Opinion ID: 1060719
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Remaining Aggravating Circumstances Prior Violent Felonies

Text: We now apply the Howell harmless error analysis to the valid aggravating circumstances which were considered by the jury along with the invalid felony murder aggravating circumstance. To establish the first aggravating circumstance, that the defendant had a prior conviction for a felony that involved violence or the threat of violence, see Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-2-203(i)(2) (1982) (now codified at Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(2) (1997 & Supp.1998)), the State relied upon the defendant's prior convictions for kidnapping and attempt to commit a felony, to wit, robbery. [2] In analyzing the strength, substance and persuasiveness of this aggravating circumstance as required by Howell , we observe that it was described as marginal by this Court on direct appeal. State v. King, 694 S.W.2d 941, 944 (Tenn.1985). The fact that King received only a suspended sentence and probation for the kidnapping of his wife and nine months imprisonment for the attempted robbery necessarily is relevant to the strength, seriousness and persuasiveness of those crimes. Moreover, the fact that the crimes did not involve actual harm to a victim is also relevant. As pointed out in the concurring opinion by Judge Wade in the Court of Criminal Appeals and by way of illustration, [3] the strength, substance, and persuasiveness of King's prior convictions are weaker than in any of our prior cases in which the error has been deemed harmless. In Howell , the defendant had prior convictions for murder and armed robbery. 868 S.W.2d at 262. In Boyd, the defendant had a prior conviction for second degree murder. 959 S.W.2d at 561. In Nichols, the defendant had multiple convictions for aggravated rape. 877 S.W.2d at 738. In State v. Smith, 893 S.W.2d 908, 926 (Tenn.1994), the defendant had prior convictions for robbery, assault with intent to murder, and aggravated rape. In State v. Cazes, 875 S.W.2d 253, 270 (Tenn.1994), the defendant had prior convictions for assault with intent to murder and aggravated rape. In contrast, where this factor was supported only by a conviction for voluntary manslaughter, we concluded that resentencing was necessary. Walker, 910 S.W.2d at 398. Accordingly, in applying Howell , I would conclude that King's prior convictions marginally established this aggravating circumstance. The prior convictions, however, lacked the strength, substance and persuasiveness of the egregious convictions supporting this factor in other cases. In my view, all of these factors should be taken into consideration in conducting the harmless error analysis under Howell .