### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A s s i gne d on B r i e f

s S e pt e m be r 19, 2007

STA TE O F TEN N ESSEE v

. A LEXA N D ER G U ZM A N

- C H A VEZ

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 2005-A- 432 Mark J. F ishb urn, Jud ge

No. M2006- 01680-CCA -R3-C D - F iled April 10, 2008

Appellant, Alexander

Guzman-Chavez, pled g uilty to ag g ravated assault, with an a g ree d
se nte nc e of

six y e ars a s a

Rang e Iof

fe nd e r. Th e pa

rt ie s a g re e d th a t th e tr ia l c ourt wo uld deter mine the manner

of ser vice of the sentenc e, and, a fter a hear ing, the cou rt sentenc ed App el l an t t o incar cer ation, denying him an a lternative se ntence . On appe al, Appellant c ontends that the trial cour

t erre d by : (1) conside ring enhanc ement factors when dec iding the ma nner by which Appe llant should serve his sentenc e; (2) imprope rly applying e nh ance ment fac tor number (1 0) , th a t th e ri sk

to hu man l if

e wa s h ig h, be c a

us e a fe tus is n ot a

pe rs on fo r p ur po se s o f t

his enhanc ement fa ctor; and ( 3) deny ing him an a lternative se ntence based, in pa rt, on his fac ial expression during the sentenc ing he aring . Be cause it appear s from the r ec o rd that the trial cour t proper ly considere d and a p p l i ed t h e applica ble enha nceme nt fac tors and base d its denial of an alternative sentenc e on appr opriate c onsiderations, the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which D AVI D G. H A Y ES and T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J J ., joined.

Michae l A. Colavecc hio, Nashville, Tenne ssee, f or the Appe llant, Alexander Guzman-Chave z.
Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l and

Re po rt e r; Mich a e l E . M oo re , So lic ito r G e ne ra l; Cameron L

. H y d e r , A s s is ta n t A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l; V ic to r

S. Jo h n s o n , I I I , D is tr ic t A tt o r n ey Gene ral; Sara

h Davis, Assistant District Attorney s Gene ral, for the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.W e n o t e that t his C o urt has he l d t ha t ag gra va t ed assau l t i s no t a lesser includ ed o f f en se o f att em p t ed f

i rst 1 d e g re e m u rd e r. Se e St at e v

. Chr i s t op he r T od d Br own , N o. M 1999- 00691- CC A- R3- CD , 2000 W L 262936 a t * 2, (T e n n . C rim . A p p ., at N a sh v ill e , M a rc h 9 , 2 0 0 0 ), per m

. app

. deni ed , (T enn. Sep t

. 10 , 20 0 1 ). T he reco rd b ef o re us do es not r ef

l ect t hat t he i ndi ct ment i n t hi s ca s e wa s ev er amended. N eve r t hel es s , our s t at e s upr eme cour t ha s
c o u n se le d tha t an y issu e w ith re sp e c t t o the lac k o f an e x p licit am e n d m e n t t o a n ind ic tm e n t i n a c a se p ro c e d u ra lly id e n tica l t o the insta n t ca se sh o u ld no t b e a d d re sse d a s p la in e rr o r. See St at e v

. Yore ck , 13 3 S.W

. 3 d 60 6 , 61 3 (T enn. 2 0 0 4 ).

-2- OP IN ION

I n September o f 2004, a Da vidson County

Gra nd J ury indicted Appellant f

or one c ount of attempted f

irst deg ree murder. See T.C.A. §§ 3 9-13-202, - 12-101 (2003) . Pursuant to an ag r e e me n t w it

h th e St a te , A p p e ll an t p le d g u il ty to th e o f f e n s e o f a g g r a v a te d a s s a

u lt on June 2, 2006.

At th e p le a a c c e p ta n c e h e ar in g , th e p r o s e c u to r s tate d th e f a c tu a l b a s is f

o r th e cha rg es as fo llo ws : [I ]f the State went to t ri al , the proof w ould show that on the date of the 27th of September 2004, D etec tive Troy Smit h with the domestic violence unit responded to a domestic-r elated shooting . . . . Patrol had ar rived p ri o r t o that response and the victim had alre ady

been tr ansported t o Vande rbilt Hospital for treatment. She had re ceive d a g unshot wound to her rig ht ey e that had e x ited the left rea r of her sk ull . H e r s ur

viv a l w as qu est io nab le a t th e po int of be ingtake n to the ho sp ita l, bu t sh e did surv ive thi s sh oo tin g

. . . . . Gu zman, the br oth e r o f t he re sid e nt [w ho is also the def

endant], was pre sent when pa rame dics arr ived, he – it was he that orig inally called 9- 1-1 and he told them that the victim had been f ound in the living room of the town home. She lay on the couc h in th e living r oom, fac e down with her a

rms ab o v e h er he ad. A bullet hole wa s prese nt in the kitchen
ce i l i n g, b l o o d

wa s al s o p re s en to nt h e e n t ry h al l fl o o r a n d t h e a d

j ac en tgar age floor and w as also pre sent in drops from the e ntry hall to the co uch whe re the victim had been f

ound. The 10-month-old son o f t he victim and the r esident had b e e nf o u n d u p s ta ir s o nth e b e d , an d

th e

. 3 8 0 p is to l h a d

b e e nf o u n d a short distance f

rom the victim with the mag azine and live round. H eir o (phonetic) G u z m an an d h i s f

a t h e r w e r e qu e s t i o n e d b y d e t e c t i v e s w i t h d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e un it
and the y st ate d th at the de fe nd ant, Mr . G uzma n, ha d c a lle d h is f

a the r a nd tol d h is fathe r t h er e h as been a

terrible a ccide nt, take ca re of my son. He ne ver at any po int tol d h is f

a the r o r b ro the r t o c a ll the po lic e , it ju st so ha pp e ne d th a t hi s brother w ent to the sce ne a n d fo u n d the victim ly ing in the pool of her ow n blood. I t was dete rmined that the suspec t left the s ce n e i n a white Toy ota pickup with a logo f or B rothers a

nd Sons Ma rble a

nd Gra nite Company

on the side. He iro Guzman chang ed his s t o ry s ev eral times while the police we re the re r eg ardingthe-3-

location of the vic tim when he ar rived a nd called 9- 1-1. The de fenda nt’s car was later f ound with the lights on and the key s in th e ignition. The defe ndant did not g ive any state me nt r e g ard inghis inv olv e me nt i n th is c a se . T he se e ve nts did a ll
oc c ur i n D a v i d s o n C o u n t y

. A n d t h e v i c t i m , a l t h o u g h s h e d i d s u r v i v e , s h e d i d lo se her e y e as a

result of this shooting, a nd she wa s preg nant at t he time and lost the baby that she wa s car

rying.

The trial c ourt ac cepte d Appell an t ’s gu ilty plea. As pa

rt of the plea

ag ree ment, Appellant agr ee d t o al low the trial cour t to determine the le ng th and manner of the ser

vice of the sentenc e at a s en t en ci n g h ea ri n g.
At the sentenc ing he aring , Maria Ca rmen Casillas testified that she ha s one child, and Appellant is the father of that child. Casil l as rec alled the e vents of September 27, 2004, saying that ear ly that eveningshe left the house to ge t some fo o d fo r h er and Appe llant. She broug ht the food to his house, and the y ate tog ether

. She then re minded Appellant that she ha d asked him to p ur c ha se a

pr e g na nc y te st for her and in qu ir ed if h e ha d th e te st. He sa id h e le ft it i n h is fathe r’ s tr uc k, so Ca sil la s le ft

the ho us e and

we nt t o th e g ro c e ry

sto re to p ur c ha se ano the r t e st. She returne d to Appellant’s house a nd took the test, wh i ch re ad positive. W hen she infor med Appellant she w as pre g nant, he “ g ot mad,” pushed he r “ha rd,” a nd said that he ne eded to g o g et their son, who was sleeping upstairs. Casillas sa id that she reme mbere d nothing els e that happene d that evening , including the events immediately befor e and a fter the shooting.

Casillas de scribed her rec overy , telling the court that she was in the hosp i t al fo r a m onthand-a -half and wa s i n a coma for a lmost a month. S he suff ere d an injury

to her he ad whe re the bullet came out. Af

ter wa king up f rom her c oma, a nur s e t o l d her that she lost her rig ht ey e fr om being shot in the head. Casillas said the c hild she was ca rry ing at the time she was shot did not survive. Casillas rea d a letter t h at she wrote about the impact of this inj ury

to the court. In it she
sa id, a mon g oth e r t

hin g s, that sh e su ff

e rs pe rm ane nt- sh or

t te rm mem ory pro ble ms a nd br a in damag e. She aske d the cour t to incarc erate Appellant.

Casillas testified she had ove r $20,000 i n m ed i ca l bills and wa s try ing to f ind employ ment so that she could pay those bills. Be fore this incide nt, Ca sillas wor ked as a l oan counselor, but , af

t er the shooting, she had diffic ulties finding e mploy ment due in par

t to her br a in i nju ri e s and mem ory lo ss . Ca sil la s te sti fi e d App e lla nt d id n ot h a ve vis itatio n w iththe ir
so n, and he did no t pa y c hil d s up po rt

. Before thi s in c ide nt, Ap pe lla nt s aw t he ir so n f re qu e ntl y and paid f

or his baby sitter occa si o n all y . Casillas reca lled that, when she first told Appellant she was pre g nant with their son, he wa s ang ry beca use he thoug ht the baby

might not be his.

On cr oss-examination, Casil las testified that she ha d called Ap p ellant a f ew months ag o, and she c alled him fifty -seve n times in a three -we ek per iod of time. She also visited him at work three or four

times and broug ht her son with her . She agre ed that these were social visits. On redire ct examination, Casill as testified that she f irst called Ap p el l an t beca use he se nt her a

letter reque sting that she do so.-4-

Appellant testified that he had g ra d u at ed h igh sc hool and studied for a couple of

y ear s at
a jun ior c oll e g e in N a sh vil le . App e lla nt s top pe d g oin g to s c ho ol be c a us e he wa nte d to sp e nd

his afte rnoons with his s o n

. Ap p el l ant worke d for his father in a ma nag ement position at Br others and Sons Marble a

nd Gra nite. Ap pe lla nt s a id t hat he and

Ca sil la s h a d d a te d s inc e Oc tob e r o f 2 00 1. Th e y br ok e of f t he ir
re la tio ns hip a

c ou ple of tim e s, bu t th e y

ha d a so n to g e the r s ix or

se ve n mont

hs be fo re thi s inc ide nt. Ap pe lla

nt d id n ot s e e his so n v e ry muc h th e fi rs t coup le of months of his lif e be c a us e Casillas’s family

did not like Appellant

. After the first months, he and Casillas made
arr ang ements for

Appellant to pick up their son a nd take him to Appellant’s house . When Ca sil la s w a s f

ini sh e d w or

kin g , s ome tim e s aro un d 9 :00 p. m., sh e wo uld c ome and pi c k u

p th e ir
s o n

. D u r i n g t h i s t i m e , h e an d C a s i l l a s s t art e d

t o s e e e a c h o t h e r

a g a i ns o c i a l l y. Appell ant described the e vents surroundingthe shooting sa y ing that Saturday

night, the night be fore the shooting, he and his son attended a birthday party for one of his relative s

. On their wa y home, h e p u rc h ased a

preg nancy

test at Casillas’s reque st and arr ived home ar ound 7:00 p.m. Casill as ca

me over to his house, and she took the preg nancy test, which wa s positive. Appellant said that he told Casill as bef ore she left that eve ning that he intended to mar ry her. O n Sunday , Ca s il la s c a ll e d

h im ar o u n d 1 :0 0 p

. m. an d

s a id s h e w an te d

to c o me o v e r

to h is h o use. She arr ived ar ound 2:00 p.m., they fed the ir son, p u t h i m to sleep, and the n Casillas went and g ot the two of them food w hile he stay ed with their son. App el l an t testified that, afte r Casillas broug ht back the f ood, she fe d their son ag ain and pu t hi m ba c k to sle e p. He sa id t hat he ke pt a gun in th e ho use b e c a us e he liv e d a lon e , a

nd his son was too y oung to get t o t h e gu n

. T h e gun wa s in the living room bec ause the night be fore he hear d a noise, a

nd he we nt downstairs to investigate i t

. He f ell aslee p on the couc h with the g un on top of the ott oma

n. Ap pe lla

nt s a id t hat he wa nte d to un loa d th e g un . As p art of thi s p ro c e ss, h e p u ll e d th e tr ig g e r , an d h e a c c id e n ta ll y f ir e d th e g u n

. H e lo o k e d o v e r an d saw Casillas slumped forwa

rd on the floor . When he re alized that the bullet had enter ed Casillas’s ey e, he fr oze . H e tho ug ht h e sh ou ld t a ke he r t o th e ho sp ita l, b ut h e c ou ld n ot l ift her. He tr ie d to pu ll her to the c ar, a

nd he wa s able to g et her into the ga

rag e. Appe llant said that he then pa nicked,
and he did no t r e c a ll muc h o f w hat happ ene d th e re a ft e r. He did re me mbe r t

hat he c a lle d h is fathe r and

that he le ft

the ho us e . App e lla

nt w e nt t o a

lake a pp ro xima te ly

on e mil e fr om h is house. Appe llant testified that his father went to the house a

nd called 9- 1-1. Appellan t d en ied that he wa s ang ry about Casillas’s being preg nant and that he ever pushed her . He sa id that he and Casillas we re w atchinga music vi d eo DV D b ec ause he wante d he r t o h e ar s ome so ng s th a t to ld h e r h ow he fe lt a bo ut h e r. Ap pe lla

nt s a id h e kn e w t

he ir c hil d was upstairs, a

nd he did not fire this g un intentionally . He a dmitted, however , that his actions wi th r e sp e c t to un loa din g the g un we re re c kle ss i n p art

be c a us e he ha d n e ve r t a ke n a g un sa fe ty
course and had ne ver be fore shot the g un.
On cr oss-examination, Appellant te s t i fi ed that his only previous convic tion was for D UI in 2 0 0 2

. Ap pellant denied that he eve r hit or assaulted Ca sillas before this incident. He said he-5-

too k th e g un

on e or tw o mo nth s b e fo re the sh ooti ng fr om h is b ro the r b e c a us e he did

no t th ink his brother w as re sponsible enough t o have a g un. Appellant could not explain why he chose that tim e to un lo ad hi s g un

or wh y he pu lle d th e tr ig g e r w he n h e tho ug ht t he g un wa s e mpt

y . H e sa id that it never

occur red to him that the gun might still have a bullet in it when he pulled the trig g er. Ap pe lla nt m a int a ine d th a t, a ft e r h e sh ot C a sil la s, he dragged her to the dr ive r’ s si de of his c a r i n the g ara g e. He was then shown photog raphs showing a dragmark a nd a pool of blood nea

r the trunk of his ca

r, but he said he only

reme mbere d g ett i n g h er as fa r as the rea r whe el of the driver’ s side of the c ar. A fter dr ag g ing Ca sillas, Appellant panicke d and ca ll ed his father , telling his f a th e r th a t th e r e h a d b e e n a te r r ib le a c c id e n t. H e a g r e e d h e n e v e r a s k e d h is f a th e r to call 9-1- 1, and he ne ver w ent to the police himself.

On re direc t examination, Appellant testified that he intended to dr agCasillas to the passenge r’ s s i d e of his car, so he c ould drive her to the hospital. He, howe ver, la cked the streng th to drag her f

ar e noug h. He sa id his t ru n kwas full of spe aker s for his ca r, and he never intended to put Casillas in his t runk. Appe llant said he turned himself in to the police within a
c ou ple of day s of th is sh oo tin g . H e te sti fi e d h e did no t a tte mpt

to c le an u

p th e blo od

in h is house, did not move the g un, and did not remove the bullet that had ente red the ceiling

. The State a sked the trial c ourt to incorporate the testimony from a pr ev i o u s h ea ring when making its determination. At a pre vious hearing , C as illas testified that Appellant had hit her on a pr e vio us oc c a sio n. She c a lle d th e po lic e and c a lle d h e r brot her to com e and g e t he r. As a result of this incident, Casillas suffer ed bruises to he r ar ms, which wer e noticed b y a t ea cher at the school she attended. Casillas r eca lled another incident when Appellant was drunk and threatened to shoot her. She c all ed 9 -1 -1 t wice a nd hung up both times. S he wr ested the gun awa y from Appellant and threw it away . Casillas said that Appellant alwa y s had a gun in the ho us e . Ca si ll as recal le d th a t a po lic e of fi c e r c a me to h e r h ou se in r e sp on se to h e r 9 -1 -1 ha ngup s, but she did not tell him what had ha ppened be cause she wa s scar ed.

C a s i l l a s f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d a tt h e p r e v i o u s h e ar i n g t h a tA p p e l l an th i th e r s e v e r a l t i m e s

. In De c e mbe r o f 2 00 1 o r 2 00 2 s he be c a me pr e g na nt b y a pp e lla nt. She los t th a t c hil d, and sh e sa id that she may

have lost the c hild because Ap p el l ant hi t her. Casillas bec ame pr eg nant ag ain, and Appellant hit her in the stomac h while she wa s preg nant. Casillas rec alled another occa sion when Appe llant hit her so hard on the top of her he ad that she lost fe elin g t o o n e side of her fac e. She went to the hospital for tre atment of he r injuries, which inc luded bruises.

J uan Casil l as, Mar ia Casillas’s brother , testified at the pr ior hea ring that he re called a time when the police called him and told him to pick up his sist er at Appell ant’s house. When he did so, one of the two police off icer s there to l d h i m t h at h i s sister and Appe llant had bee n in a “bad a rg ument,” and the office rs wer e trying to de termine what had happe ned. Juan Casill as said that, afte r this incident, Maria move d back home with him and his mot her.B e c a u se o f A p p e llan t’s ar g u m e n ts a n d o u r sta n d a rd o f re v ie w , w e q u o te e x te n siv e ly f ro m the trial c o u rt’s 2 f i nd i ng s.

-6- Ba sed up this eviden ce , t h e trial court f ound when se ntencingAppellant the f ollowing fi nd ing s w ithre g ard

to a lte rn a tiv e se nte nc ing :
The Court has c onsidered the evidenc e pres en t ed at the sentencinghear ing y es t er d ay , as we ll as this morning, and a lso the previous hea ring s that we have had in this case, w hich have been inc orporated into this senten ci n g hear ing. T he prese ntence repor

t and sentenc ing p rinciples involving T .C.A. 40-35-102 a nd 103, arguments as to alt ernative sentenc ing, the nature and cha rac teristics of the criminal conduc t involved, the evidenc e and inf ormation on enha

nceme nt and mitigating fac tors, statements of the de fe n dant, his testimony here at the sentenc ing he aring , and the de fenda nt’ s potential for r ehabilitation and tre atment as pre viously

stated. The pa rties have ag ree d to a six -y ear sentenc e as a

Ran ge I o ffender. The purp ose of th is heari ngis s imp ly to d e te rm ine the me tho d o f t hat in wh ic h h e wi ll
serve his sentence . The Court has looked at t h e en h ancement fa ctors under 40- 35-114. The Court f

inds that the defe ndant does have a pr ev i ous history of
c ri min a l c on vic tio ns or cri min a l be havio r i n a dd iti on to t ho se ne c e ssa

ry to establish the appr opriate r ang e.
Hi s a c tua l c ri min a l, f

or ma l of fi c ia l c ri min a l r eco rd , is on e DU I , w hic h is
cer tainly not that significa

nt, but the Court does find that there wer e prior incidence s of domestic turbulenc e in this relationship.

The de fenda

nt ar gu ed y esterda

y afte rnoon that, y ou know, wher e ar e the
arr est repor

ts wh er e t h e police had [g one] there a nd things of this nature , but J uan Casillas testified at a prior hear ing that he g o t a ca ll from the police who w ere at hi s h ou se . T his is the inc ide nt w he re a g un wa s p ull e d a

nd he thr e a te ne d to kil l her a nd she th re w the g un awa y , asking [J uan] to come pick her up. So why

there may not be any

officia l reports, t here was c lear ly evidenc e – it was ne ver disputed that th e y we re n’ t c a lled on th at oc c a sio n. I n f a c t, t he re a so n th e y

sh ow e d u

p is the e vid e nce s ho wed ther e wa s tw o 9 -1 -1 ha ngup s and

the y c a me ou t in

re sp on se to the 9-1-1 hang ups. I cer tainly don’t believe that this is the first time that t here
wer e proble ms betwee n this particular c ouple.

Also the Court f

inds e nhance ment fac tor No. 6, that persona l injurie s were inflicted up on the victim, Maria Casil l as

. S h e testified at leng th y esterda y to the signific ance of her

injuries, her total loss of her rig ht ey e, I

believe it wa s. She has per manent and shor

t-term memory

loss. She has d i fficulty g etting he r tho ug hts tog e the r a

t ti me s and

be inga ble to e xpre ss h e rs e lf

or c omm un ic a te-7-

sometimes, things get j u m b l ed and thing s of this nature. She a lso testified to the fa c t of he r a bil ity to w or k, part icu larl y

a s a re su lt o f t

he sh or t- te rm me mor y los s, and thing s of this nature

. T h e i n juries wer e much more extensive than that require d to establish the underly ing of fense

.

. . . . The re ason I

think [ enhanc ement fa ctor] No. 10 [t hat the def enda n t h ad no hesitation about co m m i t t i ng a cr ime when the r isk to human life was hig h] does apply is, the case law see ms to sugg es t that the risk to human life, whe ther they make a distinction of th at , -- i n all of the other enhan[ce ]m ent fa ctors they use the te rm or pe rs on and the ri sk to huma

n li fe the y

int e rp re t, s inc e that is a tot a lly differ ent t er m and the only time used in the enha

n[ce]ment factors, that human life would include a

fetus whe ther it is via b l e or not. So Ifind that that particula r e nh an[c e ]me nt f

a c tor a pp lie s.

I d o not find that any

of the mitigating f

actor s apply . . . . [T] he Court does not find that this was an ac cidental shooting

.

. . . . I n looking at the fac tors as to whethe r or not Mr. Guzman should rec eive some ty pe of a lternative se ntencing , first of all, he d o es not qualify for Communi ty

Correc tions b ec au se this was an of fense involving violence and a
wea pon. T here is nothing bef ore the Court that sugg ests any particula r spec ial
n e e d s t h a tw o u l d

o t h e r w i s e a l l o w C o m m u n i t y C o r r e c t i o n s t o a

p p l y. Clearly being a Class C felony , he is a fa vorable candidate for pr obation. Ihave c onsidered a

number of f

actor s in determining whether or not the d e f e n d an ti s ana

p p r o p r i a t e c an d i d a t e f

o r p r o b a t i o n

. T h e r e ar e c l e ar l y a signific ant number of

fac tor s t h at weig h favor able to him. Although, I have mentioned the enha

nceme nt fac tor, and I

still ag ree that it is an enhanc ement fac tor and a lthough I

don’t put insignifica

nt we i gh t on it, he doesn’t have much of
a cr iminal recor d, althoug h there was some c riminal activity involved.

He suc cessf

ully comp l et ed the term of pr obation that he wa s on for the DUI

. A s f

ar a s I c o u ld te ll th e r e w a s n o e v id e n c e to th e c o n tr ar y

. H e h a s a g ood job . H e ha s g oo d f

a mil y su pp or t . . . [and ] g oo d c omm

un ity su pp or t.
He ha s n ’ t b e e nr e ar

r e s te d o r th e r e is n o in c li n a ti o nth a t h e h a s an y f u rth er problems with the law since his arre st on this parti cu l ar ca s e, and he has c omplied
w i t h a l l o f t h e t e r

m s an d c o n d i t i o n s o f h i s b o n d

. A l t h o u g h , t h e r e h a s b e e n s ome disputes, and we ha

ve bee n back in c ourt o n this severa l times or at least one pr ior-8-

occa sions about com m u n i ca t ions betwee n the par ties, but overall he ha s done what he is suppose[d] t o do under the terms and c onditions of his bond.

There is no drug history or any thin g o f t h at nature that needs to be addressed. He appea

rs, since his DUI , to have r esolved a ny alcohol issues that he
may have ha d. Th e re are a

numbe r o f f

a c to rs that

loo k v e ry

fa vo ra ble to h im get t i n g al t ern at i v e s en t en ci n g.
The Court re cog nizes that the sentenc ing la ws provide that pr iority

for sentenc es involving inc arc eration are pr imarily intended for

convicted f

elons who commit the most severe of fense s, posse s s a criminal history with a clea

r disreg ard of laws a

nd morals o f society , and do show a failure of past ef

forts of reha bilitation.

Th e Court

fu rt he r r e c ognizes that th e se nte nc e imp os e d s ho uld be the le a st
se ve re in m e a sure ne c e ssa ry to a c hie ve the purp os e fo r w hic h th e se nte nc e is imp os e d. Ac c or din g ly , I a m g oin g to g ive sp e c if ic re a so ns fo r t

his , notwithstanding that he is in many respe cts a g ood candidate for p ro b ation. . . . I do not think under any

– Ijust do not acce pt the version that the de fenda nt has g i v e nu s a s t o w h a th a

p p e n e d o nt h i s p art i c u l ar

d ay.

. . . . Ithink that in thi s case incar cer ation is nece ssary to avoi d [de] prec iating the se riou sn ess of the of

fe ns e . T he Cou

rt re c og nize s th a t w he n r e lyingon that to incar cer ate someone that the off ense ha s to be particula

rly violent or horrify

ing or repr ehensible a

nd shocking , and I

just find all of those fac tors there

. He ha s a six -month old child upstairs sleeping , he has a l oved one w ho, whether at that ver

y moment or t we n t y -f

o u r hours be fore , lear

ns that his girlfr iend is preg nant with his child, that he could s h o o t h er an d walk aw ay from it. On the stand y esterda

y he admitted under

cross-e x amination, Yes, I left her there to die.

Idid n’ t a pp ly the enh an[c e ]me nt f

a c tor fo r t re a tin g the vic timwi th
e xce pti on a l c ru e lty

bu t, t o me , it

is j us t a bs olute ly c old blo oded tha t he wo uld shoot some b o dy li k e th a t an d n o t e v e n th ink a b o u t c a ll in g 9

- 1

- 1

. I f y ou are panicke d, y ou run out the door sc rea ming, h el p , help, something . He dr ag s her bo dy int o t h e g ar a g e an d c a l l s d a d

an d s ay s , b a s i c a l l y , D a d , y o un e e d t o c ome c le an u p my me ss. Ime an th a t, t o me , it is r e pr e hen si ble . I

me a n, it c e rt a inl y sh oc ks my

c on sc iou s th a t he c ou ld a c t th e wa y he a c te d und e r t

ho se c ir c ums tanc e s. But the t[ell] tale sig n of it all, and p ro b ab l y o n e of the most si g nificant fac tors that he is not g etting some form of a lternative se ntencing, i s that when he-9-

is telli n g h is v e r s io no f

h is s to r y y e s te r d ay

h e s a t t h e r e w it h th is li tt le s m[ i] rky g rin on h i s fa ce

. I m ea n, like Idon’t know what the big de al is. Imean, he hasn’t
a c c e pte d a

ny re sp on sib ili ty

fo r t his a t a ll.

I s at there and looked at him and Istared, a nd he just kept with this grin, this li ttle s m [ i] rk on his fac e throug h the most important part of what the hear ing
wa s a ll a bo ut, e xac tly wh a t ha

pp e ne d on that da

y

. I t wa sn ’t jus t on e li tt le s mall one, it was five or six times through the m ai n p ar t o f h is testimony on what happene d that day , this li ttle sm[ i] rk kee ps coming up on his face

. Imean, he , obviously , fee ls no remorse at al l fo r wh at occur red. H e neve r did say he wa s sorry . Even if it was a n acc ident, y ou s ay I ’m s o rr y

. I nstead, I g et this li tt le s m[ i] r

ky g r in w h il e h e ’ s r e f

le c ti n g b a c k

o nth e e v e n ts o f

th a t p arti c u la r afte rnoon.

Iwa s a lr e a dy

str ug gli ng on ho w t o d e a l w iththi s c a se up un til tha t po int , but that was proba

bly the cr owni n g gl o ry

of it. That just indicated just how coldblo od e d h is a c tio ns we re on that da y , a nd ho w una ff

e cted h e ha s b e e n b y

thi s whole thing . He lef

t her ther e to die, and I

don’t know, but all for the g rac e of g od or some outstanding medical staf f, she didn’t die.

He didn’t e ven flinch, he just sh o we d wh at ki nd of attitude he ha d, y ou kn ow , it ha pp e ned. I t hap pened , le t[’ ]s mo ve on . Co up le d w iththe fa c t th a t I don’t think this was the first incident betwe en the s e p eo p le, under the
c ir c ums tanc e s, I ’m

g oin g to p ut t

he sen tence int o e ff

e c t and se nte nc e him

to s ix y e ars , a s a

Rang e Iof

fe nd e r, a t 30 pe rc e nt. Ap pe lla nt a pp e a ls this or de r o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

.

Anal y sis

O na p p e a l , A p p e l l an tc o n t e n d s t h a tt h e t r i a l c o u rte r r e d w h e ni ts e n t e n c e d

h i m to incar cer ation rathe r than an al t ernative sentenc e. He asser ts that, beca

use the trial c ourt only

had t o d et ermine the manner of sentenc e and not the le ng th of sentenc e, it improperly considere d any enhanc ement fa ctors. F urther, he asser ts that, even i f p roperly considere d, the trial cour t improperly

applied enha

nceme nt fac tor n u m b er (1 0) (that the r isk to human life was hig h) beca use a f etus is not a person f

or purpose s of this enhanc ement fa ctor. F inally , he asse rts that the trial court imprope rly weig hed the c riteria w hen it denied him an a lternative se ntence and sentenc ed him to incarc eration based solely on the look on his face during the sentenc ing hear ing.

Whe n th e re is a

c ha lle ng e to th e man ner of s e rv ic e of a se nte nc e , it

is the du ty

of thi s court to conduc t a de novo r eview of the re co rd wi t h a p resumption that the deter minations made by the trial cour

t are corr ect. T.C.A. § 40- 35-401(d) (2006). T h is presumption is conditioned-10-

upon the af

firmative showingin the rec ord that t h e t ri al court c onsidered the sentenc ing principles and a ll releva

nt fac ts and circ umstances. State v. As h b y , 8 2 3 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991 ). The burde n of showing that the sentenc e is improper is upon the a ppellant. Id. I n the event the r ecor d fails to demonstrate the require d consideration by the t ri al co u rt , revie w of the
s e n te n c e is p u r e ly de novo. Id. I f a pp e llate re vie w, ho we ve r, re fl e c ts t hat th e tr ia l c ourt

pr op e rl y considere d all rele vant fa ctors and its findin gs of fa ct ar e ade quately supported by

the re cord, th is c o u rt mu s t a f

f ir m th e s e n te n c e , “ e v e n if w e w o u ld h a v e p r e f e r r e d a d if f e r e n t r esult.” State v. Fletche r , 805 S.W .2d 785, 789 (Tenn. 1991)

. The mec hanics of a

rriving at an a

ppropriate sentenc e ar e spell ed out i n the Criminal S e n t e n c i n g R e f

o r m A c to f 1 9 8 9

. T h e c o u rti s r e qu i r e d t o c o n s i d e r : ( 1 ) t h e e v i d e n c e , i f a n y, rec eived at the trial and the se ntencinghear ing; ( 2) the pre sentenc e re port; (3) the p ri nciples of sentenc ing a

nd arguments as to sentenc ing a lternatives, (4 ) t h e natur e and c hara cter istics of the criminal conduc t involved; (5) evidenc e and inf ormation offe red by

th e par ties on the enhanc ement and mitig ati n g fac tors; (6) any statements the def

endant wishe s to make in the defe ndant’s beha lf about sentenc ing; a nd (7) the p o t enti al for r ehabilitation or treatment. T.C.A. §§ 40-35-210( a), ( b), -35- 103(5) ( 2006).

I nitially , we note that the trial court pr operly s en t en ce d Appellant ac cordingto the
se n t e n c i n g p r i n c i p l e s an d g u i d e l i n e s s e to u ti nt h e 1 9 8 9 S e n t e n c i n g R e f o r m A c t , d e s p i te Ap p el l an t ’s cl ai m t o t h e c o n t r a r y

. W e , i np ar t , qu o t edex t en s i v el y fr o m t h e t ri al co u rt ’s fi n d i n gs to m a ke it c le ar t

hat it c on sid e re d th e pr inc ipl e s and g uid e lin e s o f t

he Act

. I t cle arl y

and a de ptl y navig a te d the pro pe r s e nte nc ingc on sid e ratio ns and the imp a c t of

tho se c on sid e ratio ns wh e n it deter mined whether

to gr ant or de ny

Appellant an a lternative s en tence . We, theref ore, a ffor d the tr ia l c ourt ’s fi nd ing s a

pr e su mpt ion

of c or re c tne ss.
W e a l s o n o t e t h a tA p p e l l an tw a s s t a tu t o r i l y e l i g i b l e t o s e r v e a n a l t e r n a t i v e s e n t e n c e

. In reg ards to alter

native sente ncing , Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40-35-10 2 (5) provides as fo llo ws :

I n recog nition that st ate pr ison capa cities and the f unds to build and
ma int a in t

he m are lim ite d, c on vic te d f elo ns com mit tin g the mos t se ve re of fe ns e s, possessin g cr i m i n al history evincinga cle ar disre g ard f or the law s and morals of
so c ie ty , a nd evi ncing fa ilure of

pa st e ff or ts at r e ha bil itatio n s ha ll b e g ive n f ir st priority reg ardingsentenc ing involving incar cer ation.

A d e fe nd ant w ho do e s n ot f a ll w ith in t

his c lass of off

e nd e rs “ and

wh o is an e sp e c ia lly mitigated o ff

en d er or standar d offe nder c onvicted of a Class C, D or E felony should beT h e 2 0 0 5 a m e n d m e n t re m o v e d the lan g u a g e tha t p ro v id e d tha t t h e d e sc rib e d o ff e n d e rs w e re p re su m p tive ly 3

e ligib le fo r a lt e rn a tive se n te n c ing in the a b se n c e o f ev id e n c e to the c o n tra ry a n d m a d e the gu id e line s “a d v iso ry” in nat ur e. ) H owever , t hi s pre s umpt i on does not e nti t l e a l l of f ender s t o al t er nat i ve s ent enc e; r at her , i t r equi r es t hat
se n te n c ing issu e s b e d e te rm ine d b y the fac ts a n d c irc u m sta n c e s p re se n te d in e a c h c a se

. See St at e v. Tay l or , 744 S. W

. 2d 9 1 9 , 92 2 9T enn. C ri m

. A p p

. 19 8 7 ).

-11- considere d as a f

avora ble ca ndidat e fo r alt ernative sentenc ing options in the abse nce of evidenc e to the contra

ry .” T.C.A. § 40-35- 102(6) ( 2006).

Th e pres um pt ion of

fa vo ra ble c and ida c y

fo r a lte rn a tiv e se nte nc ingin g e ne ra l, w hic h is applicable in the prese nt case , may be over come by

showing that at least one of the c onditions set forth in Tenne ssee Code Annotated se ction 40-35-103( 1) is met. Se e Sta te v . R ic ha rd Swiney , No

. E 2 0 0 6 -01965-CC A-R3-CD, 2007 WL2333032, at *4 (Te nn. Crim. App., at Knoxvi lle, Aug . 16, 2007). These considerations include:

(A) Confine ment is nece ssary to protect s o ciety

by restra ining a

defe ndant wh o h a s a lon g his tor

y of c ri min a l c on du c t; (B ) Confinement is necessar y to avoid depre ciating the seriousne ss of the of fe ns e or c on fi ne me nt i s p art ic ula rl y su ite d to pr ov ide an e ff

e c tiv e deter

re nc e to others likely

to commit si milar offe nses; or (C ) M e a sure s le ss r e stri cti ve than c on fi ne me nt h a ve fr e qu e ntl y or re c e ntl y been a pplied unsucce ssfully

to the defe ndant[.]

T.C.A

. § 4 0

- 3 5

- 1 0 3 ( 1 ) ( A )

- ( C)

. T h e c o u rt s h o u ld a ls o c o n s id e r th e d e f e n d an t’ s p o te n ti a l f

or reha bilitation or treatment in deter mining the a

ppropriate sentenc e. T.C.A. § 40-35- 103(5).

When the alt ernative sentenc e soug ht is probation, the trial court should consider the natu r e an d

c ir c ums ta

n c e s o f th e o f f e n s e , th e d e f

e n d an t’ s c r im in a l r e c o r d , th e d e f e n d a nt’s backg round and soc ial history , his present c ondition, including phy sical and me ntal condit ion, and the deter

rent e ffe ct on the def

endant. See State v . Kendrick, 10 S.W .3d 650, 656 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). Moreove r, in State v. Bunc h , 646 S.W .2d 158, 160 (Tenn. 1983) , the Sup re me Court

he ld t hat tr uth fu lne ss i s c e rt a inl y

a factor wh ic h th e c ourt may c on sid e r i n decidingwhether

to gr ant or d en y

probation. F urthermor e, re g ardingprobation, the trial c ourt should consider the nature a nd circ umstances.
We conclude that there is no mer it with reg ard to App el l an t ’s fi rst argument, that the trial
c o u rti mp r o p e r l y

c o n s i d e r e d

e n h an c e m e n tf

a c t o r s w h e nd e t e r

m i n i n g h i s m an n e r o f s e n t e n c e

. In fac t, the SentencingAct, as s t at ed above, makes that par t of the trial cour

t’s considerations when deter mining ma n n er o f s er v i ce of sentenc e as w ell as leng th of sentenc e. See T.C.A. §§ 40-35- 210(a) , (b), - 35-103(5)

. Appellant next contends the trial cour t improperly

applied enhanc ement fa ctor number (1 0) , th a t th e ri sk

to h uma n li fe wa s h ig h, be c a

us e a fe tus is n ot a

pe rs on for pu rp os e s o f t

his-12-

enhancement factor. T his Court squarely addre ssed this issue in State v. Me lissa D. Hayman

. No. E20 0 1

- 0 1 6 0 0

- CC A

- R3

- CD , 2 0 0 2 WL 3 1 1 2 6 6 3 2 , a t * 6 ( T e n n

. Cr im

. A p p

. , a t K n o xv il le, Sept. 26, 2002), perm. app. de nied ( T e n n

. F e b

. 1 8 , 2 0 0 3 )

. I n th a t c a s e , th e d e f e n d ant was convicted of

, among other cr i m es , t h e agg ravated assault of a preg nant victim. Id. at *1. The trial co u rt t h ere in applied enha nceme nt fac tor (10), r elying on the fac t that the victim was preg nant and the at t ac k t h re at ened the viability of the fe tus as well as the vic tim’s life. Id. at *5. We held:

Withre sp e c t to fa c tor

(1 0) , w e no te that e ve ry a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult wi th a de a dly
wea pon includes a hig h risk to human l i fe

. Ne v er theless, we a g ree with the trial
c ourt that th is f

a c tor is a pp lic a ble un de r t

he fa c ts o f t

his c a se be c a

us e the vic tim was pre g nant, and the life of the fe tus was also at hig h ri s k

. We note that the Def endant w as aw ar e that the victim was preg nant . . . . The r isk to an unborn fetus is no t nece ssarily

prese nt in every

ag g ravated assault with a de adly wea pon and is there fore , we f

ind, properly

applied to this case.

Id. at *6.

I n an important footnote, this Court expl ained:

We acknowle dg e that our le g islature has de termined that only viable fe tuses may be victims of assalutive of fense s and cr iminal homicides, see Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39 -1 7- 10 7( a ), 39 -1 3- 21 4( a ), and that the re wa s no pr oo f c on c e rn ing the vi abi lity of the fe tus carr ied by

the victim in thi s ca s e. Ho we ver, w e do not view our fi nd ingtha

t e nh anc e me nt fact or (10) i s p ro pe rl y a pp lie d in thi s c a se on

the ba sis of the vic tim ’s pr e g na

nc y to be in c on fl ic t w iththo se statut or y pr ov isi on s. Ra the r, we c on sid e r t

he le g isl a tur e ’s us e of the te rm “ human li fe ” in t

his particula r enha nceme nt fac tor to be broa d enoug h to encompass the pote ntial h u ma n li f e inh e r e n t in a ll p r e g n an c ie s

. See Pl anne d P ar e nth oo d v . S un dq uis t , 38 S.W .3d 1, 17 (Tenn. 2 0 0 0). We note that, in the other e nhance ment fac tors fo c us ingon

the e ff e c t( s) of the of fe ns e on oth e rs , th e le gisl atur e us e d th e te rm s “victim” an d / o r “p er son.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-114(3) , (4), ( 5), (6) , (7), (11), ( 12), (1 6 ), (1 8), (19) . The much br oader term “huma

n life” indicates, we thi nk , th e le g isl a tur e ’s int e nt t o e nh anc e the punis hment of thos e wh o e ng a g e in activities that t h reaten not only the victim’s life, but the expectant human life inhere nt in the victim’s preg nancy , at least wh er e the de fenda nt is aware of the p r e g n an c y.

Id. at *6 n.5.-13-

I n acc ordanc e with our holding in Hayman , we c on cl u d e that the trial court her ein did not
err when it applied e nhance ment fac tor (10). Ap p el lant admitted that he wa s awa re that the victim was preg nant with his child. The trial cour t f ound implausible Appellant’s conte ntion that he ac cid en t al l y s h o t t he victim, drag g ed her to the trunk of his ca

r, left he r in the g ara g e, and le ft the ho us e wi tho ut c a lli ng9- 1- 1. The tr ia l c ourt fo un d th a t App e lla

nt s ho t th e vic tim int e nti on a lly , b a se d in

pa rt on the fa c t th a t App e lla nt h a d p re vio us ly

a ssa ult e d th e vic tim , thr e a te ne d h e r w itha

g un , a nd pr e vio us ly

be c ome ang ry

wh e n h e le arn e d s he wa s p re g na nt. A p p e ll an t, th e c o u rt f

o u n d , s h o t th e v ic ti m in te n ti o n a ll y , kn o w in g th a t s h e w a s w ith c hild. The
e vid e nce do e s n ot p re po nd e rate a g a ins t th e se fi nd ing s, and the tr ia l c ourt

pr op e rl y a pp lie d th is enhanc ement fa ctor.

F ina lly , App e lla

nt a sse rt s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt imp ro pe rl y

we ig he d th e c ri te ri a

wh e n it denied him an a lternative se ntence and sent en ced him to incar cer ation based solely on the look
o nh i s f a c e d u ri n g t h e s en t en ci n g h ea ri n g. I ti s cl ea r f ro m t h e t ra n s cr i p tt h at t h e t ri al j u d ge c o n s i d e r e d

t h e “ s m [i ]r

k ” o nA p p e l l an t ’ s f

a c e t o b e a

s i g nt h a th e h a d

n o r e m o r s e f

o r h i s a c tio ns

. The judg e did , i n fa ct, afford this fac t gr eat we ight. The trial judg e also made clea r, howe ver, that he wa s “shocke d” by Appellant’s a ctions and that he f ound th o s e ac tions “repr ehensible.” These a re a ppropriate considerations upon which to ba s e t h e d en ial of an a lternative se ntence , an d t h e e v i d en ce d o es n o tp re p o n d er at e a gai n s tt h e t ri al co u rt s o d o i n g.
Conclusion

I n light of the fore g oing, the judgme nt of the trial cour t is affirmed.

_______________________ J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE