State of Tennessee v. Delmontae Godwin

01/04/2019

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs at Knoxville October 30, 2018

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DELMONTAE GODWIN

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County

No. 17-162 Donald H. Allen, Judge

___________________________________

No. W2017-02400-CCA-R3-CD

___________________________________

Defendant, Delmontae Godwin, was convicted of aggravated assault and aggravated

robbery and sentenced to an effective sentence of twelve years, to be served

consecutively to a sentence from another conviction. Defendant appeals his sentence,

arguing that the trial court erred by sentencing him to the maximum sentence for each

conviction. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the judgments

of the trial court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Circuit Court Affirmed

TIMOTHY L. EASTER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which NORMA MCGEE

OGLE and CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, JJ., joined.

George Morton Googe, District Public Defender, and Gregory Gookin, Assistant Public

Defender, for the appellant, Delmontae Godwin.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Brent C. Cherry, Senior Counsel;

James G. Woodall, District Attorney General; and Shaun Brown, Assistant District

Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

In December of 2016, Jordan Murphy, the victim, attempted to sell two guns, an

AR-15 and a Glock 31, through a Facebook buy/sell/trade group. The victim was

contacted by a man interested in purchasing the guns. This person identified himself as

“Steven Godwin.” The parties agreed to meet at K-Mart in Jackson, Tennessee, to

complete the transaction. After the victim arrived at K-Mart, Steven called him and

asked him to meet on Greenfield Street so that Steven’s older brother could buy the guns

from the victim.

The victim drove to Greenfield Street where he tried to call the buyer. While he

was turning his car around on the dead-end street, he was approached by Defendant and

another young man. They asked the victim his name and told him they would go get the

buyer. Defendant and the other man walked to a nearby apartment complex. When they

returned, “maybe two minutes” later, the young man with Defendant tried to give the

victim some money for the guns. The victim told the men that he was there to “deal with

the brother that [he] was supposed to meet.” At that point, according to the victim,

Defendant pulled out a firearm, grabbed the AR-15 and Glock from the victim, and told

the victim he “wasn’t leaving with these firearms.” The victim was able to reach for the

gun he was carrying on his right hip and fired several times at Defendant. Defendant

returned fire. Defendant “shot once” at the victim before the victim “shot approximately

three or four times” at Defendant and the other young man. All three of the men were

“running,” and Defendant “kept shooting continuously” at the victim. The victim was

able to fire “two or three more rounds” while he made his way to the back of his truck.

Defendant and the other young man ran away, and the guns were dropped on the street in

the process. The victim got back into his truck and drove down the street before stopping

at a nearby house to use a telephone to call the police. Police found the Glock pistol and

AR-15 rifle near the location where the shooting took place and identified a total of eight

cartridge casings − four from a nine-millimeter weapon and a four from a forty caliber

weapon.

Police learned that Defendant was being treated at Humboldt General Hospital for

gunshot wounds. Sergeant Kevin Hill of the Humboldt Police Department interviewed

Defendant, who claimed that he was shot “between two houses” at an unspecified

location. Sergeant Hill could not verify any reports of shots fired in the area. As a result

of his investigation, Sergeant Hill learned that the nearby Jackson Police Department had

a report of an incident involving gunfire. Defendant maintained that he was shot in

Humboldt and sought treatment at the hospital in Humboldt for that reason. However,

the victim was able to identify Defendant in a photographic lineup after the incident.

Police obtained some of Defendant’s clothing from his mother. The clothing appeared to

have bullet holes in it and blood on it.

In April of 2017, Defendant was indicted for attempted second degree murder,

aggravated assault, aggravated robbery, and employing a deadly weapon during the

commission of a dangerous felony. After hearing the evidence at trial, the jury found

Defendant not guilty of attempted second degree murder and employing a deadly weapon

during the commission of a dangerous felony. The jury found Defendant guilty of the

remaining charges, aggravated assault and aggravated robbery.

-2-

The trial court made extensive findings of fact at the sentencing hearing. The trial

court noted that sentencing alternatives were not available because Defendant’s

conviction for aggravated robbery was a “non-probatable, non-parole offense.” The trial

court commented on the “serious” nature of the crimes and the fact that the victim was

“specifically targeted” by Defendant in order to rob him of two firearms. The trial court

applied enhancement factor (1) based on Defendant’s prior offense of theft of property

over $1000. See T.C.A. § 40-35-114(1) (“The defendant has a previous history of

criminal convictions or criminal behavior, in addition to those necessary to establish the

appropriate range”). The trial court noted that Defendant was originally placed on

judicial diversion for that offense but committed the aggravated assault and aggravated

robbery “while he was on supervision for that theft over 1,000” and, as a result, was

removed from judicial diversion. Defendant had “other prior criminal behavior” in the

form of his admitted use of marijuana on a daily basis. The trial court noted that

Defendant had juvenile misdemeanor adjudications but chose not to give weight to those

juvenile adjudications. However, the court commented on the fact that those

adjudications indicated that Defendant had “been in trouble with the juvenile court

previously.” The trial court also applied enhancement factor (2) because of Defendant’s

role as a leader in the commission of the crime and enhancement factor (8) because of

Defendant’s failure to complete judicial diversion. See T.C.A. § 40-35-114(2), (8).

Additionally, the trial court applied enhancement factor (13) because of Defendant’s

status on judicial diversion at the time of the commission of the offense. See T.C.A. §

40-35-114(13).

In mitigation, the trial court considered Defendant’s young age of eighteen but

gave that mitigation factor “slight weight.” See T.C.A. § 40-35-113(6) (“The defendant,

because of youth or old age, lacked substantial judgment in committing the offense”).

The trial court commented on Defendant’s truancy violations and “numerous problems at

school,” including Defendant’s expulsion for an altercation with another student and

resulting transfer to the “alternative school due to the zero tolerance policy.”

With respect to the aggravated assault conviction, the trial court determined that

Defendant was a Range I, standard offender, noting that the range of punishment for

aggravated assault was three to six years. With respect to the aggravated robbery

conviction, the trial court observed that the sentence carried a release eligibility of 85%

and that the range of punishment was eight to twelve years. The trial court sentenced

Defendant to the maximum sentence of twelve years for the aggravated robbery

conviction, to be served at 85%. On the aggravated assault conviction, the trial court

ordered Defendant to serve a six-year sentence as a Range I, standard offender. The trial

court ordered the two sentences to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to

the four-year sentence for the prior theft conviction based on Defendant’s commission of

-3-

the offenses while he was on judicial diversion. The trial court ordered Defendant to pay

the fines as imposed by the jury and restitution to the victim in the amount of $900.

Defendant filed a timely motion for new trial. At the hearing on the motion, the

trial court decided to “stand on what . . . [was] said at the sentencing hearing.” Defendant

appealed to this Court.

Analysis

On appeal, Defendant complains about the length of his sentence, noting that he is

a “very young man” and the trial court imposed a lengthy sentence. The State contends

that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant.

When a defendant challenges the length or manner of service of a within-range

sentence, this Court reviews the trial court’s sentencing decision under an abuse of

discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d

273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012); State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012). This

presumption applies to “within-range sentencing decisions that reflect a proper

application of the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at

707. A trial court abuses its discretion in sentencing when it “applie[s] an incorrect legal

standard, or reache[s] a decision which is against logic or reasoning that cause[s] an

injustice to the party complaining.” State v. Shuck, 953 S.W.2d 662, 669 (Tenn. 1997)

(citing Ballard v. Herzke, 924 S.W.2d 652, 661 (Tenn. 1996)). This deferential standard

does not permit an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.

Myint v. Allstate Ins. Co., 970 S.W.2d 920, 927 (Tenn. 1998). The defendant bears the

burden of proving that the sentence is improper. T.C.A. § 40-35-101, Sentencing

Comm’n Cmts.

In reaching its decision, the trial court must consider the following factors: (1) the

evidence, if any, received at the trial and the sentencing hearing; (2) the presentence

report; (3) the principles of sentencing and arguments as to sentencing alternatives; (4)

the nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct involved; (5) evidence and

information offered by the parties on enhancement and mitigating factors; (6) any

statistical information provided by the administrative office of the courts as to sentencing

practices for similar offenses in Tennessee; (7) any statement by the appellant in his own

behalf; and (8) the potential for rehabilitation or treatment. See T.C.A. § 40-35-102, -

103, -210(b); see also Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 697-98. Additionally, the sentence imposed

“should be no greater than that deserved for the offense committed” and also “should be

the least severe measure necessary to achieve the purposes for which the sentence is

imposed.” T.C.A. § 40-35-103(2), (4).

-4-

This Court will uphold the sentence “so long as it is within the appropriate range

and the record demonstrates that the sentence is otherwise in compliance with the

purposes and principles listed by statute.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 709-10. The weighing of

various enhancement and mitigating factors is within the sound discretion of the trial

court. State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 345 (Tenn. 2008). The misapplication of an

enhancement or mitigating factor by the trial court “does not invalidate the sentence

imposed unless the trial court wholly departed from the 1989 Act, as amended in 2005.”

Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 706.

At the sentencing hearing, after reviewing the proof and the sentencing act, the

trial court applied enhancement factors (1), (2), (8), and (13). The trial court considered

Defendant’s age as a mitigating factor. Defendant faced a sentence of eight to twelve

years for the Class B felony of aggravated robbery. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-402; 40-35-

112(a)(2). As a Range I, standard offender, Defendant was subject to a sentence of three

to six years for the Class C felony of aggravated assault. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-402; 40-

35-112(a)(3). After making lengthy findings, the trial court sentenced Defendant to an

effective sentence of twelve years.

Because Defendant was sentenced to a within-range sentence, the trial court’s

decision is entitled to a presumption of correctness. Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 709-10. The

record before this Court shows that the trial court thoroughly and completely applied the

statutory sentencing principles. The evidence in the record supports the trial court’s

application of the enhancement and mitigating factors. The trial court did not abuse its

discretion.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

____________________________________

TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JUDGE

-5-