State v. Williams ( 2010 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE FILED
OCTOBER 1997 SESSION
January 8, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, * C.C.A. # 03C01-9701-CR-00002
Appellee, * KNOX COUNTY
VS. * Hon. Mary Beth Leibowitz, Judge
LADANIEL RAY WILLIAMS, * (Aggravated Robbery)
Appellant. *
For Appellant: For Appellee:
D'Artagnan H. (Chip) Perry John Knox Walkup
Attorney Attorney General and Reporter
1910 First Tennessee Plaza
800 South Gay Street Marvin E. Clements, Jr.
Knoxville, TN 37902 Assistant Attorney General
450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
Randall E. Nichols
District Attorney General
Fred Bright and Willie Harper
Asst. District Attorneys General
City-County Building
Knoxville, TN 37902
OPINION FILED:__________________________
AFFIRMED
GARY R. WADE, JUDGE
OPINION
The defendant, LaDaniel Ray Williams, entered a plea of guilt to
aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed a Range I sentence of eight years.
The single issue presented for our review is whether the trial court erred by denying
the defendant's request to be classified as an especially mitigated offender. We
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
On August 6, 1995, the victim, Melissa Lynn Sexton, had a flat tire at
the intersection of Ailor Avenue and Twenty-first Street in Knoxville. The defendant,
another male, and a female stopped their vehicle nearby and informed the victim
that they would return to help. A little later, the defendant and a co-defendant, Eric
Carter, returned in a different vehicle. The men offered to help find a replacement
tire, placed the damaged tire in the back of their car, and drove away with the victim.
Shortly thereafter, the defendant pulled out a weapon and robbed the victim of her
jewelry and her money. The defendant then talked with the co-defendant about
killing the victim before allowing her to get out of the car in the downtown Knoxville
area. The victim obtained the license plate number and reported the description of
the car to the police. The automobile was registered in the name of Kimberly
Rheins, the girlfriend of the co-defendant. The victim selected the defendant from a
photographic lineup.
Trial courts may classify a defendant as an especially mitigated
offender under the following conditions:
(a) (1) The defendant has no prior felony convictions;
and
(2) The court finds mitigating, but not enhancement
factors.
(b) If the court finds the defendant an especially
mitigated offender, the court shall reduce the defendant's
2
statutory Range I minimum sentence by ten percent
(10%), or reduce the release eligibility date to twenty
percent (20%) of the sentence, or both reductions. If the
court employs both reductions, the calculation for release
eligibility shall be made by first reducing the sentence
and then reducing the release eligibility to twenty percent
(20%).
***
(d) The finding that a defendant is or is not an especially
mitigated offender is appealable by either party.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-109 (emphasis added).
While acknowledging that the defendant had turned himself in to
police, blamed his actions on his addiction to crack cocaine, and had worked very
hard to turn his life around, the trial court declined to classify the defendant as an
especially mitigated offender, concluding that there were three enhancement
factors:
(1) the defendant had a previous history of criminal
convictions, i.e., a 1992 DUI offense. Tenn. Code Ann.
§ 40-35-114(1);
(2) that the defendant was a leader in the commission of
the robbery involving a second robber. Tenn. Code Ann.
§ 40-35-114(2); and
(3) that the defendant treated or allowed the victim to be
treated with exceptional cruelty. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-
35-114(5).
The defendant, thirty-one years of age, had been incarcerated almost
a year by the time sentence was imposed. A 1985 graduate of Rule High School in
Knoxville, the defendant has a son, LaDaniel, Jr., and a daughter, Talisha. He has
maintained a twelve-year relationship with their mother, Alisha Neely. He has a
sporadic employment history and reported no permanent address. During his period
of pretrial incarceration, the defendant was befriended by Reverend Thomas Cook,
who has served as chaplain at the Knox County Jail for over ten years. Reverend
3
Cook described the defendant as sincere and "very apologetic" for his crime.
Reverend Cook's contact with the defendant began at the time of his incarceration
and extended on a weekly basis until the time of his sentencing hearing.
Initially, the question of whether a defendant should be sentenced as
an especially mitigated offender is discretionary with the trial court. State v. Braden,
867 S.W.2d 750, 762 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). The presence of an enhancement
factor disqualifies a defendant from treatment as an especially mitigated offender.
State v. Hicks, 868 S.W.2d 729, 731 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). A prior misdemeanor
record, as opposed to a felony, may constitute a prior criminal history but does not
disqualify a defendant from consideration. See Sentencing Commission Comments
to Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-109.
The primary argument of the defendant is that he did not treat or allow
the victim "to be treated with exceptional cruelty during the commission of the
offense." Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114(5). While acknowledging that his
statement, "We ought to kill this bitch," frightened the victim, he argues that it was
not exceptionally cruel because the elements of robbery involve "the intentional or
knowing theft of property from the person of another by violence or putting the
person in fear." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-401(a). The defendant cites Manning v.
State, 883 S.W.2d 635 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994), in support of his argument. In
Manning, the defendant pled guilty to four counts of aggravated rape, armed
robbery, and aggravated kidnapping. While noting that other enhancement factors
had been correctly applied, this court ruled that an abduction "in broad daylight" by
an armed defendant did not support the application of the exceptional cruelty
enhancement factor:
While there is no doubt that the actions of the appellant
were cruel, most of the facts relied upon in applying this
4
enhancement factor to the appellant are the very facts
which made these crimes aggravated under the law.
Id. at 639. A lengthy sentence, including the imposition of consecutive sentencing,
was ordered in Manning. Id. at 641.
While these circumstances are similar with regard to the application of
the exceptional cruelty enhancement factor, the defendant here still would not
qualify as an especially mitigated offender. Clearly, he was a leader in the
commission of the offense. That alone would disqualify the defendant from
consideration. Moreover, his prior criminal history included not only a conviction for
driving under the influence but also a time interval during which he was addicted to
crack cocaine, an illegal substance; either "criminal convictions or criminal behavior"
would support the application of this enhancement factor. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-
35-114(1). In our view, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to
classify the defendant as an especially mitigated offender.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
________________________________
Gary R. Wade, Judge
CONCUR:
_____________________________
David H. Welles, Judge
_____________________________
Jerry L. Smith, Judge
5