um nd hance
thesentenceasappropriatefor theenhancementfactors andthen reducethesentencewithintherangeasappropriatefor the
mitigatingfacto If therearenom rs. itigatingfactors, thecourt m set thesentenceabovethem uminthat ra but still w ay inim nge ithin
therange. Theweight tobegiveneachfactorisleft tothediscretionofthetrial judge. Statev. Shelton, 854S.W.2d116, 123
(Tenn. Crim App.1992). .
Thetrial courtsentencedthedefendantasaRa Istandardoffenderandimpo atwelveyear sentence. nge sed
Indeterm theappropriatesentence, thetrial court appliedthefollowingenhancementfactors:(1) thedefendant hasaprevious ining
history of crim l co tion o crim l be r; (4 avic of theoffensewasparticularlyvulnerable; (5) thedefendant tre ina nvic s r ina havio ) tim ated
orallowedavictimtobetreatedwithexceptional crueltyduringthe co m ionof theoffense (6) theperso inju in d m iss ; nal ries flicte
uponthevic w particu g (7 th offenseinvolvedavictimandwascom ittedtogratify thedefendant'sdesirefor tim ere larly reat; ) e m
pleasure or excitem (8) the defendant has a previous history of unwillingness to com y with the condtions of a sentence ent; pl i
involvingreleaseintothecom unity; (11) thefelonyresultedinbodilyinjury andthedefendanthas previouslybeenconvictedof m
afelonythat resultedindeathor bodilyinjury; and(16) thecrim w com itted unde circum e as m r stances und whichthepotential er
for bodily in toavic w g T .A §40-35-114. Thedefendant does n ch gethetrial court'sapplicationoffactors jury tim as reat. .C . ot allen
(1)and(4). W findthat thetrial court im e properlyappliedseveral enhancementfactors. Assuch, ourreviewofthedefendant's
sentence is de no upo the record without a presum of correctness. vo n ption
Thedefendant nowch ges th trial co a allen e urt's pplica of facto (5 th thedefendant treated the victim tion r ), at
w exceptional cruelty. Thedefendant argues that thesamefactsthat wereusedtoenhancetheClass Efelonyof sexual battery ith
totheClass Bfelonyof aggrava sexual battery canno be used to further enh ted t ance asentenceforaggravatedsexualbattery.
Theapplicationoffactor(5) requires afindingofcrueltyover andabovethat inherentlyattendanttotheoffense. Statev. Leggs,
955S.W.2d845, 849(Tenn. C . Ap 1997). Thefactthatbodilyinjuryisaneeme ofaggravatedsexuabatteryinthecase rim p. l nt l
at b d s n n es rily pre ar oe ot ec sa cludeap tionof th e an m t fac Seeid. plica is nh ce en tor.
Inthecaseat bar, thedefendant pushedthevictim awom heknewhadonlypartial useof herleft side, to , an
thefloor. Hechokedherwhilepinninghertothecouch. Hehit herintheheadandmouthwithhisfist. Hethenexposedhimself
to her. He repeatedly called her a bitch and threatened her life. The attack lasted approxim one hour. The defendant ately
continuedtothreatenthevictimafterhewasarrestedandplacedinapatrol car. Inlight oftheforegoingfacts, thedefendant
treatedthevictimwithexceptional crueltyover andabovethat inherently attendanttothe offense o aggravated sexuabattery. f l
Thu fa r (5) w pro rly a liedto th c e a ba s, cto as pe pp e as t r.
Thedefendant challengesthetrial court'sapplicationoffactor (6), that thepersonal injuriesinflicteduponthe
vic we particularly g and factor (8), that the defendant has a previous history of unwillingness to comply with the tim re reat,
conditions of a sentence involving release in the com unity. There is no proof in the record to support an inference that the m
vic 'sinjurieswereparticularlygreat. Inaddition, thereisnoproof intherecordthat thedefendant hasever failedto com ywith tim pl
conditions o ase f ntenceinvo ngre lvi leaseintheco m m unity. T factorsarethere inapplicable. hese fore
Thedefendant alsochallengesthetrial court'sapplicationof factor(7), that theoffenseinvolvedavictimand
wasco m togratify th defendant's d for plea reor exc ent. TheTennesseeSupremeC haspreviouslyheld m itted e esire su item ourt
that factor(7)isnot applicabletocasesinvolvingaggravatedsexual battery