State vs. Barry Jordan
Annotate this CaseCourt Description:
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Joe G. Riley. Jr.
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON FILED AUGUST SESSION, 1997 October 28, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk STATE OF TENNESSEE, Appellee, V. BARRY JORDAN, Appe llant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9607-CC-00236 DYER COUNTY HON. JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE (VOLUN TARY M ANSLAU GHTE R) FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: G. STE PHE N DAV IS District Public Defender 208 N. Mill Avenue P.O. Box 742 Dyersburg, TN 38025-0742 JOHN KNOX WALKUP Attorney General & Reporter CLINTON J. MORGAN Assistant Attorney General 2nd Floor, Cordell Hull Building 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243 C. PHILLIP BIVENS District Attorney General P.O. Drawer E Dyersburg, TN 38024 OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE OPINION The Defendant, Barry Jordan, appeals as of right pursuant to Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rule s of App ellate P roced ure. Fo llowing a jury tria l in the C ircuit Court of Dyer County, the Defenda nt was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter and was s enten ced to five (5) ye ars in prison as a Ran ge I stand ard offen der. In his sole issue on appeal, Defendant argues that the sentence imposed by the trial court wa s exces sive. W e affirm the judgm ent of the tria l court. When an accused challenges the length, range, or the manner of service of a sentence, this court has a duty to conduct a de novo review of the sentence with a presumption that the determinations made by the trial court are correct. Tenn. Code Ann. § 4 0-35-40 1(d). This presumption is "conditioned upon the affirmative showing in the record that the trial court considered the sentencing principles and all rele vant facts a nd circum stance s." State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (T enn. 1991 ). In conducting a de novo review of a sentence, this court must consider: (a) the eviden ce, if an y, rece ived at th e trial an d the s enten cing hearing; (b) the presentence report; (c) the principles of sentencing and arg umen ts as to sentencing alternatives; (d) the nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct involved; (e) any statutory mitigating or enhancement factors; (f) any statement that the defen dant m ade on his own b ehalf; and (g) the potential or lack of potential for rehab ilitation or treatm ent. Ten n. Cod e Ann. §§ 40-35-102, -103, and -21 0; see State v. S mith, 735 S.W .2d 859, 863 (Tenn. Crim . App. 1987 ). -2- If our review reflects that the trial court followed the statutory sentencing procedure, imposed a lawful sentence after having given due consideration and proper weight to the factors and p rincipa ls set out under the sentencing law, and that the trial court's findings of fact are adequately supported by the record, then we may no t modify th e sentence even if we would have preferred a different result. State v. Fletcher, 805 S.W .2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim . App. 1991 ). Voluntary manslaughter is a Class C felony and a Range I sentence is not less than three (3) years nor more than six (6) years. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13211(b) and 40-35-112 (a)(3). The pres umptive sentence for a C lass C felony is the minimum in the range if there are no enhancement or mitigating factors. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(c). Should the trial court find mitigating and enhancement factors, it must start at the minimum sentence in the range and enhance the sentence based upon any applicable enhancement factors, then reduce the sentence based upon any appropriate mitigating factors. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(e). In applying a five year sentence, the trial court in this case used the following two enha ncem ent factors : (1) the victim was trea ted with exceptional cruelty; and (2) Defendant used a deadly weapon to commit the offense. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-11 4(5) and (9). Th e trial court also found the following two misc ellaneous m itigating factors applicab le: (1) no prior felony conviction; and (2) a relatively good work record. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35113(13 ). The weight given to each factor is within the trial court’s discretion provided that the record suppo rts its findings and it complies with the Sentencing Act. See State v. Mars hall, 870 S.W.2d 532, 541 (Tenn. Crim. App. 19 93), perm. -3- to appeal denied (Ten n. 199 3). Th e trial co urt, how ever, s hould mak e spe cific findings on the record which indicate his application of the sentencing principles. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-209 and -210. With regard to the enh ancem ent and mitigating factors, this Court must defer to the findings of the trial judge since no transcript of the trial proceedings is contained in the record. The re is no proof before this Court as to the nature of this crime or how it was committed. We are neither aware o f the spec ific facts that led the trial judge to find that the crime was especially cruel, nor are we aware of what type of weapon this Defendant used in the commission of the crime. This Court must make decisions based on matters within the record and not outside of the reco rd. Wh en a pa rty seeks appellate review the re is a duty to prepare a record which conveys a fair, accurate and complete account of what transpired with respe ct to the issues forming the basis of the appeal. If the record is incomplete, this Court is precluded from considering the issues ra ised. W e must conclusively presume that the determination of the trial court was correct regarding the weight to be afforded both the enhance ment factors and mitigating factors. State v. Locust, 914 S.W.2d 554, 557 (Tenn . Crim. A pp.199 5); see also State v. Matthews, 805 S.W .2d 776 , 784 (T enn. C rim. App . 1990). In reviewing the sentencing considerations of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-103, the trial court found that in this case confinement was necessa ry to avoid deprec iating the seriousn ess of “this particular hom icide.” It is clear that the trial court made its decision based on th e particula r facts surrounding this particular crime. Again, since the record on appeal does not -4- include the trial transcript and is for that reason incomplete, this Court must conclus ively presu me tha t the judgm ent of the tria l court is corre ct. We therefore affirm the ju dgme nt of the trial co urt. ____________________________________ THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge CONCUR: ___________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, Judge ___________________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, Judge -5-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
