State v. Jason Broadnax

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
DECEMBER 1997 SESSION
January 16, 1998
Cecil W. Crowson
Appellate Court Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) C.C.A. No. 01C01-9702-CC-00044
Appellee, )
) Montgomery County
V. )
) Honorable Robert W. W edemeyer, Judge
)
JASON L. BROADNAX, ) (Sentencing)
)
Appellant. )
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
Gregory D. Smith John Knox Walkup
Attorney at Law Attorney General & Reporter
One Public Square, Suite 321
Clarksville, TN 37040 Daryl J. Brand
Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Justice Division
450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
John W. Carney, Jr.
District Attorney General
Steven L. Garrett
Assistant District Attorney General
204 Franklin Street, Suite 200
Clarksville, TN 37040
OPINION FILED: ___________________
AFFIRMED
PAUL G. SUMMERS,
Judge
OPINION
Too often this Court sees wasted lives, and it could have been different.
Here is another case.
Jason L. Broadnax was born in October 1977, attended Northwest High
School in Clarksville, and dropped out in the eleventh grade. He has never held
a job more than a few months, and those jobs were at minimum wage. He has
resided with his mother, and he is unmarried. He is in good physical and mental
health.
By the time appellant Broadnax was twelve, the Montgomery County
Juvenile Court had adjudicated him guilty of the delinquent act of shoplifting and
ordered him to perform public service work. When he was thirteen, the juvenile
court gave him maximum probation with the Department of Youth Development
(DYD) for first degree burglary. When the appellant was seventeen, the court
sentenced him to the custody of the DYD for a weapons offense. Also, when he
was seventeen, he was incarcerated by the juvenile court for selling marijuana.
Broadnax turned eighteen in October 1995. While he was still eighteen,
he graduated from juvenile delinquent to adult criminal defendant. He was
indicted by the Montgomery County Grand Jury for a robbery occurring on
December 11, 1995; an aggravated robbery occurring on January 10, 1996; an
aggravated robbery occurring on January 13, 1996; an attempted aggravated
robbery occurring on January 14, 1996; and an aggravated robbery occurring on
January 17, 1996.
Counsel for the appellant Broadnax negotiated a plea bargain with the
state wherein two of those charges were dismissed. He pled guilty to the
aggravated robbery of Donna Rohe which occurred on January 10, 1996. Ms.
Rohe was an employee of Pizza Hut, and the armed defendant took over
-2-
$500.00. Ms. Rohe was pregnant when the crime occurred. The trial court
sentenced the defendant to ten years in the Department of Correction for this
aggravated robbery.
The appellant pled guilty to the attempted aggravated robbery of Michelle
Wallace occurring on January 14, 1996. Ms. W allace was an employee of Mr.
Gatti’s. When the armed appellant jumped across the counter of the business,
approximately twenty-five individuals were present. Fortunately, a police officer
was one of those present; and when confronted by the officer, the appellant fled.
Testimony at the sentencing hearing indicates that this attempted aggravated
robbery has affected employee morale significantly since the crime occurred.
The trial court sentenced the defendant to 4.5 years for this crime.
The appellant pled guilty to the aggravated robbery of Jean Thompson
occurring on January 17, 1996. Ms. Thompson was an employee of Super
Laundromat when the appellant brandished a weapon during this robbery. At the
sentencing hearing, the victim testified that there were several people in the
laundromat when the crime occurred, and she eventually had to quit work
because she was so scared. She continues to have nightmares and is unable to
sleep. The court sentenced the defendant to nine years for this crime.
The trial judge ran all sentences consecutively for an effective sentence of
23.5 years. Aggrieved by this sentence, the appellant now asks this Court to
review the sentence. Finding no error by the trial judge and finding the
sentences warranted, we affirm.
This Court finds that separate convictions and separate punishments in
this case were proper. Each robbery or attempted robbery involved different
business establishments, different times, and separate victims. The trial court
properly enhanced the appellant’s sentences because the crimes involved more
-3-
than one victim. The appellant had a prior history of criminal conduct or criminal
behavior based upon his juvenile record. During each of these crimes, the
appellant at gunpoint placed many people in fear for their lives. He effectively
committed aggravated assaults upon innocent and helpless victims, and for
these crimes he was not charged. The appellant was sentenced mid-range for
each of his crimes. The trial court found no significant mitigating factors for this
appellant. The sentences adjudged by the trial court are proper.
As to the consecutive sentencing issue, we agree with the trial judge. The
appellant is an offender whose record of criminal activity is extensive. He is a
dangerous offender. His activity indicates little or no regard for human life. He
has had no hesitation about committing crimes in which the risk to human life is
high. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-115(b)(2)&(4) (1997). The record establishes
that the total sentence is reasonably related to the severity of offenses and is
necessary for the protection of the public. State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933,
938 (Tenn. 1995). The appellant has had his opportunity with the juvenile
system, having previously been on lengthy probation and having been
incarcerated as a youthful offender. These attempts at rehabilitation and
behavioral change did not work. After he had just turned eighteen, the appellant
committed aggravated robberies and attempted aggravated robberies. His time
has come. He no longer is playing in the minor leagues. As a major league
criminal offender, this appellant has earned the sentence of 23.5 years as
warranted and deserved.
The trial court followed the principles of sentencing and stated clear
findings of fact and conclusions of law. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal
Appeals.
-4-
__________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge
CONCUR:
______________________________
JOSEPH B. JONES, Presiding Judge
______________________________
WILLIAM M. BARKER, Judge
-5-