State of Tennessee v. Christopher Tyce Hamblin

Citation: Not availableDocket: E2000-02804-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; March 26, 2002; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Christopher Tyce Hamblin pled guilty to aggravated assault as a Range II offender and was sentenced to nine years, which is three years above the minimum for his classification. The trial court denied his request for alternative sentencing, citing the sentence exceeded eight years, necessitating incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Hamblin appealed, challenging the sentence length and the manner of service.

The case stemmed from a violent incident involving his former girlfriend, Heidi Wilson, during which he forcibly removed her from a vehicle, inflicted physical harm, and later raped her. The kidnapping charge was dismissed as part of the plea agreement. The victim did not testify during sentencing, but the court relied on an affidavit detailing the assault, which resulted in serious bodily injury to her.

During the sentencing hearing, Hamblin expressed remorse and indicated he had not contacted the victim since the assault, despite her occasional visits requesting money or cigarettes. He acknowledged using cocaine at the time of the offense but noted his successful completion of a drug treatment program prior to sentencing. The court found that the trial judge misapplied one enhancement factor and overlooked two mitigating factors without clarifying how the enhancement factors influenced the sentence. Despite these issues, the court affirmed the nine-year sentence based on Hamblin's extensive criminal history, concluding that he was not eligible for an alternative sentence due to the length of his sentence. The judgment was upheld by the court, with the opinion delivered by Judge John Everett Williams, joined by Judges Joseph M. Tipton and Alan E. Glenn.

The defendant, who has abstained from drug use since completing a treatment program, continues to consume alcohol but has reduced his intake from six beers daily to occasional drinking on weekends due to work commitments. Testimony at the sentencing hearing included that of the defendant's father, Tyce Hamblin, who expressed distress over the nine-year sentence. Mr. Hamblin claimed the victim had been manipulated by her mother to seek money from him and his wife, alleging false rape accusations against the defendant. He described instances where the victim visited their home asking for money and suggested she had proposed marriage to the defendant in exchange for financial assistance. An incident involving the victim attacking the defendant was also mentioned.

The defendant contests the nine-year sentence as excessive and seeks a reduction to eight years or less, with alternative sentencing options such as probation. The trial court based the nine-year sentence on two enhancement factors: the defendant's prior criminal history and a previous felony conviction involving bodily injury. The defendant argues that the trial court misapplied enhancement factor (11) and neglected two mitigating factors. Under Tennessee law, appellate review of the sentence is de novo, with the defendant bearing the burden of proof regarding any claimed impropriety. The trial court's decisions are presumed correct if it properly considered relevant sentencing principles and facts. The applicable sentence range for a Range II offender convicted of a Class C felony is six to ten years, with the presumptive sentence being the minimum if no enhancement or mitigating factors are applied.

The trial court is required to enhance the minimum sentence based on enhancement factors and then reduce it based on mitigating factors, as per Tenn. Code Ann. 40-35-210(e). The weight of each factor is at the trial court's discretion, provided it adheres to the sentencing act and its findings are supported by the record (State v. Carter). To facilitate meaningful appellate review, the trial court must clearly document its reasoning for the final sentence, identify the relevant factors, and explain how these factors were evaluated (State v. Jones).

In the case at hand, the trial court applied enhancement factors (1) and (11) to increase the defendant's sentence from six to nine years. The defendant did not contest enhancement factor (1), which relates to his history of criminal behavior. However, he challenged the application of factor (11), which pertains to offenses resulting in death or bodily injury, arguing that the state failed to prove he had a prior felony conviction involving such outcomes. The court concurred, noting that the state did not provide evidence beyond the presentence report, which only indicated a prior aggravated assault conviction. Since aggravated assault does not inherently involve bodily injury, the trial court erred in applying this factor.

Additionally, the defendant asserted that the trial court should have recognized two mitigating factors: his expression of remorse and his completion of a drug treatment program. Although the trial court acknowledged the defendant's employment, it deemed his work history unimpressive and did not credit him for paying child support, which it viewed as an obligation. Importantly, the trial court did not address the defendant's drug treatment or remorse, suggesting these were not considered in its analysis. The record indicates that the defendant deserved consideration of his remorse as a mitigating factor.

Genuine remorse is recognized as a mitigating factor in sentencing, as established by State v. Williamson. A reviewing court can evaluate a defendant's remorse based on post-offense conduct, motivations, and statements made during sentencing. In this case, the defendant accepted responsibility by pleading guilty and expressed sincere remorse in the presentence report and during his testimony. This evidence supports minimal consideration of remorse as a mitigating factor.

The defendant claimed that his drug abuse at the time of the offense warrants significant credit for voluntarily entering a drug treatment program. He completed the program, has abstained from drugs since, and rarely consumes alcohol. Therefore, some mitigation credit is justified for his self-initiated treatment.

Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-210(b) outlines factors for the sentencing court to consider, which are also used in de novo reviews. The absence of a record from the guilty plea hearing limits the reviewing court's ability to fully assess the sentence, as it is the defendant's responsibility to provide an adequate record on appeal.

While the trial court's consideration of enhancement factor (1) regarding the defendant's prior criminal history is supported by the record, the application of enhancement factor (11) is not. The trial court should have also factored in the defendant's remorse and completion of drug treatment. However, enhancement factor (1) is significant enough to justify a nine-year sentence due to the defendant’s extensive criminal history.

The defendant's nine-year sentence makes him statutorily ineligible for probation and rules out alternative sentencing options due to his aggravated assault conviction. Consequently, the appeal is denied, and the trial court's judgment is affirmed.