IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON FEBRUARY 1999 SESSION FILED May 7, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9808-CR-00237 Appellee, ) ) SHELBY COUNTY V. S ) ) HON. W. FRED AXLEY, IVORY DUBOSE, ) JUDGE ) Appellant. ) (Aggravated Sexual Battery)

FORTHEAPPELLANT: F RT EA P L E : O H P EL E

A C WHARTON JOHN KNOX WALKUP District PublicDefender Attorney General &Reporter WALKER GWINN CLINTON J. MORGAN Asst. PublicDefender Asst. Attorney General 201Poplar Ave. Cordell Hull Bldg., 2ndFl.

M phis, TN 38103 em 425FifthAve., North (OnAppeal) Nashville, TN 37243-0493 MARY K. KENT WILLIAM L. GIBBONS Asst. PublicDefender District Attorney General 201Poplar Ave. M phis, TN 38103 em DAVID B. SHAPIRO (A T l) t ria Asst. District Attorney General 201Poplar Ave., ThirdFl.

M phis, TN 38103 em

O IN NF E : P IO IL D

AFFIRMED

JOHN H. PEAY, Judge OPINION

Thedefendant wa foundgultybyajuryofaggravatedsexu battery. Thetrial courtsentencedthedefendant s i al toatermof tw ye tobese dintheTenness D elve ars rve ee epartm of C ctio Thedefendant’ssubsequent m for anew ent orre n. otion tria was denied by the trial court. The defendant now appeals and contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his l convictionandthat hissentenceisexcessive.

Thedefendant’sconvictionstem fromeventsthat occurredonJune28, 1997. Accordingtothevictim Viola s , Backe atabout 4:00p.m that afternoon, shesawthedefendantoutside. Thevictimtestifiedthat shehadknownthedefendant rs, . for thepast fortyyears. Thevictimfurtherstatedthat thedefendant wasfullyawareof her“left-sideweakness” causedbyastroke becau he had asked about her condition on a prior occasion. Since she was not feeling well that day, the victimasked the se defendant tobuyapackof cigarettesforher. Thedefendant agreed. Shortlythereafter, thedefendant returnedwiththecigarettes thevictimreq ste a sh u ck he sc n d r. A this p thedefenda opene the screen do pushed the victim ue d nd e nlo ed r ree oo t oint, nt d or, tothefloor, andsat downonhercouch. Thedefendant begantodrinkabeer andignoredthevictim requeststhat heleaveher ’s home.

A thedefendant finisheddrinkingthebeer, hepushedthevictimdownonthe couchandbegantofondle fter her breastsandbuttock a rubhis h betw her legs. A ughthevic triedtosto thedefendant, duetothefact that s nd and een ltho tim p shehadonlypartialuseofherleft hand itwasdifficulttoprotectherself. W lethedefend pinnedthevictimto thecouch, he , hi ant chokedherandattem toremo herdress. Thevictimthenbit thedefenda handandhebe tocurseather. Thevictim pted ve nt’s gan picked upapictureframeandhit thedefendant. Thedefendant respondedbyhittingthevictiminthemouthandontheright side of h h d w hisfist. Hecontinuedtotry toremoveherclothingbutwasunsuccessful. Thedefendant wasabletounziphis er ea ith o npantsandexposehimsef tothevictim. Thedefendant repeatedlytoldthevictim “bitch, if youdon’t openyour legsI amgoing w l , tokill you.” It w atthispoint that thevictimwasabletopull thedefendant’sshirt over hisheadandpushhimoff ofher. She as thengotup, ranaroundthefloor, andbegantokickhim Afterthedefendant ranout thedoor, thevictimcalledthepolice. .

A trial, Thom Caldwell, aM phispoliceofficer, testifiedthat whenhearrivedonthescene, thevictimhad t as em aredmarkonthesideofher face, abustedlip, a “tethered” clothes. Thevictimthenidentifiedthedefendant, whow standing nd as onthecornerof thestreet, as h attack T defendant w arrestedandplacedinapatrol car. AccordingtoOfficer Caldwell, er er. he as thedefendant beatonthecar windowandtoldthevictim“if I getany tim outof thisI amgoingtoget you.” Officer Caldwell further e testifiedthat thedefendant smelledstronglyof alcohol, hadslurredspeechandbloodshot eyes, andwasunsteady onhisfeet.

Thedefendant nowcontendsthat theevidenceisinsufficient tosupport afindingofguilt beyondareasonable doubt. Thedefendant basesthis contentiononallegedinconsistenciesinthevictim statem tothepolice, hertestim at ’s ent ony theprelim hearing, andhertestim atthesentencinghearing. Thedefendant argues that theStateproducednom inary ony aterial credibletestim of thedefendant’sguilt. ony

Adefendant challengingthesufficiencyof theproof hastheburdenofillustratingtothisCo whytheevidence urt isinsufficient tosupport theverdict returnedby thetrierof fact inhisor hercase. This Court will notdisturb averdict ofguilt for lack of sufficient evidence unless th fa co ine intherec an a infe ce w m bedra n fro thefac a e cts nta d ord d ny ren s hich ay w m ts re insufficient, asamatterof law,forarational trierof fact tofindthedefendantguiltybeyondareasonabledoubt. Statev. Tuggle, 639S.W.2d913, 914(Tenn. 1982).

W anaccusedchallengesthesufficiencyof theconvictingevidence, wem reviewtheevidenceinthe hen ust light m t fav bleto th p ec n inde ining w the “any rational trierof fact couldhavefoundtheessential elem os ora e ros utio term he r ents of thecrim beyondareasonabledoubt.” Jacksonv. Virginia, 443U.S. 307,319(1979). W donotreweighor re-evaluatethe e e evidence and are required to afford the State the strongest legitim view of the proof contained in the record as well as all ate reasonable a leg ateinference w m b draw therefrom Statev. Cabbage 571S.W.2d832, 835(Tenn. 1978). nd itim s hich ay e n . ,

Questionsconcerningthecredibilityof witnesses, theweight andvalueto begiventotheevidence, aswell asfactual issuesraisedbytheevidenceareresolvedbythetrierof fact, not thisCourt. Cabbage 571S.W.2d832, 835. Aguilty , verdict rendered by the jury and approved by the trial judge accredits the testim of the witnesses for the State, and a ony

presum ofguilt replacesthepresum ofinnocence. State v. Grace, 493S.W.2d474, 476(Tenn. 1973). ption ption

Thedefendant claim that theevidenceisinsufficient tosupport hisconvictionbecauseof inconsistencies s inthevictim’sstatem tothepoiceandhertestimon H ev th e a ent l y. ow er, es llegedinc siste iesco ernwhether thedefendant on nc nc exposedhimsef tothevictim,theextentofthevictims disability, andthevictim claim that shehit thedefendant andbit hishand l ’ ’s s eventhoughOfficer Bentontestifiedthat hedidnot seeanymarksonthedefendant orhisclothing. Thedefendant hasnot alleged anyinconsistenciesinthevictim testim or statem regardingfactsestablishingthe elem ofaggravatedsexu battery. ’s ony ent ents al In addition, it is within the province of the trier of fact, in this case thejury, to determne the credibility of witnesses. In the case i at bar,thejuryobviouslycreditedthetestim of thevictim Asthat iswithintheirprovince, thedefendant’scontentioniswithout ony . merit.

The defendant next contends that his sentence is excessive. W a defendant complains of his or her hen sentence, wem conductadenovoreviewwithapresum ofcorrectness. T .A §40-35-401(d). Theburdenof showing ust ption .C . that the sentence is improper is upon the appealing party. T.C.A. § 40-35-401(d) Sentencing Com ission Com ents. This m m presumption, how r, “is co eve nditionedupontheaffirm sh inginthere rdthat th tria court c ere these ative ow co e l onsid d ntencing principlesan a relev t fac a circu sta es Statev. Ashby, 823S.W.2d166, 169(Tenn. 1991). d ll an ts nd m nc .”

Indetermningthespe fic sentenceandthepossiblecombinationofsentencingalternatives, thecourt shall i ci consider thefollowing: (1) anyevidencefromthetrial andsentencing hearing, (2) thepresentencereport, (3) theprinciplesof sentencingandtheargum concerningsentencingalternatives, (4) thenatureandcharacteristicsof theoffense, (5 in ation ents ) form offe bytheStateor thedefendant concerningenhancingandm red itigatingfactors asfoundinT.C.A.§§40-35-113and-114, and (6) thedefendant’sstatem inhisor herownbehalf concerningsentencing. T.C.A.§40-35-210(b). ents

In addition, T.C.A. § 40-35-210 provides that the m umsentence wthin the rang is the presu ptive inim i e m sentence. If thereareenhancingandmitigatingfactors,thecou m start atthem im sentenceintherangea en rt ust in um nd hance thesentenceasappropriatefor theenhancementfactors andthen reducethesentencewithintherangeasappropriatefor the

mitigatingfacto If therearenom rs. itigatingfactors, thecourt m set thesentenceabovethem uminthat ra but still w ay inim nge ithin therange. Theweight tobegiveneachfactorisleft tothediscretionofthetrial judge. Statev. Shelton, 854S.W.2d116, 123 (Tenn. Crim App. 1992). .

Thetrial courtsentencedthedefendantasaRa Istandardoffenderandimpo atwelveyear sentence. nge sed Indeterm theappropriatesentence, thetrial court appliedthefollowingenhancementfactors:(1) thedefendant hasaprevious ining history of crim l co tion o crim l be r; (4 avic of theoffensewasparticularlyvulnerable; (5) thedefendant tre ina nvic s r ina havio ) tim ated orallowedavictimtobetreatedwithexceptional crueltyduringthe co m ionof theoffense (6) theperso inju in d m iss ; nal ries flicte uponthevic w particu g (7 th offenseinvolvedavictimandwascom ittedtogratify thedefendant’sdesirefor tim ere larly reat; ) e m pleasure or excitem (8) the defendant has a previous history of unwillingness to com y with the condtions of a sentence ent; pl i involvingreleaseintothecom unity; (11) thefelonyresultedinbodilyinjury andthedefendanthas previouslybeenconvictedof m afelonythat resultedindeathor bodilyinjury; and(16) thecrim w com itted unde circum e as m r stances und whichthepotential er for bodily in toavic w g T .A §40-35-114. Thedefendant does n ch gethetrial court’sapplicationoffactors jury tim as reat. .C . ot allen (1)and(4). W findthat thetrial court im e properlyappliedseveral enhancementfactors. Assuch, ourreviewofthedefendant’s sentence is de no upo the record without a presum of correctness. vo n ption

Thedefendant nowch ges th trial co a allen e urt’s pplica of facto (5 th thedefendant treated the victim tion r ), at w exceptional cruelty. Thedefendant argues that thesamefactsthat wereusedtoenhancetheClass Efelonyof sexual battery ith totheClass Bfelonyof aggrava sexual battery canno be used to further enh ted t ance asentenceforaggravatedsexualbattery.

Theapplicationoffactor(5) requires afindingofcrueltyover andabovethat inherentlyattendanttotheoffense. Statev. Leggs, 955S.W.2d845, 849(Tenn. C . Ap 1997). Thefactthatbodilyinjuryisaneeme ofaggravatedsexuabatteryinthecase rim p. l nt l at b d s n n es rily pre ar oe ot ec sa cludeap tionof th e an m t fac Seeid. plica is nh ce en tor.

Inthecaseat bar, thedefendant pushedthevictim awom heknewhadonlypartial useof herleft side, to , an thefloor. Hechokedherwhilepinninghertothecouch. Hehit herintheheadandmouthwithhisfist. Hethenexposedhimself to her. He repeatedly called her a bitch and threatened her life. The attack lasted approxim one hour. The defendant ately

continuedtothreatenthevictimafterhewasarrestedandplacedinapatrol car. Inlight oftheforegoingfacts, thedefendant treatedthevictimwithexceptional crueltyover andabovethat inherently attendanttothe offense o aggravated sexuabattery. f l Thu fa r (5) w pro rly a liedto th c e a ba s, cto as pe pp e as t r.

Thedefendant challengesthetrial court’sapplicationoffactor (6), that thepersonal injuriesinflicteduponthe vic we particularly g and factor (8), that the defendant has a previous history of unwillingness to comply with the tim re reat, conditions of a sentence involving release in the com unity. There is no proof in the record to support an inference that the m vic ’sinjurieswereparticularlygreat. Inaddition, thereisnoproof intherecordthat thedefendant hasever failedto com ywith tim pl conditions o ase f ntenceinvo ngre lvi leaseintheco m m unity. T factorsarethere inapplicable. hese fore

Thedefendant alsochallengesthetrial court’sapplicationof factor(7), that theoffenseinvolvedavictimand wasco m togratify th defendant’s d for plea reor exc ent. TheTennesseeSupremeC haspreviouslyheld m itted e esire su item ourt that factor(7)isnot applicabletocasesinvolvingaggravatedsexual battery becausethisoffensenecessarilyincludestheintent togratifyadesireforpleasureorexcitem asanelem Statev. Kissinger, 922S.W.2d482, 489(Tenn. 1996); seealsoState ent ent. v. W , 958S.W.2d724, 73 n (T n. 1 7). A s h, fa r (7) is n a a licab e an m t fac intheca at b alton 0 .6 en 99 s uc cto ot n pp le nh ce en tor se ar.

Thedefendant challeng thetrial co ap tionof fa r (11),that thefelonyresultedinbodilyinjury and es urt’s plica cto thedefendant haspreviouslybeenconvictedofafelonythat resultedindeathor bodilyinjury. Asthereis noproof intherecord that thedefendant haspreviouslybeenconvictedofafelonythat resultedindeathor bodilyinjury, thisfactorisalsoinapplicable.

Thedefenda next challengesthetrial court’sapplicationoffactor(16), that thecrim wascom ittedunder nt e m circumstances under which the potential for bodily injury to a victimwas great. The defendant contends that this factor is an essential elem ofaggravatedsexual battery andthereforeinapplicableasane ha ce e t fa r. A thedefendant wasfound ent n n m n cto s

The presentence report does indicate that the defendant has been convicted of aggravated assault and armed robbery. However, the record is devoid of any evidence indicating that these felonies involved death or bodily injury. guiltyof thechargedoffenseof sexual battery onthe grounds that heengagedinsexual contact withthevictimandcausedbodily injury toher, weagreethat factor(16)isinapplicableinthiscase.

Thesentencingrange for aggravated se battery, a Class B felony, underRangeI isnot lessthaneight xual nor m than twelve years. T.C.A. § 40-35-112(a)(2). The trial court sentenced the defendant to the twelve year m mu ore axi m sentence. Them fact that thetrial court erroneouslyappliedenhancementfactors doesnot entitlethedefendanttoareduction ere in his sentence. State v. Lavender, 967 S.W.2d 803, 809 (Tenn. 1998). The record supports the application of enhancement factors (1), (4), and(5) tothedefendant’ssentenceandtherearenoapplicablemitigating factors. W findthesefactors tobe e sufficien to s po these nc im se b th tria co t up rt nte e po d y e l urt.

Accordingly, thedefendant’sconvictionandsentenceareaffirmed.

_________________________________ J H H P A , J dg ON . EY u e

CNU: OCR

_________________________________ JOEG RILEY,Judge .

_________________________________ JAM C BEA , SR., Special Judge ES . SLEY