State of Tennessee v. Darren Campbell ( 2008 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
OCTOBER 1996 SESSION
FILED
March 24, 2008
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate Court Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) C.C.A. No. 02C01-9510-CR-00296
Appellee, )
) Shelby County
V. )
) Honorable Joseph B. Dailey, Judge
)
DARREN CAMPBELL, ) (First Degree Murder; Attempted
) Second Degree Murder)
Appellant. )
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
Brett B. Stein Charles W. Burson
Attorney at Law Attorney General & Reporter
100 N. Main, Suite 3102
Memphis, TN 38103 Ellen H. Pollack
Assistant Attorney General
Mary Anne Queen
Legal Assistant
Criminal Justice Division
450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
John W. Pierotti
District Attorney General
John Campbell
Asst. Dist. Attorney General
201 Poplar, Third Floor
Memphis, TN 38103
OPINION FILED: ___________________
AFFIRMED
PAUL G. SUMMERS,
Judge
OPINION
The appellant, Darren Campbell, was convicted by a jury of first degree
murder. This Court reduced his conviction to second degree murder and
remanded to the trial court for sentencing.1 The appellant was sentenced as a
Range I offender to 23 years incarceration. His sole issue on appeal is whether
his sentence was excessive. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
The appellant and three men were consuming alcoholic beverages at a
rooming house. The appellant and one of the men drove to a local restaurant
and picked up some chicken. When the appellant and the man returned with the
chicken, the man refused to share his chicken with the appellant. The appellant
got irate and left the room. Approximately four minutes later, the appellant
returned with a gun. He approached the man with the chicken and asked,
"What's up with the chicken?" Apparently, the man's response was unfavorable,
so the appellant shot him. The man died of gunshot wounds to the head and
chest. Another victim was shot but lived. The third person fled for his life.
The appellant argues that the trial judge abused his discretion in
assessing the weight to be afforded each enhancing and mitigating factor. It was
incumbent upon the appellant to prepare a record that included all materials
necessary for disposition on appeal. See State v. Beech, 744 S.W.2d 585, 588
(Tenn. Crim. App. 1987) (holding "in the absence of an adequate record we must
presume that the trial court's ruling was adequately supported by the evidence.").
The appellant's presentence report is not a part of the record before us.
Upon conducting a de novo review, we find five enhancement factors
applicable: (1) the appellant has a previous history of criminal activity, Tenn.
Code Ann. § 40-35-114(1); (2) the offense involved more than one victim, Tenn.
Code Ann. § 40-35-114(3); (3) the appellant possessed and employed a firearm
1
At trial, the appellant attempted to establish an insanity defense. The defense was not
accepted. The appellate court, however, found that due to the appellant's mental health, the proof
was insufficient to establish deliberation. "W e are not comfortable . . . that the defendant reflected
about his decision to kill, since his troubled mind may never have been free from the influence of
excitement or passion." State v. Campbell, No. 02-C-01-9207-CR-00150, slip op. at 10 (Tenn. Crim.
App. Feb. 23, 1996).
-2-
during the commission of the offense, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114(9); (4) the
appellant had no hesitation about committing a crime when the risk to human life
was high, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114(10); and (5) the crime was committed
under circumstances under which the potential for bodily injury to a victim was
great, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114(16).2 We find one mitigating factor
applicable: the appellant possessed a lack of substantial judgment or inability to
appreciate the nature of his conduct. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(6).
The appellant is a Range I standard offender. He has been convicted of a
Class A felony. His sentence range is 15 to 25 years. In accordance with the
principles of sentencing, we are to begin at the minimum range sentence. We
increase for each enhancement factor and then reduce for each mitigating factor.
The weight afforded each factor is derived from balancing the relative degree of
culpability within the totality of the circumstances. State v. Bilbrey, 816 S.W.2d
71 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).
The appellant's sentence is increased by five enhancement factors.
Although we find application of one mitigating factor, the weight afforded that
factor is minimal as the appellant's mental maladies were previously considered
in reducing his conviction from first degree murder to second degree murder.
See State v. Martin, No. 03C01-9412-CR-00448 (Tenn. Crim. App. April 1,
1996) (holding although double mitigation not prohibited by statute, whether to
double mitigate is within sentencing court's discretion). Accordingly, the
appellant's sentence set at 23 years is appropriate. We affirm the trial court.
__________________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge
CONCUR:
2
Although elements of the indicted offense, factors (10), and (16) may be applicable if the
facts demonstrate a culpability distinct from and appreciably greater than that incident to the convicted
offense. State v. Jones, 883 S.W .2d 596 (Tenn. 1994). Separate and distinct culpability may arise
when individuals other than the victim are present and subject to peril. See State v. Makoka, 885
S.W .2d 366, 373 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (holding factor (10) applicable when other possible victims
are present). The record reveals that others were present in the rooming house.
-3-
_______________________________
JOHN H. PEAY, Judge
_______________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, Judge
-4-