ÿWPCê 3# ÚU>å %# 0í)UB4Xln­{U:(bw@j 0Jª 0Tô 0^H 0h¦ 0r 0|€ 0†ü 0‚ 1u 0d‡ AQë Æ< 0D 0@F 0D† U6Ê D/ B/ BL D3i U.œ U*Ê B)ô DC AM`†­f3v~™vÓ˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLàÏ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiÌqæ$3|x«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular mDnDoUpDqDrDsUtUu7evÓ€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó< Œ 9p`(Courier New(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Courier< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d,,,,7Border 1dd!#-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ |Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌò òAugust€17,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€+ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\ÑPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{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  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€**Xd#ÑÑ#€**Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€+Ô›Ñ7€ üÖ XXdæXXdÈ7ќـ!ÙßR€./-A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€à8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€JANUARY€1998€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,€à àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9705„CR„00194Ìà à€€€€€à àà à€€à à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àGreene€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)à àHonorable€James€E.€Beckner,€Judge€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)ÌDONNIE€WAYNE€FOULKSà à)à à(Second€degree€murder)Ìà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€Ìà àAppellant.à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌRichard€W.€Pectolà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€Walkup€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€andà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌJeffrey€P.€Milesà àà àà àà àà àandÌ202€East€Unaka€Avenueà àà àà àMichael€J.€Fahey,€IIÌJohnson€City,€TN€37601à àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€TennesseeÏà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€€€€€à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àC.€Berkeley€BellÌà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àCecil€C.€Mills,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà à109€South€Main€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àGreeneville,€TN€37743ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€defendant,€Donnie€Wayne€Foulks,€appeals€as€of€right€from€his€juryÏconviction€in€the€Greene€County€Criminal€Court€for€second€degree€murder.€€The€trialÏcourt€sentenced€the€defendant€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender€to€twenty„five€years€inÏthe€custody€of€the€Department€of€Correction.€€It€also€imposed€a€fine€of€five€thousandÏdollars.€€The€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€applying€certainÏenhancement€factors€and€by€failing€to€consider€and€apply€mitigating€factors.€€We€affirmÏthe€judgment€of€conviction.€€ÌÌà àThe€record€only€includes€the€trial€court€records,€the€appellate€file,€theÏbriefs€of€the€parties,€and€a€portion€of€the€sentencing€hearing€transcript,€consisting€of€aÏpresentence€report€introduced€as€an€exhibit,€the€arguments€of€counsel,€and€the€trialÏcourtððs€findings.€€Neither€a€transcript€of€the€trial€proceedings€nor€a€transcript€of€theÏtestimony€presented€at€the€sentencing€hearing€was€included€in€the€record€on€appeal.€ÏIn€any€event,€the€record€reflects€that€on€January€21,€1996,€the€defendant€shot€andÏkilled€his€wife,€Robin€Foulks,€with€a€shotgun€at€their€home€while€the€victim€was€in€bed.€ÏIt€also€shows€that€the€three„year„old€son€of€the€defendant€and€the€victim€was€in€the€bedÏwith€the€victim€when€the€shooting€occurred.€€The€record€reflects€that€the€child€tried€toÏstop€the€victimððs€bleeding.€€Several€hours€passed€before€the€victim€and€the€child€wereÏdiscovered.€€€€ÌÌà àThe€presentence€report€states€that€the€then„forty„three„year„oldÏdefendant€had€no€prior€felony€convictions.€€It€shows€that€the€defendant€hadÏmisdemeanor€convictions€in€1977,€1978,€1979€and€1986€for€offenses€including€publicÏintoxication,€assault€and€battery,€speeding€and€hunting€without€a€permit.€€It€reflects€thatÏthe€defendant€obtained€a€GED€and€that€he€was€employed€as€a€truck€driver.€€The€reportÏalso€states€that€because€the€defendant€failed€to€submit€a€personal€questionnaire,€aÏcomplete€report€could€not€be€submitted€to€the€court.ÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€sentenced€theÏdefendant€to€the€maximum€sentence€of€twenty„five€years€in€the€custody€of€theÏDepartment€of€Correction.€€In€sentencing€the€defendant,€the€trial€court€applied€theÏfollowing€enhancement€factors€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 à(1)€the€defendant€had€a€previous€history€of€criminalÏconvictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€thoseÏnecessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range;ÌÌà8 à(3)€the€offense€involved€more€than€one€(1)€victim;ÌÌà8 à(4)€a€victim€of€the€offense€was€particularly€vulnerableÏbecause€of€age€or€physical€or€mental€disability;ÌÌà8 à(9)€the€defendant€possessed€or€employed€a€firearm€duringÏthe€commission€of€the€offense;€andÌÌà8 à(15)€the€defendant€abused€a€position€of€private€trust€thatÏsignificantly€facilitated€the€commission€or€the€fulfillment€ofÏthe€offense.€ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓThe€trial€court€applied€factor€(1)€based€on€the€defendantððs€prior€misdemeanorÏconvictions€and€the€defendantððs€earlier€acts€of€violence€against€the€victim,€includingÏð ðshootings€of€guns€and€bruises€and€hair€pulling.ðð€€The€trial€court€noted€that€theÏdefendantððs€prior€convictions€were€old€and€alone€were€not€significant.€€However,€itÏstated€that€the€prior€convictions€became€more€significant€in€view€of€the€evidenceÏpresented.€€€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€considered€the€three„year„old€child€as€a€victim€forÏpurposes€of€applying€factors€(3)€and€(4),€noting€that€the€child€was€in€bed€with€the€victimÍwhen€she€was€shot,€that€the€child€tried€to€stop€the€victimððs€bleeding,€and€that€the€victimÏand€the€child€were€not€discovered€for€several€hours.€€It€also€noted€that€there€was€noÏspecific€proof€of€trauma€to€the€child,€but€it€stated€that€the€factors€were€applicable€underÏthe€peculiar€circumstances€of€the€case€because€it€was€obvious€that€the€child€must€haveÏbeen€greatly€traumatized.€€The€court€gave€great€weight€to€factors€(3)€and€(4).€€InÏapplying€factor€(15),€the€court€found€that€the€defendant€would€not€have€had€access€toÏthe€house€without€the€private€relationship€with€the€victim€and€the€child.€€The€trial€courtÏdetermined€that€factor€(15)€was€not€of€much€weight.ÌÌà àAs€for€mitigating€factors,€the€defendant€requested€that€the€trial€courtÏconsider€the€following€mitigating€factors€as€provided€in€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„113:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 à(8)€the€defendant€suffered€from€a€mental€or€physicalÏcondition€that€significantly€reduced€the€defendantððsÏculpability€for€the€offense;ÌÌà8 à(11)€the€defendant,€although€guilty€of€the€crime,€committedÏthe€crime€under€such€unusual€circumstances€that€it€isÏunlikely€that€a€sustained€intent€to€violate€the€law€motivatedÏhis€criminal€conduct;€andÌÌà8 à(13)€the€defendant€accepted€responsibility€for€his€actions.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓDefense€counsel€argued€that€mitigation€should€be€considered€because€the€defendantÏdid€not€go€to€the€victimððs€house€willingly€as€evidenced€by€the€proof,€although€heÏconceded€that€the€defendant€went€there€with€a€shotgun.€€Defense€counselÏacknowledged€that€voluntary€intoxication€may€not€be€considered€in€mitigation€underÍT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„113(8),€but€he€argued€that€factor€(8)€applied€due€to€the€defendantððsÏdepression€as€recounted€by€witnesses.€€The€defendant€contended€that€factor€(11)Ïapplied€because€it€would€be€beyond€imagination€for€a€person€to€have€a€sustainedÏintent€to€violate€the€law€given€the€circumstances€of€the€case.€€He€argued€that€theÏoffense€must€have€occurred€on€the€spur€of€the€moment.€€Defense€counsel€alsoÏasserted€that€the€trial€court€should€consider€under€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„113(13)€that€theÏdefendant€accepted€responsibility€for€his€actions€as€evidenced€by€his€candid€testimonyÏand€by€the€fact€that€the€defendant€did€not€deny€that€he€shot€the€victim.€€€€€€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€no€mitigating€factors€applicable.€€The€court€refusedÏto€apply€factor€(8)€because€voluntary€intoxication€does€not€qualify€as€proper€mitigation.€ÏòòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„113(8).€€As€for€factor€(11),€the€trial€court€concluded€that€theÏevidence€introduced€relative€to€the€relationship€between€the€defendant€and€the€victimÏbefore€the€killing€rendered€the€factor€inapplicable.€€Specifically,€it€found€that€theÏrelationship€was€a€stormy€one,€involving€assaults,€threats€and€the€use€of€guns€by€theÏdefendant€against€the€victim.€€In€refusing€to€apply€factor€(13),€the€trial€court€noted€theÏdefendantððs€sorrow€but€found€the€defendantððs€testimony€to€be€incredible.ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€the€defendant€concedes€that€the€trial€court€appropriatelyÏapplied€enhancement€factor€(1)€based€upon€his€prior€criminal€convictions.€€However,Ïhe€argues€that€the€court€erred€when€it€also€considered€the€defendantððs€prior€history€ofÍcriminal€behavior€based€upon€prior€bad€acts€of€the€defendant.€€He€argues€that€the€trialÏcourt€should€not€have€been€permitted€to€consider€prior€bad€act€evidence€under€RuleÏ404(b),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€in€determining€that€factor€(1)€was€applicable€and€entitled€toÏgreat€weight.€€The€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€applyingÏenhancement€factors€(3)€and€(4)€because€the€child€may€not€be€considered€as€a€ð ðvictimððÏfor€enhancement€purposes.€€With€respect€to€factor€(15),€the€defendant€contends€thatÏthe€evidence€does€not€support€its€application.€€As€for€mitigating€factors,€the€defendantÏasserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€finding€that€no€mitigating€factors€applied.€ÌÌà àAs€we€previously€noted,€the€record€does€not€include€a€transcript€of€theÏtrial€proceedings€or€a€full€transcript€of€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Pursuant€to€Rule€24(a),ÏT.R.A.P.,€the€defendant€filed€with€the€clerk€of€the€trial€court€a€designation€of€less€thanÏthe€full€record€on€appeal€and€a€statement€of€the€issue€to€be€raised€on€appeal.€ÏAlthough€the€defendant€raised€a€sentencing€issue,€he€believed€that€less€than€the€fullÏrecord€on€appeal€was€necessary€to€convey€a€fair,€accurate€and€complete€account€ofÏwhat€transpired€with€respect€to€the€sentencing€issues€raised€on€appeal.€€Even€thoughÏquestioned€during€oral€argument€regarding€the€possibility€of€supplementing€theÏrecord,€defense€counsel€filed€a€letter€with€the€court€following€oral€argument€stating€thatÏafter€careful€consideration,€they€had€decided€not€to€supplement€the€record€on€appeal.€€ÌÌà àPursuant€to€Rule€24(a),€T.R.A.P.,€the€appellate€record€must€include€theÏtranscript€or€statement€of€the€evidence€or€proceedings,€unless€less€than€a€full€record€isÏdeemed€sufficient€to€convey€a€fair,€accurate€and€complete€account€of€what€transpiredÏwith€respect€to€the€issues€raised€on€appeal.€€The€appealing€party€has€an€obligation€toÏprepare€a€record€which€conveys€a€fair,€accurate€and€complete€account€of€whatÏtranspired€with€respect€to€the€issues€which€form€the€basis€of€the€appeal.€€òòState€v.ÏBolingóó,€840€S.W.2d€944,€951€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€In€òòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2dÏ557€(Tenn.€1993),€our€supreme€court€stated:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àWhere€the€record€is€incomplete€and€does€not€contain€aÏtranscript€of€the€proceedings€relevant€to€an€issue€presentedÏfor€review,€or€portions€of€the€record€upon€which€the€partyÏrelies,€an€appellate€court€is€precluded€from€considering€theÏissue.€€Absent€the€necessary€relevant€material€in€the€recordÏan€appellate€court€cannot€consider€the€merits€of€an€issue.€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòIdóó.€at€560„61.ÌÌà àMoreover,€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210(b),€the€trial€court€is€required€toÏconsider€for€sentencing€purposes€the€following:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 à(1)€The€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€theÏsentencing€hearing;Ìà8 à(2)€The€presentence€report;Ìà8 à(3)€The€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€toÏsentencing€alternatives;Ìà8 à(4)€The€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conductÏinvolved;Ìà8 à(5)€€Evidence€and€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€theÏenhancement€and€mitigating€factors€in€ðððð€40„35„113€€andÏ40„35„114;€andÌà8 à(6)€€Any€statement€the€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€theÏdefendantððs€own€behalf€about€sentencing.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓConsideration€of€these€factors€is€mandatory.€€In€similar€fashion,€the€fact€that€ourÏstandard€of€review€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€on€the€record€requires€us,€as€well,€to€consider€theÏfactors.€€Thus,€even€if€the€limited€record€before€us€indicates€trial€court€error€that€mightÏordinarilyÑ€0ÑÇovercome€the€statutory€presumption€of€correctness€that€applies€to€the€trial€courtððsÏdeterminations,€we€will€still€be€unable€to€conduct€a€proper€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€theÏstatutorily€relevant€factors.€€à0 àÌÌà àThe€defendant€has€relied€upon€the€facts€introduced€at€trial€and€theÏsentencing€hearing€to€support€his€contentions€as€to€enhancement€and€mitigatingÏfactors.€€Most€of€the€trial€courtððs€decisions€with€respect€to€the€application€ofÏenhancement€and€mitigating€factors€were€based€upon€the€proof€introduced€at€the€trialÏand€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Moreover,€the€defendant€made€several€references€in€hisÏappellate€brief€to€evidence€introduced€at€trial€in€support€of€his€arguments€that€the€trialÏcourt€erred.€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€full€trial€and€sentencing€hearingÏtranscripts€are€necessary€to€convey€a€fair,€accurate€and€complete€account€of€whatÏtranspired€with€respect€to€the€sentencing€claims€raised€on€appeal.€€Absent€a€completeÏrecord,€we€are€unable€to€perform€a€complete€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review.€€€ÌÌà àWe€are€able€to€determine€from€the€record€before€us€that€the€trial€courtÏincorrectly€applied€enhancement€factors€(3)€and€(4)€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114.€ÏOn€appeal,€the€state€concedes€that€the€trial€court€inappropriately€considered€the€childÏas€a€victim€for€enhancement€purposes€under€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(3)€and€(4).€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÏv.€Rainesóó,€882€S.W.2d€376,€384€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€(ð ðthe€word€ððvictimðð€as€used€inÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(3),€is€limited€in€scope€to€a€person€or€entity€that€isÍinjured,€killed,€had€property€stolen,€or€had€property€destroyed€by€the€perpetrator€of€theÏcrimeðð).€€However,€the€state€urges€the€court€to€revisit€its€earlier€ruling€in€òòRainesóó.€€ThereÏis€no€need€to€do€so€in€this€case.ÌÌà àOn€the€other€hand,€although€the€trial€court€incorrectly€appliedÏenhancement€factors€(3)€and€(4),€the€record€indicates€the€applicability€of€enhancementÏfactor€(10),€dealing€with€commission€of€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€life€was€high,€basedÏupon€the€presence€of€the€child€in€the€bed€when€the€defendant€shot€the€victim.€ÏAlthough€factor€(10)€does€not€apply€in€a€murder€case€because€the€factor€is€inherent€inÏthe€offense€relative€to€the€victim,€it€may€be€considered€when€there€is€a€person€otherÏthan€the€murder€victim€in€the€area€of€high€risk.€€That€is€the€case€here,€andÏenhancement€factor€(10)€should€be€considered€to€enhance€the€defendantððs€sentence.€€€€€ÌÌà àAs€for€the€defendantððs€claims€with€respect€to€enhancement€factors€(1)€andÏ(15)€and€mitigating€factors€(8),€(11),€and€(13),€we€are€unable€to€conduct€a€full€òòdeóó€òònovoóóÏreview€because€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€are€particularly€relevant€to€ourÏdecision.€€Given€the€state€of€the€record,€we€presume€the€trial€court€was€correct€in€itsÏdeterminations€with€respect€to€these€factors.ÌÌà àIn€summary,€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€incorrectly€applied€enhancementÏfactors€(3)€and€(4)€but€that€factor€(10)€is€applicable.€€Given€the€record€before€us,€weÏuphold€the€trial€courtððs€imposition€of€a€sentence€of€twenty„five€years.ÌÌà àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€affirm€theÏtrial€courtððs€judgment€of€conviction.Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€€ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌGary€R.€Wade,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌòòÌóóÌ___________________________ÌCurwood€Witt,€Judgeà àÌÌÌ€Ìà à€€€