 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Peek5/3/2000
thes causes feelings of distress simply because she associates winter with the rape. K.S. has experienced symptoms of stress such as loss of concentration and inability to finish some conversations. K.S. spoke of the difficulty of seeing her family members suffer and of trying to maintain a relationship with her boyfriend. G.C. testified that her life has been a constant, day-to-day struggle. In her victim impact statement, G.C. described the fear she lives with, fear of retaliation, fear of HIV, fear of just being out after dark. G.C. stated that she trusts no one and views everyone as a potential attacker. K.T., the fourth victim, asked the trial court to consider the fact that the defendant committed his attack on her in the presence of her daughter. G.H., the fifth victim, although she did not testify at the sentencing hearing, testified at trial in detail concerning her fear that the defendant would somehow be able to retaliate against her for coming forward.
Because the record reflects that these victims suffered injuries beyond bodily injuries that were particularly great, we agree with the trial court that factor (6) could be used to enhance the defendant's sentences.
Factor (7)
Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-35-114(7) provides for enhancement of the sentence where the offense was committed in order to gratify the defendant's desire for pleasure or excitement. Our supreme court has rejected the view that every rape is implicitly performed for the purpose of pleasure or excitement and has stated that brutality, revenge, and hatred may also be motivating causes for rape. See State v. Adams, 864 S.W.2d 31, 34 (Tenn. 1993). Therefore, neither pleasure nor excitement is an essential element of the offense of rape, and factor (7) may be considered as an appropriate enhancement factor. See id. The State has the burden of demonstrating that the rape was motivated, at least in part, by the perpetrator's desire for sexual pleasure or excitement. See id. This desire has been shown when "overt sexual displays were made, such as when a defendant fondled, kissed, or behaved in a sexual manner, or when the perpetrator acted while making sexually explicit remarks." Williams, 920 S.W.2d at 260 (citing Manning v. State, 883 S.W.2d 635, 639 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).
The record in this case is replete with testimony as to the defendant's sexually explicit comments to his victims, his fondling, his desire to have his victims think of him as a husband or lover. We conclude that, based on the record, the defendant committed these rapes to gratify his desire for pleasure or excitement and that the trial court correctly applied factor (7) as an enhancement factor.
We conclude that the record supports the application of enhancement factors (1), (6), and (7). The record fully supports the weight given to these factors by the trial court in sentencing the defendant to the maximum number of years for each offense.
B. Consecutive Sentences
Finally, the defendant argues that his sentences should not be served consecutively. According to statute, the ordering of consecutive sentences is purely discretionary; nevertheless, the trial court must find by the preponderance of the evidence that at least one of seven criteria is met. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115. Here, the trial court applied factor (4): "The defendant is a dangerous offender whose behavior indicates little or no regard for human life, and no hesitation about committing a crime in which the risk to human life is high." Id. § 40-35-115(b)(4). Criterion four has been specifically discussed by our supreme court in State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 1995), where the court held:
<
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|