WPC" kO <KB>Yg]G##XDAKrIb3dPTw `:rX~ƝI.SX!=4OZ?w2@>ICٱvW$Dud̡BfkCDql]^F h^1+N}ޡSo,䬶+Τ?& E]DKms=u®g"CQ" 3p|)jӬ0Bq8Hܭn/j g ,j{PUB$r'ּhd8#a(#׍ 3~y"TGF*Wdr:|=Мc(dr*{36gRN 31^L#DpKx( ճv3]F6(tM ="Fgη;/-Xa쾳7į#B?nUBF % U.  nX 0P$ 4t  0 0D$ w@h U: o QP $rU:#U:U.,ZU:*dU: CU:+eU:M M M M B D3 0D AO!j!j! 0D0" D/t" B"<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi X%2A`ArialTT3|X<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@%2A`ArialTTt10cpiXXX2PQXP(($D  uM%(D(3$ !D      0  (#$  0   rkeE eӀ,cAZ"Arial Regular e  $D     1    ݀ X XAttrial,anexpertaccidentreconstructionistestimatedthedefendanttobetravelingatabout `  ninetythreemilesperhourbeforeapplyingthebrakesandendingupintheoppositelaneoftraffic.   $D     2     X XԀAlthoughonecountofrecklessdrivingwasajuvenileconviction, ourSupremeCourthasheld `  thatadefendants juvenilerecordisasufficientbasisforsentenceenhancementunderT.C.A.4035114(1).Statev.Adams,864S.W.2d31,34(Tenn.1993).# #   $D     3    ݀ X XThisfactorcannotbeappliedforenhancementpurposeswherethedefendanthasbeen `  separatelyconvictedoftheoffensescommittedagainsteachvictim.SeeStatev.Williamson,919 F  S.W.2d69,82(Tenn.Crim.App.1995).   $D     6     X XԀThedefendantalsocontendsthatheiseligibleforacommunitycorrectionssentencerather `  thanincarceration.Wedisagree.Asthedefendantwasconvictedforaviolentcrimeagainstapersonandtherewasnoshowingofspecialneeds,heisnoteligibleforacommunitycorrectionssentence.H   $D     3    ݀+X XThisfactorcannotbeappliedforenhancementpurposeswherethedefendanthasbeen `  separatelyconvictedoftheoffensescommittedagainsteachvictim.SeeStatev.Williamson,919 F  S.W.2d69,82(Tenn.Crim.App.1995).   $D     5    ݀ X XThetrialcourtjustifieditsapplicationofthisfactoronthereasoningthatthedefendantscar `  wasadeadlyweapon.,cAZ"Arial Regular   $D     2    kX XԀAlthoughonecountofrecklessdrivingwasajuvenileconviction,k kourSupremeCourthasheld `  thatadefendants juvenilerecordisasufficientbasisforsentenceenhancementunderT.C.A.4035114(1).Statev.Adams,864S.W.2d31,34(Tenn.1993).#kk#   $D     4    ݀ X XTherecordindicatesthatthepassengersinthedefendantscaralsosufferedfrominjuries `  attributabletothewreck.,cAZ"Arial Regular%2A`ArialTT   $D     6    {X XԀThedefendantalsocontendsthatheiseligibleforacommunitycorrectionssentencerather `  thanincarceration.Wedisagree.Asthedefendantwasconvictedforaviolentcrimeagainstapersonandtherewasnoshowingofspecialneeds,heisnoteligibleforacommunitycorrectionssentence.,cAZ"Arial Regular   $D     3    ݀+X XThisfactorcannotbeappliedforenhancementpurposeswerethedefendanthasbeen `  separatelyconvictedoftheoffensescommittedagainsteachvictim.SeeStatev.Williamson,919 F  S.W.2d69,82(Tenn.Crim.App.1995).,cAZ"Arial Regular XDXX X3 XXD   Ad FILEDXDX 3  October30,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM ,cAZ"Arial Regular  XDXX X 3 X XD   Ad FILED XDX  3  October19,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM ,cAZ"Arial Regular d$$$$'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !D   ` X72cXXdd7  TR[A'Legal3'A' Legal3'TXXX Xr*<,(j 8` `@Ef ` 8ttxP `  rr*<,(j 8` `@Ef ` 8ttxP `  r  INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@cc:;ATNASHVILLE@7;AUGUST1998SESSION STATEOFTENNESSEE,     T )  p     L      T )   C.C.A.NO.01C019710CR00470  `    Appellee,  򀀀   T ) P     L      T )  MACONCOUNTY  @  VS.   L      T ) 0     L      T )  HON.J.O.BOND,   TROYL.NOLES, L      T )  JUDGE p    L      T )  Appellee.      T )  (Sentencing)  P  FORTHEAPPELLANT:     T   FORTHEAPPELLEE:   B.F. JACKLOWERY     T   JOHNKNOXWALKUP   PublicSquare,LoweryBldg.    T   AttorneyGeneral&Reporter   p  Lebanon,TN37087  !`    L      T   KARENM.YACUZZO  "P    L      T   Asst.AttorneyGeneral  #@     L      T   425FifthAve.,North $0    L      T   2ndFloor,CordellHullBldg.̀   L      T   Nashville,TN372430493 p&     L      T      L      T   TOMP.THOMPSON  P(!    L      T   DistrictAttorneyGeneral   L        L      T   JOHNWOOTTEN   +!$    L      T   Asst.DistrictAttorneyGeneral   L      T   203GreentopSt.,P.O.Box178   L      T   Hartsville,TN370740178   L    L      T        L      T      L   OPINIONFILED:򀀀 4 +.  AFFIRMED  @8.2  JOHNH.PEAY,  ;15 Judge  <37 X  @:; uXXOPINION#XXu#Ԉ `      Thedefendant,TroyNoles,wasconvictedbyaMaconCountyjuryoffivecountsofassault,onecountofpossessionofdrugparaphernalia,andpossessionofalcoholwhileundertheageoftwentyone.ThetrialcourtsentencedhimtofiveconsecutivesentencesofelevenmonthstwentyninedaysasaRangeIoffenderforassaults,elevenmonthstwentyninedaysforpossessionofdrugparaphernalia,andfivedaysforpossessionofalcohol.Thetrialcourtorderedthesentencesforpossessionofdrugparaphernaliaandalcoholtobeservedconcurrentlywiththesentencesforassault.  Inthisappealasofright,thedefendantarguesthatthesentenceimposedisexcessiveandthatthetrialcourterredwhenitimposedconsecutivesentences.Afterareviewoftherecordandapplicablelaw,wefindnoerrorandaffirmthejudgmentofthecourtbelow.  ThedefendantsconvictionsstemmedfromanautomobilecrashinMaconCounty.OntheeveningofNovember25,1995,thedefendantwasdrivingsouthonCarthageRoadwithtwopassengersafterpurchasingtwosixpacksofbeer.Asthedefendantdrovearoundacurveintheroad,helostcontrolofthecarandskiddedacrossthedoubleyellowlineintothelaneofoncomingtraffic.   #  1      ׀Thedefendantscarthen &-#& collidedheadonwithanoncomingjeep.  Asaresultofthecollision,thedriverofthejeepanditspassengerssufferedsevereinjuries.Thedriverofthejeep,WandaWest,wasforcedtohavepartofeachleg 4F+. amputated.Mrs.Westalsosufferedheadandfaceinjuries,apuncturedbladderand 4T+0 brokenwrists.Mrs.Westsdaughter,whowasapassengerinthejeepatthetimeoftheaccident,wasthrownfromthejeepand,asaresult,brokehernoseandankleandhadtoundergofacialsurgery.Anotherofthepassengers,AngieWatkins,brokeherjaw,dislocatedherhipandwillsufferfromarthritisfortherestofherlifeasaresultoftheaccident.Athirdpassenger,ScottJenkins,wasunconsciousforthreeweeksaftertheaccidentandsufferedfromaconcussion.Thefinalpassengerinthecar,BarryMatthews,brokehisjawinseveralplacesandhadtohavehiseyesocketrebuiltwithwiremesh.  Ashisfirstissue,thedefendantarguesthatthesentenceimposedisexcessivebecausethetrialcourterroneouslyappliedenhancementfactorswhendetermininghissentence.Whenadefendantcomplainsofhisorhersentence,wemustconductadenovoreviewwithapresumptionofcorrectness.T.C.A.4035401(d).  Theburdenofshowingthatthesentenceisimproperisupontheappealingparty.T.C.A.4035401(d)SentencingCommisssionComments.Thispresumption,however, isconditionedupontheaffirmativeshowingintherecordthatthetrialcourtconsideredthesentencingprinciplesandallrelevantfactsandcircumstances.Statev.Ashby,823  &  S.W.2d166,169(Tenn.1991).  AportionoftheSentencingReformActof1989,codifiedatT.C.A.4035210,establishedanumberofspecificprocedurestobefollowedinsentencing.Thissectionmandatesthecourtsconsiderationofthefollowing:  (1)Theevidence,ifany,receivedatthetrialandthe  sentencinghearing;(2)[t]hepresentencereport;(3)  [t]heprinciplesofsentencingandargumentsastosentencing d#  4 +0   alternatives;(4)[t]henatureandcharacteristicsofthecriminal  conductinvolved;(5)[e]videnceandinformationofferedbythe  partiesontheenhancementandmitigatingfactorsin4035  113and4035114;and(6)[a]nystatementthedefendantwishes 8.4   tomakeinhisownbehalfaboutsentencing.T.C.A.4035210.  Althoughthissectionalsoprovidesthatinthecaseofafelontheminimumsentencewithintherangeisthepresumptivesentence,themisdemeanantisnotentitledtothepresumptionofaminimumsentence.Statev.Creasy,885S.W.2d829,832 \  (Tenn.Crim.App.1994).However,indeterminingthepercentageofthesentencetobeservedinactualconfinement,thecourtmustconsiderenhancementandmitigatingfactorsaswellasthepurposesandprinciplesoftheCriminalSentencingReformActof1989,andthecourtshouldnotimposesuchpercentagesarbitrarily.T.C.A.4035302(d).  TheActfurtherprovidesthat [w]heneverthecourtimposesasentence,it  shallplaceontherecordeitherorallyorinwriting,whatenhancementormitigating  \ factorsitfound,ifany,aswellasfindingsoffactasrequiredby4035209.T.C.A.4035210(f)(emphasisadded).Becauseoftheimportanceofenhancingandmitigatingfactorsunderthesentencingguidelines,eventheabsenceofthesefactorsmustberecordedifnonearefound.T.C.A.4035210comment.Thesefindingsbythetrialjudgemustberecordedinordertoallowanadequatereviewonappeal.  Atthesentencinghearingthetrialcourtsetouttheapplicableenhancementfactorsasfollows:  Yourpriorhistoryofcriminalconduct.Youwereinvolvedinan  offensethatinvolvedmorethanonevictim.Therewas[sic]four  othervictimsthatyouwerechargedineachcase,onevictimhad  achargeagainstyou,fivealltogether.Sothatwouldapplyasan d#  3:*/   enhancement.Personalinjuriesinflicted,assaultisnormallynot  evenseriousbodilyinjury,itsjustbodilyinjury,buthereyouve  inflictedseriousbodilyinjury,noquestionaboutit.   L TheCourtbelievesthattheautomobilewasadeadly  weapon.... 8.4    L Andyouweretrusted,hadapublictrust.Whenyougeta  driverslicenseinyourhandstheStateofTennesseesayswetrust  youwiththepublic,thelivesofthepublicontheroad.Andyou  abusedthatpublictrustbydoingthatanddrivingthevehicleintent  ionallylikeyoudroveitthatnight.Andyoudiditontheroadyou  sayyouwerentevenfamiliarwith.Suchhighspeedsandunder  thosecircumstancesyoushouldhavethepotentialforbodily  injurywasverygreattoanyoneonthatroad.    Inlightoftheforegoingremarks,itisapparentthetrialcourtappliedthefollowingenhancementfactorsfromT.C.A.4035114:thatthedefendanthasaprevioushistoryofcriminalconvictionsorcriminalbehaviorinadditiontothosenecessarytoestablishtheappropriaterange(1);theoffenseinvolvedmorethanonevictim(3);thepersonalinjuriesinflicteduponthevictimswereparticularlygreat(6);thedefendantemployedadeadlyweaponduringthecommissionoftheoffense(9);thedefendantabusedapositionofpublictrust(15);andthecrimewascommittedundercircumstancesunderwhichthepotentialforbodilyinjurytoavictimwasgreat(16).Thedefendantnowarguesthatthetrialcourterredbyapplyinganyofthesefactors.  Astofactorone,thepresentencereportshowedthatthedefendanthasbeenconvictedofspeeding,twocountsofrecklessdrivingandpublicdrunkenness.  #  2      񀀀As '! thisisahistoryofcriminalbehaviorandconvictions,wecanfindnoerrorinthetrialcourtsapplicationofthisfactor.  Thedefendantnextarguesthatthetrialcourterredinapplyingfactorthree,thattheoffenseinvolvedmorethanonevictim.Thetrialcourtappliedthisfactorbased onthefactthattherewereseveralvictimsinthejeepthedefendantscarhit.TheState 1n(- concedesthatthiswasanimproperbasisuponwhichtoapplythisfactor.  #  3      However, `   thereisanotherbasisuponwhichtoapplythisfactorinthedefendantscase.Thedefendantwasonlyindictedfortheinjuriesinflictedonthepeopleinthejeep.Hewasnotindictedfortheinjuriesinflictedonthepassengersofhisowncar.  #  4      ׀Asthe d passengersofthedefendantsvehiclewerealsovictimsinthisaccidentandthedefendantwasnotconvictedoftheoffensescommittedagainstthem,itwasproperforthetrialcourttoapplythisenhancementfactor.  Thedefendantalsochallengestheapplicationoffactorsix,thatthepersonalinjuriesinflicteduponthevictimswereparticularlygreat.Thedefendantarguesthatthisfactorisanessentialelementofthechargedoffenseofvehicularassaultandthereforecannotbeusedtoenhancehissentence.However,thisCourthasheldthatafactorcannotbeusedtoenhanceasentenceifitisanessentialelementoftheoffenseforwhichaconvictionisobtained,nottheoffenseforwhichadefendantisindicted.See  \ Sillsv.State,884S.W.2d139,145(Tenn.Crim.App.1994).Thedefendantwas "( convictedofassault,whichonlyrequires bodilyinjuryofanother.T.C.A.3913101(a)(1).Since particularlygreatinjuriesarenotanessentialelementofassault,itwasproperforthetrialcourttousethisfactorasabasisforenhancement.  Thedefendantalsocontendsthatitwasimproperforthetrialcourttoconsiderfactornine,thatthedefendantpossessedoremployedadeadlyweaponduringthecommissionoftheoffense.^  #  5      ׀Thedefendantsargumentisthatthisfactorisan /%* essentialelementofvehicularassaultwithwhichhewascharged.However,asthedefendantwasconvictedofassaultwhichdoesnotrequireuseofadeadlyweapon,applicationofthisfactorwasproper.  Thedefendantnextarguesthatthetrialcourtsapplicationoffactorfifteen,abuseofapositionofpublictrust,wasalsoimproper.Thetrialjudgeappliedthisfactorbasedonthereasoningthatadriverslicenseisaformofpublictrustwhichwasabusedwhenthedefendantdidnotdriveresponsibly.Wefindthatitwaserrorforthetrialcourttoconsiderfactorfifteen,asadriverslicenseisnotaformofpublictrust.  Thelastenhancementfactorappliedbythetrialcourtwasfactorsixteen,thatthecrimewascommittedundercircumstancesunderwhichthepotentialforbodilyinjurytoavictimwasgreat.Althoughthedefendantsappellatebriefdoesnotaddressthisfactorspecifically,thebriefdoescontendthatnoenhancementfactorsexist.ThisCourthaspreviouslyheldthatthisfactorisapplicablewheretherearepeopleotherthanthevictimareintheareaandsubjecttoinjury.Statev.Sims,909S.W.2d46,50(Tenn. T$ Crim.App.1995).Inthedefendantscasethereweretwopassengersinhiscarthatwereintheareaandsubjecttoinjury;therefore,thisfactorwasproperlyappliedbythetrialcourt.  Thedefendantnextcontendsthatthetrialcourterredinfailingtoapplyanymitigatingfactors.Thedefendantarguesthathisyouthshouldhavebeenconsideredbythetrialcourt.SeeT.C.A.4035113.ThisCourthasheldthat 0',  DIndeterminingwhetherthesentenceshouldhavebeenmitigatedbecausethedefendantlackedsubstantialjudgmentbecauseofhisyouth,courtsshouldconsidertheconceptofyouthincontext,i.e.,thedefendantsage,education,maturity,experience,mentalcapacityordevelopment,andanyotherpertinentcircumstancetendingtodemonstratethedefendantsabilityorinabilitytoapprecDiatethenatureofhisconduct. 8.4 D Statev.Carter,908S.W.2d410,413(Tenn.Crim.App.1995)(citingStatev.Adams, `  864S.W.2d31,34(Tenn.1993)).Atthetimeofthewreck,thedefendantwasnineteenyearsold.Heisalsoahighschoolgraduatewho,asthedefendanthimselfpointsout,hasworkedfulltimesincehegraduatedfromhighschool.Thedefendanthasalsohadpreviousexperienceswiththecriminaljusticesystemwithregardtohisdriving.Inlightoftheforegoing,wethinkthetrialcourtdidnoterrinrefusingtoapplyyouthasamitigatingfactor.  Thedefendantfurthercontendsthatthetrialcourtshouldhaveconsideredhisremorseasamitigatingfactor.Thereisnorequirementthatajudgemustconsiderremorseasamitigatingfactor.Inaddition,attrialthedefendantneveradmittedfaultbutclaimedthejeepwasinhislaneoftraffic.Underthesecircumstances,webelieveitwasproperforthetrialcourttorefusetoconsiderremorseasamitigatingfactor.  Thedefendantalsocontendsthathiscooperationwithhisinsurancecompanyinitspaymentofthevictimsmedicalbillsshouldbeconsideredamitigatingfactor.Asthispaymentwastheresponsibilityoftheinsurancecompany,wefindnoerrorinthetrialcourtsfailuretoconsiderthisasamitigatingfactor.  Finally,thedefendantcontendsthatthetrialcourtshouldhaveconsideredhisgainfulemploymentsincehighschoolgraduationasamitigatingfactor.ThisCourthaspreviouslyheldthatthefactthatadefendanthasastableemploymenthistorydoesnotentitlehimorhertoareductioninhisorhersentence.Statev.Keel,882S.W.2d 0', 410,423(Tenn.Crim.App.1994).Assuch,thetrialcourtdidnoterrbyrefusingtoconsiderthedefendantsworkhistoryasamitigatingfactor.  Inlightoftheforegoingapplicableenhancementfactors,wefindthatthe 8.4 trialcourtdidnoterrinsentencingthedefendanttothemaximumsentenceintherange.  #  6       `    Ashisfinalissue,thedefendantarguesthatthetrialcourterredwhenitorderedhimtoservehissentencesconsecutivelyandfailedtoplaceupontherecordspecificfindingsoffactasrequiredbytheCriminalSentencingReformAct.Althoughnospecificfindingwasmade,itappearsthatthetrialcourtbaseditsdecisiononthedeterminationthatthedefendantisadangerousoffender.Asthetrialcourtdidnotspecificallymakethisfinding,reviewofthisissueiswithoutapresumptionofcorrectness.  Itisclear,afterareviewoftherecord,thatthedefendantisadangerousoffenderwhosebehaviorindicateslittleornoregardforhumanlife,andnohesitationaboutcommittingacrimeinwhichtherisktohumanlifewashigh.SeeT.C.A.4035 $ 115(b%  )(4).Thefactthatthedefendantwasdrivingdownanunfamiliarcurvyroadatspeedsofninetythreemilesperhourclearlyindicatesthathehadlittleregardforanyoneelsedrivingonthatsameroad.Thedefendantsspeedcreatedahighriskthathewouldcauseaserious,ifnotdeadly,accident.SeeStatev.Wilkerson,905S.W.2d933,937 T$ (Tenn.1995).Allthesefactorsleadustoconcludethatthedefendantisadangerousoffender.  SincethedefendantmeetsthestatutorycriteriasetoutatT.C.A.4035115,hemaybesentencedtoconsecutivesentencesaslongasthetermsofthesentence reasonablyrelatetotheseverityoftheoffensescommittedandarenecessaryinordertoprotectthepublicfromfurtherseriouscriminalconductbythedefendant.Wilkerson,905S.W.2dat938.Inlightofthedefendantshistoryofcriminalconvictions 2T). forsimilaroffensesandthedisastrouseffectsofthisoffense,itisclearthatsuchasentenceisnecessarytoprotectthepublicfromfurthercriminalbehaviorbythedefendantandthatthesentencesimposedreasonablyrelatetotheseverityoftheoffenses.  Thus,fortheforegoingreasons,weaffirmthejudgmentofthecourtbelow.   L      T   ________________________________   L      T   JOHNH.PEAY,JudgeCONCUR:򀛀THOMAST.WOODALL,Judge̛̛̛򛀛L.TERRYLAFFERTY,SpecialJudge    ̛̛  ______________________________THOMAST.WOODALL,Judge______________________________L.TERRYLAFFERTY,SpecialJudge