# FIL ED Aug ust1, 1996 Cecil W. Crowson App ellate C ou rtC lerk IN T HEC OU RTOFC RI MI NAL APPEALS OFT EN NE SSEE

A T NASHVILLE MARC H SESSI ON , 199 6 STA TE OFT EN NE SSEE, ) C. C. A. N O. 01C 01-9507-CR -0 0217 ) Appel lee , ) ) ) DA

VIDSON COUNTY VS . ) ) HON. J. RANDALL WYA TT, JR. JOHN V. WO ODRUFF, ) PR ESID IN G JU DG E ) Appel lan t. ) (D irect App eal)

FO R THE A PPELLA NT: FO R THE A PPELLE E: MA RK F ISH BU RN CH AR LES W . BU RS ON Atto rn ey at Law Atto rn ey Gene ra l and Repor

ter Nas hv il le, TN 37201 CH RI STINA SH EVALI ER Ass is tant Atto rn ey

Gene ra l 450 J ames Rober

tso n Parkway Nas hv il le, TN 37243 VIC TOR S. J OH NS ON Di strict Attorney

Gene ra l THOM AS TH UR MA N Ass is tant Di strict Attorney 222 Se cond Avenue S outh Nas hv il le, TN 37201 OPIN ION F ILED______ _________

_________ AFF IR ME D JER RY L. SM ITH, JU DG E-2- 

## OPI NI ON
A Da v i d s o n Co u n tyCr i m i n a l Co u rtj u ryfo u n d Ap p e l l a n tJ o h n V. W o o d ru ff g u ilty o f fe lo n ym u rd e r, e s p e c ia lly a g g ra v a te d ro b b e ry , e s p e c ia lly a g g ra va te d k id n a p p in g , a n d fi rs t d e g re e m u rd e r. A p p e ll a n t re c e ive d a l ife sent ence foreac h m urderco nv i ct i on and a twentyy earse nt ence forbot h t he espec i al l yaggrav at ed robberyco nv i ct i on and t he es peci al l yaggrav at ed k id n a p p in g c o n vic ti o n . T h e l ife s e n te n c e s w e re o rd e re d to ru n c o n s e c u ti ve to each ot her , and t he s ent ences forrobberyand ki dnappi ng were order ed t o r un c o n c u rre n t w it h e a c h o th e r a n d w it h th e l ife s e n te n c e fo r fi rs t d e g re e m u rd e r. I n t hi s a pp ea l a s o f

r i gh t , App el l an tp r es en t s t he fol l owi ng i s s ue s forrev i ew: ( 1) whet hert he t r i al co urter r ed i n al l owi ng t he i nt roduct i on of ev i dence of s e x u a l a s s a u lt u p o n o n e o f th e vic tim s ; (2 ) w h e th e r th e tria l c o u rte rr e d in deny i ng a r eques tfora j uryi nst r uct i on on t he l ess eri ncl uded of fense of cr i m i nal att em ptt o c om m i tes peci al l yaggrav at ed robbery ; ( 3) whet hert he ev i dence present ed att r i al i s l egal l ysu f f i ci entt o s ust ai n c onv i ct i ons for espec i al l yaggrav at ed robberyand f i rstdegree m urder ; and ( 4) whet hert he t r i al courter r ed i n order i ng co nsecu t i v e l i fe sen t ence s.
A fte r a re vie w o f t h e re c o rd , w e a ffi rm th e j u d g m e n t o f t h e tri a l c o u rt.

I . F A CT UA L BA CKGROUND As acc r edi t ed byt he j ury ’ s v erdi ct , t he record ref l ect s t hatt he fact s o f t hi s c ase ar e as fol l ows. Atapprox i m at el ym i dni ghton Mar ch 9, 1992, A ppe l l antrecei v ed a pho ne ca l l f rom W al t erK end r i cks, duri ng w hi ch K end r i cks asked hi m i f he w oul d l i ke t o pa rt i ci pat e i n a r obb ery . Ke ndri cks-3-

st at ed t hatt he robberydi d noti nv ol v e a s t or e butan i ndi v i dual . Appel l ant a g re e d to p a rticip a te i n th e ro b b e ry, b o rro w e d h is g irl frie n d ’s c a r, a n d d ro ve to Kendr i ck s’ hom e. Appel l antt hen drov e Kendr i ck s a nd hi m sel f t o t he hom e of J o h n R u c k e r, A p p e lla n t’s b ro th e r- in -la w . A p p e lla n t a s k e d R u c k e r if h e c o u ld b o rro w h is g u n , e xp la in in g th a t t h e y in te n d e d to ro b a n i n d ivi d u a l o f t e n to f i ft een t housa nd dol l ars. Ruckeragreed t o t he us e of hi s g un and st at ed t hat he want ed t o part i ci pat e i n t he robbery . Befor e l eav i ng, Je r m ai ne Ferguson ar r i v ed and st at ed t hathe t oo want ed t o part i ci pat e i n t he robbery . The four m e n th e n le ft R u c k e r’s h o m e a n d p ro c e e d e d to th e T w e lve O a k s M o te l in Ber ryH i l l . As i nst r uct ed byKendr i ck s, Appel l antdrov e around t he m ot el twi ce, par ked t he c ar , and t ur ned of f t he head l i ght s. Acco rdi ng t o pl an, Kendr i ck s a nd Ferguson ent er ed one of t he m ot el room s, and Appel l antand R u c k e r fo l l o w e d a fe w m i n u tes l a ter.
W hen Appel l antand R uck erent er ed t he room , Ferguson was st andi ng o ve r on e o f the b e d s p o i n ti n g a g u n a t M r. D e rri c kG ra n t. M s . R e b a B e n ford wa s al so presenti n t he room and wa s posi t i one d on t he o t her bed. Ke ndri cks ask ed Mr . G r antwher e t he m oneywas, and M r . G r antrespon ded t hati twas no l ongert her e. Ms. Benford was t hen t aken i nt o t he bat hroom upon Kendr i ck s’ i nst r uct i on. Appel l antand Kendr i ck s b egan s ear chi ng t he room for t he m one y . Atsom e po i nt , A ppe l l antent er ed t he b at hr oom and spoke t o M s. Benford, prom i si ng hert hatsh e woul d notbe h urt . W hi l e Appel l antwas i n t he bat hr oom , K end r i cks foun d an d t ook p ossessi on o f t hr ee h und r ed d ol l ar s.
H av i ng di sc ov er ed t he t hr ee hund r ed dol l ars, Kendr i ck s’ t ol d Appel l ant t hatt heyhad t o k i l l M r . G r ant . I n respon se t o Kendr i ck s’ st at em ent , Appel l ant-4-

t ol d R uck ert hati twas t i m e fort hem t o go; howev er , nei t herm an l eftt he m ot el room . As Mr . G r antl ayon h i s s t om ach, Kendr i ck s b ound hi s wr i st s wi t h a shoel ace and hi s a nkl es wi t h t el ephone cord. Kendr i ck s t hen i nj ect ed an uni dent i f i ed s ubst ance i nt o Mr . G r ant ’ s a r m , m ai nt ai ni ng t hatt he i nj ect i on wo ul d no tki l l hi m butonl yputhi m t o sl eep . So on t hereaft er , K end r i cks det er m i ned t hatt he i nj ect i on was notgoi ng t o ac hi ev e t he des i r ed resul tand began s ear chi ng forso m et hi ng el se t o i nj ect . Appel l antret ur ned t o t he bat hroom wher e Ms. Benford rem ai ned. Byt hi s p oi nt , bot h Kendr i ck s a nd F er guso n ha d st at ed t hatt hey wan t ed t o ha v e sexual i nt er course wi t h M s. Benford.
W hen Appel l antca m e outof t he bat hroom , M r . G r antwas st i l l on t he bed butwas now cov er ed wi t h a b l anket . The fourm en agreed t hati twas ti m e t o l e a ve , a n d A p p e l l a n t s u g g e s ted t h a t the y t i e u p M s . B e n ford a n d l e a ve her i n t he m ot el room forsom eon e t o f i nd. Ke ndri cks how everwa nt ed t o t ake h e r w it h th e m a n d i n s tru c te d A p p e ll a n t t o re trie ve h e r fro m th e b a th ro o m . A p p e lla n t d id s o , a n d th e g ro u p le ft th e m o te l.
A tapp roxi m at el y2: 30 a . m . , O f f i cerJohn P ar ks of

t he B er ryH i l l P ol i ce D epart m entnot i ced two bl ackm al es si tt i ng i n a d ar k b l ue, four- doorse dan parked t o t he si de o f

t he T we l v e O aks M ot el . Aft erobse rv i ng t he “suspi ci ous” v ehi cl e f rom a di st ance fora pe r i od of t i m e, O f

f i cerPar ks wi t ness ed t hr ee or fo u r b la c km a le s a n d a b la c kfe m a le g e t i n to th e ve h icle a n d l e a ve th e m o te l. T he fem al e di d notappeart o be hel d agai nstherwi l l . O f f i cerPar ks fol l owed th e ve h ic le fo r a w h ile b u t m a d e n o e ffo rtto s to p it d u e to a la c ko f p ro b a b le c a u s e to w a rr a n t s u c h a c tio n . E v e n tu a lly, h e re tu rn e d to h is re g u la r p a tr o l.-5- M s . B e n fo rd w a s e v e n tu a lly d ro p p e d o ff o n a s tr e e t n e a r R e s e rv o ir P a rk . A s A p p e ll a n t d ro ve a w a y, K e n d ric k s s ta te d , “w e g o tta g e t h e r, w e g o tta gether . ” Appel l antt hen pul l ed ov er , and Kendr i ck s a nd Ferguson ex i t ed t he v e h ic le . A fte r a “lo n g ” p e rio d o f tim e h a d p a s s e d , A p p e lla n t a n d R u c k e r, s till si tt i ng i n t he c ar , heard gun shot s. AtR uck er ’ s b ehest , Appel l antst art ed t he carand began t ur ni ng i taround s o t hatt heyco ul d l eav e. W hi l e doi ng s o, Kendr i ck s a nd Ferguson ret ur ned and goti n t he c ar . Ferguson t ol d Appel l ant t hatKendr i ck s h ad enga ged i n s ex ual i nt er course wi t h Ms. Benford. Appel l ant drov e awayf rom t he par k, ev ent ual l ydroppi ng t he ot hert hr ee m en of f and re tu rn in g h o m e . Betwee n t he h ou rs o f 2 : 00 a nd 3 : 30 a . m . o n Mar c h 9, 1 99 2, two i ndi v i dual s i n s eparat e resi dence s n earR eserv oi rPar k were awake ned by noi ses co m i ng from t he par k. Ms. St aceyBer ryheard a fem al e v oi ce cal l i ng o u t fo r h e lp fo llo w e d b yg u n s h o ts . M s . K a te M u ir h e a rd a n in itia l, “u n u s u a lly l oud” guns hotfol l owed byt hr ee orfourm or e guns hot s. Nei t hersa w any t hi ng.
Atapprox i m at el y6: 00 a. m on t hatsa m e day , t he f i r e depart m ent r ecei v ed a 911 cal l rega rdi ng a possi bl e sho ot i ng i n t he p ar k. An em er gen cy m e d i c a l t e c h n i c i a n f ro m t h e f i re d e p a rt m e n t fou n d t h e b o d y o f M s . B e n ford l y i ng i n t he m i ddl e of

t he par k wi t h a g unsho twound t o t he head . Medi cal ev i de nc e l at ers ho wed t ha tMs. Ben ford ha d be en s ho ttwi c e, s uf fer i ng two ent r ance wounds and two ex i twounds . No bul l et s were recov er ed from t he b o d y. O n e o f t h e w o u n d s w a s a n e a r g u n s h o t w o u n d to t he l eftt em pl e. The o th e r w o u n d w a s a d ista n t g u n s h o t w o u n d b e h in d th e l e ft e a r. A c c o rd in g to m edi cal ev i dence , bot h wounds woul d hav e been fat al , butan e x am i nat i on of-6-

t he bodydi d notrev eal whi ch shotoc cur r ed f i rst . The t i m e of deat h was e s t a b l i s h e d t o b e b e tw e e n 2 : 3 0 a n d 3 : 0 0 a . m.
L a w e n forc e m e n t a u tho ri ti e s a rri ve d a t the p a rk s o o n a ft e r t h e f i re d e p a rt m e n t a n d s e c u re d th e c rim e s c e n e . A u th o ritie s fo u n d D e rr ic kG ra n t’s dr i v erl i cens e approx i m at el yt hi rtyy ards f rom t he body . Aut hor i t i es al so found and c ol l ect ed as ev i dence t hr ee . 45 c al i bersh el l ca si ngs, a bu l l et , and a ci gar ett e l i ght er . Between 5: 00 and 6: 00 p. m . t hatsa m e day , aut hor i t i es found M r. G ra n t’ s c a r in th e p a rk in g l o t o f t h e T w e lve O a k s M o te l. B e li e vin g h im to be a poss i bl e s uspec t , aut hor i t i es ent er ed hi s m ot el room and found hi s b ody o n o n e o f the b e d s , c o ve re d w i th a b e d s p re a d . H i s a n k l e s a n d ri g h t a rm w e re b o u n d w it h te le p h o n e c o rd , a n d h is w ris ts w e re b o u n d w it h a s h o e la c e . Anot herpi ece of

sh oel ace was t i ed around hi s n eck . Medi cal ev i dence l at er re ve a le d th a t t h e c a u s e o f d e a th w a s l ig a tu re s tra n g u la ti o n . H e a p p e a re d to hav e been dead form or e t han twenty - fourhours from t he t i m e he was found and probabl ydi ed a shortt i m e befor e Ms. Benford. He t est ed pos i t i v e for t r ace am ount s o f

co cai ne as wel l as fort r ace am ount s o f co l d rem edy . Ex cept fortwo supe rf i ci al i nci si ons on t he l eftsi de of t he frontof

hi s n eck , t her e was no ev i dence of

an i nj ect i on hav i ng been adm i ni st er ed.
B a s e d o n th e o b s e rv a tio n s o f O ffic e r P a rk s a t th e T w e lve O a k s M o te l, l aw enfor cem entaut hor i t i es wer e adv i sed t o be on t he l ookou tfora da m aged, dar k- col or ed Ford. Atapprox i m at el y2: 00 a. m . on Mar ch 12, 1992, O f f i cer R ic kL e m a n c e o f th e M e tr o p o lita n P o lic e D e p a rt m e n t o b s e rv e d a ve h ic le m a tc h in g th is d e s c rip ti o n . H e s to p p e d th e c a r a n d a s c e rta in e d th e o c c u p a n ts t o be M s. M ar l ena Buford, R uck er , and Appel l ant . O f f i cerLem ance patt ed-7-

each of t he oc cupan t s d own butdi d notdet ai n t hem anyf urt her . He r eport ed t he s t op t o t he of

f i cers i nv est i gat i ng t he m urders. Subseque ntt o t he s t op, A p p e lla n t a n d R u c k e r w e re in te rv ie w e d s e p a ra te ly r e g a rd in g th e ir p o s s ib le i nv ol v em enti n t he c r i m es. Appel l antst at ed t hat , on t he ni ghti n ques t i on, he borrow ed a car , purchased two - and - a- hal f pi nt s of gi n, and drove aroun d ea st N ashv i l l e. As a r esul tof t he i nt erv i ew wi t h R uck er , aut hor i t i es dev el oped K e n d ric k s a s a s u s p e c t a n d e v e n tu a lly r e c o v e re d a .4 5 c a lib e r a u to m a tic handgun, l at eri dent i f i ed as t he weapon used t o k i l l M s. Benford. Appel l ant w a s in te rv ie w e d a g a in a n d , th is tim e , g a v e a u th o ritie s a s ta te m e n t d e ta ilin g h is i nv ol v em enti n t he of

fenses . He was su bsequ ent l yar r est ed and i ndi ct ed on two coun t s o f

f i rstdegree m urder , two coun t s o f fel onym urder , one countof espec i al l yaggrav at ed robbery , and one c ountof es peci al l yaggrav at ed ki dnappi ng.
I I . A DM I SS I ON OF S EX UA L A SS A UL T E VI DE NCE Appel l antf i rstal l eges t hatt he t r i al co urter r ed i n al l owi ng t he i nt roduct i on of

ev i dence of

se x ual as saul tupon M s. Benford. I n a p r e- t r i al m ot i on, Appel l antobj ect ed t o t he i nt roduct i on of anyev i dence su ggest i ng t hat M s. Benford was sex ual l yas saul t ed on t he ni ghtt hatsh e was m urder ed. The t r i al co urtdeni ed t he m ot i on, co ncl udi ng t hatt he ev i dence co r roborat ed Appel l ant ’ s o wn st at em entregardi ng t he i nci dent . Att r i al , D r . M ona G r et el C ase H ar l an, m edi cal ex am i nerand wi t ness fort he St at e, t est i f i ed t hatsh e fou n d sp e rm o n t h e a n a l , o ra l , a n d va g i n a l sw a b s t a k e n f ro m M s . B e n ford dur i ng t he c ourse of

heraut opsy . Appel l antargues t hatev i dence of a s ex ual ass aul tupon M s. Benford s houl d hav e been ex cl uded be caus e i twas irr e le v a n t. A p p e lla n t fu rt h e r a rg u e s th a t, e v e n if th is e v id e n c e w a s re le v a n t, it-8-

s h o u ld h a v e b e e n e x c lu d e d b e c a u s e its p ro b a tiv e va lu e w a s s u b s ta n tia lly o u tw e i g h e d b y i ts p rej u d i c i a l i m p a c t a n d i ts t e n d e n c y t o m i s l e a d t h e j u ry.
A p p e l l a n t w a s ch a rg e d w i th th e f i rst d e g re e m u rd e r of M s . B e n ford undert he t heoryt hathe was cr i m i nal l yrespon si bl e fort he ac t i ons of K e n d ric k s a n d F e rg u s o n . S e e T e n n . C o d e A n n . § 3 9 -1 1 -4 0 2 (2 ). I n est abl i shi ng t hatAppel l antac t ed wi t h i nt entt o as si storprom ot e t he k i l l i ng, t he S ta te re li e d u p o n A p p e ll a n t’ s o w n i n c u lp a to ry s ta te m e n t t o a u th o riti e s . H o w e ve r, a s a rg u e d b y A p p e ll a n t i n a n o th e r iss u e , t h e c o rp u s d e li c ti o f a c ri m e ca n n o t b e e s tab l i s h e d b y a n i n c u l p a tory s tate m e n t a l o n e . S e e S tate v. Erv i n, 731 S. W . 2d 70, 71 ( T enn. C r i m . App. 1986) . Som e i ndependen t e vi d e n c e o f the co rp u s d e l i c ti i s n e c e s s a ry t o co rrob o ra te th e i n c u l p a tory st at em ent . I d. Dur i ng hi s i nt erv i ew wi t h aut hor i t i es, Appel l antst at ed t hat K end r i cks wa nt ed t o ha v e sexual i nt er course wi t h M s. B enfor d, t hatK end r i cks and Ferguson ex i t ed t he c araft errel easi ng Ms. Benford i n t he par k, and t hat F er guso n r epo rt ed t hatK end r i cks had eng age d i n sexual i nt er course wi t h M s. Benford befor e t he s hoot i ng. Test i m onyf rom t he m edi cal ex am i nert hat s e m e n w a s fo u n d i n t h e vi c ti m t e n d s t o co rrob o ra te A p p e l l a n t’ s i n c u l p a tory s ta te m e n t.
T he T ennes see R ul es of Ev i dence prov i de t he fol l owi ng: “ R el evantev i den ce” m ean s ev i den ce ha v i ng a ny t end ency t o m ake t he ex i st ence of

anyfactt hati s o f

co nsequ ence t o t he det er m i nat i on of t he act i on m or e probabl e orl ess probabl e t han i twoul d be wi t houtt he ev i dence . T enn. R . Ev i d. 401. Al l rel ev antev i dence i s a dm i ss i bl e ex ceptas prov i ded byt he C onst i t ut i on o f

t he U ni t ed S t at es, t he C onst i t ut i on o f T enn essee , t hese r ul es,-9-

o r o th e r ru le s o r la w s o f g e n e ra l a p p li c a ti o n i n th e c o u rts o f T e n n e s s e e . Evi dence whi ch i s n otrel ev anti s n otadm i ss i bl e. I d. 402. A lth o u g h re le v a n t, e v id e n c e m a yb e e x c lu d e d if its p ro b a tiv e va lu e is subs t ant i al l youtwei ghed byt he dang erof unfai rprej udi ce, co nf usi on of t he i ss ues, orm i sl eadi ng t he j ury , orbyco nsi derat i ons of undue del ay , wast e of t i m e, orneedl ess present at i on of cu m ul at i v e ev i dence . Id . 4 0 3 . A s A p p e lla n t s e e m s to c o n c e d e in h is b rie f, e v id e n c e o f a s e x u a l a s s a u lt upon Ms. Benford i s rel ev antt o t he j ury ’ s d et er m i nat i on of t he prem edi t at ed fi rst d e g re e m u rd e r ch a rg e . T h e m e d i c a l e xa m i n e r’ s t e s ti m o n y m a k e s m o re p ro b a b le th e fa c t t h a t t h e k il li n g w a s p re m e d it a te d , i n te n ti o n a l, a n d d e li b e ra te . F u rt h e rm o re , in lig h t o f w h a t th e ju rya lre a d yk n e w a b o u t th e s e x u a l a s s a u lt upon Ms. Benford f rom t he i nt roduct i on of Appel l ant ’ s s t at em ent , i tco ul d not h a ve co m e a s a sh o c kt h a t s e m e n w a s fo u n d i n t h e vi c ti m . A s a res u l t, w e a re n o t p e rs u a d e d th a t t h e p reju d icia l im p a c t o f t h is te s ti m o n y is s u ffi c ie n t t o outwei gh i t s p robi ty . Ther efor e, t he adm i ss i on of t hi s e v i dence does not w a rra n t re ve rs a l.

I I I . J UR Y I NS T RU CT I ON Appel l antal so al l eges t hatt he t r i al co urter r ed i n deny i ng hi s reques tfor a ju ryin s tr u c tio n o n th e le s s e r in c lu d e d o ffe n s e o f c rim in a l a tte m p t to c o m m it e s p e c i a l l y a g g ra va ted rob b e ry. A p p e l l a n t a rg u e s t h a t the i n ten d e d rob b e ry fai l ed, resul t i ng onl yi n an att em pt ed robbery . Appel l antco ncede s t hat Kendr i ck s h ad t hr ee hund r ed dol l ars i n hi s p oss ess i on whi l e att he m ot el and tha t a u tho ri ti e s rec o ve re d a l i o n ’ s h e a d ri n g , l a ter i d e n ti fi e d a s b e l o n g i n g t o M r. G ra n t, fro m K e n d ric k s ’ a p a rtm e n t; h o w e ve r, h e s u b m it s th a t t h e S ta te-10-

p re s e n te d n o d ire c t e v id e n c e th a t a n ym o n e yo r a n yje w e lryw a s a c tu a lly t aken f rom ei t herv i ct i m on t he m or ni ng i n ques t i on. As a r esul t , he c ont ends t hatt he j uryco ul d hav e reason abl yi nfer r ed t hatnot hi ng was t aken f rom ei t her o f th e vic tim s . A p p e lla n t m a in ta in s th a t, b a s e d o n th e fa c t th a t th e ju ryc o u ld hav e c oncl uded t hatno robberyoc cur r ed, t he t r i al co urtsh oul d hav e gi v en a ju ryin s tr u c tio n o n th e o ffe n s e o f c rim in a l a tte m p t to c o m m it e s p e c ia lly a g g ra va ted rob b e ry.
W her e two orm or e grades orcl ass es of of fense m aybe i ncl uded i n t he i ndi ct m ent , i ti s t he dutyof t he t r i al co urt“ t o c harge t he j uryas t o al l of t he l aw of eac h of fense i ncl uded i n t he i ndi ct m ent. . . . ” Tenn. C ode Ann. § 40 - 18- 1 1 0 (a ) (1 9 9 0 ). T h e T e n n e s s e e R u le s o f C rim in a l P ro c e d u re p ro vid e th a t a

" defendantm aybe found gu i l tyof an o f fense neces sar i l yi ncl uded i n t he of fense charged orof

an a tt em ptt o c om m i tei t hert he of fense charged oran o f fe n s e n e c e s s a r i l yi n c l u d e d t h e r e i n i f t h e a tt e mp ti s a n o f

fe n s e . " Te n n . R. C rim . P . 3 1 (c ). A d d itio n a lly, a d e fe n d a n t is e n title d to a ju ryin s tr u c tio n o n a ll le s s e r in c lu d e d o ffe n s e s w h e re "a n yfa c ts . . . a re s u s c e p tib le o f in fe rr in g g u ilt of anyl ess eri ncl uded of fense. " St at e v . W r i ght , 618 S. W . 2d 310, 315 ( T enn. C r i m . App. 1981) . I n l i ghtof t he for egoi ng, t he T ennes see Supr em e C ourthas r ecen t l yconcl ude d as fol l ow s: [P ]u rs u a n t t o o u r s ta tu te , ru le , a n d c a s e l a w i n te rp re ta ti o n s , d e fe n d a n ts a re e n title d to ju ryin s tr u c tio n s o n a ll l e s s e r in c lu d e d o ffe n s e s . . . a n d o n a ll of fenses whi ch ar e a l ess ergrade orcl ass of t he c harged of

fense, i f t he e vid e n c e w o u ld s u p p o rt a c o n vic ti o n fo r th e o ffe n s e . T h e a u th o riz in g s ta tu te and r ul e ens ur e t hateac h defendanthas fai rand r eason abl e not i ce of t he c h a rg e s a n d a n o p p o rt u n ityto d e fe n d a g a in s t th e m . It p re s e rv e s a d e fe n d a n t's r i ghtt o an i nst r uct i on o n al l l esser of fense s nece ssar i l yi ncl ude d i n t he o f fense c h a rg e d in th e in d ic tm e n t u n le s s th e re is n o p ro o f in th e re c o rd w h ic h w o u ld s u p p o rtth e in s tr u c tio n . It a llo w s th e ju ryto c o n s id e r a ll re le v a n t o ffe n s e s in d e te rm in in g th e a p p ro p ria te o ffe n s e , i f a n y, fo r c o n vic ti o n .-11-

S tate v. T ru s ty, 9 1 9 S .W .2d 3 0 , 3 1 1 (T e n n . 1 9 9 6 ). H e re , t h e e vid e n c e fa il s to s u p p o rt a c o n vic ti o n fo r a tte m p te d ro b b e ry. C om m ent i ng on t hei rse ar ch of t he m ot el room form oney , Appel l antst at ed t hat , wh i l e he wa s notsur e w here t he m one yhad bee n l ocat ed, “ [ K end r i cks] found t he t hr ee hund r ed dol l ars. ” Appel l antf urt herst at ed t hati tm ade no s e n s e th a t t h e vic ti m s w e re k il le d fo r s u c h a s m a ll a m o u n t o f m o n e y. A ddi t i ona l l y , aut hori t i es r ecover ed a l i on’ s hea d r i ng f rom K end r i cks’ apart m ent . Att r i al , bot h Ms. N i na G r ant , M r . G r ant ’ s s i st er , and M s. Les ha O w e n s , M r. G ra n t’ s g irl frie n d , i d e n ti fi e d th e rin g a s b e lo n g in g to M r. G ra n t. T he record c l ear l ysh ows t hatAppel l antwas cr i m i nal l yrespon si bl e fort aki ng, b y fo rc e , a t l e a s t t h re e h u n d re d d o ll a rs a n d a l io n ’s h e a d rin g fro m M r. G ra n t. W het hercl ass i f i ed as a l ess eri ncl uded of fense ora l ess ergrade of t he charged of

fense, no e v i dence ex i st s i n t he record per m i tt i ng an i nfer ence t hat Appel l antwas gui l tyof onl ycr i m i nal att em ptt o c om m i tes peci al l yaggrav at ed ro b b e ry. T h e re fo re , t h e tri a l c o u rt p ro p e rly re fu s e d to c h a rg e th e j u ry a s to c ri m i n a l a tt e m p t to c o m m i t e s p e c i a l l y a g g ra va ted rob b e ry.

I V. S UF F I CI EN CY OF T HE E VI DE NCE A p p e lla n t a ls o a lle g e s th a t th e e v id e n c e p re s e n te d a t tria l is le g a lly in s u ffic ie n t to s u s ta in h is c o n v ic tio n s fo r fir s t d e g re e m u rd e r a n d fo r e s p e c ia lly aggrav at ed robbery . W hen an appeal ch al l enges t he s uf f i ci encyof

t he ev i dence , t he s t andard of rev i ew i s whet her , aft erv i ewi ng t he ev i dence i n t he l i ghtm ostfav or abl e t o t he St at e, anyrat i onal t r i erof factco ul d hav e found t he e s s e n ti a l e l e m e n ts o f the crim e b e yo n d a rea s o n a b l e d o u b t. Ja c k s o n v. Vi rgi ni a, 443 U . S. 307, 318 ( 1979) ; St at e v . Ev ans, 838 S. W . 2d 185, 190- 91 ( T enn. 1992) ; T enn. R . App. P. 13( e) . O n appea l , t he St at e i s e nt i t l ed t o t he-12-

s tro n g e s t l e g it im a te vie w o f t h e e vid e n c e a n d a ll re a s o n a b le o r le g it im a te i nfer ences whi ch m aybe d r awn t her ef rom . St at e v . C abbage, 571 S. W . 2d 8 3 2 , 8 3 5 (T e n n . 1 9 7 8 ). T h is C o u rt w il l n o t re w e ig h th e e vid e n c e , re -e va lu a te t he ev i dence , orsu bst i t ut e i t s e v i dent i aryi nfer ences fort hose r eache d byt he j ury . St at e v . C ar ey , 914 S. W . 2d 93, 95 ( T enn. C r i m . App. 1995) . I n a c ri m i n a l t ri a l , g re a t w e i g h t i s g i ve n t o t h e res u l t re a c h e d b y t h e j u ry. S tate v. J o h n s o n , 9 1 0 S .W .2d 8 9 7 , 8 9 9 (T e n n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ).
O nce approv ed byt he t r i al co urt , a j uryv erdi ctac credi t s t he wi t ness es p re s e n ted b y t h e S tate a n d res o l ve s a l l co n fl i c ts i n fa vo r of t h e S tate . S tate v. W i l l i am s, 657 S. W . 2d 405, 410 ( T enn. 1983) . The cr edi bi l i tyof wi t ness es, t he wei ghtt o be gi v en t hei rt est i m ony , and t he reconc i l i at i on of co nf l i ct s i n t he p ro o f a re m a tt e rs e n tr u s ted e xc l u s i ve l y t o t h e j u ry as t ri e r of fa c t. S tate v. Sheff i el d, 676 S. W . 2d 542, 547 ( T enn. 1984) . A j ury ’ s g ui l tyv erdi ctrem ov es t he p r esum pt i on o f

i nno cence enj oyed by t he d efend antatt r i al and rai ses a p re s u m p ti o n o f g u il t. S ta te v. T u g g le , 6 3 9 S .W .2 d 9 1 3 , 9 1 4 (T e n n . 1 9 8 2 ). T h e d e fe n d a n t th e n b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f o v e rc o m in g th is p re s u m p tio n o f g u ilt o n a p p e a l . S tate v. B l a c k , 8 1 5 S .W .2d 1 6 6 , 1 7 5 (T e n n . 1 9 9 1 ).
A . F I RST DEGREE M URD ER Fi rstdegree m urderi s d ef i ned as “ [ a] n i nt ent i onal , prem edi t at ed and d e li b e ra te k il li n g o f a n o th e r.” T e n n . C o d e A n n . § 3 9 -1 3 -2 0 2 (a )(1 ). I n o rd e r to hol d Appel l antcr i m i nal l yrespon si bl e forf i rstdegree m urderbas ed upon t he act i ons of

Kendr i ck s a nd Ferguson , t he St at e m ustprov e t hat , ac t i ng wi t h t he i nt entt o prom ot e oras si stt he c om m i ss i on of t he of fense, Appel l antso l i ci t ed, di r ect ed, ai ded, oratt em pt ed t o ai d Kendr i ck s a nd Ferguson i n t he k i l l i ng of-13-

M s . B e n fo rd . S e e i d . § 3 9 -1 1 -4 0 2 (2 ). A p p e ll a n t a rg u e s th a t t h e S ta te fa il e d to est abl i sh t he requi si t e i nt entt o hol d hi m cr i m i nal l yrespon si bl e forf i rstdegree m urder . He cont ends t hat , as he s ati n t he c ar , he was unaware t hat K e n d ric k s a n d F e rg u s o n i n te n d e d to k il l M s . B e n fo rd . By hi s o wn adm i ss i on, Appel l antprov i ded bot h t he t r anspo rt at i on and th e w e a p o n u s e d o n th e n ig h t in q u e s tio n . F u rt h e rm o re , h e d ro v e th e ve h ic le th a t c a rrie d M s . B e n fo rd fro m th e m o te l to th e p a rkw h e re s h e w a s k il le d . A c c o rd in g to A p p e lla n t’s s ta te m e n t to a u th o ritie s , M s . B e n fo rd w a s in itia lly r el eased neart he par k; howev er , as Appel l antdrov e away , Kendr i ck s s t at ed,

“ we gott a gether , we gott a gether . ” I n respon se t o t hi s s t at em ent , Appel l ant pul l ed ov er , and Kendr i ck s a nd Ferguson ex i t ed t he v ehi cl e. Appel l antand R u c k e r s a t in th e c a r a n d w a ite d fo r th e o th e r tw o m e n to re tu rn . It w a s w ith in t he prov i nce of

t he j uryt o c oncl ude t hat , i n t aki ng Ms. Benford f rom t he m ot el in th e fi rs t p la c e a n d , b y p u ll in g o ve r in re s p o n s e to K e n d ric k s ’ s ta te m e n t, Ap p e l l a n ti n t e n d e d t o p ro m o t e o ra s s i s ti n t h e m u rd e ro f Ms . Be n fo rd . As st at ed p r evi ousl y , t hi s C ourti s notfr ee t o sub st i t ut e i t s i nfer ence s fort hose re a c h e d b y th e j u ry. A fte r vie w in g th e e vid e n c e i n th e l ig h t m o s t fa vo ra b le to t he St at e, we c oncl ude t hat , bas ed on hi s respon se t o Kendr i ck s’ st at em entas wel l as hi s i nv ol v em enti n t he ev ent s l eadi ng up t o t he m urder , anyrat i onal t r i erof factco ul d hav e found t hatAppel l antpos ses sed t he requi si t e m ent al s ta te to b e fo u n d g u il ty o f firs t d e g re e m u rd e r b e yo n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t.

B. E SP EC I A L L Y A GGRAVAT ED ROBBE RY R obberyi s d ef i ned as “ t he i nt ent i onal and knowi ng t heftof propertyf rom t he person of

anot herbyv i ol ence orputt i ng t he person i n fear . ” Tenn. C ode-14-

A n n . § 3 9 -1 3 -4 0 1 (a ) ( 1 9 9 0 ). E s p e c i a l l y a g g ra va ted rob b e ry i s d ef i ned as robberyac com pl i shed wi t h a d eadl yweapon, wher e t he v i ct i m su f fers s er i ous b o d il y in ju ry. Id . § 3 9 -1 3 -4 0 3 (a ) (1 9 9 0 ). A p p e ll a n t a rg u e s th a t t h e S ta te fai l ed t o s uf

f i ci ent l yco r roborat e hi s i ncul pat oryst at em ent s wi t h i ndependen t e v id e n c e o f th e c o rp u s d e lic ti.
As not ed ear l i er , i ti s l ong- st andi ng and wel l - sett l ed l aw i n T ennes see tha t the co rp u s d e l i c ti o f a crim e ca n n o t b e e s tab l i s h e d b y i n c u l p a tory s ta te m e n ts a lo n e . S e e A s h b y v. S ta te , 1 3 9 S .W . 8 7 2 , 8 7 5 (T e n n . 1 9 1 1 ). H o w e ve r, o n ly s li g h t e vid e n c e o f t h e c o rp u s d e li c ti i s n e c e s s a ry to c o rro b o ra te an i ncul pat oryst at em ent . St at e v . Erv i n, 731 S. W . 2d 70, 71 ( T enn. C r i m App. 1986) . To est abl i sh t he c or pus del i ct i of a c r i m e, t he St at e m ustprov e bey ond a re a s o n a b le d o u b t th a t a c e rt a in re s u lt h a s b e e n p ro d u c e d a n d th a t th e re s u lt was c r eat ed t hrough c r i m i nal agenc y . I d. 71- 72. W het hert he St at e has s u ffi c ie n tl y e s ta b li s h e d th e c o rp u s d e li c ti i s p rim a ril y a j u ry q u e s ti o n . Id . a t 7 1 . A conv i ct i on rest i ng pr i m ar i l yon t he i ncul pat oryst at em ent s o f t he ac cus ed m ustbe aff i r m ed w here t he record con t ai ns " subst ant i al i nde pen den tev i den ce t endi ng t o es t abl i sh t he t r ustwort hi ness of t he defendant ’ s s t at em ent s. " I d. (cit i n g O p p e r v. U n i ted S tate s , 3 4 8 U .S . 8 4 , 9 3 (19 5 4 )).
H er e, as prev i ousl yst at ed, t he St at e i nt roduce d a l i on’ s h ead r i ng found i n K end r i cks’ apa rt m entshort l yaft ert he m ur ders. Bo t h M s. G r antand M s. O w e n s id e n tifie d th e rin g a s b e lo n g in g to M r. G ra n t. F u rt h e rm o re , d u rin g h is i nt erv i ew wi t h au t hori t i es, A ppe l l antst at ed t hat , soon aft ert he m ur ders, Kendr i ck s h ad reques t ed hi s h el p i n s el l i ng s om e r i ngs. The r ecord ref l ect s n o r easo nab l e expl ana t i on fort he p r esen ce of M r . G r ant ’ s r i ng i n K end r i cks’-15-

apa rt m entot her t han t he S t at e’ s t heo ryt hati twa s t aken f rom M r . G r antj ust befor e hi s m urder . Ther efor e, t he St at e has m eti t s b urden of co r roborat i ng A p p e ll a n t’ s i n c u lp a to ry s ta te m e n ts w it h i n d e p e n d e n t e vid e n c e . V. S EN T EN CI NG Fi nal l y , Appel l antal l eges t hatt he t r i al co urter r ed i n i m posi ng cons ecut i v e s ent ences forhi s fi rstdegree m urderco nv i ct i on and hi s fel ony m urderco nv i ct i on. W hen an appeal ch al l enges t he l engt h, range, orm anner of se rv i ce of

a s ent ence, t hi s Courtco nducts a de n ov o rev i ew wi t h a pr esum pt i on t hatt he det er m i nat i on of t he t r i al co urtwas cor r ect . Tenn. C ode A n n . § 4 0 -3 5 -4 0 1 (d ) ( 1 9 9 0 ). H o w e v e r, th e p re s u m p tio n o f c o rr e c tn e s s o n ly appl i es when t he record dem onst r at es t hatt he t r i al co urtproper l yco nsi der ed th e re le va n t s e n te n c in g p rin c ip le s a n d a ll re le va n t fa c ts a n d c irc u m s ta n c e s . St at e v . Ashby , 823 S. W . 2d 166, 169 ( T enn. 1991) . I n c onduc t i ng a r ev i ew of a s ent ence, t hi s Courtm ustco nsi dert he ev i dence , t he present ence r eport , t he sent enci ng pr i nci pl es, t he argum ent s o f co unsel , t he nat ur e and charact erof t he of fense, m i t i gat i ng and enhanc em entfact ors, anyst at em ent s m ade byt he defendant , and t he pot ent i al forrehabi l i t at i on ort r eat m ent . St at e v . H ol l and, 860 S. W . 2d 53, 60 ( T enn. C r i m . App. 1993) . I f appel l at e rev i ew r ef l ect s t hat t he t r i al courtprope r l yconsi dered al l rel evantfact or s and i t s f i ndi ngs o f fact ar e adequ at el ysu pport ed byt he record, t hi s Courtm ustaf f i r m t he s ent ence,

“ ev en i f we woul d hav e prefer r ed a di f fer entresul t . St at e v . Fl et cher , 805 S. W . 2d 785, 789 ( T enn. C r i m . App. 1991) . T he defendantbears t he burden of showi ng t he i m propr i etyof t he s ent ence i m posed . St at e v . G r egory , 862 S .W .2d 5 7 4 , 5 7 8 (T e n n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ).-16- T he t r i al co urthas t he di sc r et i on t o i m pose sent ences co ncur r ent l yor cons ecut i v el y . Tenn. C ode Ann. § 40 - 20- 111( a) ( 1990) . The i m posi t i on of cons ecut i v e s ent ences i s a ppropr i at e i f t he defendanthas been conv i ct ed of m or e t han one of

fense and t he t r i al co urtf i nds, bya preponderance of t he ev i dence , one orm or e of t he fol l owi ng c r i t er i a: ( 1) T he defendanti s a profess i onal cr i m i nal who has kn owi ngl ydev ot ed h im s e lf to c rim in a l a c ts a s a m ajo r s o u rc e o f l ive li h o o d ; (2 ) T h e d e fe n d a n t is a n o ffe n d e r w h o s e re c o rd o f c rim in a l a c tiv ityis e xte n s ive ; ( 3) T he d efend anti s a dan gerous m ent al l yabn or m al person so decl ar ed bya c om pet entps y chi at r i stwho c oncl udes as a resul tof an i nvest i gat i on p r i ort o sen t enci ng t hatt he d efend ant ' s cr i m i nal cond uct has been c haract er i zed bya pa tt er n of repet i t i v e orco m pul si v e behav i or w it h h e e d le s s i n d if

fe re n c e to c o n s e q u e n c e s ; ( 4) T he defendanti s a dangerous of fenderwhose behav i ori ndi cat es l i tt l e orno regard forhum an l i fe, and no hes i t at i on abou tco m m i tt i ng a c rim e i n w h ich th e risk to h u m a n l ife i s h ig h ; ( 5) T he defendanti s c onv i ct ed of two ( 2) orm or e s t at ut oryof fenses in vo lvi n g s e xu a l a b u s e o f a m in o r . . . ; ( 6) T he defendanti s s ent enced foran o f fense com m i tt ed whi l e on p ro b a ti o n ; o r (7 ) T h e d e fe n d a n t i s s e n te n c e d fo r c rim in a l c o n te m p t. T e n n . C o d e A n n . § 4 0 -3 5 -1 1 5 (19 9 0 ).

A . REC O RD O F EXTEN SI VE C RI M I NA L A CTI VI TY-17- In im p o s in g c o n s e c u tiv e s e n te n c e s , th e tria l c o u rtn o te d A p p e lla n t’s r ecord of

ex t ensi v e c r i m i nal ac t i v i ty . See i d. § 40 - 35- 115( b) ( 2) . Becaus e t he t r i al co urtco nsi der ed t he pr i nci pl es, pur poses , and goal s o f t he Cr i m i nal Sent enci ng Refor m Actof 1989, t he presum pt i on of co r r ect ness appl i es t o t he i m posi t i on of

co nsec ut i v e s ent ences on t hi s g round. Acco rdi ng t o t he proof pr esent ed att he s ent enci ng hear i ng, Appel l anthad si xpr i orfel ony c on v i c t i on s . The s e c on v i c t i on s i nc l ud e two c ou nt s o f g r an d l arc en y , two c o u n ts o f t h ird d e g re e b u rg la ry, a n d tw o c o u n ts o f b u rg la ry o f a m o to r ve h icle . T hi s Courth as p r ev i ou s l yh el d t ha tp roo f o f two dr ug o f

fen s e c on v i c t i on s , two weapons of

fense conv i ct i ons, and num erous m i sdem eanordr i v i ng of fenses was s uf f i ci entt o s upporta fi ndi ng t hatt he defendanthad an ex t ensi v e c r i m i nal re c o rd , g ivi n g th e tri a l c o u rt th e d isc re ti o n to i m p o s e c o n s e c u ti ve s e n te n c e s . S e e S tate v. C h ri s m a n , 8 8 5 S .W .2d 8 3 4 , 8 3 9 (T e n n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ). T he proof here i s s i m i l ar l ysu f

f i ci entt o s upporta fi ndi ng t hatAppel l ant ’ s c r i m i nal a c tiv ityh a s b e e n e x te n s ive . B a s e d o n th is fin d in g , th e tria l c o u rtp ro p e rly im p o s e d c o n s e c u ti ve s e n te n c e s .

B. DA NGER OUS OF F EN DE R F I NDI NG T he t r i al courtal so foun d t hatA ppe l l antwa s a dan gerous offend eras a ground fori m posi ng c onsec ut i v e s ent ences . See T enn. C ode Ann. § 40 - 35- 1 1 5 (b )(4 ) (1 9 9 0 ). H o w e ve r, th is fin d in g , s ta n d in g a lo n e d o e s n o t j u s ti fy cons ecut i v e s ent ences . A t r i al co urtm aynoti m pose cons ecut i v e s ent ences b a s e d u p o n t h e d e fen d a n t’ s d a n g e ro u s o ffe n d e r sta tus u n l e s s t h e rec o rd e s ta b li s h e s th a t: ( a) t he defendant ' s b ehav i ori ndi cat ed l i tt l e orno regard forhum an l i fe, and no hesi t at i on abou tco m m i tt i ng a cr i m e i n whi ch t he r i skt o hum an l i fe i s h i gh;-18- (b ) t h e circu m s tan c e s su rrou n d i n g t h e co m m i s s i o n o f the o ffe n s e w e re a g g ra va te d ; ( c) co nsec ut i v e s ent ences are nec ess aryt o prot ectso ci etyf rom f urt her c rim in a l c o n d u c t b y th e d e fe n d a n t; ( d) co nsec ut i v e s ent ences reason abl yrel at e t o t he s ev er i tyof t he of fenses co m m i tt ed; and ( e) t he s ent ence i s i n ac cord wi t h t he pr i nci pl es setfort h i n t he S e n te n c in g re fo rm A c t. S t at e v . W i l ker son, 905 S . W . 2d 9 33, 938 - 39 (T enn . 199 5) ; see al so S t a t e v . R o s s , N o . 0 3 C 0 1 - 9 4 0 4 - C R - 0 0 1 5 3 , 1 9 9 6 W L 1 6 7 7 2 3 , * 9 ( T e n n . C r i m. A p p . A p r. 1 0 , 1 9 9 6 ). I t i s n o t e n ti re l y cle a r fro m t h e rec o rd t h a t the t ri a l co u rt c o n s id e re d w h e th e r c o n s e c u ti ve s e n te n c e s w e re n e c e s s a ry to p ro te c t s o c ie ty f rom f urt hercr i m i nal co nductbyAppel l antand whet herco nsec ut i v e s ent ences r ea s on ab l yrel at ed t o t he s ev er i tyo f t he o f fen s es c om m i tt ed . As a res ul t , we m ake ourrev i ew of

t he i m posi t i on of

co nsec ut i v e s ent ences on t hi s g round underT enn. C ode Ann. § 40 - 35- 115 ( b) ( 4) de n ov o. C l ear l y , t he t r i al co urtwas cor r ecti n f i ndi ng t hatAppel l ant ’ s b ehav i or i ndi cat ed l i tt l e orno regard forhum an l i fe and no hes i t at i on abou tco m m i tt i ng a cr i m e i n w hi ch t he ri sk t o hu m an l i fe i s hi gh. Bo t h v i ct i m s we r e he l d ag ai nst t hei rwi l l whi l e Appel l antand t he ot herof fenders ransac ked t he m ot el room s e a r c h i n g fo rmo n e y . M r . G r a n tw a s t h e n b o u n d a n d i n j e c t e d w i t h s o me unkno wn subs t ance. W hen he r em ai ned c onsc i ous, hi s c apt ors b egan searchi ng forso m et hi ng el se t o i nj ect . Ev ent ual l y , he was st r angl ed wi t h a shoel ace. The r ecord ref l ect s t hatt hese ev ent s o cc ur r ed ov erso m e ex t ended p e rio d o f t im e . M s . B e n fo rd w a s th e n c a rrie d a w a y fro m th e m o te l to a p a rk . It app ears from A ppe l l ant ’ s st at em entas we l l as f rom ci rcum st ant i al ev i den ce-19-

t hatKendr i ck s h ad s ex ual i nt er course wi t h Ms. Benford befor e s hoot i ng her twi ce i n t he head . Bysh oot i ng Ms. Benford, t he of fenders e l i m i nat ed a pot ent i al wi t ness agai nstt hem . W e f i nd t hatt he c i r cum st ances su r roundi ng t he of fenses wer e aggrav at ed. Furt her m or e, hav i ng es t abl i shed t hatAppel l ant part i ci pat ed i n t he t ort ur e and st r angul at i on of one v i ct i m , fol l owed byt he k i d n a p p i n g a n d sh o o ti n g o f a n o the r vi c ti m , w e a l s o f i n d t h a t c o n s e c u ti ve s e n ten c e s rea s o n a b l y rela te to t h e se ve ri ty o f the o ffe n s e s co m m i tt e d . L a s tl y, i n l i ghtof

t he s er i ousne ss of

t hese of

fenses and t he factt hati ncarcerat i on has fail e d t o h a ve a n i m p a c t u p o n A p p e l l a n t i n t h e p a s t, w e f i n d t h a t c o n s e c u ti ve sent ences are nec ess aryt o prot ectso ci etyf rom f urt hercr i m i nal co nductby Appel l ant . Based on t hese f i ndi ngs and i n ac cord wi t h t he pr i nci pl es and pur poses of

t he Sent enci ng Refor m Act , we c oncl ude t hatt he i m posi t i on of cons ecut i v e s ent ences on t he ground t hatAppel l anti s a dangerous of fender w a s p ro p e r. Accordi ngl y , t he j udgm entof t he t r i al co urti s a f

f i r m ed.

_________

_________

_________

_________ JER RY L. SM ITH, JU DG E CONCUR:

_________

_________

_________

________ DA VIDG. H AY ES, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

________-20-

W ILLIA M S. R US SELL, SPE CI AL J UD GE