WPC fetK5AF)cx|."=uᾯWtL-Ql䑲&2Qǝ]:`ý,ŸLN(8\#ΗrAPvUN!NjNd/¡% tҲyфawśѫ $J$@zGJgΠLN{sE~ԦJ%srO,r*M?:ӘH ]4X<+dEr|-0¡j͛r4$y`E6{ /(lMLɦDfTr lRWUhK#4/i0W"4٪#v?T87@ܤj&SOZi˶şj׬oۭ)e /hku fpJNse$\DHkX&VAR$80k.KX)UB> %U.nX 0P4l 0 0Dw@`U: 1m 0cG U: U: AQ Q 0D 0D[ 0D B D/ B/ D3L<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi X%2A`ArialTT3|X<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@%2A`ArialTTt10cpiXXX2PQXP(($D  n~<$(D(3$ !D      0  (#$  0   wPxEyUzZe{|}E~UӀ,cAZ"Arial Regular#.e37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;$2.e  0  .3  0   !"  X4XX XDXX4   Ad FILEDX4XD  July13,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh    $D     1     X XԀTheStatecontendsthatenhancementfactor(1)wasalsoapplicableinthecaseatbar. `  T.C.A.4035114(1).Asthedefendantwassentencedtothemaximumsentencewithintheapplicablerangeandwefindnoerrorinthetrialcourtssentence,wefindnoneedtoaddressthemeritsofthiscontention.,cAZ"Arial Regularg"Arial Regular !"#%C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1   d''' dxdP Pd$$$$'dxd !D   zzzz` X7~XXdXXd7  TR[A'Legal3'A' Legal3'TќXIXX Xr(<,(j 8` `@Ef ` 8ttxP `  r  INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEt(>.*jx` `@EP ` 8ttxPP tߛ@;;ATJACKSON@8;MAY1999SESSION STATEOFTENNESSEE,     T )  p     L      T )   C.C.A.NO.02C019810CC00321  `    Appellee,  򀀀   T ) P     L      T )  zzHARDINzzCOUNTY  @  zzVSzz.   L      T ) 0     L      T )  HON.C.CREEDzzMcGINLEYzz,   RUSSELLLANEzzOVERBYzz,   T )  JUDGE p    L      T )  Appellant.      T )  (Rape)  P  FORTHEAPPELLANT:     T   FORTHEAPPELLEE:   GUYzzWILKINSONzz L      T   PAULG.SUMMERS   DistrictPublicDefender     T   AttorneyGeneral&Reporter   p RICHARDW.zzDeBERRYzz     T   R.STEPHENzzJOBEzz "P  Asst.DistrictPublicDefender   T   Asst.AttorneyGeneral  #@  117zzForrestzzAve.,North     T   CordellHullzzBldgzz.,zz2ndzzFl. $0 Camden,TNzz38320zz     T   425FifthAve.,North %   (OnAppeal) L      T   Nashville,zzTNzzzz372430493zz p&    L      T     JAMESBROCKMAN     T   ROBERTzzRADFORDzz  P(! P.O.Box25  L      T   DistrictAttorneyGeneral @)" Parsons,TNzz38363zz     T    0* #  (AtTrial) L      T   JOHNzzOVERTONzz   +!$    L      T   Asst.DistrictAttorneyGeneral   L      T   P.O.Box484   L      T   Savannah,TNzz38372zz   L      T     zzzz   L      T      L   OPINIONFILED:򀀀 30*-  AFFIRMED  P7-1  JOHNH.PEAY,   :04 Judge  <26 X7IXXdXXd7|  |@:; {w XXI{OPINION{#XIXw #{ `     Thedefendantwasfoundguiltybyajuryofrapeandsentencedtoaterm V  oftwelveyearstobeservedintheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrection.Thedefendantssubsequentmotionforanewtrialwasdeniedbythetrialcourt.Thedefendantnowappealsandpresentsthefollowingissuesforourreview: Dzz1.zzWhethertheevidenceissufficienttosupportthedefendantszzconvictionzzforrape;zz2.zzWhetherthetrialcourtproperlyappliedenhancementfactorsinzzsentencingzzthedefendant;zz3.zzWhetherthedefendant wasdeniedtherighttoadequatelydefendz񜛜zhimself,zzbecausetrialcounseldidnotadequatelyquestionthedefendantzzattrial;zzzz4.zzWhethertheStatepreventedthedefendantfromcompletinghistestimonyzzatzztrial;andzz5.zzWhetherthetrialcourterredinadmittinghearsaytestimonyzzfromJenniferzzNelson,awitnessfortheState.zzD zz  Attrial,thevictim,thedefendantsfourteenyearoldstepdaughter,testifiedthatthedefendanthadvaginallypenetratedherwithhispenis.Accordingtothevictim,thistypeofbehaviorhadoccurredonmorethanoneoccasionwhilehermotherwasawayfromhome.Thevictimdescribedthecircumstancessurroundingthelastincidentofthiskind.Thevictimtestifiedthatshewenttoherbedroomandlaiddownonthebed.Thedefendantenteredtheroom,touchedherbreasts,andkissedherface.Thedefendantthentouchedherwithhis privateparts.Accordingtothevictim,thedefendantpenetratedhervaginawithhispenis.Afterthedefendant wasthrough,thevictimtookabathtowashher privatepart.Approximatelyoneweeklater,theHardinCountySheriffsDepartmentreceivedacallfromthevictimsschoolregardingthealleged 6&-0 rape.Thevictimwassubsequentlytakentoanemergencyroomwhereitwas 6&-2 determinedthatherhymenhadbeenruptured.  Thedefendantfirstcontendsthattheevidenceisnotsufficienttosustainhisconviction.AdefendantchallengingthesufficiencyoftheproofhastheburdenofillustratingtothisCourtwhytheevidenceisinsufficienttosupporttheverdictreturnedbythetrieroffactinhisorhercase.ThisCourtwillnotdisturbaverdictofguiltforlackofsufficientevidenceunlessthefactscontainedintherecordandanyinferenceswhichmaybedrawnfromthefactsareinsufficient,asamatteroflaw,forarationaltrieroffacttofindthedefendantguiltybeyondareasonabledoubt.Statev.zzTugglezz,639S.W.2d ` 913,914(Tenn.1982).  Whenanaccusedchallengesthesufficiencyoftheconvictingevidence,wemustreviewtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletotheprosecutionindeterminingwhether anyrationaltrieroffactcouldhavefoundtheessentialelementsofthecrimebeyondareasonabledoubt.Jacksonv.Virginia,443U.S.307,319(1979).Wedonot "( reweighorreevaluatetheevidenceandarerequiredtoaffordtheStatethestrongestlegitimateviewoftheproofcontainedintherecordaswellasallreasonableandlegitimateinferenceswhichmaybedrawntherefrom.Statev.Cabbage,571S.W.2d '" 832,835(Tenn.1978).  Questionsconcerningthecredibilityofwitnesses,theweightandvaluetobegiventotheevidence,aswellasfactualissuesraisedbytheevidenceareresolvedbythetrieroffact,notthisCourt.Cabbage,571S.W.2d832,835.Aguiltyverdict 0', renderedbythejuryandapprovedbythetrialjudgeaccreditsthetestimonyofthewitnessesfortheState,andapresumptionofguiltreplacesthepresumptionofinnocence.Statev.Grace,493S.W.2d474,476(Tenn.1973). L6,2     Thedefendantcontendsthattheevidenceisinsufficienttosupporthisconvictionbasedonthefollowing:thevictimsbrothertestifiedthatthevictimtoldhimthedefendantdidnotrapeher;thevictimsbrothertestifiedthathedidnotremembergivingastatementtoauthoritiesthatthevictimtoldhimthedefendantwasabusingherandsheneededhishelp;thedefendantsmothertestifiedthatshedidnotknowofanytimethatthedefendantwasalonewiththevictim;thedefendantsmothertestifiedthatthevictimdidnotseemupset;andthedefendantsmotherfurthertestifiedthatshedidnotseethedefendantactinaquestionableway.However,thistestimonywasheardbythejury.Thejury,asiswithintheirprovince,obviouslycreditedthetestimonyofthevictimoverthatofthedefendantswitnesses.Assuch,thisissueiswithoutmerit.  Thedefendantnextchallengesthetrialcourtsapplicationofenhancementfactor(4),thatthevictimwasparticularlyvulnerablebecauseofageorphysicalormentaldisability,andenhancementfactor(7),thatthecrimewascommittedtogratifythedefendantsdesireforpleasureorexcitement.T.C.A.4035114(4),(7).Thedefendantdoesnotchallengethetrialcourtsapplicationofenhancementfactor(15),thatthedefendantabusedapositionofprivatetrust.T.C.A.4035114(15).  Whenadefendantcomplainsofhisorhersentence,wemustconductade +$"& novoreviewwithapresumptionofcorrectness.T.C.A.4035401(d).Theburdenof P-#( showingthatthesentenceisimproperisupontheappealingparty.T.C.A.4035401(d)SentencingCommissionComments.Thispresumption,however, isconditionedupontheaffirmativeshowingintherecordthatthetrialcourtconsideredthesentencingprinciplesandallrelevantfactsandcircumstances.Statev.zzAshbyzz,823S.W.2d166, 4 +0 169(Tenn.zz1991).Wefindthatinthiscasethetrialjudgedidconsiderthesentencing L6,2 principlesandallrelevantfactsandcircumstances.zz  TheSentencingReformActof1989,codifiedatT.C.A.4035210,providesthattheminimumsentencewithintherangeisthepresumptivesentence.Ifthereareenhancingandmitigatingfactors,thecourtmuststartattheminimumsentenceintherangeandenhancethesentenceasappropriatefortheenhancementfactorsandthenreducethesentencewithintherangeasappropriateforthemitigatingfactors.Iftherearenomitigatingfactors,thecourtmaysetthesentenceabovetheminimuminthatrangebutstillwithintherange.Theweighttobegiventoeachfactorislefttothediscretionofthetrialjudge.Statev.zzSheltonzz,854S.W.2d116,123(Tenn.Crim.App. , 1992).  Thedefendantfirstchallengesthetrialcourtsapplicationofenhancementfactor(4),thatthevictimwasparticularlyvulnerablebecauseofageorphysicalormentaldisability.T.C.A.4035114(4).Thedefendantarguesthatthereisnothingintherecordtosupporttheapplicationofthisfactor.However,thetrialcourtspecificallystatedthatthisfactorwasapplicablenotonlybecausethevictimwasthirteenyearsoldatthetimeoftheoffense,butalsobecause itwasestablishedbytheproofthatthementalstatusofthevictimwasnotthatofaregular13yearold.Thevictimwasenrolledinsometypeofspecialeducationcourseatthetimeoftheoffenseand herIQwasconsiderablybelowaverage.Thesefactssupportthetrialcourtsapplicationofthisenhancementfactor.SeeStatev.JohnClaudeWells,III,No.zz01C01zz9505CR00146, /%* DavidsonCounty(Tenn.Crim.App.filedJune6,1997,atNashville);Statev.zzClabozz,905 0', S.W.2d197,206(Tenn.Crim.App.1995).Assuch,thiscontentioniswithoutmerit.  Thedefendantnextchallengesthetrialcourtsapplicationofenhancement L6,2 factor(7),thattheoffensewascommittedtogratifyadesireforpleasureorexcitement.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035114(7).Thedefendantagainstatesthatthereisnothingintherecordtosupporttheapplicationofthisfactor.However,therecordindicatesthatthedefendantnotonlyvaginallypenetratedthevictim,hetookoff mostofthevictimsclothing,undressedhimself,touchedherbreasts,andkissedherface.Accordingtothevictim,thedefendant stopped[therape]whenhewasthrough.Inlightoftheforegoingfacts,thetrialcourtproperlyappliedthisenhancementfactor.SeeStatev.Antonio (  zzKendrickzz,No.02C019604CR00121,ShelbyCounty(Tenn.Crim.App.filedNovember   5,1997,atJackson)(holdingenhancementfactor(7)applicablewheretheappellantkissedvictimsneck,pushedherontothebed,removedherclothing,toldherhewantedto playwithher,andpenetratedheruntilhereachedclimax);zzseealsozzManningv.State, X 883S.W.2d635,63940(Tenn.Crim.App.1994)(holdingenhancementfactor(7)applicablewheretheappellantfondledandkissedthevictimsbreastsandmadesexuallyexplicitremarkswhilerapingher).  #  1        \   Thedefendantnextcontendsthathistrialcounselwasineffectiveforfailingtoadequatelyquestionthedefendantattrial.Specifically,thedefendantarguesthathistrialcounseldidnotadequatelyquestionhimregardingthedefenseshewantedtobringoutattrial.Thisissueiswaivedsincethedefendanthasfailedtomakeappropriatereferencestotherecord.TennesseeCourtofCriminalAppealsRule10(b);Statev. +$"& zzKillebrewzz,760S.W.2d228,231(Tenn.Crim.App.1988);seealsozzT.R.A.P.zz27(a)(7)and P-#( (g).Absentwaiver,thisissuestilllacksmerit.  Thefindingsoffactmadebythetrialcourtwithregardtoaclaimof 2T). ineffectiveassistanceofcounselarebindinguponthisCourtunlesstheevidenceintherecordpreponderatesagainstthesefindings.SeeStatev.Anderson,835S.W.2d600, ,  607(Tenn.Crim.App.1992).Questionsconcerningthecredibilityofwitnesses,theweightandvaluetobegiventotheirtestimony,andfactualissuesraisedbytheevidenceareresolvedbythetrialcourt.Id.ThisCourtmustnotreweighorreevaluatethe 0 evidenceorsubstituteitsinferencesforthosedrawnbythetrialcourt.Id.Thedefendant \  bearstheburdenofillustratingthattheevidencecontainedintherecordpreponderatesagainstthezzjudgmentzzofthetrialcourt.Id.     Whenreviewingaclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,thisCourtmustdeterminewhethertheadvicegivenorservicesrenderedbytheattorneyarewithintherangeofcompetencedemandedofattorneysincriminalcases.Baxterv.Rose,523 $ S.W.2d930,936(Tenn.1975).Toprevailonaclaimofineffectivecounsel,apetitioner mustshowthatcounselsrepresentationfellbelowanobjectivestandardofreasonablenessandthatthisperformanceprejudicedthedefense.Theremustbeareasonableprobabilitythatbutforcounselserrortheresultoftheproceedingwouldhavebeendifferent.zzStricklandzzv.Washington,466U.S.668,68788,692,694(1984);Best  &  v.State,708S.W.2d421,422(Tenn.Crim.App.1985). \    !  '" М~~  Thedefendantcontendsthathistrialcounselfailedtoadequatelyquestionhimattrial concerningthedefenseshewantedtobringout.These defensesconsistedofthedefendantsallegationthatitwashisbrotherinlaw,ratherthanhimself,whorapedthevictim.Attrial,thedefendantclaimedhefoundhisbrotherinlawwiththevictimandhisbrotherinlawshandswereina veryuncompromisingposition.Attheevidentiaryhearingconductedinconjunctionwiththedefendantsmotionforanewtrial,thedefendantwentintodetailaboutinstancesinwhichhecaughthisbrotherinlawwiththe L6,2 victim,hisbrotherinlawadmittedhewasattractedtothevictim,andhisbrotherinlaw L6,2 confessedtorapingthevictim.Thedefendantclaimedthatattrialhisattorneypreventedhimfromtestifyingabouttheseincidents.JamesBrockman,thedefendantsattorneyattrial,alsotestifiedattheevidentiaryhearing.Mr.Brockmanstatedthathefoundnothingduringhisinvestigationtosubstantiatethedefendantsclaimthathisbrotherinlawhadcommittedthiscrime.However,attrialMr.Brockmandidaskthedefendantseveralquestionsregardinghisbrotherinlawandthedefendantsallegationsagainsthim.Infact,Mr.Brockmanaskedthedefendantif there[was]anythingelsewithregardtohisallegationsagainsthisbrotherinlaw.Thedefendantreplied, Thatsprettymuchit.  Inaddressingthisclaim,thetrialcourtfoundthatMr.Brockmanwas adequatelyprepared, engagedinanadequateinvestigationandfulldiscoveryofthefacts,hada legitimatetrialstrategy,and innowaydeniedthedefendanthisrighttotestifyonhisownbehalf.ThedefendanthasnotproventhattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsfindingthatMr.Brockmandidnotdenythedefendantoftherighttotestify,norhasthedefendantestablishedthathewasprejudicedbyanyallegederror.Assuch,thisissueiswithoutmerit.  ThedefendantnextcontendsthattheStatedidnotallowhimtoadequatelytestifyattrial.Thisissueiswaivedforfailuretopresentthefactsrelevanttotheissue,failuretosetforthanargumentastotheissue,andfailuretomakereferencetotherecordinsupportofthedefendantsargument.T.R.A.P.27(a)(7);TennesseeCourtofCriminalAppealsRule10(b).Absentwaiver,thisissuestilllacksmeritbecausetherearenofactsintherecordtosupportthedefendantscontention.Infact,thetrialtranscriptindicatesthatonseveraloccasions,itwasthedefendantwhointerruptedtheStateduringtheStatescrossexamination.ThereisnoindicationintherecordthattheStateeverinterruptedthedefendantorkepthimfrom testifyingfullyattrial. L6,2 Ї  ThedefendantsfinalcontentionisthatthetrialcourterredinadmittinghearsaytestimonyfromJenniferNelson,awitnessfortheState.Specifically,thedefendantarguesthatnodeterminationwasmadebythetrialcourtregardingtheadmissibilityofthisevidence.ThetestimonyatissuereferstoastatementmadebythevictimtoMs.Nelson,thenursewhotreatedthevictimattheemergencyroom.However,thedefendantfailedtoobjecttosuchtestimonyattrial.ThefailureofdefensecounseltomakeacontemporaneousobjectionwaivesconsiderationbythisCourtoftheissueonappeal.SeeTeaguev.State,772S.W.2d915,926(Tenn.Crim.App.1988)(overruled   onothergrounds);zzKillebrewzz,760S.W.2dat235;T.R.A.P.36(a).Inaddition,the ` testimonyatissueispracticallyidenticaltothetestimonyofDr.GigiDavis,thevictimstreatingphysicianattheemergencyroom.ThedefendanthasmadenoargumentagainsttheadmissionofDr.Davistestimony.Assuch,anyallegederrorintheadmissionofMs.Nelsonstestimonydoesnotappeartohaveaffirmativelyaffectedtheresultofthetrialandthereforewasharmless.Tenn.R.Crim.P.52(a).  Accordingly,wefindnomerittothedefendantscontentionsandthusaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialzzctsurtstuourt.uvvw   L      T   ______________________________wxw_wxy   L      T   JOHNH.PEAY,JudgeCONCUR:______________________________JOEG.RILEY,Judge______________________________THOMAST.WOODALL,Judgey}y 27-3 y}zz