State v. Ivory Dubose

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: December 1, 2010
• Docket: 02C01-9808-CR-00237
• Status: Published

Opinion

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. .

2 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

3 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

4 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

5 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. 1

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

1 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.

6 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