch a l l e n g e s t h e l e n g t h , ra n g e o r m a n n e r o f s e r v i c e o f a sent ence, the re v iew ing co urt m u st c o n d u ct a de nov o rev iew on t he record w it h a presumpt ion thatthe deter minat ion s made by the tr ial courtw ere correct . Tenn. C ode An n. § 4 0 -3 5 -4 0 1 (d ). T h e p r e s u m p t io n o f co rr e c t n e s s is “c o n d it io n e d u p o n t h e a f f ir m a t ive showing in the record tha t the trial court conside red the sente ncing principles an d all relevan t fac ts a nd c i r c um s ta nc es .” S ta te v . As hb y , 82 3 S. W .2 d 16 6, 1 69 ( Ten n. 199 1). In rev iew ing the re cord, t his co urt mus t c onsi der ( a) the ev ide nce adduc ed at tri al and t he sent enci ng hear ing , ( b) the present ence re por t, (c ) the p ri nci ple s o f sentenc ing , ( d) the arg um e nts of couns el, ( e) the nature and charact er is ti cs of the o ffenses , and ( f) the appel lan t’ s p otent ial for rehabi li tati on. Tenn. C ode An n. § 40- 35- 210; see als o Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 40- 35- 102 & 103. The burde n o f s h ow ing thata s entenc e i s i mprop er i s o n the app ealing party. Ten n. Cod e Ann . § 40-3 5-40 1(d)(sent encin g com mission comm ent s).

The sent ence to be i mposed by the tr ial co urt i s p re sumpti v ely the mini mum w it hin the appl ic abl e rang e unl ess there are enhan cementfactors p re sent
. Tenn. C ode Ann. § 40- 35- 210( c)
. Procedu ra ll y , t he tr ial co urt i s t o i ncrease the s entenc e w it hin the ra ng e based upo n the ex is tenc e of enhanc ement fact ors a nd th en reduce the sent ence as appropr iat e for any

mit ig ati ng factors. T enn. Code Ann. § 40-35 -2 10( d) & ( e)
. The w eig ht4

to be afforded eac h factor is left to the tr ial cour t’ s dis creti on so lon g as it compl ies w it h the pur poses and pr inc ipl es of the s entenc ing ac t, and its f ind ing s are adeq uatel y su ppor ted by the r e cord. Tenn. C ode An n. § 40- 35- 210 ( sent enci ng co mmiss ion co mments) ; s ee Sta te v. Jones, 88 3 S.W .2d 597 , 599 (Ten n. 19 94).
A The tr ial co urt found t hat t hree enha ncementfa cto rs appl ied to the s entenc es for es peci all y

ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng : t hat t he appe ll ant h ad a prev iou s h is tor y of cr imi nal conv icti ons or

behav ior

i n addi ti on to thos e used to es tabl is h the appropr iat e rang e; t hat t h e a p p e l lan t h a d a p re v i o u s h i s t o r y o f u n w i l l i n g n e s s t o c o mp l y w i t h t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f a sent ence inv olv ing rele a se i n to the c ommunity ; and thatthe appel lan t had no h esi tati on about commi tti ng a c ri me w hen the ri sk to human li fe w as hig h. Tenn. C ode An n. § 40- 35- 114 (1), (8), & ( 10). T he appe llant does not specif ically cont est th e ap plication of (1) or (8); and the reco rd overw helm ingly supp orts the trial court’s fin dings. Th e prese nte nce rep ort re v eal s t h a tt h e a p p e l l a n th a s n u me ro u s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s fo r

fe l o n y a n d m i s d e me anor offenses . The repor

t al so ind ic ates thatthe appel lan t has recei v ed probati on for pr ior offenses , and that he w as on probati on for mis demeanor as saul t w hen t he presentcr imes w ere c ommitt ed.

The appel lan t doe s, how ev er , c ontes t facto r (1 0)
. He arg ues that iti s n ot a prop er e nha ncing facto r be cause a risk to hu ma n life is inheren t in the o f fense of espe cially ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng . The Stat e c onced es that the fact or shoul d nothav e been appl ied
. See S tate v . Ronal d Col li er , No. 02C 01- 9402- CC -0 0029 (Tenn. Cr im. App., Ja ck son, Oct. 5, 19 94) (e nhanc ement fact or 114( 10) sh oul d notbe a ppl ied to espec ial ly ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng ). W e ag re e tha t t h e “r is k t o human li fe” factor sh oul d nothav e been appl ied in thi s cas e. See Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 39- 13- 305( a) (1 ). Gi v en the w eig ht of t he remaini ng tw o factors, how ev er , w e c oncl ude t hat t he appe ll ant h as not s how n that th e s entenc es of tw enty -tw o y ears w ere i nappropr iat e.5 The appel lan t al so arg ues that the t ri al cour t di d not g iv e s uff ic ien t w eig ht t o miti g ati ng fa ct o rs s uch as his “ coope ra ti on, remors e, an d ac cept ance of res ponsi bil ity .” T he r e c o rd ref lects, ho w ever, that th e trial court con sidered the ap pellan t’s v olun tary rele a s e o f

h is kidn app ing v ictims as a m itigating facto r as req uired by the esp ecially aggravated kidn app ing statute . Te nn. Co de An n. § 39 -13-30 5(b)(2). Th e trial court also ack now led g ed th e appel lan t’ s ex press ion of remors e for his act ion s. W hil e the record does not i ndi cat e the ex actw eig ht gi v en to each of these fact ors, iti s c lea r that they w ere g iv en full cons ide ra ti on by

the tr ial ju d ge. T he appl ic abl e rang e of puni shmentw as fifteen to tw enty -fiv e y ears. The tr ial co urt i mposed sent ences of tw enty -tw o y ears. In su m , the app ellanthas no t shown that th e sen ten ces w ere imp rope r.
B The tr ial co urt ordered s ome of the s entenc es to r un consec uti v ely bas ed upo n the app ellant ’s “conside rable history of criminal conv iction[s] ....” Th e trial court also not ed th at th e ap pellan t had no regard for h um an life , tha t the app ellant ’s cri min al history show ed hi s e sc ala ti on to more s er iou s o ffenses , and that the appel lan t had an o ppor tuni ty to s top a fter e ach offense but d id not.

Conse cutive sente ncing is approp riate if the cou rt fin ds by a prepon dera nce of the e vid e n c e o n e or more of the facto rs set forth in T enn . Code Ann. § 40-35 -115 (b). T he trial cou rt fo und thatthe ap pellan t is an of fend er w hos e r ecord of criminal activity

is extensive. T enn . Code Ann. § 40-35 -115 (b)(2). The app ellantconce des th at he has a prior rec o rd, butargues thatthe of fense s w ere for relativ ely min or crimes. T he reco rd ind ic ates that the appel lan t has pr ior felony conv icti ons for burg lar y , pet itl arceny , attempt to c ommit a felony , and jo yrid in g. H e has numerous pr ior mis demeanor

co nv icti ons for si mple ass aul t and as saul t and batt er y . He w as on p ro b a ti on for ass aul t w hen he commi tted the c ri mes he re in. H e al so has an extens iv e j uv eni le re cord
. I n su m, the appel lan t has not show n that the tr ial cour t er re d in impos ing co nsec uti v e s entenc es. Se e3 T he trial court not ed tha t the kidna ppin gs of Carol and Brian Carlin w ere ini ti ated at es sent ial ly

the same t ime. T he k idn appi ng of Al len C ar lt on oc cur re d the reafter.

4 W e not e tha t t he appe lla n t cit e s p orti ons of State v . W il kerson, 905 S.W .2d 9 33 ( Tenn. 1995 ) and St ate v . W oods, 814 S.W .2d 3 79 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 199 1). Th ese ca ses disc u s s t h e requirem ent s for conse cutive sente ncing as a dan gerous of

fend er. See T enn . Code Ann. § 4 0-35 -115 (b)(4). As not ed, t he trial cou rt base d the conse cutive sente ncing o n the a ppe llant’s extensive cr imina l history ; thu s, w e n e ed notdi sc uss the re q uirements for c onsec uti v e s entenc ing as a da ng erous offender
. 6 Stat e v . Chr is man, 885 S.W .2d 834, 839 (Tenn. Cr im. App. 1994) (c onsec uti v e s entenc ing proper w here defendant had c onv icti ons for two drug of fenses, tw o w eapons of fenses, and several misdem ean or of fense s). The appel lan t al so arg ues that the effect iv e sent ence of f ifty -s ix y ears i s n ot rea s on ab l y

rel at ed t o th e s er i ou s ne s s o f t he o ffens es b ec au s e he rel ease d the v i c ti ms unhar m e d and lat er

ex press ed remors e for his co nduct
. Si mil ar ly , he ass erts that the record do es no t supp ort the trial court’s f inding tha t the sente nce was necessa ry to prote ct the p ubl icfrom furt her

cr imi nal conduct
. In part ic ula r, he arg ues that all three s entenc es for es peci all y

ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng shoul d ru n conc ur re ntl y . W e ag ain di sag re e w it h the 3 appel lan t’ s c ontent ion s. The tr ial co urt g av e full cons ide ra ti on to t he appe ll ant’ s a rg uments before imp osing the sen ten ces, an d it base d the conse cutive sent ence s on the ap pellan t’s extensive cr imina l record. Th e ap pellan t has no t shown that th e t ri a l court erred in this re g ard. 4
C

Fin a lly, t h e ap p e llant

argue s t h a t t h e tri a l co u rtfa ile d to m a ke sp e cif ic f in d in gs of factand faile d to consi d e r th e p u rp oses and pr inc ipl es of senten ci ng . In effect, the a p p e ll a n tre a rg u e s t h e p o in t s m a d e in t h e p re c e d in g is s u e s a n d h e cl a im s t h a tt h e e f fe c t ive sent ence of

f if ty- six y ears w as not reaso nab ly relate d to the seriousn ess of the of fense s. The re cord, how ev er , indi cat es that the tr ial courtco nsi dered th e present ence re por t, the appl ic abl e c ase law , and the arg uments of couns el as re q uired by the sent enci ng ac t. See7

T e n n . Co d e A n n . § 4 0 -3 5 -2 1 0
. T h e t ri a l c o u rtt h e n a p p li e d p ro p e r e n h a n c in g fa c t o rs , ga ve due c onsi derati on to ce rt ain mit ig ati ng factors, and ordered s ev eral of the s entenc es to r un conse cutively
. T he trial court spe cif ically foun d tha t the sente nce im pose d w as reaso nab ly re lat ed to the ser iou snes s o f the offenses and neces sar y to protec t the publ icfrom furt her cr imi nal ac ts. Se e Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 40 -3 5- 102. Al l of the f in d ing s w ere made o n the re cord. Acc ordin g ly , t he appe ll ant i s n ot en ti tl ed to reli ef on thi s g ro und.
II For al l of the foreg oin g reason s, the a ppel lan t’ s i ss ues are w it hout meri t. The jud g ments are aff ir med.

__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _________

_____ W ill ia m M. B a rke r, Ju d ge

_________

_________

________ Ga ry R. W a d e , J u d ge

_________

_________

________ Da vid H. W e lle s, Ju d ge