### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE ATJAC KSON A ssi gne d onBrie fs May

5, 200 9 STATE OF TENNESS EE v . LIA BO NDS
D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e C rim ina l C o u rt fo r S h elb y C o u n ty N o. 05- 00926 W . M ark W ard, Judge

N o. W 2008- 02066- C C A
- R 3- C D - F i l ed F ebruary 10, 2010

Fol l ow i ng a j ur yt r i al , D efe ndant , L i a B onds , w as convi ct ed of s econd degr ee mur der , and the tri al co u rtsen tenc ed h er a s a R an g e I, stan d ard o ff en d er, to tw en tyy ea rs. D ef en d an t’ s c o n v ic tio n w a s a f

f ir m e d o n a p p e a l. St at e v. Li a B onds , No

. W2 0 0 6

- 0 1 9 4 3

- CC A- R3

- CD , 2 0 0 7 W L 3 2 5 4 7 1 1 (T en n . C ri m . A p p . , at Jac k so n , N o v . 2 , 2 0 0 7 ). T h is C o u rt , h o w ev er, vac ated D efendant ’ s s ent ence beca us e s he w as i m pr oper l ys ent ence d undert he 2005 a m e n d m e n ts to th e 1 9 8 9 S e n ten c in g A c t. O n re m a n d , D e f e n d a n t w a iv e d h e r e x p o st f a c to r i ght s t o be s ent ence d undert he 1989 S en tenc ing A ct , and the tr i al cour ts ent ence d D efe ndantundert he 2005 amendm ent s t o t w entyy ear s . O n appea l , D efe ndant ar gues t hat t h e t r i a l c o u r te rr e d i n d e t e r mi n i n g t h e l e n g t h o f h e rs e n t e n c e . Af

t e ra t h o r o u g h r e v i e w, we a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e trial c o u rt.
T enn. R . A pp. P . 3 A ppeal as of R i ght ; Judgm ent of

t he C ri m i nal C ourt A f f i rm ed
T HOMAS T. W O O D A LL , J. , deli vered t he o pini on of the C ou rt , i n w hich J. C. M C L IN and C AMI L L E R. M C M UL L EN , J J

. , j oi ned.
C l ai bo rne H

. F erguson , M em ph i s, T enn essee, for the ap pell ant, L i a B on ds.
R ober t E

. C ooper , J r . , A t t or neyG ener al and R epor t er ; D avi d H

. Fi ndl ey , 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 ; an d C hr i s Scruggs , A s s i s t ant D i s t r i ctA t t or neyG ener al , fort he appe l l ee, t he St at e of Tennes s ee. OP I NI ON
I . Backg r ound-2-

T h e f a c ts s u p p o r ti n g D e f

e n d a n t’ s c o n v ic ti o n o f

s e c o n d d e g re e m u rd e r w e re p re v io u sly setfort h b yt his C ou rton app eal as fol l ow s:

In O c to b e r o f

2 0 0 4 , th e v ictim , A sh ley W e b ste r, w a s n in e tee n y e a rs o ld and l i ved w i t h herboy fr i end , R ic o A l l en i n an apa r t m entat1852 K el t ner St r e e t i n M e mph i s . Be f o r e M r . Al l e n s t a r t e d d a t i n g t h e v i c t i m, h e w as i n a ro m a n tic re la ti o n s h ip w it h [ D e f e n d a n t] . T h e r e la ti o n s h ip b e tw e e n [ D e f e n d a n t] and M r . A l l en cont i nued w hi l e M r . A l l en w as l i vi n g w it h and dat i ng t he vict im

. A t s om e poi nt , t he vi ct i m beca m e aw ar e of the cont i nui ng natur e of t he re l at i ons hi p betw een [D efe ndant ] and M r . A l l en. T he tw o w om en s t ar t ed “comm uni cat i ng” w i t h eac h ot heri n a hos t i l e manner , inclu d ing maki ng th re a ten in g p h o n e c a lls to e a c h o th e r. [ D e f e n d a n t] h a d e v e n g o n e so f a r a s to acc us e M r . A l l en of bur gl ar i zi ng her hom e, and M r . A l l en w as arr es t ed bas ed o n [ D e f e n d a n t] ’ s c laim s to p o lice . T h e a c c u sa tio n s e v e n tu a llyre su lted in d ism iss e d c h a rg e s. W h il e M r . A llen w a s in jail o n th e c h a rg e s, [ D e f e n d a n t] l efta copyof M r . A l l en’ s “r ap shee t ” on t he vi ct i m ’ s carw i nds hi el d w i t h t he w o rd s, “ stu p id b itch y o u [ sic ] n e x t” w ritten o n it.
O n t he morni ng of O ct ober28, 2004, M r . A l len w oke up and l eftt he ap artm en t w h il e the v ict im w as st il l sleep ing

. A fter l ea v ing the a p artm en t, M r. A l l en w entt o hang outata fr i end’ s hous e. [D efe ndant ] ’ s carpul l ed up out s i de t he fr i end’ s hous e. W hen [D efe ndant ] par ked, s he not i ced t hat M r . A l l en had t he vi ct i m ’ s car . A t t hat t i m e, [D efe ndant ] and M r . A l l en w er e i nvol ved i n a pat erni t y di s put e r egar di ng [D efe ndant ] ’ s s on. D es pi t e t he d isput e, [D efe ndant ] w ant ed t o fi nd outi f M r . A l l en pl anned on goi ng t o t he hos pi t al t o s ee her s on, w ho w as havi ng s ur gery that day

. W hen M r . A ll en i nfor m ed [ D e f e n d a n t] th a t h e w o u ld n o t b e g o in g to th e h o sp ital, [ D e f e n d a n t] lef

t. A c c o rd in g to [ D e f

e n d a n t] , M r . A llen h a d p re v io u slyto ld h e r th a t h e w o u ld come t o t he hos pi t al

. [D efe ndant ] w as “mad” and fe l t“i nt i m at ed .

. . as w el l as jealou s” w h en sh e d isco v ere d that M r. A ll en w as d ri v ing the v ic tim ’s ca r. A ccor di ng t o [D efe ndant ] , M r . A l l en t ol d her t hat“the r el at i ons hi p betw een h im a n d h e r [ th e v ic tim ] w a s o v e r a n d ... th a t th e yn o lo n g e r c o m m u n ic a te d .”
S om et i m e l at er that d ay , [D efen dan t ] w ent over t o the vi ct i m ’s ho use t o “l etherknow t hat [s he] had j us tbeen w i t h herm an. ” [D efe ndant ] knocked o n th e d o o r, an d th e v ictim a sk e d w h o w a s a t th e d o o r. W h e n [ D e f e n d a n t] d id notr es pond, t he vi ct i m opened the door

. [D efe ndant ] t ol d t h e vi ct i m “y our n ig g a ’ g o in g to g e t y o u r w in d o w s b u ste d o u t y o u r c a r.” A c c o r d in g to [D efe ndant ] , w ho t es t i fi ed att r i al , t he vi ct i m t r i ed t o pus h [D efe ndant ] outof th e h o u s e .-3- [ D e f e n d a n t] w o u ld n o t lea v e so th e v ictim h it [D e f e n d a n t] w ith s om ethin g sh e w as hol di ng i n herhand, pos s i bl ya ce l l phone. T he w om en
“ b e g a n to f

ig h t, ” th e n th e v ictim w e n t to th e k itch e n . [D e f e n d a n t] w a s s til l s t andi ng i n t he l i vi ng r oom at t he t i m e. T he l i vi ng r oom w as cl os ert o t he fr ont doort han the ki t chen. [D efe ndant ] coul d h av e ret r eat ed thr ough t he fr ont door , butw as afr ai d t hatt he vi ct i m w oul d have “ pr ocee ded behi nd” heroutof th e f ro n t d o o r. O n ce in the k it ch en , the v ict im rea ch ed fo r a p air of scisso rs t hatw er e l ocat ed i n t he but cherbl ock kni fe hol der on t he ki t chen count er . T he e n tire k n if

e b lo c k f e ll to th e f

lo o r, s c a tterin g k n iv e s e v e ry w h e re . T h e v ictim began t o s t ab and c ut[D efe ndant ] w i t h the s ci s s or s , fi r s ton t he ar m s and then on herhead.
A tsom e po i nt duri ng t h e fi gh t , t he v i ct i m dropp ed the sci ssor s. [D efe ndant ] gr abbed the “c l os es tkni fe” w hi ch “ha ppened to be the but cher kni fe” t hatw as appr oxi m at el yei ghti nches l ong. T he w om en w er e fi ght i ng f a c e to f a c e , h o ld in g e a c h o th e r b y th e h a ir. [D e f e n d a n t] tried to sta b th e v ictim i n a “s pott o w her e [she ] fel tw oul d notbe detr i m ent al t o herl i fe, ” butagr eed a t trial th a t sta b b in g so m e o n e w ith a n e ig h t-in c h b u tch e r k n if e c o u ld re su lt i n death. [D efe ndant ] s t abbed t he vi ct i m w i t h “tw o veryqui ck j abs ” i n t he r i ght s i de of t he vi ct i m ’ s neck, “notw i t h exce s s i ve for ce butj us tenough t o cuther so th a t sh e c a n let m e g o .” T h e v icti m le t g o o f [ D e f e n d a n t]. [D e f

e n d a n t] tu rn e d a ro u n d a n d ra n o u t o f th e h o u se , tak in g th e k n if e w ith h e r. [ D e f

e n d a n t] wa s c u ts e v e r a l t i me s a n d h a d a b i t e ma r k on t h e i n s i d e o f h e rr i g h ta r m, oppos i t e herel bow

. [D efe ndant ] deni ed that i t came aboutbeca us e s he had he r a rm a ro u n d th e v ictim ’s n e c k . W h e n sh e lef t th e v ic tim ’s a p a rtm e n t, [D efen dan t ] w ent s t rai gh tho m e and t hrew t he k nife i n the bush es.
D ar i an H ow ery , a s ani t at i on engi nee r w i t h W as t e M anage m ent , w as pi cki ng up t r as h at t he vi ct i m ’ s apart m ent compl ex t hat s ame da y . B etw een 10 a. m . and noon, he s aw [D efe ndant ] , ar m ed w i t h a but cherkni fe, run aw ayfr om an apa r t m entand geti nt o a ca r . [D efe ndant ] had bl ood dr i ppi ng dow n her neck. M r . H ow eryt hen s aw a bodyl y i ng in the g rass. H e not i fi ed the apart m entm anage r , w ho cal l ed the pol i ce. W hen [D efe ndant ] arr i ved at h er h o us e, s he ca l l ed the pol i ce t o get m edi cal car e forherw ou n d s an d repor tt hats he had be en as s aul t ed byt he v ictim . S h e f

e lt th a t ca lli n g th e p o lice w o u ld b e f a ste r th a n d riv in g h e rse lf to t he hos pi t al

. W hen O ffi cer D i onni e S m i t h arr i ved at[D efe ndant ] ’ s apart m ent i n r es pons e t o her r epor t of as s aul t , [D efe ndant ] t ol d hi m t hats he w as out s i de a s t or e and w as at t acke d bythe vi ct i m , w ho w as ar m ed w i t h a kni fe.-4-

[D efe ndant ] di d notappea r t o be i n any ki nd of m or t al danger , des pi t e havi ng s ever al cut s and s cr at ches on herneck a nd ar m s . [D efe ndant ] i nfor m ed the offi cert hats he got t he kni fe aw ay fr om t he vi ct i m , s w ung ather , t hen dr ove hom e t o cal l t he pol i ce. Fur t heri nves t i gat i on byt he offi cer r evea l ed t hatt her e w as no s t or e at t he s t r eetaddr es s gi ven by[D efe ndant ]

. O ffi cerSm i t h al s o learn ed t hatt he vi ct i m w as found dead out s i de her apart m ent

. [D efe ndant ] w as arr es t ed and take n fo r m ed ical tr ea tm en t, b u t w as no t n o ti fied at t h at t im e a b o u t th e v ict im ’s death.
In v e stig a to r L e z ley C u rrin m e t w ith [ D e f e n d a n t] a f

te r h e r a rre st. [D efe ndant ] i ni t i al l yr epea t ed the s t or ys he t ol d t o O ffi cerSm i t h, t hats he w as as s aul t ed byt he vi ct i m w i t h a box cutt erorkni fe out s i de a gr ocerys t or e. W hen I nves t i gat orC ur r i n i nfor m ed [D efe ndant ] t hatt he vi cti m w as dead, [ De f e n d a n t ] b r o k e d o wn a n d s t a t e d t h a ts h e d i d n o tm e a n t o k i l l t h e v i c t i m. [D efe ndant ] i ns i s t ed thats he w ent t o [t he vi ct i m ] ’ s hous e t o m ake he rm ad and t hatt he vi ct i m as ked hert o l eave , but[D efe ndant ] for ced he rw ayi ns i de the apart m ent

. O nce i ns i de the apa r t m ent , [D efe ndant ] t ol d pol i ce thatt he w om en began f i ght i ng, w i t h t he vi ct i m s t r i ki ng t he fi r s t bl ow . [D efe ndant ] m ai nt ai ned that they en d ed u p in the k it ch en w h ere the v ict im g rab b ed a p air of scisso rs and bega n s t abbi ng heri n t he bac k, h ea d , an d ar m s . [D efe ndant ] s t at ed that th e w o m e n w e re f

ig h tin g f a c e to f a c e w h e n [ D e f

e n d a n t] p ick e d u p a k n if e w ith herr i ghthand and s t abbed the vi ct i m t w i ce i n t he r i ghts i de of the nec k.
O ff icer C h arles C athe y p ro c e ssed the c ri m e sc en e a t th e v ict im ’s apart m ent

. H e l ocat ed bl ood on t he por ch s t eps and not iced thatt he l i vi ng r oom w as i n di s ar r ay , s ugges t i ng t hata s t ruggl e had t aken pl ace . T her e w as bl ood al l overt he l i vi ng r oom fur ni tur e, as w el l as on t he fl oorand ce i l i ng of t he ki t chen. T he but cher bl ock kni fe hol der w as on t he fl oor . A l t hough i thad s pace s forfour t een i m pl ement s , t her e w ere o n ly sev en kni ves and a pa i rof scisso rs i n the k it ch e n a t th e tim e. T h e b loo d tr ail led f rom the v ict im ’s apart m entt o anotherapart m ent

. B l ood w as al s o found i n [D efe ndant ] ’ s caron t he dr i ver ’ s s eat , as w el l as on t he bumper and bac k li g h t. T h e b l ood on t he s ci s s or s bel onged t o bot h [D efe ndant ] and the vi ct i m , how evert he bl ood on t h e k n i f e b e l o n g e d o n l yt o t h e v i c t i m.
T he vi ct i m di ed as a r es ul tof a tw o- t r ack s t ab w ound i n herneck. T he w ound w as a l i t t l e l ongert han t w o i nches i n l ength and w as aboutfi ve i nches deep. T he v ict i m al s o had cut s on bot h of herhands , w hi ch w er e cons i s t ent-5-

w ith try in g to g ra b th e k n if e d u rin g th e a ttac k

. T h e n e c k w o u n d s s e v e re d b o th t he ca r ot i d ar tery an d t he j ugul arvei n and punctur ed the vi ct i m ’ s r i ghtl ung. T he vi ct i m bl ed t o death, butcoul d have r emai ned consc i ous for a few m i nut es aft ers he w as s t abbed.
L ia B o n d s, 2 0 0 7 W L 3 2 5 4 7 1 1 , at *1 -3 (f o o tno tes o m itted).
I I . Se nt e nc i ng H e ar i ng O n rem and , t he p art i es re li ed o n the evi den ce present ed at D efen dan t ’s fi rs t se n te n c in g h e a rin g a n d o f f e re d n o n e w e v id e n c e . A t th e f irst se n ten c in g h e a rin g , E rin W ebst er, t he v i ct i m ’s si st er, descri bed t h e e f f e c t of t he v i ct i m ’s death on t he fa m i l y . M s. W ebs t ers t at ed t hat s he bel i eved t hatD efe ndantfel tno r emors e forheract i ons . She s ai d t hat D efen dan tnev er apo l og i zed t o the fam i l y and descri bed D efen dan t as “heart l ess. ” O n crosse x a m in a tio n , M s. W e b ste r a c k n o w led g e d th a t sh e k n e w a b o u t th e c o n f li ctbetw een th e v ictim and D efe ndant , and thatbot h w om en, as w el l as M r . A l l en, coul d have s t opped the es cal at i on o f th e h o stilityb e tw e e n th e v ictim a n d D e f e n d a n t.
D efe nd ant t es t i fi ed on herow n behal f. D efe ndants ai d t hats he w as t w enty - s even y ear s ol d att he t i m e of t he sent enci ng hear i ng. D efe ndant gr aduat ed fr om hi gh s chool and obt ai ned a da t a entr ycert i fi cat e fr om L emoy ne- O w en C ol l ege. D efe ndants t at ed thats i nce heri ncar cer at i on, s he had pa rt i ci pat ed i n num er ous per s onal devel opm entcour s es offe r ed t hr ough t he Shel byC ount yJ ai l

. D efe ndant s ai d t hat s he had never been arr es t ed pr i ort o t he c u rr e n t o f

f e n s e a n d h a d n o p ri o r c ri m in a l h is to ry.
D efe ndantacknow l edged t hat s he w as r es pons i bl e for t he vi ct i m ’ s death and s t at ed t hats he w as “verys or r ow ful and r emors eful ” fort he off ens e. D efe ndants ai d t hats he had “t i m e and t i m e aga i n w ant ed t o apol ogi ze t o t he fam i l y , but [s he] di d n[o] t w antt hatt o pl ay and af fec t ” the ca s e. D efe ndants t at ed thats he under s t ood t hatt he vi ct i m ’ s l i fe w as overand s ai d t hats he “ne veri nt ended on a ny t hi ng [l i ke] t hi s t o happen. ” D efe ndants t at ed:

a n d rig h t n o w , b e c a u se o f th e o p p o rtu n ityth a t is p re se n ted , I w o u ld lik e to apol ogi ze t o t he fa m i l y , even though I know t hat an apol ogy i n i t s el f w oul d not bri ng y ou r s i st er back, bu tI am verym uch so sorr o w ful. I am verym uch so r emors eful fort he t hi ngs t hathave ha ppened. I am very m uch so r emors eful for t he t hi n g s t h a tmyc h i l d r e n a s wel l wi l l h a v e t o b e a f f e c t e d b yt h i s . I am v e ry m u c h s o re m o rs e f

u l f o r t h e f e e lin g s th a t m y f

a m ily h a s to g o th ro u g h

. I d o n ’ tk n o w h o n e s t l y t h e g r i e f t h a tc o u l d , yo u k n o w , h a v e t a k e n i n yo u rf a m i l y, butI can onl yi m agi ne. A nd I hope t hat t he r es ol vi ng of t hi s cas e w oul d be a s t eppi ng s t one t o cl os ur e t hatw e al l need.-6-

A c c o rd in g to th e p re se n ten c e re p o rt, D e f e n d a n t w a s e m p lo y e d b yth e M e m p h is C ity S cho ols as a l i ne server fr om January20 01 un t i l M ay28 , 20 04 , w hen she res i gn ed. S he als o r epor t ed w or ki ng forappr oxi m at el yt hr ee m ont hs forPay l es s Shoe Sour ce i n 2004. D e f e n d a n t h a s tw o y o u n g so n s w h o c u rre n tlyre sid e w ith D e f e n d a n t’s m o th e r a n d a u n t. D efe ndants t at ed i n t he r epor tt hats he bega n cons um i ng al cohol and us i ng pow dercoca i ne and mar i j uana i n 1995. D efe ndantr epor t ed us i ng coca i ne and m ar i j uana e veryday , buts he s ai d t h at s h e st opped us i ng al cohol and coc ai ne i n 2003 w hen s he bec ame pr egnant

. She s t opped us i ng m ar i

j uana i n 2004 w hen s he w as i ncar cer at ed on the curr entoffe ns e.
D efe ndantpr ovi ded the fol l ow i ng w r i t t en s t at ement dur ing t he pr epar at i on of t he p re se n ten c e re p o rt:
I am gui l t yof a l otof t hing s, 1 ) b eing a w om an w ho al l ow ed the emot i onal a sp e c t o f a re latio n sh ip to b lo c k m yb e tter ju d g m e n t in c h o ice s th a t w e re tru ly avoi dabl e. 2) Pl aci ng m y s el f and s om eone el s e i n har m ’ s w ay es peci al l y t o t he ext entt hatI w as i n j eopar dyof m yl i fe [a n d ] t he other ’ s l i fe w as uni nt ent i onal l yt aken. I am deepl y s or r ow ful for m y act i ons [and] i f t her e w as anyt hi ng t hat coul d do t o t ake t hi s back, I w oul d even at t he t i m e – s acr i fi ci ng m yow n life. T his i s som et hing un do ub t edlyt hat I w i l l l i ve w i t h fo r the rest o f m ylife , [a n d ] m ye m o tio n a l sta b ili tyis m o st im p o rta n t, i n jail o r o u t o f jail. U pon m yr el eas e, I w i l l s t i l l need c ouns el i ng, j ai l i s nei t herheal t hy[n] or t her ap[e ] ut i c form e atal l [and] t her e ar e s t i l l t oday emot i onal i ns t abi l i t i es t hat I u n f o rtu n a telyh a v e e n d u re d . I n e e d c o u n se lin g [ a n d ] m o st im p o rta n tly c lo su re to b e g [ i]n th e h e a lin g p ro c e ss o f th is e v e n t!
O n cro ss-ex am ination , D ef en d an t ac k n o w ledg ed that sh e w en t to th e v ict im ’s apart m entt hatdayt o m ake he rangry , but s he deni ed t hat s he knew heract i ons w oul d l ead to a f igh t. D ef en d an t sai d , h o w ev er, that sh e “n ev er de sp ised [th e victi m ] to th e ex tent w h ere [ s h e ] wa n t e d t o p h y s i c a l l yh u r th e r . ” De f e n d a n ta c k n o wl e d g e d t h a tt h e r e s u l to f a DNA anal y s i s t o es t abl i s h t he pat er ni t y of one of her chi l dr en w as out s t andi ng at t he t i m e o f the offe ns e, and D efe ndantbel i eved i tw as pos s i bl e thatM r . A l l en w as t he fatherof t he chi l d. D efen dan tst at ed thatshe did no tkn ow w hen t he resul t s w ou l d b e rel eased, and i tw as j ust a “c oi nci dence ” thatM r . A l l en w as i nfor m ed of t he D N A r es ul t s on t he dayt he vi ct i m di ed. D efe ndantdeni ed thats he w as ups ett hat M r . A l l en w as l i vi ng w i t h t he vi ct i m w hi l e dat i ng D efe ndant , but s he t hen ac know l edged thatt he hos t i l i t ybetw een the tw o w om en “s t emm ed fr om t he r el at i ons hi p w i t h M r . A l l en. ” D efe ndants ai d t hats he w oul d have s t ay ed w i t h t he vi ct i m i f s he had know n t he vi ct i m w as m or t al l y w ounded. D efe ndant s ai d t hats he had be en s t abbed ni ne t i m es , and D efe ndantdid nott hi nk the vi ct i m ’ s w ound w as “thatext ens i ve” becau se she w as only“st abb ed o ne ti m e. ” D efen dan tackn ow l edg ed thatt here w as a-7-

di ffe r ence betw een be i ng s t abbed w i t h s ci s s or s and bei ng s t abbed w i t h a but cherkni fe, but s h e in s is te d th a t s h e “ d id n o t u s e e x te n s iv e f o rc e o n [ th e v ic tim ].”
A tt he f ir st se n tenci ng hear i ng, t he tr i al cour tfound as an enha ncementfac t ort hat D efe ndant“us ed a deadl y w eapon dur i ng t he com m i s s i on of t he off ens e. ” T. C

. A

. § 40- 35- 114( 9)

. A s m i t i gat i ng fac t or s , t he t r i al cour t found t hat D efe ndant as s i s t ed the i nves t i gat i ng o f f ice rs w ith th e lo c a tio n o f p ro p e rty in v o lv e d in th e o f f e n se , b u t a ss ig n e d lit tle w e ig h t to th is fact or. Id. § 4 0-35-11 3(10). T he tr i a l c o u rt f ou nd t hat “D efen dan tcom m i t t ed the offe nse unders uch unus ual ci r cumst ance s t hat i t i s unl i kel yt hata s us t ai ned i nt entt o vi ol at e the l aw m o ti v ated [h er] crim inal c o n d u c t.” Id

. § 4 0 -35 -11 3 (11 ). T h e tri al co u rtstat ed , h o w ev er, “U ndert hatone, I ’ m gi vi ng a l i t t l e bi tof w eightt o t hati n t he s ens e thatI don’ tt hi nk s he r eal l yt houghtt her e w as goi ng t o be a death i nvol ved i n t hi s par t i cul ar s i tuat i on. ” T he tr i al c o u r tg a v e “ a g r e a td e a l o f we i g h t ” t o De f

e n d a n t ’ s l a c k o f

a p r i o rc r i mi n a l h i s t o r ya n d “ s o me w eigh t” t o D ef

en d an t’ s p arti cipa ti o n in the classe s o ff ere d at t h e jail

. Id. § 4 0 -35 -11 3 (13 ). T he tr i al cour tfound: [w ] hatI ’ m i m pr es s ed aboutfr om t he fac t s of t hi s par t i cul arcas e i s t hat– and I gues s I can f

i nd t hi s as a pre ponder ance of evi dence – t hat y ourcl i entw ent overt o this l ady ’ s hous e, for ced he r s el f i n. C oul d have be en convi ct ed of fel onym ur deras faras I ’ m conce r ned, m ur deri n t he perpetr at i on of a b u rg lar y . B y b re a k in g in to h e r ho m e b a sic a lly , sh e e sc a late d th is risk , an d a ll [t he vi ct i m ] di d, i ts eemed t o m e w as defe nd her s el f i n herow n hom e, and [the vi ct i m] g o t t h e wor s t o f i t , b e c a u s e s h e d i d n ’ t h a v e a s b i g a wea p o n as t he defe ndanthad.
T he t r i al cour tal s o found t hatD efe ndant ’ s s t at ement s of r emors e w er e notcr edi bl e. T h e tri al co u rt fo u n d that D ef en d an t ap p ea red to be say ing w h at sh e be li e v e d th e co u rt w ant ed t o hear

. T he t r i al cour ts ai d, “I don’ tfi nd t hats he’ s par t i cul ar l yr emors eful about w h a t h a p p e n e d , o th e r th a n th e p a rticu lar c irc u m sta n c e s th a t sh e f in d s h e rse lf

in a s a re su lt of t hi s . ” The t r i al cour tadded: [b] utbe t hatas i tm ay , w ei ghi ng t he one e nhance m entfac t oragai ns tt he var i ous i t ems of mi t i gat i on t hat I pr evi ous l y di s cus s ed, I s t i l l t hi nk t hatunder th e c irc u m sta n c e s o f

th is p a rticu lar c a se th a t an a p p ro p ria te p u n ish m e n t, cons i der i ng every t hi ng, i ncl udi ng the s ent enci ng pr i nci pl es t hatw e t al ked about , w oul d be t w entyy ear s i ncar cer at i on. O n rem and , t he tr i al cou rtrel i ed o n the e v id e nce p res ented atD efen dan t ’s fi rs t sen tenc ing h ea ri n g an d it s p rev iou s fin d ing s, an d ag ain sen tenc ed D ef en d an t to tw en tyy ea rs as a R an g e I, st an d ard o ff en d er.-8-

I I I . St andard of R evi ew E ffe ct i v e J u n e 7 , 2 0 0 5 , o u rl e g i s l a tu r e a me n d e d s e v e r a l p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e 1 989 Sent enc ing A ct in r es pons e t o t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tcas e of Bl akel yv. W as hi ngt on, 542 U

. S. 296, 124 S. C t

. 2531 ( 2004)

. See e. g. , T

. C

. A

. § 40- 35- 210, Sent enci ng C o m m ’n C m ts. T h e a m e n d m e n ts p ro v id e d , am o n g o th e r th in g s , th a t th e yb e a p p lied to defe ndant s w ho comm i t t ed a c r i m i nal offe ns e on oraft erJ une 7, 2005. See i d. T he amendm ent s fur t herpr ovi ded thata def endantw ho w as sen t ence d aft erJ une 7, 2005, for offe ns es comm i t t ed on or aft er J ul y 1, 1982, m ay el ect t o be s ent ence d undert he amended pr ovi s i ons of t he A ctbyexec ut i ng a w ai verof ex pos tfac t o pr ot ect i ons . See i d. D efe ndant comm i t t ed the offe ns e i n O ct ober 2004 but w as s ent ence d aft ert he ef fec t i ve dat e of the 2005 a m e n d m e n ts. A f

ter re m a n d , D e f

e n d a n t ex e c u ted a w ritte n w a iv e r o f h e r e x p o st f

a c to p ro tec tio n s a n d th u s e lec ted to b e se n ten c e d u n d e r th e 1 9 8 9 S e n ten c in g A c t as a m e n d e d in 2005. A ccor di ngl y , unl es s ot herw i s e not ed, t he s t atut es ci t ed i n t hi s opi ni on ar e thos e that w er e i n eff

ectatt he t i m e t hatD efe ndantw as s ent ence d.
O n appea l , t he par t ychal l engi ng t he s ent ence i m pos ed byt he tr i al cour thas t he bur den o f e stab li sh ing that the s en tenc e is im p rop er. Se e T

. C

. A

. § 4 0 -35 -40 1 , S en tenc ing C o m m ’n C om m ent s ; s ee a l s o St at e v. A r net t , 49 S. W

. 3d 250, 257 ( T enn. 2001)

. W hen a defe ndant ch all en g es th e len g th, r an g e, or m an n er o f se rvice o f a sen tenc e, it is the du ty o f th is C o u rt t o conduct a de novo r evi ew on t he r ecor d w i t h a pr es um pt i on t hatt he det er m i nat i ons m ade b yth e c o u rt f

ro m w h ich th e a p p e a l is ta k e n a re c o rre c t. T .C .A . § 4 0 -3 5 -4 0 1 (d ). T h is pr es um pt i on of corr ect i on, how ever , “‘ i s condi t i oned upon the af fi r m at ive sh o w ing i n t he r ecor d t hatt he t r i al cour tcons i der ed the s ent enci ng pr i nci p les and a l l r el evantfac t s and ci r cumst ance s . ’ ” St at e v. C ar t er , 254 S. W

. 3d 335, 344- 45 ( T enn. 2008) ( quot i ng St at e v. A sh b y , 8 2 3 S .W .2 d 1 6 6 (T e n n . 1 9 9 1 )). “ If , h o w e v e r, th e trial c o u rt a p p lies in a p p ro p ria te m i t i gat i ng and/ orenhanc ement fac t or s orot herw i s e fa i l s t o fol l ow t he S ent enci ng A ct , t he pr es um p ti o n o f cor r ectnes s fai l s , ” and ourr evi ew i s de novo. C ar t er , 254 S. W

. 3d at345 ( quot i ng St at e v. Shel t on, 854 S. W

. 2d 116, 123 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1992) ; St at e v. Pi er ce, 138 S

. W

. 3 d 8 2 0 , 8 2 7 (T en n . 2 0 0 4 )).
A t r i al cour ti s m andat ed byt he Sent enci ng A ctt o “i m pos e a s ent ence w i t hi n t he r ange of puni s hm ent

. ” T. C

. A

. § 40- 35- 210( c)

. A t r i al cour t , how ever , “i s no l ongerr equi r ed to b eg in w i t h a pr es um pt i ve s ent ence s ubj ectt o i ncr eas e and de cr eas e on the bas i s of e n h a n c e m e n t an d m iti g a tin g f a c to rs.” C a rte r, 2 5 4 S .W .3 d a t 3 4 6 . T h e re f o re , an a p p e llate cour ti s “bound bya tr i al cour t ’ s deci s i on as t o t he l ength of t he s ent ence impose d s o l ong as i ti s i m pos ed i n a mannercons i s t entw i t h t he purpos es and pr i nci pl es s etouti n s ect i ons

- 102 and - 103 of t he Sent enci ng A ct

. ” I d.-9-

In cond ucti ng a de n ov o revi ew of a sen t enc e , th is C o u rt , l i ke the t ri al cou rt , m ust cons i der ( a) t he evi dence adduce d att he tr i al and the s ent enci ng hear i ng; ( b) t he pr es ent ence r epor t ; ( c) 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 ernat i ves ; ( d) t he natur e and c har act er i s t i cs of t he cr i m i nal conducti nvol ved; ( e) evi dence and i nfor m ati on offe r ed byt he part i es on t he enha ncementand mi t i gat i ng fac t or s s etfor t h i n T ennes s ee Code A nnot at ed sec t i ons 40- 35- 113 and 40-35- 114; ( f) anys t at i s t i cal i nfor m at i on pr ovi ded byt he A dm i ni s tr a t i ve O ff

i ce of t he C ou rt s as t o T enn essee s entenci ng pract i ces for si m i l ar offenses; and ( g) anys t at ement t he def endantw i s hes t o m ake i n t he def endant ’ s ow n behal f about s ent enci ng. T

. C

. A

. § 40- 35- 210( b) ; s ee al s o C ar t er , 254 S. W

. 3d at343; St at e v. I m fel d, 70 S

. W

. 3 d 6 9 8 , 7 0 4 (T en n . 2 0 0 2 ).
IV . A n a ly sis
D ef en d an t w as c o n v ict ed o f se co n d d eg ree m u rde r, a C lass A fe lon y . A s a R an g e I, s t andar d offe nder , D efe ndantw as s ubj ectt o a s ent ence of betw een fi ft een and t w entyfi ve y e a rs. T .C .A . § 4 0 -3 5 -1 1 2 (a )(1 ). D e f e n d a n t a c k n o w led g e s tha t u n d e r th e 2 0 0 5 a m e n d m e n ts t o t he Sent enci ng A ct , t he w ei ghi ng of t he var i ous m i t i gat i ng and enha ncementfac t or s i s l eft t o the tr i al cou rt ’s soun d d i scr et i on . S ee T enn . P ub

. A ct s ch. 35 3 § § 8 , 9. D efen dan targues, how ever , t hata s ent ence of t w entyy ear s , bas ed on the pr es ence of fourm i t i gat i ng fac t or s and one enha ncementfac t or , i s exce s s i ve and c ont r aryt o t he purpos e and pr i nci pl es of t he S e n ten c in g A c t. D e f

e n d a n t su b m its th a t b a se d o n h e r lac k o f c rim in a l h isto ry , h e r a ttem p ts t o r ehabi l i t at e her s el f i n j ai l , and the otherm i t i gat i ng fac t or s found byt he tr i al cour t , s he sh o u ld b e se n ten c e d to a m it ig a te d se n ten c e o f th irtee n a n d o n e -h a lf

y e a rs o r, at th e m o st, fi ft een y ears . D efe ndantci t es St at e v . G u ti err ez, 5 S. W

. 3d 641 ( T enn. 1999) as s uppor tforher cont ent i on t hat her s ent ence s houl d be r educe d. I n G ut i err ez, t he defe ndantw as convi ct ed of vol unt ar ym ans l aught erfol l ow i ng t he s hoot i ng death of hi s l i ve- i n gi r l fr i en d d u r i ng an ar gum ent

. I d. at643. D efe ndant w as s ent ence d as a R ange I , s t andar d offe nder , undert he 19 89 S entenci ng A ct , t o si x y ears , or t he m axim um i n the se n tenci ng range fo r a C l ass C fel onybas ed on the pr es ence of t w o enhanc ement fac t or s and one mi t i gat i ng fac t or s . I d. at 6 4 4

. U pon r evi ew , t he s upr eme cour tfound t hatt he r ecor d w as i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor tone of t h e e n h a n c e me n tf

a c t o r s . I d

. a t6 4 6

. Ba s e d o n t h e o n e r e ma i n i n g e n h a n c e me n tf a c t or
“ a n d th e m iti g a tin g f

a c to rs th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t d id n o t h a v e a c rim in a l h isto rya n d w a s w e ll r e g a r d e d i n h i s c o mmun i t y , ” t h e s u p r e me c o u r t mod i f i e d t h e d e f

e n d a n t ’ s s e n t e n c e t o four y ear s . I d. at647.-10-

A r e v i e wi n g c o u r t s t i l l r e t a i n s t h e a u t h o r i t yu n d e rt h e 2 0 0 5 a me n d me n t s t o “ a f f i r m, red u ce , v ac ate o r set aside the sen tenc e im p o sed ” in ca se o f erro r. T

. C

. A

. § 4 0 -35 -40 1 (c). H ow ever , t he 2005 amendm ent s t o t he S ent enci ng A ct i nt r oduced si gni fi cant change s t o t he s e n t e n c i n g p r o c e s s wh i c h we r e n o t p r e s e n t wh e n Gu t i e r r e z wa s d e c i d e d

. A s ou r s up r e me cour texpl ai ned: [p] r i ort o 2005, t h e S en tenci ng A cts etfor t h a “pr es um pt i ve s ent ence ” t o be i m pos ed w i t hi n t he appl i cabl e r ange: t he mi ni m um s ent ence f o ral l fel oni es othert han C l ass A fel on i es, and t he m i dp oin t sen t ence f or C l ass A fel on i es. T .C .A . § 4 0 -3 5 -2 1 0 (c ) (2 0 0 3 ). T h u s, in im p o sin g a sp e c if ic se n ten c e w ith in a g iv e n ra n g e , th e tr ia l c o u rt b e g a n w ith th e p re s u m p tiv e s e n te n c e . S e e id .; S tate v . G o m e z , 2 3 9 S .W .3 d 7 3 3 , 7 3 9 (T e n n . 2 0 0 7 ) (“ A se n ten c in g c o u rt c o u ld noti ncr eas e a de fenda nt ’ s s ent ence above the pr es um pt i ve s ent ence exce pt u p o n the a p p li ca ti o n o f statuto ry e n h a n ce m en t fac tors. ”). I f th e tri al co u rt det er m i ned t hat s t atut or y enhanc ement fac t or s appl i ed, s ee [T. C

. A

. ] § 40- 35- 114 ( 2003) , t he tr i al cour thad the author i t yt o i ncr eas e the pr es um pt i ve s ent ence up t o t he m axi m um w i t hi n t he r ange, s ee i d. § 40- 35- 210( d)

. I f t he tr ia l c o u rtd e te rm i n e d th a t s ta tu to ry m itig a tin g f a c to rs a ls o a p p lie d , s e e id . § 40- 35- 113, t he t r i al cour tcoul d r educe t he enhanc ed s ent ence , s ee i d. § 40- 35- 2 1 0 ( e ) ( “ S h o u l d t h e r e b e e n h a n c e me n ta n d mi t i g a t i n g f a c t o r s f o ra Cl a s s B, C, D o rE fel ony , t he courtm us ts t ar tatt he mi ni m um s ent ence i n t he r ange, enhanc e the s ent ence w i t hi n t he r ange a s app ropri at e fort he enha ncement fac t or s , t hen r educe t he s ent ence w i t hin the r ange a s appr opr i at e fort he m iti g a tin g f

a c to rs.” )

. T h e w e ig h t th e trial c o u rt a c c o rd e d a n ya p p lica b le e n h a n c e m e n t a n d m itig a tin g f a c to rs w a s le f

t to th e tr ia l co u rt ’s d is c re tio n . Id ., Sent enci ng C om m ’ n C m t s . ; G om ez, 239 S. W

. 3d at739- 40.
C ar t er , 254 S. W

. 3d at342.
U n d e r th e 2 0 0 5 a m e n d m e n ts, h o w e v e r, a presum p tiv e se n ten c e is n o lo n g e r sta tu to rily im p o se d f

o r e a c h c las s o f f

e lo n y . “ R a th e r, th e trial c o u rt is f re e to se lec t an yse n ten c e w ith in t he appl i cabl e r ange s o l ong as t he s ent ence i s ‘ cons i s t ent w i t h t he purpos es and pr i nci pl es o f [ th e S e n ten c in g A c t].’” I d ., a t 3 4 3 (q u o tin g T .C .A

. § 4 0 -3 5 -2 1 0 (d )). A trial co u rt “ sh a ll cons i der , buti s notbound by ” th e “a d vi s or ys ent enci ng gui del i nes , ” i ncl udi ng t he co n side rati o n o f statuto ryen h an ce m en t and m it igating fa ctors. T .C .A

. § 4 0 -35 -21 0 (c). “T h u s, t he 2005 r evi s i on t o s ect i on - 210 i ncr eas es t he amount of di s cr et i on a tr i al court exer ci s es w hen i m pos i ng a s ent enci ng t er m . ” I d. , at344. M o reove r , “[s ] i gni fi cant l y , t he 2005 amendm ent s del et ed as gr ounds forappea l a cl ai m that the tr ial cour tdi d notw ei gh pr oper l yt he enhanc ement and mi t i gat i ng fac t or s . ” I d. ; s ee 2005 Tenn. Pub. A ct s ch. 353, §§ 8 , 9

.-11-

B a se d o n th e f

o re g o in g , w e f

in d th e situ a tio n p re se n ted in C a rte r m o re in stru c tiv e to t he pr es entcas e than G ut i er r ez. I n C ar t er , as r el evanther e, t he def endantw as convi ct ed of vehi c u l a rh o mi c i d e . Th e St a t e p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e t h a tt h e d e f e n d a n th a d p r i o rcr i m i nal co n v ict ion s b ey o n d tho se n ec essa ryto es tablish h is status as a R an g e III pe rsi sten t of fe n d er, t hat he had previ ou sl yfai l ed to com plyw i t h the con dit i on s of a sentence i nv olvi ng rel ease i nt o t he comm uni t y , and t hatt he defenda nt w as on par ol e for a K entuckyfel onyconvi ct i on and on pr obat i on for a T ennes s ee fel ony convi ct i on at t he t i m e t he offens e w as comm i t t ed. I d. 3 4 0 , 3 4 5

. Th e d e f e n d a n t i n t r o d u c e d r e q u e s t s f o r l e n i e n c y f

r o m h i s f

a m i l y and t he vi ct i m ’ s fami l y , “and emphasi zed t he conduct of t he K entuckyoffi cer s i n pur s ui ng” hi m . I d. at 34 5. Bas e d on t hi s mi t i ga t i ng i nf or mat i on , the t r i a l c ou r t s e nt e nc e d t he de fe nd a nt a s a R ang e II I, persi st ent of

fend er, t o t he m i nim um sent ence in t he sentenci ng range, or t en y ears , d esp it e the p rese n ce o f e n h an ce m en t fac tors. Id. at 33 7

. T h e S tat e a p p ea led th e tri al co u rt ’s sent encing d et erm i nati on s. U pon r evi ew , t he s upr eme cour tconcl uded:
A l tho u g h T e n n e ss e e ’s a p p e llate c o u rts re tain th e sta tu to rya u th o rityto i ncrease se n ten c e s u p o n a p p e a l b yth e S tate , [ T .C .A .] § 4 0 -3 5 -4 0 2 (c ) (2 0 0 6 ), w e h o ld t hatt heydo nothave the author i t yt o do s o s i m pl yupon the bas i s of a tr i al cour t ’ s “fa i l [ur e] t o appr opr i at el yadj us t ” a s ent ence i n l i ghtof appl i cabl e, but m er el y advi s or y , m i t i gat i ng or enhanc ement fac t or s . A s s etfo rt h above, r evi s ed s e c t i o n 4 0

- 3 5

- 2 1 0 ( c ) o f t h e Se n t e n c i n g Actma n d a t e s t h a tt h e t r i al co u r t “s hal l i m pos e a s ent ence w i t hi n t he r ange of puni s hm ent

. ” In det er m i ni ng w hi ch s enten ce w i t hi n t he r ange t o i m pos e, how ever , t he tr i al c o u rt is n o lo n g e r re q u ir e d to b e g in w ith a p re su m p tiv e se n ten c e su b jec t to i n c r e a s e a n d d e c r e a s e o n t h e b a s i s o f e n h a n c e me n ta n d mi t i g a t i n g f a c t o r s . An appel l at e courti s t her efor e bound by a t r i al cour t ’ s deci s i on as t o t he l ength of t he s ent ence i m pos ed s o l ong as i t i s i m pos ed i n a mannercons i s t entw i t h t he purpos es and p ri nci pl es s etouti n s ect i ons - 102 and - 103 of t he Sent enci ng A c t.
I d. at346. D es pi t e an acknow l edgment t hati tw as uncomfort abl e w i t h t he i m pos i t i on of a m i nim um sent ence b ased on t he cir cum st ances of the off ense, t he suprem e cou rtno nethel ess found t hatt he tr i al cour tcons i der ed the cr i t er i a s et for t h i n s ect i on - 210( b) , t he s ent ence w as i m pos ed w i t hi n t he appl i cabl e s ent enci ng r ange, the tr ial cour ts etfor t h i t s r eas ons for i m p o sing the sent ence , and i t s fi ndi ngs w er e ade quat el ys uppor t ed byt he r ecor d. I d. “B eca us e i ns uffici entgr ounds exi s t [ed] on t he r ecor d befor e [the court ] t o over come t he pr es um pt i on” of c or r ectnes s , t he s upr eme c our t aff i r m ed t he j udgm ent of t he t r i al cour t

. I d.-12-

T ur ni ng t o t he cas e s ub j udi ce, t he tr i al cour tfound t he pr es ence of one e nhance m ent fact o r, D efe ndant ’ s us e of a deadl yw eapon dur i ng t he comm i s s i on of t he off ens e, and acc or ded thi s fac t ors i gni fi cantw ei ght

. T he t r i al cour t acknow l edged t he pre s ence of s ever al m it igating fa ctors b u t as sign ed li tt le w eigh t t o thes e c o n side rati o n s, ex ce p t fo r D ef en d an t’ s l ack of a cr i m i nal hi s t or y , as w as w i t hi n i t s di s cr et i on. T he C ar t ercour tnot ed that“i f t he t ri al cou rt recogn i zes a nd enu nciat es sev eral app l i cable m i t i gati ng fact ors, i t do es not abuse i t s di scr et i on i f i tdo es not r edu ce t he senten c e f rom t he m axim um on t he b asi s of t ho se fa ctors.” Id

. at 34 5

. T h e su p rem e co u rtreit era ted th at “[ t] h e a p p ell ate c o u rt s are there fo re l eftw i t h a na rrow ers etof ci r cumst ance s i n w hi ch theym i ghtfi nd t hata tr i al cour thas abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n s et t i ng t he l ength of a de fenda nt ’ s s ent ence . ” I d. 345- 46.
T h e re c o rd sh o w s th a t th e trial c o u rt c o n sid e re d a ll o f th e f a c to rs s e t f

o rth in T ennes s ee Code A nnot at ed s ect i on 40- 35- 210( b) and expl ai ned the r eas ons fori m pos i ng t he s ent ence . T hes e fi ndi ngs ar e adequa t el y s uppor t ed by t he r ecor d, and D efe ndant ’ s s ent ence fal l s w i t hin t he sentenci ng range f o r a R ang e I, st and ard offen der, con vict ed o f a C l ass A fel ony . B as ed on ourr evi ew , w e conc l ude thatt he tr i al cour tcompl i ed w i t h t he pr i nci pl es and purpos e of t he S ent enci ng A ctand di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n s ent enci ng D efe ndant t o t w entyy ear s . D efe ndanti s notent i t l ed t o r el i ef on thi s i s s ue. CO NC L US I ON
A f ter a th o ro u g h re v iew , w e a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e trial c o u rt.

_________________________________ T HOMAS T

. WOODAL L , J UDGE