Opinion ID: 1060719
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Prior Violent Felony Convictions

Text: King admits that he has been previously convicted of two violent felonies, kidnapping and attempted robbery. He, however, argues that the substance and persuasiveness of these convictions are weak because his conduct in committing the offenses was not egregious. The defendant's argument is premised on his assertions that: (1) the kidnapping conviction merely resulted from a minor domestic dispute; and (2) his attempted robbery conviction resulted from a criminal episode in which his involvement was minimal. The defendant further argues that the relatively light sentences he received on both the kidnapping and the attempted robbery convictions show weakness of this aggravating circumstance. [2] Finally, the defendant states that his argument is supported by this Court's prior description of the proof supporting this aggravating circumstance as marginal. See State v. King, 694 S.W.2d 941, 944 (Tenn.1985) (stating [e]ven if the proof as to this aggravating circumstance were marginal . . . .). We disagree with the defendant's analysis. The mere fact that the victim of a kidnapping is either a spouse or a former spouse does not decrease the magnitude or substance and persuasiveness of that crime. Domestic violence is a serious problem plaguing our society that should not be minimized. Moreover, the mere fact that King's attempted robbery conviction stemmed from an incident involving three other individuals does not minimize the seriousness of the conviction. While the sentences imposed for these convictions were not extremely severe, we note that at least one of the sentences resulted from a negotiated plea agreement. At the time of King's sentencing hearing, aggravating circumstance (i)(2) applied if the proof introduced by the State demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that [t]he defendant was previously convicted of one (1) or more felonies, other than the present charge, which involved the use or threat of violence to the person. Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-2-203(i)(2) (1982 Repl.). The jury heard evidence from both the State and the defendant regarding the circumstances of these prior convictions. The jury found the proof sufficient to support this aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, and this Court affirmed that finding in King's direct appeal. Upon review, we have not reweighed the proof. We have, consistent with Howell , considered the evidence that was before the jury at the time it imposed the sentence of death. We have considered the proof supporting this aggravating circumstance. We have also considered the defendant's statements directed at depreciating the seriousness of his prior kidnapping and prior attempted robbery convictions. The defendant's statements are best categorized as mitigating proof that the jury could have used to weigh against its findings of the valid aggravating circumstances. The conduct underlying the defendant's prior convictions may be less egregious than the conduct underlying the prior convictions of other defendants who have appeared before this Court. [3] We emphasize, however, that Howell does not require us to conduct a comparative review in determining the substance and persuasiveness of the remaining valid aggravating circumstances. Instead, we must consider the record in this casethe evidence actually presented to the juryin light of the factors enumerated in Howell . We must then determine whether the sentence would have been the same had the jury given no weight to the invalid aggravating circumstance. We have followed the analysis delineated in Howell and conclude that, in this case, the prior violent felony conviction aggravating circumstance is both objectively reliable and amply supported by the proof.