### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON Re m an de d M ay 23, 200 5

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. C AR LOS EDD INGS

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty No. 01-03777 W. Otis Higgs, Jr., Judge

No. W2005-01173-C CA-R M-C D - F iled Jun e 9, 2006

The De fenda nt, Carlos Eddings, w as tried and c onvicted for ag g ravated robbe ry , and the tria l court sentenc ed the De fenda nt to ten y ear s in prison. The Def endant appea led, and a

majority of this Court

c on c lud e d th a t hi s se nte nc e mus t be mod if ie d to e ig ht y e ars pu rs ua nt to the Un ite d St a te s Su pr e me Court case B la

k e ly v

. Wa s h in g to n , 5 4 2 U

. S. 2 9 6 ( 2 0 0 4 )

. St a te v

. Ca r lo s E d d in g s , N o

. W2003- 02255-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 2266794, at *1 (Te nn. Crim. App., at J ackson, O ct. 8, 2004). The Sta te fi le d a n a

pp lic a tio n f

or pe rm iss ion to app e a l w ith the Te nn e sse e Sup re me Cou rt pu rs ua nt t o Rule 11(a) of the Te nnessee Rules of Appellate Procedur e. On Ma y 23, 2 0 0 5
, t he Te nnessee Supreme Court g rante d the State’s application for the purpose of rema nding the case to this C ourt for r econside ration in light of State v. G omez, 163 S.W .3d 632 (Tenn. 2005)

. On rema nd, we a ffirm the Def endant’ s ten-y ear

sentenc e.

On Rem and f

romthe Tennessee Suprem e Court ; Judgme nt of th e Crim inal Cou rt A ff

irm ed

R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J ., delivere d t h e o p i n i o n of the c ourt, in which D AVI D H. W ELLES and D AVI D G. H AYES , J J
., joined.

Ga rl a ndEr g ud e n, Me mph is, Te nn e sse e , f or the Ap pe lla nt, Carl os Ed din g s.

Pa ul G. Sum me rs , At torne y Ge ne ra l a nd Re po rt e r; Kathy D. As lin g e r, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil liam L . Gibbons, District Attorney Gene ral; Da vid Z ak, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION I. F acts

The fa cts at trial prove d that while Celeste Wi l l i am s o n , t h e victim, was wor king at Direc t I nsuranc e on Oc tober 23, 2000, two black men, one tall w ith a mask on and a n automatic we apon and the other

the Def endant who he ld a roll of duct tape, came in the front door of the offic e. The

me n c a me tow ardhe r an d s ta rt e d y e lli ng “ b* ** *, hu rry up . We ’r e he re to r ob y ou a ndwe ’v e on ly-2-

g ot two m i n u tes so hurry up.” The Def

endant g ot behind the victim and was c hoking he r as he

wra pped her mouth, face , and nose w ith duc t ta pe. The men dr ag g ed her

to the safe and then or dere d her to o p e n th e s a f

e a n d w e r e o n e ith e r s id e o f h e r w h il e s h e w a s o n h e r k n e e s o p e n in g th e safe

. Willi a mso n g ot the sa fe op e n an d g a ve the me n the tw o ba g s insi de , whi c h c on ta ine d a pp ro xima te ly $1700.00 in cash, money

order s, and che cks.

After the victim ga ve the men t he money , the man with the mask told her to g et down on the floor and the n put the g un to h er head a nd told her not to tell any one or c all the police. The Def endant then r etrieve d her billfold c ontaining her cre dit c ards, driver’ s license, and $295.00, and told her not to tell any one bec ause the y had her persona l information and would kill her if she did. Wil liamson was sca

red for her life and, as a result, she suff ere d a hea rt attac k and wa s hospitaliz ed for f our day s. Prior to goin g t o the hospital, Wi lliamson ga ve the police a desc ription of the intruders, telling police that she notice d a scar that looked like a zipper on the D efe ndant’s wrist.

The police learned later

that day that the victim’s c redit ca rd had be en used at a g as station, and the g as st ation employ ees g ave him a de scription and location of the ca r driven by

the men using the v ic ti m’ s c r e d it c ar d

. T h e y d is c o v e r e d th a t th e c ar w a s r e g is te r e d to M a u r ic e Edding s, the Def endant’ s brother, a nd evidenc e used in this crime w as loca ted in the ca r.

The De fenda nt was ar re s ted on Novembe r 2, 2000, and c onfesse d to the crime. The De fe nd a nt t oldhim

that hi s b r o th e r

- i n

- la w p la nn e d th e ro bb e ry a ndwa s a rm e d w ith a

se mi- a uto ma tic handg un during the robbe ry and that his brother -in-law told him to duct tape the vic tim and to look for money

i n s i d e the business. He told the office r how he and his brother -in-law split the money af t ert h e r o b b er y

. T h e o ff

i ce r r ea d t h e D ef

en d an t ’s s t at em en t , s t at i n g:
Questi o n : Di d y ou participa te in the robbe ry of Dire ct I nsuranc e Company located

a t3 3 8 8 N o r t h W a t k i n s , w h i c h o c c u rr e d o n O c t o b e r 2 3
, 2 0 0 0
, a tap p r o x i m a t e l y 9 a.m.? Answer : Yes, sir. Que stion: W ho was with y ou during the robbe ry ? Answer :

. . . My brother- in-law. Question: Were y ou arme d with a wea pon? Answer : No, I

wa s n o t

. No, sir. Question: Was [ y our brother -in-law] arme d with a wea pon? Answer : Yes, sir. Que stion: W ere y ou wea ring a mask? An s wer: No, sir. . . . Question: Was [y our brother- in-law] wearing a mask? Answer : Yes, sir. Que stion: Who planned the robbe ry ? Answer : I t just happened, a rea lly bad mistake of mine. Question: WhyDirec t Insuranc e company ? Answer : I t rea lly was not just an exact

re a so n w hy

Di re c t I ns ur a nc e

. Qu e sti on : Di d y ou kn ow that Di re c t I ns ur a nc e ke pt a lot of money inside? Answer : Just I did not know that, no, sir. Question: Did y ou or [ y our brother-in-law ] know any employ ees that worke d inside? Answer : No, sir. Question: To y our knowledg e, does [y our brother -in-law] or any of y our fa milyhave insurance with Direc t? Answer : No, sir, not to myknowledg e.
The po li c e in v e s ti g a ti o n r e v e a le d th a t M a u r ic e E d d in g s h a d a b u s in e s s r e lati o n s h ip w ith D ir e ct I n s u ra n ce

. T h e D ef

en d an tal s o t o l d p o l i ce t h e f o l l o wi n g:-3-

Question: Ex plain to me i n y our own wor ds the eve nts leading up to the robbery and during the robbe ry

. Answer : I spent the night over there that night with [mybrotherin- la w] .

. . . We wa lke d – pa rk e d th e c a

r, lik e , by the c he c k c a sh ing pla c e ba sic a lly on the corner. I

walked in

. . . first, and [my brother- in-law] came in be hind me. I told the lady

to be quiet and don’t say anything a nd I attempted to put g ray

tape on her mouth. The ta

pe didn’t stick, and I attempted to w rap the tape a round her and she . . . g ot the key s and opened the saf e. [My brother- in-law] took the money out of the safe and we left. Que stion: Did y o u or [y our brother -in-law] take the lady ’s po c ke tbo ok ? An sw e r: [My br oth e r- in- la w] took it. Qu e sti on : What ki ndof ve hic le

we re y ou a nd[y ou r b ro the r- in- law] occu py ing ? An sw e r: A g ray Ca va lie r, his

m o t h er ’s car . Question: What was in the safe ? Answer : [ My brother- in-law] g rabbe d the l i t tle pouch thing and he g ot the lady ’s wallet. Que stion: How much money did y ou see afte r the robbery ? Answer : I t was like close to $2,000. Que stion: Did y ou see any chec ks in the pouch? Answer : Yes. I saw the chec ks and we threw them awa y . I think [m y brother- in-law] threw them in the tra sh at home. Que stion: Did y ou see [y our brother -in-law] with the lady ’s pocke tbook? Answer : Yes, sir.

. . . Question: W h at h ap p ened to the contents of the poc ketbook? Answer : We ha d that. I don’t know exactly what he did w ith it – he had that . . . . Question: Where did y ou g o afte r t he robbery ? Answer : To [m y brother- in-law’s] house . . . . Question: . . . What did y ou g et as a result of this robbery ? Answer : A littl e over $500. Question: Was there any one else at t he house when y ou and [y our brother -inlaw] split the m oney up? Answer : No, sir. Question: Did [y our brother -in-law] g ive

a ny of the c on te nts to M a ur ic e ? An sw e r: No t to my kn ow le dg e . A ns we r:

. . . D id y ou see Maurice the day

of the robbe ry ? Answer : No, sir. Question: What type of

we apo n d id [y ou r b ro the r- in- la w] h a ve du ri ng th e ro bb e ry ? An sw e r: I t w a s a handg un. I don’t know for sur e what kind but y ou rac k it back. It’s black. Que stion: Have y o u ev er s een [y our brother -in-law] with a g un befor e? Answer : No, sir. Qu e sti on : H a ve y ou a nd[y ou r br oth e r- in- la w] ev e r co mmi tte d an y oth e r r ob be ri e s? Answer : No, sir. . . . Question: Do y ou have any of t he money left? Answer : No, sir. I sp e nt i t a ll. I c a n’ t re c a ll wh e re . Q ue sti on : I s th e re a nythi ng e lsey ou wo uldlik e to add to this statement? Answer : Yes, sir. I rea lly wasn’t trying to h u rt an y b o d y . I know that was a

big mistake and I

am very sorry

. I f it’s possible, I ’ll g et a job and do wh a te ve r the y

sa y a ndre pla c e wh a t th e y

sa y is m iss ing . H on e stl y , I ’m no t ju st a b ad p er s o n

. Ne v erb ee n i n v o l v ed i n an y t h i n g.

The office r then testified that he took a photogr aph of the Def

endant’ s rig ht arm that showed his sca r and anothe r of the D efe ndant’s lef t arm that showed a

tattoo of his name.

The De fenda nt testified on his ow n behalf that he was arr ested while at his brother-in- law’s house and taken to a g as station and then to the police station. The Def endant a dmitted that he has previously

been a rre sted for the ft of prope rty . He sa id t h at h i s confession to the police was not truthful and denie d involvement in the robbery

.-4-

B a s e d u p o n t h i s e v i d e n c e a j u r y c o n v i c t e d t h e D e f

e n d a n t o f o n e c o u n t o f

a g g r a v a t e d r o b b e r y.

A. Se nt e nc ing He ar ing

At the Def

endant’ s sentenc ing hearing, the State told the trial court that the De fenda nt was a Rang e I , Standard Of

fend er , and then r ecommende d a sente nce of ten y ear s due to the serious nature of the c rime. Will iamson testified that she wa s still on leave from wor k at Dire ct I nsuranc e. Wil li am s o n s ai d that she re commended that the Def endant g et a se ntence longe r than ten y ear s beca use of the “ severity

of wha t he did to me, how long I ’m g oing to be under doctor’s care for the rest of my life, and on medication beca use of this. And the fac t that while he wa s on -- out on bond for what he did to me [when] he co m mitted other offe nses.” Williamson said that she is on two medications for

her he art a ttack, has to g o to phy sical thera py , and is unde r a psy chiatrist’s ca re a nd on medication for

panic attacks. She has not bee n able to wor k since this crime.

The De fenda nt’s pre- sentenc e re port showed that he had two misdemeanor matters that wer e
ex p u n ged fr o mh i s re co rd af t er h e co m p l et ed d i v er s i o n an d h e h ad b ee n , at t h e t i m e o f t h e h ea ri n g, indicted for a g g ravated burg lary

.
The De fenda nt testified and denie d any i n v o l v em ent i n this crime. He sa id that he has no prior convic tions, but di d h av e o n e char g e pending ag ainst him. On cross-e x amination, the Def endant a dmitted that he had one prior conviction for theft of pr operty

under $500.

The State a

rg ued that the tria l court should sentenc e the De fenda nt t o t en y ea rs, t wo y ear s above the presumptive mi nimum sentenc e of eig ht y ear s, due to the s everity of t he crime. The trial court he ld:

[T]h e D e f

e n d a n t i n th is c a s e is c h ar g e d w ith a g g r a v a te d r o b b e r y , a n a g g r avate d robbery in which the victim testified that s h e h as been sever ely phy sically

and

m e n t a l l y i n

j u r e d a s a r e s u l to f t h e r o b b e r y.

I hear d testimony

at g reat leng th from the victim who testified at the trial that she continues to suff

er f rom this incident, ps y cholog ical problems, under the c are of a psy chiatrist, all of that. And it’s a very serious matter. . . . [ I ]t was a very serious

a n d a v e r y a g g r a v a t e d r o b b e r y.

The intere sting thing about this cas e is that the defe ndant maintains that he didn’t do it. But I reme mber during the trial the def endant g ave a

written conf

ession to this t rial, to this case

. During the trial he sa y s he wa s coer ced, that he was f orce d to g iv e th at stat e me nt b e c a us e the y tol d h im tha t if

y ou wa nt t o g o h ome he wo uld have to g ive a state ment.

Th a t he g a ve a state me nt und e r the mis take n thou g ht that he wo uldg o h ome once he confe ssed. I t’s an inherent inconsistency quite fra nkly that a man say s “theyE f fect i ve Jul y 7, 200 5, t hi s code s ect i on no l onger provi des for a pre s umpt i ve mi ni mum. B eca us e, 1
how ever, t he D efend ant i n t hi s case was s ent enced unde r the previ o us st at ut e, we wi l l co nsi d er t hat s t at ut e i n our

an alysi s.

-5- said I could g o home, but in order to g o home I ’d have to admit that I committed an

a g g ra va te d r ob be ry .” B ut tha t’ s w ha t he sa y s.

. . . .

A ll th o s e matt e r s w il l h a v e to b e p a s s e d o n b y th e Co u r t. Ba sed upon the

severity of this case , howeve r, and looking at what the State has pr esente d I believe the Sta te ’s re c omm e ndati on of 10 y e ars , a s a Ra ng e I Sta nd ardOf

fe nd e r i s a
rea sonable offer for thi s kind of ca se. . . . I ’m g oing to se ntence the Def endant to the 10 y ear s as a Rang e I

Standard Of

fende r . . . .

II. Ana lys is

On re ma n d
, w e mus t de te rm ine wh e the r the tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d w he n it

se nte nc e d th e De fe nd a nt. Th e tr ia l c ou rt

app lie d f ive e nh a nc e me nt f

a c tor s w he n it

se nte nc e d t he Defen dan t to te n y e ars in prison. When there is a challeng e to the leng th, r ang e, or manner of service of a se ntence , it is t he duty of this court to c onduct a de novo r eview w ith a presumption that the determinations made by the tr ial cou rt are cor

re c t. T e nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 35 -4 01 (d ) ( 20 03 ). Th is p re su mpt ion is “conditioned upon the a ffirma tive showing in the rec o rd that the trial c ourt consider ed the se ntencing principles and a ll releva nt fac ts and circ umstances.” State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 19 91 ); se e Sta te v. Jone s, 88 3 S. W.2 d 5 97 , 600 (T e nn . 199 4)

. “ I f the tr ia l cou rt app lie s in app ro pr ia te fac tors or otherw ise fails to follow the 1989 Sentencing Act, the pr esumption of corr ectne ss falls.” State v. Shelton, 854 S.W .2d 116, 123 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992)

. T he Sentenc ing Commission Comments p ro v i d e t h at the burde n is on the defe ndant to show the impropriety of the sente nce. Te nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 35 -4 01 Se nte nc ing Com m’ n Cm ts.

Our re view req u i res a n analy sis of: (1) the e vidence , if any , rec eived at the trial and

se nte nc ing he ari ng ; (2) the pr e -s e nte nc e re po rt ; (3) the pr inc ipl e s o f s e nte nc ing a ndthe arg ume nts of counse l relative to sentencing alternatives; (4) the nature a nd char acte ristics of the off enses; (5) any mitigating or enhance ment fac tors; (6) any statements made by

the def endant in his own beha lf; and (7) the defe ndant’s potential for reha bilitation or trea tment. Tenn. Code Ann. § § 4 0 -3 5 -102, -103, -210 ( 2003); State v. Smit h, 735 S.W .2d 859, 863 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987)

.

I n calc ulating the sentenc e for a C lass B felony conviction, the pre sumptive sentence is the statutory minimum of eight y ear s for a Rang e I offe nder if there a re no e nhance ment or mitiga ting fac tors. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210( c) ( 2003). I f there are enhanc ement but no mitigating 1 fac tor s , th e tria l c o u r t m a y s e t th e s e n te n c e ab o v e th e mi n im u m, b u t s ti ll w ith in th e r a n g e

. T e n n. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(d). A sentenc e involving both e nhance ment and mitigating f actor s require s an assig nment of re lative weig ht f or the enhanc ement fac tors as a means of incre asing the sentenc e.-6-

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210( e). The sentenc e must then be reduc ed within the ra ng e by any weig ht assig ned to the mitigating f actor s prese nt. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-210(e ).

I n the case under submissi on, in a rriving at a mid-ra ng e sente nce of ten y ear s the trial court

app lie d th e fo llo wi ng fi ve e nh a nc e me nt f a c tor s a ndno mit ig a tin g fa c tor s:
(6 ) the De fe nd a nt tr e a te d or a llo we d a

vic tim to b e tr e a te d w ith e xce pti on a l c ru e lty du ri ng the c omm iss ion of the of fe ns e ; (9) the D efe ndant has a previous his t o ry o f unwillingness to comply with the

c on dit ion s o f a

se nte nc e inv olv ing re le a se int o th e c omm un ity ; (10) the D efe ndant possesse d o r em ploy ed a f irea rm during the commission of the of fe ns e ; (1 1) the De fe nd a nt h a d n o h e sit a tio n a bo ut c omm itt ing a

c rime w he n th e ri sk

to human life wa s high; a nd (17) the c rime wa s committed under cir cumstance s under whic h t h e p o t en tial for bo dil y inj ury to a vic tim wa s g re a t.

See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 114 (2003). The trial court did not provide any finding s of fa ct; rathe r it sim ply chec ked these fac tors as applicable on a pr e-w ritten form. As our Supreme Court has

ex p l ai n ed
, “To fa cilitate appe llate re view, the tria l court ‘must place on the re cord its re asons for

arrivi ng a t the fi na l se nte nc ing de c isi on , ide nti fy the mit ig a tin g a nde nh a nc e me nt f a c tor s f ou nd , s ta te the spec ific fa cts supporting eac h enhanc ement fac tor found, and articula te how the mitigating a nd enhanc ement fa ctors have been e valuated a nd balanc ed in determining the se ntenc e.’” State v. Poole, 945 S.W .2d 93, 96 (Tenn. 1997) (quoting State v. J ones, 883 S.W .2d 597, 601 (Tenn. 1994) );

se e a lso Sta te v. Er vin
, 93 9 S.W. 2d 58 1, 58 4 (T e nn

. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ). We c on c lud e that w e mus t revie w the De fenda nt’s sentenc e de novo be cause there is no affirmative showing in the record that the tria l c o u r t c o n d u c te d s u c h a n a n a ly s is a n d b e c a u s e w e h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t th e trial court

err oneously applied the five enhanc ement fa ctors it found applica ble and f ailed to apply

two fac tors that are applicable

. On appe al, the De fenda nt contended that the trial court e rrone ously applied ea ch of the se five

e nh a nc e me nt fa c tor s. Whe n we fi rs t re vie we d thi s c a se , we a pp lie d the Un ite d S tat es S up re me Court’s rec ent opi nion in Blake ly v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), w hich ca lled into question the c on tin uin g va lid ity

of ou r c ur re nt se nte nc ing sc he me

. I n that c a se , the Cou rt , a pp ly ing the ru le in Apprendi v. Ne w J erse y , 566 U.S. 466, 490 (2000), struck down a pr ovision of the Washington sentenc ing guide lines that permitted a tria l judge to impose an “e x ceptional se ntence ” upon the finding of ce rtain statutorily enumer ated e nhance ment fac tors. Blakely
, 542 U.S. at 304. The Court

o b s er v ed t h at “t h e ‘ s t at u t o rym ax i m u m ’ f o r A p p re n d i p u rp o s es i s t h e m ax i m u ms en t en ce a j u d ge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflecte d in the jury ve rdict o r admitted by the de fe nd an t. ” I d. at 303. Finally
, the C ourt conclude d that “eve ry defe ndant has a right

to insist that the prosec utor prove to a jury [bey ond a re asonable doubt] all fa cts leg ally essential to the punishment.” I d. at 313.-7-

When this case wa s rema nded, the Tenne ssee Supreme Court directe d us to reconside r our previous dec ision in l ight of the Court’s rec ent dec ision in S tate v. Gomez, 163 S.W.3d 632 (Tenn. 20 05 ). I n th a t c a se , th e Te nn e sse e Sup re me Cou rt c on c lud e d th a t B lake ly

do e s n ot a

pp ly to Tenne ssee’ s sentencing scheme beca use “the Tenne ssee Criminal Sentencing Reform Act does not authorize a sente ncing proce dure w hich violated the Six th Amendment right t o jury trial.” State v. Gomez, 163 S.W .3d 632, 651 n.16 (Tenn. 2005) . Acc ording ly
, pursuant to this rec ent decision, we turn to decide whether

the Def endant’ s ten-y ear

sentenc e may

stand.

The State c oncede s, and we ag ree , that four of the five e nhance ment fac tors used by the trial court to enha nce the Def

endant’ s sentence s are not applicable. T he State conte nds, howeve r, that the fifth enhance ment fac tor applied by the t rial court, enhanc ement factor ( 6), wa s proper ly applied beca use the De fenda nt trea ted or allowed a victim to be treated with exceptional crue lty during the

c omm iss ion of

the of fe ns e . T his fa c tor

is g e ne ra lly app lie d to c a se s inv olv ing abu se or tortur e . St a te

v. Willi a ms, 92 0 S.W. 2d 24 7, 25 9 (T e nn

. Cr im. Ap p. 19 95 ). B e fo re a trial cou rt may app ly

e nh a nc e me nt f

a c tor (6 ) t o in c re a se a se nte nc e , the fa c ts of the c a se mus t su pp ort a “ fi nd ing of c ru e lty

un de r the statut e ‘o ve r a nd abo ve ’ wh a t is re qu ir e d to su sta in a c on vic tio n fo r [the ] of fe ns e .” Sta te v. Arne tt, 49 S.W .3d 250, 258-59 (Te nn. 2001). Althoug h we be lieve that the victim i n this case wa s trea ted with crue lty , we do not bel ieve the f acts of this ca se support the trial c ourt’s finding of exceptional crue lty

as re quired by

enhanc ement fa ctor (6)

. Ne v er t h el ess, we find in our de novo revie w that two enha nceme nt fac tors do apply

.

Th e re c or d e vin c e s th a t th e De fe nd ant ha s o ne pr ior c on vic tio n f

or mis de me a no r the ft

. Th e re fo re , e nh a nc e me nt f a c tor (2 ), that th e Def

e nd a nt h a s a

his tory of c ri min a l c on vic tio ns in addition to those nece ssary to e stablish the rang e, does a pply . We, however , g ive that enha nceme nt fac tor litt l e weight. Additionally , we c onclude that e nhance ment fac tor (13) is applica ble. That enhanc ement fa ctor provide s that, “During the commission of a felony . . . the ac tions of the defe ndant re sulted in the . . . serious bodily injury to a victi m

. . . .” Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 114(13). “Serious bodily

injury ” includes the protrac ted loss or substantial impairment of a f unction of a bodil y o r g a n

. T e n n

. Co d e A n n

. § 3 9

- 1 1

- 1 0 6 ( 3 4 ) ( 2 0 0 3 )

. I n th e c a s e u n d e r s u b mi s s ion, the victim suffere d a h ea rt attack a s the result of this incident, and she had to spend four day s in the ho sp ita l. T he vic tim

mus t be on me dic a tio n a ndun de r a do c tor ’s c are fo r the re st o f h e r l if e . T his constitutes seriously

bodily injury so as to make applicable enhance ment fac tor (13). F urther, the re
are no applicable mitigating fac tors. The applicable rang e is eig ht to twelve y ear s, and we conclude fr om o ur de no vo re vie w tha t th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s imp os iti on of a te n- y e ar i nc arc e rativ e se nte nc e is proper in this case.

III. Conclusi on

I n acc ordanc e with the for eg oing a uthorities and re asoning , the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirme d.

________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE