# FILED February 19, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appe llate Court C lerk IN T HE COURT OF CRI MINAL APPEAL S OF TENNESS EE AT KN OXV ILLE OCTOBER 1 998 SESSI ON
STATE OF TENNESSEE, * C.C.A. No. 03C01-9804-CC-00147 Appellee, * SEVIER COUN TY VS. * Honorable James E. Beckner, Judge JOHN W AYNE SLATE, * (Sentenci ng) Ap pe llan t. *

Fo r A pp ella nt: For Appell ee: Ed wa rd C . M iller John Knox W alkup Pu blic D efen der Attor ney General and Reporter Fo urth Ju dic ial D istric t P.O. Box 416 Todd R. Kelley Dandridge, TN 37725 Assist ant Att orney General 425 Fift h Avenue, North C ord ell H ull B uild ing , S ec on d F loo r Nashvill e, TN 37243-0493 Al S chm utze r, Jr. Distr ict Attor ney General Steve Hawkins Assist ant Dist ri ct Att orney General Seviervi ll e, TN 37862

OPINION FILED:__________________

AFFIRMED AS MOD

IFI ED

GARY R. WADE, PRESI DI NG JUDGE2 OPINION Th e d efe nd an t, Jo hn W ay ne Sla te, w as co nv icte d o f se co nd de gre e m urd er. Th e tr ial co urt im po se d a se nte nc e o f tw en ty-fiv e y ea rs. In this ap pe al o f righ t, the de fen da nt p res en ts th e follo w ing iss ue s fo r re vie w : (1) whether t he tri al court erred by orderi ng the defendant t o serve twenty- fi ve years i n pris on; and (2) w heth er the trial cou rt erred by s igning a jud gm ent th at ord ered an effect ive sentence ofthir ty-t hree years.

We a ff ir m the sentence of t he tri al court. The sentence must be modifi ed to provi de for a t wenty-four year

sentence, a consecuti ve three-year sentence and a concurrent fi ve-year sentence.

In 1 98

9, th e d efe nd an t w as co nv icte d in a ju ry tr ial o f first d eg ree m urd er, a ttem pte d jail e sc ap e, a nd po ss es sio n o f a fire arm w hile inc arc era ted . Th e tria l co urt im po se d a life s en ten ce for first d eg ree m urd er e nh an ce d b y fiv e y ea rs fo r the us e o f a fire arm du ring the co m m iss ion of th e offense. A three-year consecuti ve sentence was impose d for at tempted jai l escape and a five- year co nc urr en t se nte nc e w as im po se d fo r th e p os se ss ion of a fire arm w hile inc arc era ted . In t he initia l ap pe al, th is c ou rt affir m ed the jud gm en t of th e tria l co urt. Sta te v . Jo hn W ay ne Sla te, No. 101 (Tenn. C rim . Ap p., a t Kn ox ville , N ov . 1, 1 98 9). A pp lica tion for p erm iss ion to a pp ea l to th e s up rem e c ou rt w as den ied o n M arch 5, 19 90. T here after, the defe nda nt's righ t of po st-co nvictio n relief in the trial c ourt
w as de nie d a nd the de fen da nt a pp ea led to th is c ou rt. A pa ne l of th is c ou rt de term ine d th at th e evid enc e of d elibera tion w as in sufficien t, reve rsed the first d egre e m urde r con viction, and

rem and ed the c aus e to th e trial co urt for e ntry o f a jud gm ent o f con viction for se con d de gree m urde r and res en ten cin g. Jo hn W ay ne Sla te v . Sta te, N o. 0 3C 01 -92 01 -C R -00 01 4 (T en n. C rim . A pp ., at Kn ox ville , Ap r. 27 ), ap p. d en ied co nc urr ing in r es ults on ly, (Ten n., O ct. 24, 1 997

). On rem and , the trial co

urt im po se d a se nte nc e o f tw en ty-f ive ye ars un de r th e S en ten cin g R efo rm Ac t of 1 98 9. O n a pp ea l, this co urt r ev ers ed an d re m an de d th e c au se for r es en ten cin g b ec au se the trial c ou rt faile d to ca lcu late the3 de fen da nt's se nte nc e u nd er b oth the 19 89 an d 1 98 2 A cts as req uire d b y th e h old ing in State v. Pearson , 85

8 S .W .2d 87 9 (T en n. 1 99 3). Sta te v . Jo hn W ay ne Sla te , C.C .A. N o. 03 C0 1-95 11-CC00 35 2, s lip o p. a t 5 (T en n. C rim . Ap p., a t Kn ox ville , O ct. 1 8, 1 99 6), app. deni ed , (Tenn. , Jan. 27, 19 97 ). O n re m an d, th e tria l co urt im po se d a se nte nc e o f tw en ty-fiv e y ea rs fo r se co nd de gre e m urd er. The judgemen

t for m reflected an ef fecti ve sentence of thi rty- three years due to t he other off enses.
Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-35-117 provides that persons sentenced after November 1, 1 989, for crimes commi tted between July 1, 1982, and November 1, 1989, must be sentenced under the 1989 Act, "[u]nless prohibited by the United States or Tennessee Constitution." Tenn. Code Ann.§ 40-35-117(b). Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-112 provides that if the 1989 Act provi des for a "lesser penalty," the lesser punishm ent shall be imposed. In Pearson , our supreme court set forth guidelines for making certain the sentence imposed is constitution al:

[I]n order to comply with the ex post facto prohibitions of the U.S. and Tennessee Constitutions, trial court judges imposing sentences after the effective date of the 1989 statute, for crimes committed prior thereto, must calculate the appropriate se ntence under both the 1982 statute and the 1989 statute, in thei r entirety, and then impose the lesser sentence of the two. 858 S.W.2d at 884.

In this d irect ap pea l of the s ente nce , the d efen dan t argu es th at the trial cou rt err on eo us ly a pp lied tw o e nh an ce m en t fac tors , faile d to ap ply se ve ral m itiga ting fac tors , an d fa iled to rev iew the trial tr an sc ript b efo re a rrivin g a t a s en ten ce . Th e s tate co nc ed ed in o ral a rgu m en t tha t ou r review was de novo w

it hout a presumption of corr ectness. I t nonethel ess contended that t he effect ive thi rty -thr ee year sentence was warrant ed.

O ur d e n ov o re vie w req uire s a n a na lys is o f (1) the ev ide nc e, if a ny , rec eiv ed at th e trial a nd se nte nc ing he arin g; (2 ) the pre se nte nc e re po rt; (3 ) the prin cip les of s en ten cin g a nd the4 arg um en ts o f co un se l rela tive to s en ten cin g a ltern ativ es ; (4) the na ture an d c ha rac teris tics of th e offense; (5) any miti gating or enhancing factor s; (6) any statements made by the defendant in his own beh alf; and (7) the defe nda nt's po tential for r eha bilitation o r treatm ent. T enn . Co de A nn. § § 40 -35- 10 2, -1 03 , an d -2 10 ; Sta te v . Sm ith , 73 5 S .W .2d 85 9, 8 63 (T en n. C rim . Ap p. 1 98 7); Stille r v. S tate , 516 S.W .2d 6 17 (T enn . 197 4).
The summary of facts pr esented in John Wayne Slate v. State , C.C.A. No. 03C01-9201-CR-00014 (T enn. Crim. App., at Knoxvi lle, Apr. 27, 1992), provi des an accurate and complete account of the evidence presented at tr ial: The [defendant] was prosecuted for ki ll ing David Jackson at the [de fen da nt]'s ho m e a nd for h is s ub se qu en t po ss es sio n o f a w ea po n a nd es ca pe atte m pt w hile in ja il aw aitin g tr ial. W illiam Ba iley was tri ed with t he [def endant] as an accessory af ter t he factof m urd er, a ltho ug h h e c ha ng ed his ple a to gu ilty a fter te stify ing for th e [de fen da nt]. Fr om the sta te's pe rsp ec tive , the prim ary w itne ss to th e ev en ts w as Glen da H am pto n. S he tes tified tha t the vic tim w as acquainted wit h her brother and t hat she fi rst met him on the day of th e s ho ot ing . S he sa id t ha t sh e w en t w ith him to th e [ de fe nd an t]'s home on the evening of January 30, 1988. The [defendant ] met them at the gat e to the propert y and he and the victi m hug ged. They went into the ho us e a nd sh e ta lke d w ith th e [d efe nd an t]'s w ife, T he lm a Slate, in the l ivi ng room w

hil e the two men w

ent to t he kitchen. H am pto n te stifie d th at s he he ard talk ing in th e k itch en. At the vic tim 's re qu es t, the y a ll ga the red in th e k itch en. H am pto n s tate d th at the [de fen da nt], h is w ife, W illiam Ba iley an d th e v ictim w ere pre se nt. Sh e a lso sa id th at tw o o f the [de fen da nt]'s so ns ca m e in for a few m inu tes . S he sa id th at th e a du lts s at a t the kitc he n ta ble talk ing an d drinki ng, the [ defendant] and his wife dri nking wine and the others, inc lud ing he rse lf, drin kin g b ee r. S he sa id th at B aile y w as dru nk . Sh e sta ted tha t Ba iley pu lled up he r sw ea ter a nd sh e a sk ed him no t to d o it. H e d id it a se co nd tim e a nd the vic tim an d h e g ot in to a n arg um en t. S he sa id th at w hile the y w ere arg uin g, B aile y s too d u p an d th e [d efe nd an t] "sm ac ke d h im in th e fa ce ." H am pto n te stifie d th at th e v ictim an d th e [d efe nd an t] be ga n arg uin g b ac k a nd for th a nd tha t the [de fen da nt] s aid tha t the vic tim did no t res pe ct th e [d efe nd an t]'s w ife, h om e a nd fam ily. S he sa id th at the tw o w ere sta nd ing up , po intin g fin ge rs a t ea ch oth er a nd ye lling

. Sh e sa id that s he a ske d the victim at ab out 9 :25 p .m. if h e w as re ady to g o b ec au se sh e d id n ot lik e th e a rgu ing . S he sa id th at h e re plie d tha t the y w ou ld le av e in ab ou t fiftee n m inu tes . Sh e te stifie d th at5 abo ut 9:4 5 the victim dec ided to lea ve. S he s tated that "the y w ere still a rgu ing " a nd tha t sh e w as ge tting a littl e s ca red w he n th e v ictim asked her i f she was ready t o go. Ham pton test if ied that she and the victi m got up to leave and that she walked to t he frontdoor with t he victi m beh ind her. As she reac hed for the kno b, sh e he ard a nois e an d im m edia tely turn ed around. She stated t hat she saw the victi m, with a hole in hi s head, fallin g to the floo r. S he sa id th at th e v ictim on ly h ad a b ee r ca n in his ha nd . T he [de fen da nt] w as sta nd ing at th e k itch en do or w ith a gu n in his ha nd . A ltho ug h s he ind ica ted tha t sh e d id n ot s ee w he re B aile y had been at the exact ti me of the shot, she stat ed thathe was standing near her and notnear the [def endant]. She said that she ye lled an d s he ad m itted tha t sh e b ec am e h ys teric al. S he sa id th at the [de fen da nt] d id n ot s ay a w ord . M rs. S late talk ed H am pto n in to hidi ng in a cl oset i n the sons' bedroom where, accordi ng to Hampton, the y w ere sle ep ing. H am pto n s tate d th at s he fell a sle ep , bu t late r aw ok e a nd ca m e o ut w he n th e p olic e w ere pre se nt. W hen the poli ce investi gated, r esponding to a call received ab ou t 10 :05 p.m ., the y ta lke d to M rs. S late . Th e [d efe nd an t] an d Ba iley w ere no t the re. M rs. Sla te r efe rre d to an un kn ow n m an do ing the shooti ng. Several hours i nto the i nvestigat ion, Hampton walked ou t of a be dro om . T he po lice fou nd no w ea po ns . T he vic tim ha d be en sh ot in the ce nte r of th e fo reh ea d a nd he die d a bo ut a w ee k later. In M

arch , 198 8, the [defe nda nt], his fam

ily and Ba iley w ere fou nd in L aC ros se , W isc on sin, us ing as su m ed na m es w ith s up po rtin g ident if icat ion. The [defendant ] was ret urned to Sevi er County. In M ay , 19 88 , a s ea rch of th e [d efe nd an t]'s ja il ce ll un co ve red a lo ad ed ha nd gu n, tw o h ac ks aw bla de s a nd a le tter w ritte n b y h im to h is fa m ily w hic h in dic ate d a n e sc ap e p lan . S aw m ark s w ere fou nd on the ce ll bars. Th e d efe ns e e vid en ce rela ted to a n a cc ide nta l sh oo ting w ith se lf-de fen se un de rton es . Th e [d efe nd an t] an d B aile y te stifie d. B oth rela ted a h isto ry o f ill w ill by the vic tim for B aile y. T he [de fen da nt] testi fi ed that t he victi m and

Ham pton came to his house in drunken conditi ons. He said that t here were twenty or thi rty empty beer cans in th e v ictim 's ca r an d th at th e v ictim ca rrie d a six -pa ck into the hou se. H e sa id that th e victim yelled at B ailey a nd th at an argu m ent be ga n. A t on e p oin t, the vic tim be ga n s m ok ing a m ariju an a c iga rette
. Th e [d efe nd an t] sa id th at h e g ot u ps et w ith th e v ictim 's s m ok ing an d arguing and that he told t he victi m to leave. Th e [d efe nd an t] tes tified tha t H am pto n w alk ed into the livin g roo m , follo w ed by the vic tim . Ba iley go t up from the kitc he n ta ble

. Th e [ de fe nd an t] s aid th at he sa w a s m all gu n in th e v ict im 's h an d a nd sa w Ba iley pu ll a g un ou t of a po ck et. T he [de fen da nt] s aid tha t he ye lled for no gu ns , gr ab be d B aile y's gu n a nd it dis ch arg ed . T he bu llet hitthe vict im. The [defendant] said that Ham pton became hysterical an d th at h e w as in s ho ck , dr op pin g B aile y's gu n. H e s aid tha t B aile y6 picked up both guns. The [def endant] sai d that he di d not know wh at to d o, b ut a fter le av ing to c all fo r an am bu lan ce , he an d B aile y le ft. He acknowledged that he was scared and t ri ed to avoi d being arr es ted . H e m et w ith h is fa m ily in Ka ns as an d w as w ith th em an d Baileyin Wisconsi n when he w as arrest ed. He admitt ed having a gun in th e S ev ier C ou nty Ja il an d p lan nin g to es ca pe . H e d en ied inte nd ing to s ho ot th e v ictim

. Ba iley 's te stim on y e ss en tially co rro bo rate d th e [d efe nd an t]'s. H e s aid tha t he ha d h ad pro ble m s w ith th e v ictim for th ree to fo ur ye ars an d th at e ve ry t im e th e v ictim go t dr un k, h e w ou ld a rgu e o r fig ht w ith B aile y. H e te stifie d th at b oth H am pto n a nd the vic tim go ad ed him an d a n a rgu m en t be ga n. B aile y s aid tha t he ha d a .22 pis tol in his p ock et, bu t said th at he had just bo ugh t it and th oug ht tha t there wa s no clip in it. He s

aid he saw the victim "going for som ething " and that he pul led out hi s gun. He said he knew the children had seen th e vi ct i m wit h a p i st ol and he wa sn' t a bou t t o t akeany cha nce s. He sta ted tha t the [de fen da nt] g rab be d h is g un an d th at th e s ho otin g w as an ac cid en t. H e a ck no w led ge d p ick ing bo th g un s u p a nd tak ing the m wi t h h i m. O n re bu ttal, Se vie r C ou nty Sg t. P res ton R om ine s te stifie d tha t he se arc he d th e v ictim 's c ar o n th e n igh t of t he sh oo ting an d found one beer can, not t wenty to thi rty cans. He said no spent ca rtrid ge s o r gu ns w ere fou nd in th e [d efe nd an t]'s h ou se or th e vic tim 's ca r. Inv es tiga tor J oh n S ch m idt, fro m the La C ros se C ou nty Sh erif f's D ep art m en t in W isc on sin, tes tified tha t the [de fen da nt] to ld him that he, t he [defendant] , thr ew aw ay the gun which had been us ed in th e in cid en t. S ch m idt s tate d th at th e [d efe nd an t] sa id th at th e vic tim ha d th e g un an d th at w he n th e [d efe nd an t] gra bb ed it, it w en t off. H e s tate d th at th e [d efe nd an t] did no t sa y a ny thin g a bo ut grabbing a gun from Bailey. Slate , slip op. at 2-6

.

At the sentenci ng hearing, t he fif ty-t hree-year-ol d defendant test if ied that he has been
m arr ied for se ve nte en ye ars an d h ad m ain tain ed a c los e re latio ns hip w ith h is c hild ren . S inc e h is inc arc era tion , the de fen da nt h as ob tain ed his G .E .D . an d th ree ye ars of c olle ge cre dits . In h is discussi on of the events l eading up to the shoot ing, t he defendant stat ed that t he victi m, who w as a frie nd , ca m e b y h is re sid en ce to a sk to b orr ow m on ey . T he de fen da nt c laim ed tha t the vic tim ha d be en drink ing an d c on fide d th at h e w as "in tro ub le." Th e d efe nd an t re ca lled tha t he loa ne d th e v ictim so m e m on ey an d th at th e v ictim left t he res ide nc e o nly to r etu rn s om etim e la ter tha t ev en ing ac co m pa nie d b y M s. H am pto n. T he de fen da nt c laim ed tha t bo th w ere into xic ate d a nd tha t w he n th e7 vict im attempted to smoke m arij uana, he objected. The defendant testi fi ed that t he victi m beca me inc rea sin gly arg um en tativ e a nd fou gh t w ith th e c o-d efe nd an t Ba iley ov er a form er g irlfrien d. T he de fen da nt c on ten de d th at h e a sk ed bo th o f the m to le av e b ut th ey ref us ed . T he de fen da nt m ain tain ed tha t Ba iley dre w a g un, po intin g it firs t at th e d efe nd an t an d th en the vic tim . H e c laim ed tha t he inte rve ne d a t tha t po int b y g rab bin g th e w ea po n b ec au se his ch ildre n w ere in th e ro om , an d th e g un dis ch arg ed , strik ing the vic tim in th e fo reh ea d. T he de fen da nt s tate d th at h e d rop pe d th e g un afte r w hic h B aile y p ick ed up bo th th at g un an d th at o f the vic tim . T he de fen da nt th en pla ce d a pillo w un de r the vic tim 's h ea d a nd ca lled for a n a m bu lan ce . H e c on ten de d th at th e s ho otin g w as ac cid en tal, th at h e tried to he lp the v ictim, an d that h e left the s tate be cau se h e w as a fraid an d "ha lf drunk."

At the se nte nc ing he arin g, th e d efe nd an t pr es en ted thir ty-s ev en ex hib its to sh ow his exemplary behavior since bei ng incarcerat ed. He has successfully complet ed num erous programs, pu rsu ed ed uc atio n o pp ortu nitie s, p artic ipa ted in s ub sta nc e a bu se co un se ling, sp ok en to y ou th a bo ut crim e, a nd ob tain ed the su pp ort a nd rec om m en da tion of a nu m be r of in stru cto rs, p riso n o fficia ls, a nd so cia l se rvic es pro vid ers . T he sta te th en pre se nte d p roo f tha t the de fen da nt h ad be en rep rim an de d b y pris on offic ials for infr ac tion s o n fo ur o cc as ion s: o n o ne oc ca sio n, th e d efe nd an t ha d s an dp ap er in h is po ss es sio n; in an oth er, flam m ab le liq uid w as fou nd in h is lo ck er; in a thir d in cid en t he w as fou nd in po ss es sio n o f a d olla r bill; a nd in a fou rth, h e fa iled to re po rt to p riso n o fficia ls. T he de fen da nt contended that al l of t he prison charges had been dismissed.

Th e p res en ten ce rep ort es tab lish ed tha t the de fen da nt h as co nv ictio ns for dri vin g un de r th e in flue nc e, d rivin g o n a rev ok ed lice ns e, r es istin g a sto p, p ub lic in tox ica tion , sh op lifting , as sa ult a nd ba ttery , felo ny forg ery , felo ny co ntrib utin g to the de linq ue nc y o f a m ino r, an d la rce ny . Th e rep ort s ho w s th at s om e o f the se offe ns es w ere co m m itted w hile the de fen da nt w as on pro ba tion. At the s ente ncin g he aring , the d efen dan t dispu ted th e ac cura cy o f the re port a nd p ointed out s eve ral inc ide nts in w hic h c ha rge s h ad be en dis m iss ed . F rom 19 74 un til 19 88 , the de fen da nt m ain tain ed steady employmen

t as a machinist and sal esman. H e has a history of alcohol abuse.8 Th e p rinc iple s u nd erly ing the Se nte nc ing Ac ts o f 19 82 an d 1 98 9 a re s im ilar. B oth Acts were designed to ensure that every sentence is j ustl y deserved in rel ati on to the seri ousness of the off ense. Fair and consist ent tr eatment is paramount. Confinement is appr opriat e, as in t his case,
w he n m ea su res les s re stric tive ha ve be en un su cc es sfu l. T he po ten tial fo r re ha bilita tion or tre atm en t is an important consi derati on. All sentences should be "the l east severe measure necessary to achieve the purposes of a sentence. " Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103.

The state ar gued thatthe sent ence should be enhanced because t he defendant had a pre vio us his tor y o f cr im ina l co nv ictio ns or be ha vio r, th at h e h ad a h isto ry o f un w illing ne ss to c om ply with condit ions of r elease to t he com munity, and had no hesitat ion about comm it ti ng a crime in which the risk to hu m an life w as h igh. T enn . Co de A nn. § 40-3 5-11 1(1), (8

), & (1 0) (R

epl. 19 82); § 40-3 5- 114(1), ( 8), & (10) ( Repl. 1990). The stat e withdrew it s request that the sentence be enhanced because a fi rearm was used during t he comm issi on of t he off ense. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 111 (9)(R epl. 19 82); T enn . Co de A nn. § 40-3 5-11 4(9)(R epl. 19 90). T he s tate re lied ins tead on fire arm en ha nc em en t pu rsu an t to T en n. C od e A nn. § 3 9-6 -17 10 (R ep l. 19 82 ).

W hil e conceding his hist ory of convi cti ons, the def endant argued that t here was no proof i n the record t hat he had a history of unwill ingness to comply with t he conditi ons of a sentence inv olv ing rele as e to the co m m un ity. H e a lso ob jec ted to a pp lica tion of th e e nh an ce m en t fac tor th at th e risk to h um an life w as hig h, m ain tain ing tha t tha t fac tor w as alre ad y a cc ou nte d fo r in th e o ffen se . Th e defendant cl aimed m

it igati ng factor s because he did not contemplate that his conduct would cause se riou s b od ily in jury ; he arg ue d th at s ub sta ntia l gro un ds ex ist to ex cu se or ju stify his co nd uc t an d th at the offe ns e w as co m m itted un de r un us ua l circ um sta nc es so tha t it is u nlik ely tha t a s us tain ed inte nt to viol ate the l aw m

oti vated his conduct. He also subm it ted that his conduct and achievement since inc arc era tion sh ou ld b e a m itiga ting fac tor . T en n. C od e A nn. § 4 0-3 5-1 10 (2), (4 ), (1 2), & ( 13 ) (R ep l. 198 2); Te nn. C ode An n. § 4 0-35 -113 (3), (11 ), & (1 3) (R

epl. 19 90).9 Th e v ictim , w ho w as atte m ptin g to lea ve the de fen da nt's res ide nc e, w as sh ot o nc e in the fore he ad . H e m ay or m ay no t ha ve be en arm ed . Th e d efe nd an t ad m itted he w as into xic ate d a t the tim e. T he re w as ev ide nc e th at th e c rim e s ce ne ha d b ee n a ltere d a nd tha t the de fen da nt h ad dis po se d o f the w ea po ns , left th e s tate , an d a ttem pte d to av oid ide ntific atio n b y p olic e in W isc on sin

. Afte r be ing retu rne d to Te nn es se e, h e p lan ne d a jail e sc ap e a nd pro cured a w ea po n.

Und er th e 1 98 2 A ct, th e d efe nd an t qu alifie s a s a R an ge I offe nd er. A t tha t tim e, th e se nte nc e ra ng e fo r se co nd de gre e m urd er w as from ten to th irty-f ive ye ars . Te nn. C od e A nn. § 40-35-109(a), (c), & (d)(1) ( Repl. 1982). The tr ial court, which found several enhancement factor s and
no m itigating fa ctors , arrived at a s ente nce of thirty-five

yea rs. Th e follow ing e nha nce m ent fa ctors ap ply un de r the 19 82 Ac t: (1) Th at th e d efe nd an t ha s a his tory of c rim ina l co nv ictio ns , Te nn. Co de A nn. § 40-3 5-11 1(1) ( Re pl. 198 2); (2) Th at th e d efe nd an t ha s a pre vio us his tory of u nw illing ne ss to co m ply w ith th e c on ditio ns of a se nte nc e in vo lvin g re lea se to th e comm unit y, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 111(8) ( Repl. 1982) ; and (3) Th at th e d efe nd an t ha d n o h es itatio n a bo ut c om m itting a c rim e when the ri sk to human li fe was high. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 111 (10) ( Re pl. 198 2). Th e re co rd s up po rts th e c on clu sio n th at th e d efe nd an t ha s b oth a h isto ry o f crim ina l co nd uc t an d a history of pro bation violation s. H is prior c onv ictions invo lved alco hol a nd v iolenc e, bo th of w hich we re co ntr ibu ting fac tor s to the m urd er o f the vic tim . M ore ov er, the de fen da nt's ac tion s p lac ed M s. Ham pton i n danger. She was standi ng next t o the vi cti m w hen he was shot. Enhancement fact or (10)
m ay b e us ed "w here the de fenda nt crea tes a h igh risk to the life of a p

erso n othe r than th e victim ." State v. Bingham, 91 0 S

.W .2d 44 8 (T en n. C rim . Ap p. 1 99 5). T he ev ide nc e p res en ted at tria l an d th e pre se nte nc e re po rt su gg es t tha t fac tors (1) an d (1 0) w arr an t co ns ide rab le w eig ht.
The defendant argues that he di d not contemplate t hat his conductwould cause or threat en serious bodil y inj ury. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-110(2) (Repl. 1982). The evidence10 su pp ortin g h is s ec on d d eg ree m urd er c on vic tion, ho w ev er, u nd erm ine s h is a rgu m en t. S ec on d, h e co nte nd s th at h e a cte d u nd er s tron g p rov oc atio n a nd su bm its th at s ub sta ntia l gro un ds ex ist th at te nd to excuse or just if y his conduct. Tenn. Code A nn. § 40-35-110(3), (4) (Repl. 1982). In our view, these fact ors merit li tt le or no wei ght. The state' s theory was t hat t he shooti ng was intent ional and un pro vo ke d, w hile the de fen se the ory w as tha t the sh oo ting w as an ac cid en t. Th e ju ry r eje cte d th e defense theory. Finall y, the def endant maintains t hat the ci rcumstances of the off ense were so unu sua l that he did n ot ha ve a sus tained intent to violate the la w. T enn . Co de A nn. § 40-3 5-11 0(12 ) (Repl. 1982). Following t he offense, however, the defendant f led the scene, disposed of t he weapon s, an d e lud ed au tho rities for m on ths . O nc e c ap ture d a nd retu rne d to Te nn es se e, h e a rm ed him se lf an d atte m pte d to es ca pe fro m jail. T he se circ um sta nc es do no t su pp ort his cla im

.
Under the 1982 Act, the defendantis el igi ble fora sentence between ten and thirt yfi ve years. "Every case i s judged on it s own m erit s. Considerati on of simil ar cases and circumstances is n ot in ap pro pria te in de term inin g th e s pe cific len gth of s en ten ce .... S uc h c on sid era tion as sis ts in the fair and con sistent trea

tme nt of de fenda nts an d co ntributes to prop ortionate sen tence s ...." State v. Moss , 72 7 S .W .2d 22 9, 2 40 (T en n. 1 98 6).

In State v. Dennis Edward Galloway, C .C .A. N o. 9 25 , slip op . at 6 -7 ( Te nn. C rim . Ap p., at K nox ville, De c. 13 , 199 0), this c ourt a ffirme d a tw enty -two yea r sen tenc e for s eco nd d egre e m urde r under similarcircumstances. There were hosti li ti es between the defendant and the vict im. They had argued. A fi ght had ensued during which Galloway had stabbed the vict im several ti mes an d struck him in the head. Gall oway then disposed of the weapons and left t he scene. The tri al court enhanced the se nte nc e b ec au se G allo w ay ha d a his tory of c rim ina l co nv ictio ns an d p rob atio n v iola tion s, a m on g oth er fa cto rs.

In State v. Donald R. W est , C .C .A. N o. 1 28 , slip op . at 1 (T en n. C rim . Ap p., a t Kn ox ville , O ct. 1 6, 1 99 0), app. deni ed , (Tenn., Jan. 14, 1991), a panel of t his court affi rmed a thirt y-11 ye ar s en ten ce for se co nd de gre e m urd er a lso ari sin g u nd er s im ilar circ um sta nc es . W es t an d v ictim were drinking and pl aying poker at West's r esidence. The vict im left and later r eturned to f ind West hid ing in th e b ed roo m . W he n th e v ictim kic ke d th e b ed roo m do or to ga in e ntry , W es t ins truc ted him to lea ve an d th en fired a w ea po n th rou gh the do or. W es t the n fire d a dd ition al s ho ts, k illing the vic tim . In rev iew ing the se nte nc e, th is c ou rt fo un d a pp lica ble en ha nc em en t fac tor s th at W es t ha d a pre vio us his tory of c rim ina l co nv ictio ns , tha t he ha d tre ate d th e v ictim w ith e xc ep tion al c rue lty, a nd tha t he ha d co m m itted the offe ns e w ith n o h es itatio n w he n th e ris k to hu m an life w as hig h. Id. , sl ip op. at 8. That W es t m ay ha ve be en pro vo ke d w as co ns ide red a m itiga ting fac tor. Id.

H ere , thre e e nh an ce m en t fac tors are pre se nt, tw o o f w hic h a re w eig he d h ea vily . Th e de fen da nt is en titled to little w eig ht fo r m itiga ting fac tors . W hile in p riso n, h ow ev er, th e d efe nd an t ha s demon strat ed som

e potenti al forrehabil it ati on. Under the 1982 Act, we would impose a sentence of twenty-ei ght years. Furthermore, t he sentence ini ti all y imposed upon the defendant was enhan ced by the us e o f a fire arm . See Te nn. C od e A nn. § 3 9-6 -17 10 (R ep l. 19 82 ) (re pe ale d 1 98 9). T ha t sta tute pro vid ed for a five -ye ar e nh an ce m en t up on a fin din g b y th e ju ry th at th e o ffen se inv olv ed the us e o f a fi rearm. Under the 1982 Act, the sent ence of twenty-ei ght years must be enhanced by a conse cuti ve fi ve-year ter m for an effect ive sentence ofthir ty-t hree years.

Tu rnin g to the 19 89 Ac t, the de fen da nt q ua lifies as a R an ge I offe nd er. T he sen tenc ing ra nge is fifteen to

twe nty-five yea rs. Te nn. C ode An n. § 4 0-35 -112 (a)(1). W e are ins truc ted to b eg in a t the m inim um w ithin the ran ge if the re a re n o e nh an ce m en t or m itiga ting fac tors
. Te nn. C ode An n. § 4 0-35 -210 (c) (am end ed J uly 1 , 199 5 to p rovid e tha t the p resu m ptive s ente nce for a C las s A felo ny as the m idp oin t in th e ra ng e). If th ere are en ha nc em en t fac tor s b ut n o m itiga ting fact ors, t he tri al court may set the sent ence above the mini mum . Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 210(d). A se nte nc e in vo lvin g b oth en ha nc em en t an d m itiga ting fac tor s re qu ires an as sig nm en t of r ela tive w eig ht for th e e nh an ce m en t fac tors as a m ea ns of in cre as ing the se nte nc e. T en n. C od e A nn. § 4 0-3 5-2 10
. Th e se nten ce m ay th en b e red uce d w ithin the rang e by any we ight as sign ed to the m itigating fa ctors12 pre se nt. Id. The trial court i mposed a sentence of twenty- fi ve years. The fol lowing enhancement fact ors are appl icabl e:

(1) Th at th e d efe nd an t ha s a his tory of c rim ina l co nv ictio ns , Te nn. Co de A nn. § 40-3 5-11 4(1) ( Re pl. 199 0); (2) Th at th e d efe nd an t ha s a pre vio us his tory of u nw illing ne ss to co m ply w ith th e c on ditio ns of a se nte nc e in vo lvin g re lea se to th e com m unity, T enn . Co de A nn. § 40-3 5-11 4(8) ( Re pl. 199 0); (3) Th at th e d efe nd an t em plo ye d a fire arm du ring the co m m iss ion of the of fense, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114( 9) (Repl. 1990); and (4) Th at th e d efe nd an t ha d n o h es itatio n a bo ut c om m itting a c rim e when the ri sk to human li fe was high, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 114 (10) ( Re pl. 199 0).

W e begin at f if teen years, appl y four enhancement factors, and arrive at a sentence of twenty-f our years. The defendant has demonstrated some potenti al forrehabil it ati on. Nevertheless, be ca us e th e e nh an ce m en t fac tors w eig h s o h ea vily , a s en ten ce of tw en ty-fo ur y ea rs, o ne les s th an the
m ax im um po ss ible , is d ee m ed ap pro pria te.

As direct ed by our supreme court i n Pearson , under t he 1982 Act we have calcul ated a s en ten ce of th irty-t hre e y ea rs a nd , un de r the 19 89 Ac t, w e a rrive at a se nte nc e o f tw en ty-fo ur y ea rs. Be ca us e th e le ss er o f the tw o s en ten ce s s ha ll be im po se d, th e ju dg m en t form sh all re flec t a R an ge I, tw en ty-fo ur y ea r se nte nc e fo r se co nd de gre e m urd er.

In a rel ated issue, the defendant ar gues that notat ions on the j udgme nt for m excee

d the "sc ope of the re m and orde r ... and the

refore s hou ld be m odified to d

elete the spe cial con ditions." Th e ju dg m en t form co nta ins the follo w ing lan gu ag e u nd er s pe cia l co nd ition s: "C red it tim e s erv ed

. This sentence is an ef fecti ve sentence of thi rty- three years because ther e are consecutive sent ences of (5 ) an d (3 ) ye ars ."
The judgment for m does contain an err or. Whil e the defendant has a three- year13 co ns ec utiv e s en ten ce for a ttem pte d e sc ap e a nd a fiv e-y ea r co nc urr en t se nte nc e fo r po ss es sio n o f a firearm wh ile inca rcera ted, h e ha s no five-ye ar co nse cutive sen tenc e. Th e us e of a firearm
en ha nc em en t fac tor, p urs ua nt to Te nn. C od e A nn. § 3 9-6 -17 10 (re pe ale d 1 98 9), d oe s n ot a pp ly to a se nte nc e c alc ula ted un de r the 19 89 Ac t. Sta te v . Ja m es M ich ae l Bo oth , C.C .A. N o. 01 C0 1-90 10-CR00 26 6, s lip o p. a t 2 (T en n. C rim . Ap p., a t N as hv ille, A ug . 2, 1 99 1), app. deni ed , (Ten

n., Jan 27, 1 992 ); State v. G ilmo re , 823 S.W.2d 566, 567 n.2 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). The judgmen t for m shou

ld ref lect a Range I, twenty-f our year sentence forsecond degree m urder with a consecuti ve three-year sen tenc e for a ttem pted jail esc ape and a co ncu rrent five -yea r sen tenc e for p oss ess ion o f a firearm
w hile inc arc era ted

.

__________________________________ Gary R. Wad

e, Presi ding Judge CONCUR:

________________________________ David H. Welles, Judge

________________________________ Thomas T . Woodall, Judge