Preview:

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON
Assigned on Briefs January 8, 2008 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JEFFREY LEE TURNER
Appeal from the Humboldt Law (Circuit) Court for Gibson County No. H 8319 Clayburn Peeples, Judge

No. W2007-01364-CCA-R3-CD - Filed May 8, 2008

The Appellant, Jeffrey Lee Turner, appeals the sentencing decision of the Humboldt Law Court for Gibson County. Turner pled guilty to one count of aggravated statutory rape, fifteen counts of statutory rape, and two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Turner to an effective term of eleven years, eleven months, and twenty-eight days. On appeal, Turner challenges the length of his sentences, specifically alleging (1) that the trial court misapplied enhancement and mitigating factors and (2) that the trial court erred in imposing partial consecutive sentences. After a thorough review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgment of the Humboldt Law Court for Gibson County Affirmed DAVID G. HAYES, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ALAN E. GLENN and J.C. MCLIN , JJ., joined. Mike Mosier, Jackson, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Jeffrey Lee Turner. Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; David H. Findley, Assistant Attorney General; Garry G. Brown, District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee. OPINION Factual Background & Procedural History On October 10, 2006, a Gibson County grand jury returned an eighteen-count indictment charging the Appellant with one count of aggravated statutory rape, a Class D felony; fifteen counts of statutory rape, Class E felonies; and two counts of contributing to delinquency of a minor, Class A misdemeanors. The indictment alleged that the sexual offenses involved two minor male victims, M.T. and R.G.,1 and that the offenses occurred on numerous dates from December of 2004 to July of 2006. The misdemeanor counts for contributing to delinquency of a minor corresponded to the

1

It is the policy of this court to refer to minor victims of sexual crimes by their initials.

Appellant's purchase of alcohol for victim M.T. and another minor, J.E., on July 15, 2006. On January 26, 2007, the Appellant waived his right to jury trial and entered "open" pleas of guilty to all of the indicted offenses. The transcript of the guilty plea hearing is not included in the record on appeal, but the facts established at the sentencing hearing and by the presentence investigative report, are as follows. The Appellant was between thirty-two and thirty-four years old when he committed the offenses during the time period from December of 2004 to July of 2006, and the minor victims, M.T. and R.G., were between the ages of sixteen and seventeen. During this period, the Appellant was a tax preparer for the parents of M.T., and he also worked in their travel agency as an office manager. The presentence report reflects that a police investigation was initiated based upon the complaint of M.T.'s mother that the Appellant had engaged in inappropriate contact with her son. M.T. informed police that the Appellant had performed oral sex on him on at least three occasions between January and April of 2006 at his parents' business. The Appellant admitted to police that he performed oral sex on M.T. "during tax season" at the business location on more than one occasion, that he additionally performed oral sex on M.T. at another Gibson County address, and that on another occasion in July of 2006 at a residence under construction in Medina. Another victim, R.G., informed police that the Appellant had fondled him and performed oral sex on him at the aforementioned business location during the week of December 20, 2004, and January 5, 2005. R.G. additionally stated that the Appellant performed oral sex on him at least five or six times between January and April of 2005, and again between January and April of 2006 at the business location. The Appellant further admitted that on July 15, 2006, he purchased two cases of "Bud Light" beer and two six-packs of "Smirnoff Triple Black," for $55, and delivered the alcoholic beverages to the minor, J.E., behind the convenience store where it was purchased. The Appellant stated that J.E. paid him $21 for the alcoholic beverages. The Appellant additionally stated that he purchased the alcoholic beverages for both J.E. and M.T. At the sentencing hearing held on May 29, 2007, the Appellant testified that the offenses "were consensual incidents." He recalled that the sexual incidents with R.G. occurred first, and he claimed: [R.G.] had came onto me [sic] and . . . the state of mind I was in, I was just not in the right state of mind and allowed it to continue and then the incidents with [M.T.] occurred due to the fact that [M.T.] and [R.G.] were also messing with each other and that allowed me to be able to mess with [M.T.]. The Appellant claimed to have been sexually abused by his stepfather between the ages of eight and fifteen years old. On cross-examination, the Appellant denied that he was blaming anyone for the crimes he committed, but he stated that he "felt that [his own molestation] may have had an impact on how [he] lived [his] lifestyle." The Appellant acknowledged that he was recently arrested in Madison County for possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell or deliver, possession of a

-2-

Schedule III drug with intent to sell or deliver, possession of a Schedule IV drug with intent to sell or deliver, and possession of drug paraphernalia. At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed the maximum sentence of four years for the aggravated statutory rape conviction, the maximum sentence of two years for each of the fifteen convictions for statutory rape, and the maximum sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days for each of the two misdemeanor convictions for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The trial court ordered that the sentences for counts one, two, six, seven, seventeen, and eighteen run consecutively, with the remaining counts running concurrently, resulting in an aggregate sentence of eleven years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days. Analysis The Appellant challenges the length of the sentence imposed by the trial court, specifically its application of enhancement and mitigating factors and its decision to impose consecutive sentencing. When a defendant challenges the length, range, or manner of service of a sentence, it is the duty of this court to conduct a de novo review on the record with a presumption that the determinations made by the court from which the appeal is taken are correct. T.C.A.

Download TurnerJeffreyLeeOPN.pdf

Tennessee Law