ÿWPCÉ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0lH 0D´ 0Jø 0TB – 0^ž 0hü 0rd 0|Ö 0†R 0Ø 1uh 0dÝ U>AU * B©B)ÆDCï D32 AMe² 0@Ìé Þõv~ÓvÓQ AO$Æs 0D9 D/} B¬˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- ÁÂEÃÄÅÆÇÈVÉÓ€Õ»{s "|xÕ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial d% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd'''''ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òOctober€17,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ßÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ôÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(13).Ì ÔÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ôÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210.€€The€crime€occurred€on€August€11,€1993.€€The€Defendant€wasÏà0 àsentenced€on€June€19,€1995.€€Effective€July€1,€1995,€the€presumptive€sentence€for€a€Class€AÏfelony€is€the€mid„point€of€the€range€if€there€are€no€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€%ŠÔÔ€&ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙßL€+,);+'h|èÚ` Å `€€LßÌAT€JACKSONÌÌJULY€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.Ï02C01„9510„CC„00315Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àMADISON€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€FRANKLIN€MURCHISONó óÌò òROCKY€SHANE€BOLTON,ó óà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àó ó(Sentencing)ò òÌó óÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌCIRCUIT€COURT€OF€MADISON€COUNTYó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌJOE€H.€BYRD,€JR.à àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌShannon€Professional€Buildingà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ203€S.€Shannon€St.,€Suite€300ÌP.O.€Box€2764à àà àà àà àROBIN€L.€HARRISÌJackson,€TN€38302„2764à àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€WOODALLÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€2825Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJackson,€TN€38302ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€&°Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€&ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓ›à àThis€is€an€appeal€pursuant€to€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏAppellate€Procedure.€€The€Defendant€entered€a€plea€of€guilty€to€a€reducedÏcharge€of€second€degree€murder,€with€sentencing€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trialÏjudge.€€He€was€sentenced€to€twenty„five€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction,Ïthe€maximum€penalty€authorized€for€a€Range€I€standard€offender.€€On€appeal,Ïthe€Defendant€argues€that€his€sentence€is€excessive.ÌÌà àWe€will€briefly€address€the€facts€surrounding€the€killing€of€the€victim.€€TheÏDefendant€and€a€group€of€his€friends€were€angry€with€another€individual.€€TheÏanimosity€grew€out€of€the€competing€romantic€interests€that€two€of€the€youngÏmen€had€in€the€same€young€woman.€€The€Defendant€accompanied€a€groupÏthat€went€to€a€residence€where€the€other€individual€was€located.€€The€victimÏwas€also€in€the€residence.€€The€Defendant€was€armed€with€a€œhigh„powered›€rifleÏand€at€least€one€other€member€of€the€Defendantððs€group€was€armed€with€aÏshotgun.€€The€Defendant€fired€approximately€eight€to€ten€rounds€from€the€rifle€intoÏthe€house€where€the€other€individual,€the€victim€and€several€other€people€wereÏlocated.€€The€victim€was€a€friend€of€the€Defendant€and€was€seated€on€theÏcouch.€€One€of€the€rounds€from€the€rifle€struck€the€victim€in€the€œhead,›€and€he€diedÍas€a€result€of€the€wound.€€The€victim€was€not€the€person€with€whom€theÏDefendant€and€his€friends€were€angry.€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€was€charged€in€a€one„count€indictment€with€first€degreeÏmurder.€€After€plea€negotiations€with€the€State,€he€entered€a€plea€of€guilty€toÏsecond€degree€murder.€€There€was€no€plea€agreement€concerning€the€sentenceÏto€be€imposed.€€After€conducting€a€lengthy€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€judgeÏsentenced€the€Defendant€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender€to€twenty„five€yearsÏin€the€Department€of€Correction.€€This€was€the€maximum€punishment€authorizedÏby€law€for€œthis€Defendantððs€second›€degree€œmurder€conviction.›€€It€is€from€theÏsentence€ordered€by€the€trial€court€€that€the€Defendant€appeals.ÌÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€the€manner€of€serviceÏof€a€sentence,€this€court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€theÏsentence€with€a€presumption€œthat€the›€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€areÏcorrect.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditionedÏupon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€theÏsentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àIn€conducting€a€de€novo€review€of€a€sentence,€this€court€must€consider:Ï(a)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€theÏpresentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€toÏsentencing€alternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conductÏinvolved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statementÏthat€the€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€ofÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€&XÔððððÔ€&ŠÔ€40„35„102,€„103,Ïand€„210;€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencingÏprocedure,€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€andÏproper€weight€to€the€factors€and€principals€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,Ïand€that€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,Ïthen€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€aÏdifferent€result.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àThe€presentence€report€reflects€that€at€the€time€of€sentencing€theÏDefendant€was€approximately€twenty„three€years€old€and€was€a€high€schoolÏgraduate.€€He€had€been€regularly€employed€as€a€painter€in€business€with€hisÏfather€since€his€graduation€from€high€school.€€He€was€unmarried.€€His€prior€recordÏconsisted€of€a€misdemeanor€assault€conviction,€misdemeanor€convictions€forÍpossession€of€marijuana€and€drug€paraphernalia,€a€DUI€conviction€and€aÏconviction€for€driving€on€a€revoked€license.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€testified€that€on€the€day€of€the€killing,€he€had€startedÏdrinking€alcoholic€beverages€at€about€11:30€that€morning.€€Later€in€the€day€heÏsmoked€some€marijuana.€€He€was€with€a€group€of€people€who€were€angryÏwith€another€individual.€€He€said€that€he€fired€the€rifle€into€the€house€some€sevenÏor€eight€times€ð ðjust€to€scare€them.ðð€€He€stated€that€he€did€not€intend€to€hurtÏanyone.€€He€testified€that€the€person€who€was€killed€was€a€friend€of€his€andÏthat€he€did€not€even€know€his€friend€was€present€at€the€time€he€fired€the€rifle€intoÏthe€house.€€œÌÌà àAt›€the€conclusion€of€the€proof€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€judgeÏbegan€his€assessment€of€the€sentence€by€stating€ð ðin€this€case,€the€court€is€ofÏthe€opinion€that€the€maximum€sentence€is€appropriate,€and€I€want€to€state€why,Ïand€thatððs€twenty„five€years€.€.€.€that€the€maximum€penalty€is€appropriate€arisesÏout€of€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€and€the€situation€that€we€have€here.ðð€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€judge€then€began€his€consideration€of€the€enhancement€andÏmitigating€factors.€€Although€the€trial€judge€found€the€existence€of€factors€whichÏcould€be€considered€in€mitigation€as€being€consistent€with€the€purposes€of€theÍsentencing€laws,× ƒ. ××  ×€the€judge€stated,€ð ðthe€court€is€of€the€opinion€that€the€pleaÏbargain€agreement€in€which€this€was€reduced€to€second€degree€murder€isÏenough€consideration€for€the€Defendant€and€any€mitigating€factors€and€anyÏcircumstances€that€there€may€be€here€in€his€favor.ððÌÌà àWe€cannot€conclude€that€the€record€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€affirmativelyÏshows€that€the€trial€court€properly€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€allÏrelevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€It€appears€that€the€trial€judge€may€have€firstÏdecided€that€the€Defendant€should€be€sentenced€to€the€maximum€term€and€thenÏbegan€a€discussion€of€the€various€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors.€€InÏaddition,€the€trial€judge€expressed€his€opinion€that€because€the€Defendant€wasÏallowed€the€benefit€of€a€plea€œbargain,›€no€further€consideration€of€any€mitigatingÏfactors€was€appropriate.€€We€do€not€believe€that€this€is€an€accurate€applicationÏof€our€sentencing€principles€and€laws.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Jerry€Smallwoodóó,€SumnerÏCo.,€No.€89„24„III€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€June€7,€1989).€€For€theseÏreasons,€we€will€review€the€Defendantððs€sentence€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€without€aÏpresumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€as€enhancement€factors€the€following€œas›€set€forth€atÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„114:€(1)€That€the€Defendant€has€aÏprevious€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€thoseÏnecessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range.€€This€factor€is€clearly€œestablished›Ïby€the€evidence.€€(2)€The€Defendant€was€a€leader€in€the€commission€of€anÏoffense€involving€two€(2)€or€more€criminal€actors.€€Several€individuals€were€withÏthe€Defendant€when€he€fired€the€fatal€shot.€€The€Defendant€was€the€onlyÏindividual€armed€with€a€œhigh„powered›€rifle.€€It€appears€that€at€least€one€otherÏperson€had€a€shotgun.€€We€believe€the€record€œestablishes›€the€finding€œthat€theÏDefendant€was€ð ða€leader,ðð€and€justifies€the€application€of›€this€enhancementÏfactor.€€(3)€The€offense€involved€more€than€one€victim.€€This€factor€is€œestablished›Ïby€the€fact€that€several€people€were€in€the€house€at€the€time€the€shots€wereÏœfired.€€Additional€people€could€have€been€injured€or€killed.€›€œòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Rainesóó,Ï882€S.W.2d€376,€384€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.€€(Tenn.Ï1994).€€(7)›€œThe›€offense€involved€a€victim€and€was€committed€to€gratify€theÏDefendantððs€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement.€€The€Defendant€testified€that€heÏfired€the€shots€ð ðto€scare€somebody.ðð€€The€only€other€reason€for€the€attackÏsuggested€by€evidence€found€in€this€record€was€the€anger€which€the€DefendantÏand€his€companions€had€for€another€individual€œlocated€in›€the€house€œinto€which›Ïthey€œshot.›€€While€this€was€clearly€a€senseless€crime,€we€do€not€believe€theÏrecord€supports€the€finding€that€the€Defendant€committed€the€crime€to€gratify€hisÍdesire€for€pleasure€or€excitement.€€(9)€The€Defendant€possessed€or€employed€aÏfirearm,€explosive€device€or€other€deadly€weapon€during€the€commission€of€theÏoffense.€€This€is€clearly€supported€by€œthe€evidence.›€€(10)€The€Defendant€had€noÏhesitation€œabout›€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high.€€ThisÏfactor€is€œalso€justified›€by€the€œfact›€that€several€other€individuals€were€in€the€houseÏinto€which€the€Defendant€œshot.€€òòState€v.€Makokaóó,€885€S.W.2d€366,€373€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.€(Tenn.€1994).›ÌÌà àAlthough€not€found€by€the€trial€court,€we€believe€the€record€furtherÏœestablishes€a€finding›€that€the€crime€was€committed€under€circumstances€underÏwhich€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€to€a€victim€was€great.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„114(16).€€We€believe€this€factor€is€applicable€because€the€DefendantÏfired€seven€to€ten€rounds€from€a€high€powered€rifle€into€a€residence€in€whichÏseveral€people€were€located.€€There€was€certainly€the€potential€that€more€thanÏone€person€would€be€killed€or€injured.€€œòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Simsóó,€909€S.W.2d€46,€50Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.€(Tenn.€1995).›ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€no€mitigating€factors€other€than€certain€factors€notÏspecifically€listed€as€mitigating€œfactors,›€but€which€could€be€considered€œas›€beingÏconsistent€with€œthe€purposes›€of€our€sentencing€œlaws€and€principles.›€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(13).€€We€also€agree€that€the€record€does€not€supportÍthe€finding€of€any€specific€mitigating€factors€as€set€forth€in€the€statute.€€The€trialÏjudge€noted€that€the€Defendant€was€a€high€school€graduate€and€had€beenÏsteadily€œemployed;›€œthat€he›€had€been€incarcerated€for€about€twenty„two€monthsÏat€the€time€of€his€sentencing€and€had€been€a€model€œprisoner;›€œthat€he€was›Ïremorseful€for€his€œcrime;€that€he›€œhad›€a€good€reputation€and€there€was€theÏpotential€for€rehabilitation.€€We€agree€that€these€factors€could€be€considered€inÏœmitigation,›€but€œwe›€do€not€believe€œthat€these›€mitigating€factors€are€entitled€to€œgreat›Ïweight.ÌÌà àThe€sentencing€range€for€the€Defendant€was€from€fifteen€to€twenty„fiveÏyears.€€The€presumptive€sentence€for€the€Defendant€is€the€minimum€sentence€inÏthe€range€before€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors€are€considered.× ƒ/ ××  ל̛œÌ›œà à›œBased€upon€our€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€Defendantððs€sentence,€weÏbelieve€the€record€clearly€dictates€a€sentence€in€the€upper€end€of€the€range.€€AsÏwe€have€stated,€the€sentence€set€by€the€trial€judge€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóóÏcarries€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€Nevertheless,€we€believe€the€sentenceÏof€twenty„five€years€is€reasonable€and€appropriate.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.›ÌÌœÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÇCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€SPECIAL€JUDGE