### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A pr il 19, 200 5 STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. LA CEY JONES Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty No. 03-02148 Chris Cr aft, Jud ge

No. W2004-01628-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Augu st 4, 2005

The de fendant, L ace y

J ones, was convicted of four c ounts of espec ially ag g ravated kidnapping , one count of a g g ravated burg lary , and two count s o f ag g ravated robbe ry . The trial c ourt merg ed the ag g ravated robbe ry

convictions into the convictions for e specia lly ag g ravat ed k i d n apping and order ed a c oncurr ent sentenc e of thirty -five y ear s for each of the four counts. The tria l court orde red the ag g ravated burg lary sentenc e of seven y ear s to be serve d consec utively , for a n eff ective se ntence of fo rty -t wo y e ars
. I n this app e a l of rig ht, the de fe nd a nt ar g ue s tha t his co nv ic tio ns fo r e sp e c ia lly ag g ravated kidnapping and ag g ravated robbe ry violate principles of

due proc ess; that the trial court err ed by merg ing the ag g ravated robbe ry convictions into the espec ially ag g ravated kidnapping convictions; and that the trial court err ed by ordering consec utive sentenc ing. The judg ments of the trial court a

re a ffirme d. Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nts of the Trial Court Affi rm ed
G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J ., joined. Anthony Helm, B artlett, Tenne ssee (on appea l), and Tim Williams, Memphis, Tennessee ( at trial), fo r the app e lla nt, L a c e y

Jone s.
Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; Ric ha rdH. Du na va nt, As sis ta nt Attorne y Ge ne ra l; and J ames Wax and Michelle Parks, Assistant D istrict A ttorney s Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Tenne ssee. OP IN ION
The de fendant's c onvictions are the result of a home invasion robbery at the re sidence of An tho ny and Trina

B oy c e in M e mph is. At

app ro xima te ly

3:3 0 a .m. on Oc tob e r 1 6, 20 02 , w hil e Anthony Boy ce was away on business, four maske d men, who we re a rmed with g uns and we aring dark c lothing, used a

crow bar to bre ak in the fr ont door o f t h e residenc e and announced that they we re t h e p o l i ce
. Al t h o u gh M s
. Bo y ce h ad l o ck ed h er s el f i n h erb ed ro o mwi t h t wo o f h ery o u n g-2-

children, a g es t hree and five , the intruders kic ked in the bedr oom door. When one of them shouted, "[B] **ch, whe re' s y our husband . . . [w]e going to kill y our . . . f**king husband," Ms. Boy ce rec og nized the voice as that of a c o-def endant, B obby

Har ris, who had g rown up with her husband. After handcuf fing Ms. Boy ce and ordering her to lie on her be d, the men ransacke d the house. One of the a ssailants, who rema ined in the bedroom, place d his hands i nside Ms. Boy ce' s underwe ar and penetr ated he r vagina with his fing ers. Whil e downstairs, the intruders located and ha ndcuff ed two of Ms. Boy ce' s teena g e sons and her adult brother. T he third son, upon hea ring the forc ed entry , had fled to a ne ighbor ' s residenc e and te lephoned the police . When t h e p o l i ce arrived, they found the de fe nd a nt, wh o w a s d re sse d inbla c k a nd ha d a n in jur e d a nk le , lying in a

ne ig hb or ' s y ard . H e tol d the offic ers that he had been considering a purchase of the house ne x t door when he was ove rtake n by the men running from the B oy ce r esidenc e. The defe ndant was soa king w et. Ther e we re fo otp ri nts le a din g fr om the lak e beh in d the re sid e nc e to w he re he wa s f ou ndby the po lic e . M s. B o yc e ' s c h e c k

b o o k , d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e , a n d b i l l f o l d c o n t e n t s w e r e o n t h e g r o u n d s o m e t w o f e e ta w a y. The de fendant was tried jointly for the of

fe n s es wi th his co-def

endants L arry

Holmes and B ob by Ha rris. He wa s c on vic te d a s c ha rg e d, a s w a s H olm e s, who re c e ive d id e nti c a l c on vic tio ns
. Th e jury a c qu itt e d B ob by

Ha rris.
I
I nitially , the def

endant c ontends that his four convic tions for espec ially ag g ravated kidnapping wer e incidenta l to the ag g ravated robbery offe nses and a

re, the ref ore, violative of

due proce ss. The state a

rg ues otherw ise.
I n State v. Anthony , 817 S.W .2d 299, 305 (Tenn. 1991) , our supre me court acknowle dg ed that a period of confine ment of the victim fre quently acc ompanies such c rimes as robbery and ra pe and established that whether a separ ate kidnapping conviction can be supported depends u pon "w hether the conf inement, m ovement, or de tention [ was] essentially incidental to the ac companying fe lon y ." 81 7 S. W.2 d at 30 5. I n St a te v. Di xon, ou r h ig h c ou rt c lari fi e d it s ruli ng in A nth on y : Anthony and its prog eny , howeve r, ar e not meant t o p ro vide the ra pist a fre e kid na pp ing me re ly be c aus e he a lso c omm itt e d r ape . T he An tho ny de c isi on sh ou ld only preve nt the injusti ce which would occ ur if a de fendant could be convic ted of kidnapping wher e the only restraint util ized was that nec essary to complete the a ct of rape or robbery
. Acc ording ly , any restraint in addition t o that which is nec essary t o co n s u m m at e r ap e o r r o b b er y m ays u p p o rt a s ep ar at e c o n v i ct i o n fo r k i d n ap p i n g. 957 S.W .2d 532, 534-35 (Te nn. 1997). Where the co n finement is bey ond that nece ssary for the acc ompany ing f

elony , the next inqui ry

is whether it (1) preve nted t he victim from summoning he lp; (2) lesse n e d th e d e f

e n d a n t' s r is k o f d e te c ti o n ; o r ( 3 ) c r e a te d a s ig n if ic a n t d a n g e r o r in c r e a s e d the victim's risk of ha

rm. I d. at 535.-3-

I n our view, the confine ment of the victims wa s bey ond that nece ssary for the c ommissi on of the a g g ravated robberies. The defe ndant and his a ccomplice s were arme d with handg uns and used them to subdue the victims. They chose to further restrain the victims by handcuf fing them behind their bac ks, requiring them t o l i e face -down. Ms. B oy ce w as the only robbery victim. The p e rp e tr a t o r s , h o w e v e r , c h o s e t o c o n f i n e a l l o f t h e o c c u p a n t s o f

t h e r e s i d e n c e
. T h e t w o t e e n a g e d b o ys downstairs had slept throug h the bre ak-in a nd, behind the closed door of their bedr oom, were not an appar ent threat to the defe ndant and his cohorts. Nonethele ss, the boy s were awa kened, c uffe d, and moved to the hallway with Ms. Boy ce' s brother. After learning that one of Ms. B oy ce' s children, the one who ha d fled to a ne ighbor ' s residenc e, wa s unacc ounted for, the perpetrator s were determined to find and conf

ine him as well. This demonstrates a separ ate intent from robbery

. That the police arri v ed an d i n t erru p t ed t h e c ri m es , p re v en t i n g fu rt h erp h y s i ca l h ar mt o t h e vi ct i m s , d o es n o tch an ge the analy sis. The handcuf fing of the victims would have hindere d their eff orts to se ek aid, incr ease d their risk of ha

rm, and lesse ned the de fendant's risk of detec tion.
I n support of his arg ument, the def endant specific ally direc ts this court to St ate v. Coleman, 86 5 S. W.2 d 4 55 (T e nn . 1 99 3)

. I n Col e ma n, the de fe nd a nt fo rc e d the vic tim , a sh oe sto re c le rk , to empty the ca sh reg ister at g unpoint. After his ac complice lef t with the m oney , the def

endant dire cted t h e v i ct i m i n t o a b a c k ro o m , wh er e h e o rd er ed h ert o u n d re s s , ra p ed h er , an d , b ef o re l ea v i n g, i n s tru c t e d h e r

n o t t o g e tu p
. 8 6 5 S

. W

. 2 d a t4 5 6

- 5 7

. T h e d e f e n d a n tw a s c o n v i c t e d o f ar m e d r o b b e r y, ag gra v at ed ra

pe, and a g g ravated kidnapping . Our hig h court, howe ver, r ever sed the kidnapping conviction pursuant to Anthony

.

I n our view, the fac ts of Coleman are distinguishable from the facts in this case. In Coleman, the vic tim wa s n ot p hy sic a lly

re str a ine d a ndwa s dir e c te d to the ba c k roo m of the sto re to f

a c ili ta te the ra pe. Af ter the a ssault, the defe ndant di d n o t l o ck o r otherw ise block the door. In this case, howeve r, ea ch of the victims was handcuf fed behind his or her back and forc ed to lie fa ce- down, a po sit ion wh ic h re nd e re d the m def e ns e le ss andlarg e ly

imm ob ili zed . A c c or din g ly , th e de fe nd a nt i s not entitled to relief on this issue.
II Next, the defendant asserts that the tria l court er red b y merg ing his a g g ravated robbe ry convictions into his convictions for espec ially ag g ravated k i d n ap p i ng . The state c ontends that a lth ou g h th e me rg e r w a s n ot n e c e ssa ry , it wa s p ro pe r andwi thi n th e dis c re tio n o f the tr ia l c ou rt

. I t is well-established t

h at " [w ]h e r ec o mmis s io no f o n ec rim en e c e s s a

ril y involves commission of the sec ond, the offe nse so involved is said to be merg ed in the off ense of which it is a part. . . . [T] he doctrine of merg er does not apply wher e the of

fense s are separ ate a nd distinct, but onl y wher e the identical c riminal acts constitute both offe nses." 21 Am. J ur. 2d Criminal L aw § 21 ( 1998) (citat i o n s o m i t t ed ); s ee al s o S t at e v
. R o b er t s o n , No

. W 1 9 9 9 -0 1 8 7 2 -C C A- R 3 -C D ( T en n
. C ri m
. Ap p ., a t Jac ks on , D e c e mbe r 1 , 2 00 0) . T o d e te rm ine the e xiste nc e of se pa rate of fe ns e s a c ou rt mus t c on sid e r the fo llo wi ng fa c tor s:-4-

(1) whe ther the episode or transac tion constitutes a viol ation of t wo distinct statutory pr ov isi on s; (2) whe ther e ither of the of fense s is a nece ssarily

included off

ense of the other; (3 ) w he the r e a c h o f the of fe ns e s r e qu ir e s p ro of

of a dif fe re nt e le me nt; (4) whe ther e ach r equire s proof of an additional fac t which the other does not; and (5) whe ther e ach pr otects diffe rent intere sts or remedie s the same ha rm.
Gre er v. State, 539 S.W.2d 855, 858 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1 9 7 6 ) (c i t i n g State v. Bla ck, 524 S.W.2d 913, 919-20 (Te nn. 1975)); see also State v. Davis, 613 S.W.2d 218, 220 (Tenn. 1 9 8 1 ); State v. Roberts, 943 S.W .2d 403, 407 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996)

. At the se nte nc ing he ari ng , th e tr ia l c ou rt state d a s f

oll ow s: As far as the a g g ravated robbe ry and espe cially ag g ravated kidnapping , I do find the defe nse has a

point in the problems wi t h Ant hony and De nton as far

as the kidnapping s being nece ssary to commit an ag g ravated robbe ry beca use the robbe ry was not of any particula

r person. They wer e all handcuf fed and then the house was ra n s acked and thing s were taken. F or instance , the bag and the c oins were taken from the dr esser . Howev er , I d o n 't think the solut ion is going to be to dismiss the kidnapping s. I think the s olution since they ' re A felonies is to dismi ss or not sentence the def endant on the a g g ravat ed ro bbery . So I ' m not going to sentence on the a g g ra vate d r ob be ry . A ndbe c aus e of the pr ob le ms with Antho ny a nd its ilk I ' m ju st g oing to mer g e that in with the ag g ravated kidnapping s . . . .
I nitially , the two ag g ravated robbe ry convictions are for the ta king of jewelry from Trina B o yc e
. T h e s t a t e m e r e l y c h ar g e d t h e d e f e n d a n tw i t h d i f

f e r e n tt h e o r i e s o f

c u l p ab i l i t y. A c c o r d i n g l y, it would have bee n both nece ssary and appropriate for the trial court to have merg ed one c onviction into the other. That ha ving be en said, the tria l court did not, in our view, excee d its authority when it m e r g e d t h e d e f

e n d a n t ' s a g g r a v a t e d r o b b e r y c o n v i c t i o n s i n t o t h e c o n v i c t i o n s f o r e s p e c i a l ly ag g ravated kidnapp i n g. As alre ady determined, the dual convic tions for ag g ravated robbe ry and espec ially ag g ravated kidnapping did not violate thep rin c iple s of due pr ocess. Ne verthe less, the trial court mer g ed the convictions and declined t o sentenc e the defe ndant s epar ately for the ag g ravated robbery . Wit h reg ard to merg er, this c ourt has previously stated that "' the trial court has the power to e nt e r the app ro pria te jud g me nt. Th is auth ority do e s n ot i mpi ng e up on or a me ndthe ve rd ic t so long a s the judg ment does not subject the de fendant to a conviction and se ntence which excee ds the jury ' s determination of c ulpability .' " State v. Price, 46 S.W .3d 785, 825 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000) (quoting State v. Hill, 856 S.W .2d 155, 157 (Tenn. Crim. Ap p
. 1993)). Ha d the trial court not merg ed the of

fense s, the defe ndant would have been exposed to a n additional consec utive sentenc e. Thus, any err or inured to the be nefit of the de fendant and does not g ive rise to re lief.
IIIT he f i rs t fo ur cr i t eri a are fo und in G ray
. A fi f t h c at ego ry in G ray , ba sed o n a s p eci f i c num b er of

pri o r f el o ny 1

con v i ct i on s , ma y e n h an ce t h e s en t en ce r an g e bu t i s n o l on g er a l i s t ed cr i t er i on
. Se e T en n
. Code An n
. § 40- 35

- 1 1 5, S en t en cing C o m m i ssi o n C o m m en t s. -5- Fi n al l y , t h e d ef

en d an tco n t en d s t h att h e t ri al co u rt erre d b y o rd er i n g co n s ec u t i v e s en t en ci n g. The state a

rg ues that conse cutive sente ncing was a ppropriate beca

use the defe ndant is a dang erous o f f e n d e r a n d b e c au s e h e h a s a n e x t e n s i v e r e c o r d o f c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y. When there is a challeng e to the l eng th, rang e, or manner of service of a sentence, it i s the duty of t his court to conduct a de novo revie w wit h a presumption that the determinations made by the trial court are corr ect. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 401(d). This pre sumption i s "c onditioned upon the a ff ir ma tiv e sh ow ing in the re c or d th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt c on sid e re d th e se nte nc ing princ ipl e s a nda ll rele vant fa cts and c ircumstance s." State v. A shby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991); see State v. J ones, 8 8 3 S

. W

. 2d 597, 600 (Tenn. 1994) . "If the trial c ourt applies inappr opriate f actor s or o t h er wi s e fails t o follow the 1989 Sentenc ing A ct, the pre sumption of corre ctness fa lls." State v. She lto n, 85 4 S. W.2 d 1 16 , 1 23 (T e nn
. Cr im. Ap p. 19 92 ). Th e Se nte nc ing Com mis sio n Co mme nts provide that the bur den i s o n t h e defenda nt to show the impropriety of the sente nce. T enn. Code An n. § 4 0- 35 -4 01 , Se nte nc ing Com mis sio n Co mme nts

. Our re view re quires an analy sis of (1) the e vidence , if any , rec eived at the trial and se ntencing hearing; ( 2) the pre sentenc e re port; (3) the pri n ci p l es o f sentencing and the a rg uments of counse l relative to sentencing alternatives; (4) the nature and char acte ristics of t he off ense; (5) any

mitigating or enhancing fac tors; (6) any statements made by

the def endant in his own beha lf; and (7) the defe ndant' s potential for re habilitation or t re at ment. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40- 35-102, -103, - 210; State v. Smit h, 735 S.W .2d 859, 863 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987)

. Pri o r t o t h e enactment of the Criminal Sentencing Reform Ac t of 1989, the limited classifications for the imposition of consec utive sentenc es wer e set out in Gray v. State, 538 S.W .2d 39 1 , 3 9 3 ( T e n n
. 1 9 7 6 )

. I n t h a tc a s e o u r s u p r e m e c o u r tru l e d t h a ta g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s m u st be pre sent befor e plac ement in any one of the classifications. L ater , in State v. Tay lor, 739 S.W .2d 227 (Tenn. 1987), the court established an additional cate g ory for those de fendants convicted of two or more statutory offe nses involving sexual abuse of minors. Ther e we re, how ever , additional words of c auti on : [C]ons e c uti ve se nte nc e s sh ou ld n ot r ou tin e ly be imp os e d

. . . a nd

. . . th e a g g re g a te maxi mum of consec utive terms must be rea sonably related to the seve rity

of the offe nses involved. Tay lor, 739 S.W .2d at 230. The Senten cing Commiss ion Comm ents adopted the cautionary lang uag e. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40- 3 5 -1 1 5 . The 1989 Ac t is, in essence, the codification of the holdings in Gray

and Tay lor; consec utive sentenc es may be imposed in th e d i s cr et i o n of the trial c ou rt on ly up on a de te rm inatio n th a t on e or mor e of the fo llo wi ng c ri te ri a e xist: 1-6-

(1 ) T he de fe nd a nt i s a

pr of e ssi on a l c ri min a l wh o ha s kn ow ing ly de vo te d him se lf to criminal ac ts as a major sour ce of livelihood; (2) The defe ndant is an off ender whose re cord of

criminal ac tivityis ex tensive; ( 3 ) T h e d e f

e n d a n ti s a

d a n g e r o u s m e n t a l l y ab n o r m a l p e r s o n s o d e c l ar e d b y a c omp e te nt p sy c hiatr ist

wh o c on c lud e s a s a

re su lt o f an in ve sti g a tio n prior to sentenc ing that the defe ndant' s criminal conduct has been char acte rized by a pattern of re pe tit ive or

c omp uls ive be ha vio r w ithhe e dle ss i nd if fe re nc e to c on se qu e nc e s; (4) Th e d e f

e n d a n t is a d a n g e r o u s o f f e n d e r w h o s e b e h a v io r in d ic a te s li tt le or no re g ardfo r h uman li fe , a ndno he sit a tio n a bo ut c omm itt ing a c ri me in w hic h th e ri sk to h uman li fe is h ig h; (5) The defe ndant is convicted of two (2) or more statutory

offe nses involving se x ual abuse of a minor with consider ation of the agg ravating c ircumstance s arising from the re lationship between the defe ndant and victim or v i ct i m s , the time span of defe ndant' s undetec ted sexual activity , the nature and scope of t he sex ual acts and the e xten t of the re sid ua l, p hy sic a l a ndme nta l dama g e to the vic tim or vic tim s; (6) The defe ndant is sentence d for a n offe nse committed while on probation; (7 ) T he de fe nd a nt i s se nte nc e d f or c ri min a l c on te mpt

. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-115(b)

. The leng th of the sentenc e, when consec utive in nature , must be "justly deserved in re lation to the seriousness of the offe nse," Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-102(1) , and " no g reater than that deserved" under the circ umstances, Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103( 2); State v. L ane, 3 S.W.3d 456 (Tenn. 1999)

. I n Gray , our supre me court ruled that bef ore c onsecutive se ntencing could be impos ed upon the da ng e ro us of

fe nd e r, c on sid e re d th e mos t su bje c tiv e of the c la ssi fi c a tio ns a ndthe mos t di ff ic ult to a pp ly , o the r c on dit ion s mu st b e pr e se nt: (a ) that the c ri me s in vo lve d a g g ra vatin g c ir c ums ta nc e s; (b) that c onsecutive sentence s are a necessary means to protec t the publ ic from the de fendant; and (c) that the term re asonably relates to the severity

of the off enses. In State v. Wil kerson, 905 S.W.2d 933, 9 3 8 (T en n
. 1 9 9 5 ), o u r h i gh co u rt re af fi rm ed t h o s e p ri n ci p l es , h o l d i n g t h atco n s ec u t ive sentenc es cannot be require d of the da ng erous offe nder "unle ss the terms rea sonably relate[] to the severity of the offe nses committed and are nec essary in o rd er t o p rot ect the public ( society ) fr om further criminal ac ts by those persons who resort to ag g ravated criminal conduct." The Wilkerson dec ision, wh ic h mo dif

ie d s ome wh a t the stric t fa c tua l g uid e lin e s fo r c on se c uti ve se nte nc ing a do pte d inState v. Woo ds , 8 14 S.W. 2d37 8, 38 0 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 91 ), de sc ri be d sen te nc ing a s a " hu ma n p ro c e ss-7-

that neither c an nor should be r educe d to a set of f ix ed and m ec h an i ca l rules." Wil kerson, 905 S.W .2d at 938.
As to the c on se c uti ve se rv ic e , th e tr ia l c ou rt ru le d a s f oll ow s: And I also find [the defendant] , beca use of his prior convictions and bec ause of the nature of these of

fense s, a dang erou s o ff

ender . I find that the circ umstances . . . surrounding the commission of this offense a re ag g ravated. He had littl e or no reg ard for human life , no hesitation about committing crime in which the risk to human life wa s h ig h inde sc e nd ing up on thi s ho us e wi th tw o oth e r arm e d me n w ithma sk s, a ll those children be ing handcuff ed in sepa

rate rooms. I

think confinement for

an e xten de d p e ri odof

tim e is n e c e ssa

ry to pr ote c t so c ie ty fr om thi s vio le nt ma n w ho se un wi lli ng ne ss t o le a d a

pr od uc tiv e lif

e a ndhis r eso rt to c ri min a l a c tiv ity in fu rthe ranc e of

a n an tis oc ie ta l life style fr om the pr e se nte nc e re po rt a ndthe a g g re g a te leng th of the sentenc e, which w ould be basica lly 42 y ear s. 35 y ear s at 35 percent a nd 7 y ear s at 35 perc ent re asonably relates to the offe nse of whic h he stands convic ted.
I n our vi ew , t h e trial court pr operly order ed conse cutive service on the g rounds that the d ef en d an ti s a d an ger o u s o ff en d er
. T h e t ri al co u rt a p p r o p ri at el y m ad e a l l o f t h e r eq u i re d fi n d i n gs and they are supported b y t h e record. F urthermor e, conse cutive sente nces w ere war rante d by the defe ndant' s ext ensive re cord o f criminal activity . His rec ord includes a conviction for voluntary man sl aug hte r i n I lli no is i n 1 99 0, a s w e ll a s tw o p ri or c on vic tio ns fo r a g g ra vate d r ob be ry in Tenne ssee in 1991 and 1992, e ach of which resulted in a twelve- y ear sentenc e. Other convictions include two " wea

pons offe nses." Thus, the forty -two-y ear eff ective se ntence was wa

rra nted.
Acc ording ly , the judg ments are aff irmed.

___________________________________

GARY R. WADE, PRES I DING JUDGE