ÿWPC4 …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝU>åw@# 4c w 0 l† 0Dò 0D6 0Jz 0TÄ 0^ 0hv 0rÞ 0|P 0†Ì 0R 1uâ 0dW» BÃU >à D3VQU.§ 0@ÕB)DC> AMU*Îø'ë :%µ!cº$í&i '$s)v~—+vÓ- AOè2Æ73 0Dý3 D/A4 Bp4˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nL’Ì(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù-<èÀ( 9Z &Courier Regular  D D D U E  I  D Ó€Úƒç"3|x& ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(3¯$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý2 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 d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman""""'ÿÿdxd LÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ)ÝÝ  ÝÌÌÌ< Œ 9p`(Courier("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò% Line 7 d....7Border 1dd€-/Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÔ€2ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€2XÔÌÌò òDecember€29,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€2ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔThe€decision€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€on€all€other€issues€isÏaffirmed€without€discussion.Ì á Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔ€The€appellant€claims€violations€of€both€the€federal€and€stateÏconstitutions:ÌÌUnited€States€ConstitutionÌÌFifth€Amendment:ÌÌà8 àNo€person€shall€be€held€to€answer€for€a€capital,€or€otherwiseÏinfamous€crime,€unless€on€a€presentment€or€indictment€by€a€grandÏjury,€except€in€cases€arising€in€the€land€or€naval€forces,€or€inÏthe€militia,€when€in€actual€service€in€time€of€war€or€publicÏdanger;€nor€shall€any€person€be€subject€for€the€same€offense€to€beÏtwice€put€in€jeopardy€of€life€or€limb;€nor€shall€be€compelled€inÏany€criminal€case€to€be€a€witness€against€himself;€nor€be€deprivedÏof€life,€liberty,€or€property,€without€due€process€of€law;€norÏshall€private€property€be€taken€for€public€use,€without€justÏcompensation.ÌÌSixth€Amendment:ÌÌà8 àIn€all€criminal€prosecutions,€the€accused€shall€enjoy€the€right€toÏa€speedy€and€public€trial,€by€an€impartial€jury€of€the€state€andÏdistrict€wherein€the€crime€shall€have€been€committed,€whichÏdistrict€shall€have€been€previously€ascertained€by€law,€and€to€beÏinformed€of€the€nature€and€cause€of€the€accusation;€to€beÏconfronted€with€the€witnesses€against€him;€to€have€compulsoryÏprocess€for€obtaining€witnesses€in€his€favor,€and€to€have€theÏassistance€of€counsel€for€his€defense.ÌÌFourteenth€Amendment,€Section€1:ÌÌà8 àAll€persons€born€or€naturalized€in€the€United€States,€and€subjectÏto€the€jurisdiction€thereof,€are€citizens€of€the€United€States€andÏof€the€state€wherein€they€reside.€€No€state€shall€make€or€enforceÏany€law€which€shall€abridge€the€privileges€or€immunities€ofÏcitizens€of€the€United€States;€nor€shall€any€state€deprive€anyÏperson€of€life,€liberty,€or€property,€without€due€process€of€law;Ïnor€deny€to€any€person€within€its€jurisdiction€the€equalÏprotection€of€the€laws.ÌÌTennessee€ConstitutionÌÌArticle€I,€Section€8:ÌÌà8 àThat€no€man€shall€be€taken€or€imprisoned,€or€disseized€of€hisÏfreehold,€liberties€or€privileges,€or€outlawed,€or€exiled,€or€inÏany€manner€destroyed€or€deprived€of€his€life,€liberty€or€property,Ïbut€by€the€judgment€of€his€peers€or€the€law€of€the€land.ÌÌArticle€I,€Section€9:ÌÌà8 àThat€in€all€criminal€prosecutions,€the€accused€hath€the€right€toÏbe€heard€by€himself€and€his€counsel;€to€demand€the€nature€andÏcause€of€the€accusation€against€him,€and€to€have€a€copy€thereof,Ïto€meet€the€witnesses€face€to€face,€to€have€compulsory€process€forÏobtaining€witnesses€in€his€favor,€and€in€prosecutions€byÏindictment€or€presentment,€a€speedy€public€trial,€by€an€impartialÏjury€of€the€County€in€which€the€crime€shall€have€been€committed,Ïand€shall€not€be€compelled€to€give€evidence€against€himself.Ì †Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔAs€stated€in€òòGrayóó,€a€statute€of€limitations€normally€is€the€primaryÏsafeguard€against€infringement€upon€due€process€resulting€from€long€delays.€ÏòòId.óó€at€672€(citing€òòUnited€States€v.€Marionóó,€404€U.S.€307,€321„23,€92€S.Ct.Ï455,€464€(1971)).€€In€this€case,€as€in€òòGrayóó,€there€was€no€statute€ofÏlimitations€for€aggravated€rape€when€the€offense€was€committed.€€TheÏlegislature€has€since€enacted€a€statute€limiting€the€time€within€whichÏprosecution€for€aggravated€rape€of€a€child€must€be€commenced€to€the€latter€ofÏfour€years€after€the€commission€of€the€offense€or€the€date€the€child€attainsÏthe€age€of€majority.€€Ô€)Ô€Ô€,ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„2„101(d)€(1990).Ì ûÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔIn€òòDoggett€v.€United€Statesóó,€505€U.S.€647,€112€S.Ct.€2686€(1992),€theÏUnited€States€Supreme€Court€commented€that€ð ðtimeððs€erosion€of€exculpatoryÏevidence€and€testimony€ððcan€rarely€be€shown.ðððð€€òòId.óó€at€656,€112€S.Ct.€atÏ2692„93,€and€further,€ð ðexcessive€delay€presumptively€compromises€theÏreliability€of€a€trial€in€ways€that€neither€party€can€prove€or,€for€thatÏmatter,€identify.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€Even€though€òòDoggettóó€was€a€speedy€trial€case,€theÏstatements€made€by€the€court€are€relevant€to€any€case€in€which€there€isÏexcessive€delay.€€€€€€€Ì YÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔThe€sufficiency€of€the€indictment€and€the€admissibility€of€theÏappellantððs€admissions€were€disposed€of€by€the€decision€of€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals.€€Ì ãÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔòòSupraóó€at€_____.€€[Slip€op.€at€2.]Ì _Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÔ€,ÔòòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Wattsóó,€_____€U.S.€_____,€117€S.Ct.€633Ï(1997);€òòUnited€State€v.€Shumwayóó,€112€F.3d€1413,€1428€(10th€Cir.€1997);€òòUnitedÏStates€v.€Chatlinóó,€51€F.3d€869,€873€(9th€Cir.€1995)€(citing€several€cases€toÏsupport€its€holding€that€the€Sentencing€Guidelines€allow€a€trial€court€toÏgrant€an€upward€departure€based€on€repetitive€criminal€conduct€not€resultingÏin€a€conviction).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔIn€1995,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c)€was€amended€to€provide€that€forÏa€Class€A€felony€such€as€aggravated€rape,€the€presumptive€sentence€is€theÏmidpoint€of€the€range€if€there€are€no€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c)€(Supp.€1996).€€Prior€to€1995,€the€presumptiveÏsentence€was€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÖ€+ÖØ ØÓ&€,,X d&ÓÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÔ€,ÔÑ\R AØ'\ћрÑÑ7€ÞÖXXdÈdÈ7ќـ€ÙßR€13/A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEE€ÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àPlaintiff„Appellee,à àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€Hawkins€CriminalÌà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€Hon.€James€E.€Beckner,Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à(€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à(ÌÒ € ÒÒ w Òà àà àà àà àà àà à(€S.€Ct.€No.€03S01„9610„CR„0009ÌÒ € ÒÒ  Òà àà àà àà àà àà à(ÌWILLIAM€JEFFERY€CARICO,à àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àDefendant„Appellant.à à(ÌÌÌÌòòFor€Plaintiff„Appelleeóó:à àà à€€€à àòòFor€Defendant„Appellantóó:ÌÌÒ € ÒÒ H ÒW.€Knox€Walkupà àà àà àà àà àBurkett€C.€McInturffÌAttorney€General€&€Reporterà àà àKingsportÌNashvilleÌÌMichael€E.€MooreÌSolicitor€GeneralÌNashvilleÌÌMichael€W.€CatalanoÌAssociate€Solicitor€GeneralÌNashvilleÌÌBerkeley€BellÌDistrict€attorney€GeneralÌGreenevilleÌÌDoug€GodbeeÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌRogersvilleÌÌà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌÌÌœJUDGMENT€OF€TRIAL€COURT€ANDÌCOURT€OF€APPEALS€AFFIRMED.à àà àà àà àà àREID,€J.ÌÌØ ØÓ&€,,Xd&ÓÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àThe€application€for€permission€to€appeal€from€theÏconviction€of€aggravated€rape€and€a€RangeI€sentence€of€25Ïyears€was€granted€in€part,€to€consider€two€of€the€severalÏissues€decided€by€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€which€affirmedÏthe€conviction€and€the€sentence.€€In€those€issues,€theÏappellant€insists€that€the€delay€in€initiating€the€prosecutionÏwas€a€violation€of€his€constitutional€rights€to€a€speedy€trialÏand€due€process€and€that€the€sentence€imposed€is€excessive.€ÏThe€conviction€and€the€sentence€are›€œaffirmed.× ƒ4 ××  ×ÌÌà@ àò òIó óÌÌà àà à€In€May€1980,€the€victimððs€mother€married€theÏappellant,€William€Jeffery€Carico,€and€they€all€began€livingÏtogether€as€a€family.€€In€May€1985,€the€victim,€who€then€was€10Ïyears€of€age,€told€her€school€teacher€that€during€the€precedingÏyear€the€appellant€on€numerous€occasions€had€fondled€herÍbreasts€and€genitalia,€digitally€penetrated€her€vagina,€forcedÏher€to€perform€fellatio€on€him€and€committed€other€sexual€actsÏupon€her.ÌÌà àà àThis€information€was€given€by€the€school€officials€toÏthe€Department€of€Human€Services€(DHS),€which€made€anÏinvestigation.€€The€DHS€employee€testified€that€sheÏð ðsubstantiatedðð€the€allegations€made€by€the€victim€and€reportedÏthe€results€of€her€investigation€to€the€district€attorneyÏgeneral.€€Before€any€further€action€was€taken€by€StateÏofficials,€the€victim€recanted€her€statement€and€explained€theÏacts€she€had€reported€were,€in€fact,€dreams.€€There€was€noÏprosecution€at€that€time.€€ÌÌà àà àAccording€to€the€proof,€the€appellant€committed€noÏsexual€acts€upon€the€victim€after€1985.ÌÌà àà àIn€1991,€the€victim€renewed€the€allegations€byÏreporting€them€to€her€natural€father.€€The€appellant€admittedÏto€his€wife€that€the€childððs€statements€were€true€and€heÏvoluntarily€obtained€counseling.ÌÌÓ` °‚X.h—XÓà àAn€arrest€warrant€was€issued€on€September3,€1992.€ÍAn€indictment€was€returned€on€January11,€1993.€€The€trialÏbegan€on€February€24,€1993€and€concluded€the€next€day.ÌÌà àThe€indictment,€in€relevant€part,€charged:€ð ðThatÏWilliam€Jeffery€Carico€on€or€about€the€______€day€of€July€1983Ï.€.€.€and€before€the€finding€of€this€indictment,€did€unlawfullyÏcommit€the€offense€of€aggravated€rape€.€.€.€.ðð€€The€appellantÏfiled€several€motions€to€dismiss,€including€a€motion€assertingÏthe€delay€in€initiating€prosecution€was€a€violation€of€theÏconstitutional€rights€to€due€process€and€a€speedy€trial.× ƒ5 ××  ×€€ÌÌà àIn€response€to€a€motion€for€a€bill€of€particulars,Ïthe€State€stated:€ð ðThe€State€would€allege€the€offense€occurredÏon€the€_____€day€of€January,€1985,€on€a€Sunday€at€the€residenceÏof€the€defendant,€a€white€house€in€Church€Hill,€Hawkins€County,ÏTennessee.ððÌÌà àAt€trial,€the€appellant€denied€the€allegations€ofÏsexual€conduct€and€explained€he€made€the€incriminatingÏadmissions€in€an€effort€to€maintain€his€marriage.€€ÌÌà àThe€jury€found€the€appellant€guilty€of€aggravatedÏrape.€€The€trial€court€found€five€enhancement€factorsÏapplicable€and€imposed€the€maximum€sentence€of€25€years.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(1)€(1990).ÌÌà àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€convictionÏand,€after€finding€two€of€the€enhancement€factors€notÏapplicable,€nevertheless,€affirmed€the€sentence.€€ÌÌà@ àò òIIó óÌÌà àAlthough€the€appellant€asserts€the€violation€of€theÏFifth,€Sixth,€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€to€the€United€StatesÏConstitution€and€Article€I,€Sections€8€and€9€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution,€his€argument€essentially€is€based€on€the€lengthÏof€the€time€between€the€commission€of€the€offense€and€theÏtrial.€€He€does€not€address€separately€the€issues€of€speedyÏtrial€under€the€Sixth€Amendment€and€Article€I,€Section€9€and€Ídue€process€under€the€Fifth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€andÏArticle€I,€Section€8.€€The€important€distinction€between€theÏissues€of€speedy€trial€and€due€process€was€noted€in€òòState€v.ÏGrayóó,€917€S.W.2d€668,€671€(Tenn.€1996)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,Ï803€S.W.2d€250,€255€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990)),€where€this€CourtÏstated€that€in€Tennessee€the€law€is€well€settled€that€ð ðdelayÏbetween€the€commission€of€an€offense€and€the€commencement€ofÏadversarial€proceedings€does€not€violate€an€accusedððsÏconstitutional€right€to€a€speedy€trial,ðð€but€an€unreasonableÏdelay€between€the€commission€of€the€offense€and€theÏcommencement€of€the€prosecution€may€violate€the€constitutionalÏright€to€due€process.€€Consequently,€in€determining€if€thereÏhas€been€a€violation€of€the€constitutional€right€to€a€speedyÏtrial,€only€the€time€between€the€commencement€of€adversarialÏproceedings€and€the€commencement€of€the€trial€will€beÏconsidered;€while,€in€determining€if€there€has€been€a€violationÏof€constitutional€due€process,€the€time€between€the€commissionÏof€the€offense€and€the€commencement€of€prosecution€will€also€beÏconsidered.€ÌÌà àIn€the€case€before€the€Court,€the€arrest€warrant€wasÏissued€September3,€1992,€the€indictment€was€returnedÏJanuary11,€1993,€and€the€trial€began€on€February24,€1993.€ÍThe€elapse€of€less€than€six€months€from€arrest€to€trial€doesÏnot€violate€the€right€to€a€speedy€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòDoggett€v.€UnitedÏStatesóó,€505€U.S.€647,€112€S.Ct.€2686,€2691€n.€1€(1992);€òòStateÏv.€Bishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€81,€85€(Tenn.€1973).ÌÌà àHowever,€the€delay€of€more€than€seven€years€from€theÏtime€the€offense€was€reported€to€the€Department€of€HumanÏServices€until€the€prosecution€was€commenced€does€implicate€theÏconstitutional€right€of€due€process€and€requires€an€analysis€ofÏthe€circumstances€upon€which€the€appellant€relies€for€relief.€€ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Grayóó,€a€case€in€which€the€State€had€noÏknowledge€of€the€offense€until€42€years€after€the€offense€wasÏcommitted,€the€Court€declined€to€follow€the€three„prong€testÏutilized€by€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€in€òòState€v.€Dykesóó.€ÏòòState€v.€Grayóó,€917€S.W.2d€at€672.€€The€Court€in€òòGrayóó€rejectedÏthe€finding€in€òòDykesóó€that€one€essential€condition€for€relief€isÏthat€the€State€caused€the€delay.€€The€Court€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 à€€€€€Today€we€articulate€a€standard€byÏwhich€to€evaluate€pre„accusatorial€delayÏand€hold€that€an€untimely€prosecution€mayÏbe€subject€to€dismissal€upon€Fifth€andÏFourteenth€Amendment€due€process€groundsÏand€under€Article€I,€ðððð€8€and€9,€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution€even€though€in€theÏinterim€the€defendant€was€neither€formallyÍaccused,€restrained,€nor€incarcerated€forÏthe€offense.€€In€determining€whether€pre„accusatorial€delay€violates€due€process,Ïthe€trial€court€must€consider€the€lengthÏof€the€delay,€the€reason€for€the€delay,Ïand€the€degree€of€prejudice,€if€any,€toÏthe€accused.ÌÌÌÌòòId.óó€at€673.€€ÓÓThe€Court€found€that€the€delay€of€42€years€wasÏð ðprofoundly€excessive,ðð€that€there€was€no€reasonableÏexplanation€for€the€delay,€and€that€the€defendant€had€made€aÏòòprimaóó€òòfacieóó€showing€of€prejudice.€€The€Court€in€òòGrayóó€dismissedÏthe€prosecution€even€though€the€State€had€no€knowledge€of€theÏoffense€and€was€in€no€way€responsible€for€the€delay.ÌÌà àThe€factors€deemed€determinative€in€òòGrayó󀄀the€lengthÏof€the€delay,€the€reason€for€the€delay,€and€the€effect€of€theÏdelay€on€the€rights€of€the€accused€„€applied€to€the€facts€andÏcircumstances€of€this€case,€do€not€show€a€violation€of€theÏappellantððs€right€to€due€process.ÌÌà àThe€circumstance€most€favorable€to€the€appellantððsÏclaim€for€relief€is€the€length€of€the€delay.€€Seven€yearsÏperhaps€is€not€ð ðprofoundly€excessiveðð€as€in€òòGrayóó,€but€it€isÏsufficient€to€require€a€careful€review€of€the€cause€and€resultsÍof€the€delay.× ƒ6 ××  ×€€Even€though€the€State€had€knowledge€ofÏð ðsubstantiatedðð€allegations€of€criminal€acts€committed€by€theÏappellant€in€1985,€the€State€was€not€responsible€for€the€delayÏin€prosecution.€€The€only€evidence€available€to€the€State€wasÏthe€testimony€of€the€10€year€old€victim.€€When€the€victimÏrecanted€the€charges€and,€apparently€with€the€approval€if€notÏthe€encouragement€of€her€mother,€attributed€her€account€of€theÏsexual€conduct€to€her€dreams,€the€State€had€no€availableÏevidence€on€which€to€proceed.€€Even€though€under€òòGrayóó€the€StateÏneed€not€have€caused€the€delay€or€even€had€knowledge€of€theÏcriminal€acts,€the€Stateððs€conduct€is€an€important€factor€inÏdetermining€if€there€has€been€a€violation€of€due€process.€ÌÌà àThe€third€factor,€and€the€most€important€though€notÏdeterminative€in€every€case,€is€prejudice€to€the€accused.× ƒ7 ××  ×€€NoneÍof€the€problems€often€associated€with€delayed€prosecution€areÏpresent€in€this€case.€€The€victimððs€testimony€regarding€theÏevent€on€which€the€conviction€is€based€was€not€uncertain€orÏevasive.€€Instead€it€was€forthright,€precise,€and€credible.€ÏThe€act€itself€was€described€in€definite€and€accurate€terms.€ÏShe€was€sufficiently€mature€at€the€time€to€understand€andÏremember€the€events.€€In€fact,€it€was€the€clear€and€persistentÏmemory€of€the€acts€which€continued€to€plague€her€that€causedÏthe€renewal€of€the€charges.€€The€place€and€date€of€the€eventÏwere€identified€as€the€residence€on€a€Sunday€in€January€soonÏafter€the€Christmas€at€which€she€was€given€a€Barbie€doll.€ÏThough€not€the€required€standard,€the€victimððs€testimony€wasÏclear€and€convincing.€€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€does€not€contend€that€he€was€denied€theÏbenefit€of€witnesses€who€since€have€become€unavailable.€€TheÏonly€prejudice€claimed€is€that€because€the€State€did€notÏrespond€promptly€to€his€motion€for€a€bill€of€particulars,€heÏwas€unable€to€prove€where€he€was€on€the€date€the€offenseÏoccurred.€€There€was€no€showing€on€the€motion€for€a€new€trialÏthat€he€could€have€offered€proof€inconsistent€with€the€victimððsÍtestimony.€€Actually,€his€own€admissions,€though€recanted€atÏtrial,€confirm€the€truthfulness€of€the€victimððs€testimony.× ƒ8 ××  ×€€TheÏconclusion€is€that€the€appellant€has€failed€to€demonstrate€thatÏhe€was€prejudiced€by€the€delay€in€initiating€the€prosecution.ÌÌà àIn€summary,€although€the€delay€in€initiatingÏadversarial€proceedings€against€the€appellant€was€excessive,€itÏwas€not€so€long€that€the€delay€alone€entitles€the€appellant€toÏrelief.€€In€addition,€the€delay€was€not€caused€by€anyÏinappropriate€conduct€by€State€agents€and€the€appellant€has€notÏshown€that€his€rights€were€prejudiced€by€the€delay.€ÏConsequently,€there€was€no€denial€of€due€process.€€€€ÌÌò òà@ àIIIó óÌÌà àThe€appellant€insists€that€the€sentence€of€25€yearsÏis€excessive.€€Since€the€offense€occurred€prior€to€1989€and€theÏsentence€was€imposed€subsequent€to€1989,€the€trial€court€wasÏrequired€to€calculate€the€proper€sentence€under€both€the€1982Ïand€the€1989€sentencing€acts€and€then€impose€the€least€severeÏsentence.€€òòState€v.€Pearsonóó,€858€S.W.2d€879,€884€(Tenn.€1993).€ÍAt€the€time€the€offense€in€this€case€occurred,€January€1985,Ïaggravated€rape€was€a€class€X€felony€which€carried€a€range€ofÏpunishment€of€20€years€to€life.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„603(b)Ïand€(c)€(1982).€€In€calculating€a€sentence€under€the€1982€Act,Ïa€life€sentence€was€ð ðpresumed€to€be€sixty€(60)€years.ðð€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„109(d)€(1982).€€Because€the€defendantÏqualifies€as€a€Range€I€offender€under€the€1982€Act,€hisÏsentence€range€under€that€Act€would€be€20€to€40€years.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„109(a)€(1982).€€€Pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€40„35„118€(1997),€an€aggravated€rape€committed€prior€toÏNovember1,€1989€is€classified€as€a€class€A€felony€for€1989Ïsentencing€purposes.€€The€defendant€qualifies€as€a€standardÏoffender€and€would€be€sentenced€as€a€Range€I€offender€under€theÏ1989€Act.€€Therefore,€his€possible€range€of€punishment€would€beÏ15€to€25€years.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(1)€(1997).€€TheÏtrial€court€properly€found€that€the€1989€Act€was€applicable€andÏthat€the€sentence€range€was€15€to€25€years.€€The€trial€courtÏsentenced€the€defendant€as€a€Range€I€offender€to€the€maximumÏsentence€of€25€years.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„118€and€40„35„112(a)(1)€(1990).ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€the€evidence€established€fiveÏenhancement€factors,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(6),€(7),Í(15),€and€(16)€(1990),€and€found€no€mitigating€factors.€€ÌÌà àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€concluded€that€theÏevidence€supports€only€three€of€the€enhancement€factors€„€(1)Ïthe€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€orÏcriminal€behavior,€(7)€the€offense€was€committed€to€gratify€theÏdefendantððs€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement,€and€(15)€theÏdefendant€abused€a€position€of€private€trust.€€It€rejectedÏenhancement€factors€(6),€the€personal€injuries€inflicted€on€theÏvictim€were€particularly€great,€and€(16),€the€crime€wasÏcommitted€under€circumstances€under€which€the€potential€forÏbodily€injury€was€great.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,Ïnevertheless,€found€that€the€three€enhancement€factorsÏjustified€a€sentence€of€25€years€and€affirmed€the€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court.ÌÌà àThe€standard€of€review€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€with€a€presumptionÏof€correctness.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„402(d)€(1990);€òòStateÏv.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€167€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€correctly€concludedÏthat€the€evidence€does€not€support€enhancement€factors€(6)€andÏ(16),€which€relate€to€personal€injury.€€The€acts€committed€didÍnot€pose€great€potential€for€bodily€injury€nor€were€theÏpersonal€injuries€inflicted€upon€the€victim€particularly€great.€ÏThe€act€of€fellatio€for€which€the€appellant€was€convicted,€andÏsome€of€the€enhancing€criminal€acts,× ƒ9 ××  ×€were€accompanied€by€force,Ïbut€the€evidence€did€not€show€that€the€victim,€though€not€aÏwilling€participant,€sustained€appreciable€personal€injuriesÏbeyond€those€incidental€to€the€crime€of€aggravated€rape.€€€ÌÌà àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€also€correctly€foundÏthat€the€evidence€supports€enhancement€factors€(7)€and€(15).€ÏThere€can€be€no€question€that€the€rape€of€a€child€residing€inÏthe€family€is€an€abuse€of€private€trust.€€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€864ÏS.W.2d€31,€34€(Tenn.€1993).€€Even€though€this€Court€hasÏobserved€that€not€all€rapes€are€committed€for€the€purpose€ofÏpleasure€or€excitement,€òòid.óó€at€34„35,€the€facts€of€this€caseÏindicate€clearly€that€the€act€upon€which€the€conviction€isÏbased€was€motivated€by€the€desire€for€sexual€pleasure.ÌÌà àTwo€issues€remain€„€whether€the€record€supports€theÏfinding€of€enhancement€factor€(1)€and€whether€the€sentence€ofÏ25€years€is€appropriate.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€that€evidence€of€acts€committedÏupon€the€victim€by€the€appellant€other€than€the€specific€act€onÏwhich€the€conviction€is€based,€is€proof€of€criminal€behaviorÏwithin€the€meaning€of€enhancement€factor€(1).€€Since€this€CourtÏhas€not€previously€considered€this€issue,€the€constitutionalÏaspects€of€the€matter€should€be€considered€first.€€ÌÌà àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€theÏSixth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€to€the€United€StatesÏConstitution€do€not€prohibit€a€sentencing€court€fromÏconsidering€a€defendantððs€previous€criminal€behavior€which€doesÏnot€result€in€conviction.€€The€origin€of€this€holding€is€foundÏin€the€case€of€òòWilliams€v.€New€Yorkóó,€337€U.S.€241,€69€S.Ct.Ï1079€(1949).× ƒ: ××  ×€€In€òòWilliamsóó,€the€Court€affirmed€the€trial€courtððsÏdecision€to€consider€evidence€from€a€pre„sentence€report€of€theÏdefendantððs€past€criminal€behavior€including€his€commission€ofÏburglaries€not€resulting€in€conviction€and€his€activitiesÏindicating€a€ð ðmorbid€sexuality.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€244,€69€S.Ct.€atÏ1081.€€Justice€Black,€delivering€the€opinion€of€the€Court,Íwrote:ÌÌÓÓà8 àA€sentencing€judge€.€.€.€is€not€confinedÏto€the€narrow€issue€of€guilt.€€His€taskÏwithin€fixed€statutory€or€constitutionalÏlimits€is€to€determine€the€type€and€extentÏof€punishment€after€the€issue€of€guilt€hasÏbeen€determined.€€Highly€relevant€„€if€notÏessential€„€to€his€selection€of€anÏappropriate€sentence€is€the€possession€ofÏthe€fullest€information€possibleÏconcerning€the€defendantððs€life€andÏcharacteristics.ÌÓÓÌÌòòId.óó€at€247,€69€S.Ct.€at€1083.ÌÌà àBlack€continues:ÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€due„process€clause€should€not€beÏtreated€as€a€device€for€freezing€theÏevidential€procedure€of€sentencing€in€theÏmold€of€trial€procedure.€€So€to€treat€theÏdue„process€clause€would€hinder€if€notÏpreclude€all€courts€„€state€and€federal€„Ïfrom€making€progressive€efforts€to€improveÏthe€administration€of€criminal€justice.ÌÌÓÓÌòòId.óó€at€251,€69€S.Ct.€at€1085.€€In€òòMcMillan€v.€Pennsylvaniaóó,Ï477€U.S.€79,€106€S.Ct.€2411€(1986),€the€Supreme€CourtÏconsidered€the€standard€of€proof€to€which€the€State€must€beÏheld€in€admitting€evidence€during€the€sentencing€phase.€€TheÍCourt€rejected€the€petitionerððs€claim€that€the€due€processÏclause€requires€the€ð ðclear€and€convincing€evidenceðð€standard€inÏthe€sentencing€phase€and€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€decision€toÏconsider€evidence€that€the€defendant€possessed€a€firearm€duringÏthe€commission€of€the€offense€under€the€preponderance€standard.€ÏòòId.óó€at€91,€106€S.Ct.€at€2419.€€€€ÌLikewise,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€has€held€that€ð ð[t]heÏconstitutional€rights€that€attach€in€a€case€prior€to€convictionÏare€much€broader€than€those€which€attach€in€a€sentencing€schemeÏor€hearing.ðð€€òòState€v.€Newsomeóó,€798€S.W.2d€542,€543€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1990);€òòcf.óó€òòState€v.€Mackeyóó,€553€S.W.2d€337,€344„45Ï(Tenn.€1977).€€These€federal€and€state€decisions€recognize€thatÏthe€trial€court€may€utilize€criminal€behavior€shown€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€to€enhance€a€sentence€withoutÏviolating€federal€or€state€due€process.ÌÌà àThe€decision€of€this€Court€in€òòState€v.€Haleóó,€840ÏS.W.2d€307,€3l3€(Tenn.€1992),€which€was€based€on€Article€I,ÏSection€8€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€does€not€support€theÏappellantððs€claim€for€relief.€€In€òòHaleóó,€the€Court€found€thatÏthe€crime€of€first€degree€murder€could€not€include€as€anÏòòelement€of€the€offenseóó€prior€incidents€of€child€abuse€for€whichÏthe€defendant€had€not€been€convicted.€€The€Court€held€that€theÍuse€of€such€prior€criminal€offenses€violates€due€processÏguaranteed€by€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€because€ð ðsuch€anÏinquiry€by€a€jury€can[not]€be€accompanied€by€sufficientÏsafeguards€to€ensure€that€a€finding€of€guilt€of€priorÏallegations€of€abuse€is€not€tainted€by€the€fact€of€a€childððsÏdeath.ðð€€That€constitutional€problem€does€not€exist€here.€€TheÏstatute€excludes€from€consideration€at€the€sentencing€hearingÏevidence€of€the€ð ðessential€elements€of€the€offenseðð€andÏevidence€ð ðnecessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€rangeðð€ofÏpunishment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„114,€40„35„114(1).€€InÏthis€case,€evidence€of€the€appellantððs€previous€criminalÏbehavior€was€not€probative€of€an€essential€element€of€theÏoffense€or€the€range€of€punishment.€€Consequently,€theÏadmission€of€evidence€of€the€sexual€acts€„€other€than€theÏJanuary€1985€incident€of€fellatio€for€which€the€defendant€wasÏconvicted€„€did€not€violate€the€appellantððs€right€to€dueÏprocess€under€the€federal€or€state€constitution€or€the€statute.ÌÌà àThe€next€issue€is€whether€these€prior€acts€of€sexualÏconduct,€for€which€there€has€been€no€criminal€conviction,Ïconstitute€ð ðcriminal€behavior.ðð€€The€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÏhas€properly€held€that€merely€being€arrested€or€charged€with€aÏcrime€is€not€ð ðcriminal€behaviorðð€within€the€meaning€of€theÍstatute.€€òòState€v.€Buckmeiróó,€902€S.W.2d€418,€424€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1995);€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€532,€542€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1993).€€The€phrase€ð ðcriminal€behaviorðð€has€not€beenÏdefined€by€this€Court€for€purposes€of€the€enhancement€factor,Ïbut,€whatever€the€precise€definition€may€be,€sexual€acts€with€aÏ10€year€old€child€clearly€constitute€criminal€behavior.€€TheÏevidence€of€the€appellantððs€prior€sexual€acts€was€properlyÏconsidered€by€the€trial€court€as€criminal€behavior.€€ThatÏevidence€supports€the€finding€that€enhancement€factor€(1)€wasÏestablished€in€this€case.€€ÌÌà àThere€remains€the€matter€of€the€appropriate€sentence.€ÏIn€reviewing€this€issue,€an€appellate€court€must€follow€theÏprocedure€mandated€by€the€Act€and€prior€decisions.€€ð ðThe€Act,Ïin€order€to€accomplish€its€ððforemost€purpose,ðð€which€is€toÏððpromote€justice,ðð€provides€that€the€sentence€imposed€must€beÏthe€least€severe€necessary€to€achieve€the€punishment€justlyÏdeserved,€to€assure€fair€and€consistent€treatment€of€allÏdefendants,€to€prevent€crime,€and€to€promote€respect€for€theÏlaw.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€168.€€ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€nature€and€extent€of€theÏpunishment€to€be€imposed€for€similarÏoffenses€committed€by€similar€offendersÏhas€been€determined€by€the€classificationÍof€offenses€according€to€their€seriousnessÏand€the€classification€of€offendersÏaccording€to€their€prior€convictions.€€TheÏonly€discretion€allowed€the€sentencingÏcourt€is€to€accommodate€variations€in€theÏseverity€of€the€offenses€and€theÏculpability€of€the€offenders€within€theÏranges€of€penalties€set€by€theÏlegislature.€€Even€this€discretion€isÏrestrained€under€the€Act€through€theÏestablishment€of€a€ð ðpresumptive€sentenceððÏand€the€mandatory€use€of€enhancing€andÏmitigating€factors.ÓÓÌÌòòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,€601€(Tenn.€1994).€€Under€theÏAct,€then,€the€court€must€first€determine€the€applicableÏclassification€and€range€of€punishment€established€by€theÏlegislature,€which€for€aggravated€rape,€classified€as€a€Range€IÏoffense,€is€15€to€25€years.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„118;€€40„35„112(a)(1)(1990).€€Where€there€are€both€enhancement€factorsÏand€mitigating€factors,€the€Act€requires€that€the€court€startÏat€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range,× ƒ; ××  ×€enhance€the€sentenceÏwithin€the€range€as€appropriate€for€the€enhancement€factors,Ïand€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€for€theÏmitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(e)€(1990).€Ïð ðThe€sentence€imposed€cannot€exceed€the€minimum€sentence€in€theÍrange€unless€the€State€proves€enhancement€factors.ðð€€òòState€v.ÏJonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€at€601.€€€Furthermore,€the€Act€specificallyÏsets€forth€the€principles€which€must€govern€the€imposition€of€aÏsentence:Ì€ÌÓÓà8 à€€€€€€€(1)€Sentences€involving€confinementÏshould€be€based€on€the€followingÏconsiderations:€ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€€€(A)€Confinement€isÏnecessary€to€protect€society€byÏrestraining€a€defendant€who€hasÏa€long€history€of€criminalÏconduct;€ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€€€(B)€Confinement€isÏnecessary€to€avoid€depreciatingÏthe€seriousness€of€the€offenseÏor€confinement€is€particularlyÏsuited€to€provide€an€effectiveÏdeterrence€to€others€likely€toÏcommit€similar€offenses;€or€ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€€€(C)€Measures€lessÏrestrictive€than€confinementÏhave€frequently€or€recently€beenÏapplied€unsuccessfully€to€theÏdefendant;€ÌÌà8 à€€€€€€€(2)€The€sentence€imposed€should€beÏno€greater€than€that€deserved€for€theÏoffense€committed;€ÌÌà8 à€€€€€€€(3)€Inequalities€in€sentences€thatÏare€unrelated€to€a€purpose€of€this€chapterÏshould€be€avoided;€ÌÌà8 à€€€€€€€(4)€The€sentence€imposed€should€beÏthe€least€severe€measure€necessary€toÏachieve€the€purposes€for€which€theÏsentence€is€imposed;€ÌÌà8 à€€€€€€€(5)€The€potential€or€lack€ofÏpotential€for€the€rehabilitation€orÏtreatment€of€the€defendant€should€beÏconsidered€in€determining€the€sentenceÏalternative€or€length€of€a€term€to€beÏimposed.€.€.€.€ÌÌà8 à€€€€€€€(6)€Trial€judges€are€encouraged€toÏuse€alternatives€to€incarceration€thatÏinclude€requirements€of€reparation,€victimÏcompensation€and/or€community€service.Ì€ÌÓÓÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103€(1990).€€€ð ðFinally,€the€appropriateÏsentence€is€one€which€is€ððjustly€deserved€in€relation€to€theÏseriousness€of€the€offense,ðð€is€ððfair€and€consistent€[withÏother€similar€cases],ðð€and€ððprevent[s]€crime€and€promote[s]Ïrespect€for€the€law.ðð"€€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€at€600Ï(quoting€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€40„35„102€(1990);€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€at€168.ÌÌà àAs€previously€discussed,€the€record€shows€threeÏenhancement€factors€in€this€case€„€(1)€the€defendant€has€aÏprevious€history€of€criminal€behavior,€(7)€the€offense€wasÏcommitted€to€gratify€the€defendantððs€desire€for€pleasure€orÏexcitement,€and€(15)€the€defendant€abused€a€position€of€privateÏtrust.€€Neither€the€trial€court€nor€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals€found€any€mitigating€factors,€and€the€facts€andÏcircumstances€shown€in€the€record€do€not€support€any€statutoryÍmitigating€factor.€€ÌÌà àA€majority€of€the€Court,€Chief€Justice€Anderson€andÏJustices€Drowota€and€Holder€affirm€the€decision€of€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals€that€the€three€valid€enhancement€factors,€inÏthe€absence€of€any€mitigating€factors,€justify€the€maximumÏsentence€of€25€years€imposed€by€the€trial€judge.€€ÌÌà àA€minority€of€the€Court€composed€of€Justices€BirchÏand€Reid€would€find€that€the€following€circumstances€constituteÏnon„statutory€mitigating€factors€which€would€require€that€theÏsentence€be€reduced€to€20€years.€€The€appellant€has€no€priorÏcriminal€convictions.€€His€only€criminal€acts€were€thoseÏcommitted€against€the€victim€over€a€period€of€less€than€twoÏyears.€€Those€acts€ceased€soon€after€the€victim€firstÏcomplained,€and€the€appellant€and€the€victim€thereafter€livedÏin€the€same€household€without€further€incidents€for€severalÏyears.€€He€voluntarily€reported€the€criminal€acts€in€an€effortÏto€obtain€professional€help€and€to€maintain€his€family.€€TheÏappellant€has€a€college€degree,€he€had€good€employment€and€hasÏadequately€supported€his€family.€€He€was€at€the€time€of€trialÏan€officer€in€the€National€Guard,€Ñ  Ñand€he€has€been€active€inÏcivic,€church,€and€community€activities.€€It€appears€that,Ïexcept€for€the€acts€committed€against€his€stepdaughter,€he€hasÏbeen€a€productive€and€law€abiding€citizen.€€ÌÌà àThe€three€enhancement€factors,€though€not€elements€ofÏthe€offense,€are€closely€related€to€the€offense.€€The€priorÏcriminal€behavior€involved€acts€similar€to€that€for€which€theÏappellant€was€convicted€and€were€directed€at€the€same€victim.€ÏThose€same€acts€establish€the€second€enhancement€factor,€theÏdesire€for€pleasure€or€excitement€and€they€also€constitute€theÏthird€enhancement€factor,€the€breach€of€a€private€trust.€€TwoÏof€the€enumerated€principles€of€sentencing€are€implicated€byÏthese€circumstances.€€It€does€not€appear€that€prolongedÏconfinement€will€be€necessary€to€protect€society€againstÏfurther€criminal€conduct.€€The€appellant€apparently€did€notÏconstitute€a€risk€to€children€outside€the€family,€and€heÏrefrained€from€further€acts€against€the€victim€even€while€thereÏappeared€to€be€no€threat€of€criminal€prosecution.€ÌÌà àThe€conviction€and€sentence€of€25€years€are€affirmed,Ïand€the€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àCosts€are€taxed€to€the€defendant.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àReid,€J.ÌConcur:ÌÌAnderson,€C.J.,€Drowota,€and€Holder,€JJ.ÌBirch€and€Reid,€Dissenting€in€Part.