Opinion ID: 1060999
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: exceptional cruelty

Text: The defendant argues that the trial court should not have applied the exceptional cruelty enhancement factor because the facts used to establish this factor were the same facts used to prove the serious bodily injury element for especially aggravated robbery. The State maintains that the factor was properly applied because exceptional cruelty is not an element of especially aggravated robbery. Moreover, the State stresses that the defendant's actions constituting exceptional cruelty were separate and distinct from those necessary to constitute serious bodily injury. As we have previously observed, enhancement factors must be appropriate for the offense and not themselves essential elements of the offense. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114. These limitations exclude enhancement factors based on facts which are used to prove the offense or [f]acts which establish the elements of the offense charged. State v. Jones, 883 S.W.2d at 601. The purpose of the limitations is to avoid enhancing the length of sentences based on factors the Legislature took into consideration when establishing the range of punishment for the offense. Id. We recognized these limitations in analyzing the enhancement factors in Jones, supra . The defendant was charged with aggravated assault for intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing serious bodily injury to the victim, and the trial court enhanced the sentence after finding that the victim's injuries were particularly great. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114(6). We concluded that the conditions for proving the serious bodily injury element [4] satisfy the definition of a `particularly great' injury and that proof of serious bodily injury will always constitute proof of a particularly great injury. Id. at 602. Thus, we held that the particularly great injury enhancement factor was inappropriate for the offense of aggravated assault. Applying a similar analysis to this case, we first note that exceptional cruelty is not an element of especially aggravated robbery. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-403(a)(2)(1991). Moreover, we conclude that proof of serious bodily injury, which is an element of especially aggravated robbery, does not necessarily establish the enhancement factor of exceptional cruelty. In other words, the facts in a case may support a finding of exceptional cruelty that demonstrates a culpability distinct from and appreciably greater than that incident to the crime of especially aggravated robbery. See State v. Jones, 883 S.W.2d at 603. If so, a sentence may be properly enhanced on this basis. As the Court of Criminal Appeals has explained, the trial court should state what actions of the defendant, apart from the elements of the offense, constituted `exceptional cruelty.' State v. Goodwin, 909 S.W.2d 35, 45 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). [5] Here, the trial court made no findings to support its application of this factor. In holding that the factor was nonetheless appropriate, the Court of Criminal Appeals said: This elderly woman was knocked unconscious by a blow to the head with a baseball bat. Even though the defendants knew that the victim lived alone, they left her lying unconscious and bleeding under such circumstances that it was unlikely that her condition would soon be discovered. In fact, the victim remained in such a condition all night long and was discovered by family members the next day. Because of the delay in receiving medical treatment, the victim is extremely fortunate to have survived this attack. We agree that there was evidence of exceptional cruelty separate and apart from the actions which constituted the offense of especially aggravated robbery in this case. Accordingly, we agree the enhancement factor was properly applied.