### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d O n B ri ef

s D ec em be r 14, 200 4
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. MIC HAE L P AU L MO ND ELL
Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Jeff erson County No. 7474 O. Duane Slon e, Judge

No. E2003-02791-CC A-R3- CD - F iled Fe bruary 17, 2005

The de fenda nt, Michael Paul Mondell, was convicted of fac ilitation of the second deg ree murder of his father , Fr ancis Mondell. The trial court im posed a 12-y ear Depa rtment of Corre ction sentenc e. Th e de fe nd a nt a

pp e a ls a ndc ha lle ng e s th e su ff ic ie nc y of the c on vic tin g e vid e nc e a nd the pr op ri e ty of the se nte nc e . We a ff

ir m th e c on vic tio n b ut m od if y the se nte nc e to e ig ht y e ars

.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt of t he Ci r c uit

Co ur t i s A ffirm e d as M odi fie d.

J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J. , d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f th e c o u rt, in w h ic h G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., joined.

Ed wa rdCa ntr e ll M ill e r, Di stric t Pu bli c De fe nd e r, fo r the Ap pe lla nt, Mic ha e l Paul M on de ll.

Paul G . Su mm e rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; J. Ros s D y e r, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; A l C. Schmutz er, Jr., District Attorney Gen er al; and Charle s L . Murphy , Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.
OP IN ION

I n the light most favor able to the state , the evidenc e at tria l showed that the 22-y ear

oldde fe nd a nt andhis frie nd , Ri c ha rdF arm e r, we re liv ing a t le a st t e mpo ra rily wi th th e vic tim , F ranc is M on de ll, in D a nd ri dg e . T he de fe nd a nt’ s ha lf -s ist e r a nd the vic tim ’s daug hte r, 14 -y e ar- old Stacey Mondell, also lived in the residenc e. On Aug ust 6, 2002, the victim was ar rested f or beating Stace y

Mondell. Upon the vic tim ’s re le a se fr om ja il, the de fe nd a nt, F arm e r, a nd a thi rd ma n, Joe Wal ke r, pic ke d u p th e vic tim and took him home. Three day s later, the victim’s body was found in the vicinity of a roc k quarry near his home. The victim had suff ere d a fata l g unshot wound to his head. A dama g ed sofa cushion and some be dding w ere wra pped with the victim’s body in pla stic bag s and bound with tape and a rope.-2- L aw e nforc ement off

icer s went to the victim’s h o m e, whe re the y encounte red the defe ndant. I nitially , the def endant g ave statements to the police in which he confe ssed to shooting the victim with the victim’s .357 handg un. The defenda nt claimed that he had plac ed the ha ndg un inside the plastic in w hich the victim’s body was envelope d; how ever , this c laim w as not born out by the offic ers’ investigation. L ater , the defendant reca nted t he confession; he cla imed that Fa rmer killed the victim and had g iven the handg un to Walker

. When the office rs questioned Walker, he
surre ndere d the handg un.

Wal ke r t e sti fi e d at tr ia l that the de fe nd a nt a nd F arm e r ha d c ome to Wa lke r’ s h ou se to ge t some plastic bag s but would not tell Walker whythey wanted the bag s. Walker ac companied the tw o me n to the M on de ll r e sid e nc e be c a us e he be lie ve d th e y we re g oin g to s ho w h im h ow to “bend g lass” to ma

ke neon signs. When they arrived at the r esidenc e, they went to a shop building be hin d th e vic tim ’s ho us e . F arm e r andthe de fe nd a nt tol d Wal ke r that the y plann e d to kill the vic tim beca use he ha d beate n Stacey

Mondell. Walker testified that when Farmer we nt inside the house, th e defenda nt turned on a g ener ator in the shop, saying that he wante d to “cove r up the noise.” Walker then he ard a

g unshot, a nd a fe w minutes later whe n he ventur ed into the house, he saw the victim ly ing on the sofa. F arme r wa s in command of the dispositi on of the body and cle aning the
ro om. F arm e r a ndthe de fe nd a nt l oa de d th e vic tim ’s bo dy in a Jee p Ch e ro ke e , a ndWal ke r r od e wi th the m to the ro c k qu arry wh e re F arm e r a nd the de fe nd a nt c arrie d it int o th e un de rg ro wth a ndle ft it.

Other e vid en ce pr esente d at trial showed that prior to the victim’s death, F arme r visited the ro ck quar

ry with his then girlf

riend, Ana stasia Adkins, and the de fenda nt. Adkins te sti fi e d th a t w hil e a t th e ro c k q ua rry , F arm e r c omm e nte d th a t the qu arry wo uld be a g oo d p la c e to dispose of a body . She also testified t hat Farmer had ex presse d his curiosity about how it would fee l to kill s omeone a nd his belief that killing someone would g ive the killer a “hig h.”

Th e e vid e nc e re ve ale d th at Rich ardF arm e r h a d c on fe sse d to sh oo tin g the vic tim

. Stacey Mondell testified that tension exis ted betwe en F arme r and the vi ctim. She testified that on
on e oc c a sio n af

te r the vic tim ha d ass a ult e d th e de fe nd a nt, F arm e r t oldthe vic tim that he ha d n e arl y kil le d h is o wn fathe r w ith a ba se ba ll b a t a ndwo uldbe wi lli ng to d o th e sa me thi ng to the vic tim

. The e vidence also showed that the victim disappr oved of F arme r smoking ma rijuana in the pr esenc e of Stace y Mondell. Throug h fore nsic evidenc e, the state es t ab l i s h ed that the g un rec overe d from Walker fire d the shot that killed the victim and that the victim had bee n k illed on or nea r the sofa in his home.
Although the defe ndant had been indicted for first deg ree murder, the jury convicted him of the lesser inc luded offe nse of f acilitation of sec ond deg ree murder, a Class B fe lony . After conducting a sente ncing hearing, the trial court se ntence d the def endant a s a Rang e I

offe nder to the maxi mum incarc erative term of 12 y ear s.-3- I. Su ff iciency of the Evid ence

I n his first issue, the defe ndant cha lleng es the sufficie ncy of the c onvicting e vidence

. When an ac cused c halleng es the suff iciency of t he convicting evidence , this court must review the
rec ord to determine if the evidenc e adduce d at trial is suf ficient to support the finding by the trier of fa ct o f gu i l t b ey o n d a r ea s o n ab l e d o u b t

. T en n

. R

. Ap p

. P

. 1 3 (e ). T h i s ru l e i s ap p l i ca b l e t o fi n d i n gs of g uilt based upon direc t evidence , circ umstantial evidence , or a c omb i n ation of direc t and circ umstantial evidence

. State v. Dy kes , 803 S.W .2d 250, 253 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) , overruled in part by State v. Hoope r , 29 S.W .3d 1 (Tenn. 2000)

.

I n d et er m i n i n g t h e s u ff

i ci en cyo f t h e convicting e vidence , this co u rt d o es n o tre -w ei gh
or re- evaluate the evidenc e. Sta te v . M att he ws , 805 S.W .2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) . Nor may this court substitut e its infere nces f or those dra wn by

the trier of

fac t from circ umstantial evidenc e. Lia k

as v . S tat e , 199 Te nn . 298 , 305 , 286 S.W. 2d 85 6, 85 9 (19 56 ). To the c on tr ary , th is court is re quired to af

ford the state the strong est leg itimate view of the e vidence contained in the
rec ord as we ll as all rea sonable a nd leg itimate infere nces that may be dra wn from the e vidence

. Sta te v. Cabbage , 571 S.W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978)

.

Questions conce rni n g t he cr edibilityof the witnesse s, the weig ht and value to be g i v en t he evide nce, a s well as all fa ctual issues ra ised by the evidenc e ar e re solved by the trier of fac t, not this court. Id. I n S t ate v. Grac e , 493 S.W .2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973) , our supre me court said, “A g uiltyverdic t by th e j u ry , ap proved by

the trial judg e, ac cre dits the testimonyof the witnesses for

the State and r esolves all conf licts in favor of the theory of the State.”

B e c a us e a ve rd ic t of g uil t r e mov e s the pr e su mpt ion of inn oc e nc e a ndre pla c e s it wi th a pre sumption of guilt, the ac cused, a s the appellant, has t he burden in this court of illustrating why the evidenc e is insufficient to support the verdicts returne d by the t rier of fac t. Sta te v . Tu gg le , 639 S.W .2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982) . This court will not disturb a verdic t of guilt due to t he suff iciency
o f t he evidenc e unless the fac ts c ontained in the rec ord are insufficient, as a matter of law, for a rational trier

of fa ct to find that the ac cused is g uiltybey ond a re asonable doubt. Id.
Second deg ree murder is the know ing killing of anothe r. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13- 210(a) (1) (2003). “A person i s criminally responsible for the facilitation of a felony if, knowing that another intends to commit a s p ecif ic fe lony , but without the intent required f or criminal responsibilityunder § 39- 11-402(2) , the per son knowing ly furnishes substantial assistanc e in the commission of the felony .” Id. § 39-11-403( a).

I n h is b ri e f, the de fe nd a nt c la ims that “ he wa s e ith e r g uil ty a s a pr inc ipa l or no t g uil ty of any crime at all.” Essentially , he posits that only Walker offere d evidenc e of the def endant’ s presh oo tin g ro le in the vic tim ’s de a th. Th is e vid e nc e , wh ic h wo uld ha ve su pp orte d a ve rd ic t of

g uil ty of first deg ree murder thr oug h complicity , was re jected by the jury . Essentially , he arg ues that the jury ’s verdict obliterates W alker ’s t estimony and with it any evidenc e that the de fenda nt fac ilitated a homicide.-4- I n the light most favor able to the state, howe ver, the evidenc e supports a c onclusion that Fa rmer’ s killi ng of the victim wa s at least knowing , and Walker’s testimony supplies a basis for the jury fi n d i n g t h at the def

endant f urnished substantial assistance to Farmer, knowing that he intended to shoot the victim. Thus, the evidenc e suff iciently supports the conviction of fa cilitation of sec ond deg ree murder.

We need not tar

ry long over the claim that the jury ’s ver dict in some way impugns i t s el f. “[C] onsistency

of ver dict is not required, so long as ‘the e vidence establishes g uilt of the offe nse upon which the conviction was r eturne d.’” State v. Hay es, 7 S. W.3 d 5 2, 57 (Ten n. Cr im. Ap p

. 1 9 9 9 ) ( q u o t i n g W

igg ins v . S tat e , 498 S.W .2d 92, 94 (Tenn. 1973) ). F urthermor e, Te nnessee courts have held that

[o] n appea l, a convict i o n o f a . . . le sser include d offe nse[] will be upheld, eve n i f t h er e is no evidenc e in the re cord to e stablish the te c hn ical eleme nts of

that c ri me , if

the e vid e nc e de ma nd s a conviction of a

highe r deg ree of [t he offe nse] than that found by the verdic t, and there is e ither no evidenc e in support of a cquittal of the g reater c rime, o r i f there is, the verdict of the jury clea rly indicates that the evidenc e in support of a cquittal was disbeliev ed, on the theory that the def

endant wa s not prejudiced by the cha rg e and the resulting verdic t.

State v. Me llons , 5 57 S.W. 2d49 7, 49 9 ( Te nn . 1 97 7) ; se e als o S tat e v . D av is , 751 S.W .2d 167, 169 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 88 ). Thus , w e c on c lud e that th e de fe nd a nt’ s c la im that th e jury imp lic itl y reje cted Walker ’s testimony is unavailing

.

II. Se nt e nc ing

I n the def endant’ s other issue, he c laims the trial court err ed in imposing a sentenc e of 12 y e ars . When the re is a ch a lle ng e to the le ng th, rang e , o r m a nn e r o f s e rv ic e of a se nte nc e , it

is the duty of this court to conduc t a de novo revie w of the r ecor d with a pre sumption t hat the de te rm inatio ns ma de by

the tr ia l c ou rt

are c or re c t. Te nn

. Cod e An n. § 40 -3 5- 40 1( d) (2 00 3) . T his presumption is conditioned upon the aff irmative showing in the rec ord that the trial c ourt consider ed the sentenc ing principles and all rele vant fac ts and circ umstances. State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991) . The burde n of showing t hat t he sentence is improper is upon the appe llant. Id

. I n the event the record fails to demonstrate the require d consideration by the trial court, review of t h e s e n t e n c e i s p u r e l y de novo

. Id

. I f ap pe llate re vie w re fl e c ts the tr ia l cou rt pr op e rl y c on sid e re d a ll rele vant fa ctors and its finding s of fa ct ar e ade quately supported by the record, this court must aff irm the sentenc e, even if we would ha ve pre fer red a differ ent re sult. State v. Fletc her , 805 S.W .2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991)

.

The trial c ourt enha nced the defe ndant’s sente nce b as ed o n i ts finding that the defe ndant had “ no hesitation about commi tting a crime when t he risk to human life wa s high.” SeeE vi dence p re se n te d a t t h e se n te n c ing he a rin g sh o w e d tha t p rio r t o a c c o m p a n ying F a rm e r a n d A d k ins to 1
T en n es s ee , h e an d Fa r mer s t ol e $500 f r om a ch an g e mac h i n e i n Al aba ma an d t h at af t er ar r i v i n g i n T en n es s ee, t he defendan t an d t he vi ct i m b ough t a pound of mar i j uan a f or r es al e.
-5- Te nn . Cod e Ann

. § 40- 35 -1 14 (1 1) (2 00 3) . T his e nh a nc e me nt f a c tor , h ow e ve r, c a nn ot b e us e d to enhanc e a sentenc e for second deg ree murder beca use that fac tor is inhe rent in the off ense. State v. Belser , 945 S.W .2d 776, 792 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). I n that situation, enhance ment fac tor (11) is e ssentially an element of the c rime. Se e ge ne ra lly Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114 ( 2003). We see
no rea son why

the same r easoning should not apply to the lesser inc luded offe nse of f acilitation of
se c on d de g re e mur de r, a n off e ns e wh ic h re su lte d in a homic ide a nd ne c e ssa ri ly inv olv e d a

hig h risk to human life. Thus, the trial c ourt err ed in apply ing f actor (1 1 ), and we re view the se ntencing d e t e r m i n a t i o n p u r e l y de novo

.

Th e de fe nd a nt cl a ims that th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s ma ximum , 1 2- y e ar s e nte nc e vio la te d h is rig ht to trial by jury , based upon Blakely v. W ashington , 5 4 2 U

. S

. ___ , 1 2 4 S

. C t

. 2 5 3 1 ( 2 0 0 4 )

. In Bl ake ly , the Supreme Court he ld that other than whe n based on the fac t of a prior conviction, a judicially imposed sentence cannot e x cee d the maxim um sentence statutorily allowed “solely on the basis of the fa cts ref

lected in the jury

verdic t or admitted by

the def endan t ” u nless the fa cts relied upon for enhance ment are found t o exis t bey ond a re asonable doubt by a jury

. Id. a t

__

__ , 12 4 S. Ct. at 2537 (empha sis omitted). “[T] he relevant ‘statutory maxi mum’ is not the maxim um sentence a judg e may

impose after

finding additional fac ts, but t h e maximum he may impose without any additional finding s.” Id. Th us , it app e ars that Bl ake ly invalidates Tenne ssee’ s scheme of the trial judg e ’ s e n h a n c in g a

d e f e n d a n t’ s s e n te n c e b e y o n d a p r e s u mp ti v e le v e l v ia

th e ju d g e ’ s f

in d in g a nd apply ing e nhance ment fac tors other than that of prior c riminal convictions. See, e.g., State v. Anthony J. Ramey , No. E2003-01840-CCA-R3-CD, slip op. at 13 n.4 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxvill e, J ul y 15 , 200 4) ; see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-210(c )-( e) ( 2003) (e stablishing pre sumptive
se nte nc e s a n d p r o v i d i n g f o r i n c r e a s i n g s e n t e n c e s ab o v e t h e p r e s u m p t i v e l e v e l b a s e d u p o n t h e us e of e nh a nc e me nt f

a c tor s) ; id. § 40-35-114 ( 2003) (e numerating possible enhanceme nt fac tors).

I n the prese nt c ase, the defe ndant was convicted of a Class B f elony , an offense f

or which the pr esumptive sentenc e is eig ht y ear s, the minimum in the applicable Rang e I

. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 210(c) (2003) ( providing that presumptive sente nce f or Class B of

fense s is the min imu m in the rang e ); id. § 4 0 -3 5 -1 1 2 (a )( 2 ) ( 2 0 0 3 ) ( es t ab l i s h i n g t h e mi n i m u ms en t en ce fo r R an ge I , Class B off

ense at eig ht y ear s).

The trial c ourt utiliz ed two enhanc ement factors to incre ase the sentenc e fr om eig ht to 12 y ear s. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114(2) (2003) ( defe ndant has history of criminal convictions or criminal behavior), (11) (de fenda nt had no hesitation about committing c rime whe n risk to human life wa s high) . Fa ctor (11) was inapplica ble b y t h e trial judg e pursua nt to Bl ake ly , as well as under state l aw. Although the tria l court re lied upon the def endant’ s previous history

of
c ri min a l beh a vio r, the de fe nd a nt ha d no pri or re c or d o f c ri min a l convic tions

. Thus, both bases for 1 enhanc ing the defe ndant’s sentence bey ond eig ht y ear s were improper a ccor ding to Bl ake ly . On de-6-

novo revie w, we a

re constrained to follow Bl ake ly . There fore , we modify the def endant’ s sentence to e ig ht y e ars

.
I n all other re spects, the tria l court’s judg ment is affirme d.

___________________________________ J AMES CURW OOD WI TT, J R., J UDGE