ÿWPCl! …# VU>a %Ÿ 0í¥UB’ 4Ô è n­÷ ¤ w@¬ Æì 01² 0Dã Æ' Æí ƳÆy 0J? 0T‰ 0^Ý 0h; 0r£ 0| 0†‘ 0 1u§ A© 0@Å B D+" 0KM 0d˜ D3üU6/U.eB)“DC¼U*ÿ AO)^xfÖv~<vÓº AO 0DÜ D/ ! BO!˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅåÒ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€çKXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiÔ¡¨ 3|xb «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@ P EQ R DS T DU DV DW UX Y Ó€Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(á(3(S$¤¤Ý ƒåÒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€ËöXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)!$#›&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò d'ÈÈÈÈdxd( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó óP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ""""'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd< Œ 9p`(Arial!$0Cþÿ << Gÿÿ TÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€1XÔÌÌMay€7,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\ÑPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò!‚ƒCþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€-ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€..Xd#ÑÑ#€..Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓӜـÙÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€1ÔßR€230A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€APRIL€1995€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,à àà à)à àNo.€œ01C01„9412„CC„00406›Ìà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àMaury€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Jim€T.€Hamilton,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà à)ÌRANDY€ANDERSON,€€€€€€€€à à)à à(Aggravated€Burglary€and€Theft€over€$1,000)Ìà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àòòà àFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌœShara€Ann€Flacy›€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌœDistrict›€Public€Defender€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌœ€€€€€andà àà àà à›€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àandÌœWilliam€C.€Brightà à›€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àCharlotte€H.€Rappuhn€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌœAssistant€Public€Defenderà à›à àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€TennesseeÌœ209€West€Madison€Street›à àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌœP.O.€Box€1208›à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌœPulaski,€TN€38478„1208€€€›Ìœà àà àà à›à àà àT.€Michael€Bottoms€€€€€ÌœJohn€R.€Wingo›à àœà à›à àà àDistrict€Attorney€Generalà àÌœAssistant€Public€Defender›à àà àà àœP.O.€Box€459›Ìœ209€West€Madison€Street›à àà àà àœLawrenceburg,€TN€38464„0459›€€€€€€€€€ÌœP.O.€Box€1208›à àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€œand›ÌœPulaski,€TN€38478„1208›à àà àà àœSamuel€D.€Kennedy,€Jr.›à àÌà àà àà àà àà àœAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà à10€Public€SquareÌà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€1619›Ìà àà àà àà àà àColumbia,€TN€38402„1619à àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:_______________________ÌÌÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌ€€€€€€ÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óà àÌÌà àThe€defendant,€Randy€Anderson,€appeals€from€his€convictions€in€theÏCircuit€Court€of€Maury€County€for€aggravated€burglary,€a€Class€C€felony,€and€theft€ofÏproperty€valued€at€over€one€thousand€dollars,€a€Class€D€felony.€€He€receivedÏsentences€of€five€years€and€two€years,€respectively,€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender€toÏbe€served€concurrently€in€the€custody€of€the€Department€of€Correction.€€In€this€appealÏas€of€right,€the€defendant€contends€that:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 à(1)€the€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€his€pretrial€motion€toÏdismiss€the€unsigned€indictment,€ÌÌà8 à(2)€the€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€his€motion€for€judgmentÏof€acquittal€at€the€close€of€the€stateððs€proof,€ÌÌà8 à(3)€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€hearsay€evidence€thatÏviolated€the€defendantððs€right€to€confrontation€through€MayÏJane€Collier€regarding€whether€her€siblings€had€given€theÏdefendant€permission€to€take€items€from€the€house,€ÌÌà8 à(4)€the€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€the€defendantððsÏobjection€and€motion€for€a€mistrial€based€upon€the€stateððsÏimproper€remarks€during€closing€argument€regarding€theÏdefendantððs€previous€intention€to€plead€guilty€to€the€chargedÏoffenses,€andÌÌà8 à(5)€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€the€defendant€to€fiveÏyears€for€the€aggravated€burglary€conviction€and€in€refusingÏto€grant€him€a€sentence€involving€an€alternative€toÏconfinement.€€€€€€€ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓWe€hold€that€the€defendant€is€entitled€to€a€new€trial€because€of€improper€remarks€thatÏwere€made€during€the€stateððs€closing€argument.ÌÌà àThe€evidence€in€this€case€involves€an€entry€into€Lucille€Collierððs€houseÏand€the€taking€of€several€items€from€the€home€in€May€of€1993.€€Bill€Mabry,€the€father€ofÏLucille€Collierððs€son„in„law,€testified€that€no€one€had€lived€in€the€house€since€Ms.ÏCollier€died€in€1992.€€He€recalled€being€at€the€home€on€May€30,€1993,€with€hisÏgrandson€and€his€son,€Ron.€€He€said€that€they€discovered€that€the€house€had€beenÏburglarized€and€œproperty€had€been›€stolen.€€He€recalled€that€one€of€the€back€doors€hadÏbeen€forced€open€and€that€the€lock€was€broken€from€the€door€frame.€€ÌÌà àRon€Mabry€testified€that€he€noticed€tire€tracks€leading€to€the€back€door€ofÏthe€house€while€he€was€there€on€May€30,€1993.€€He€recalled€that€two€of€the€three€backÏdoors€were€open.€€He€said€that€he€had€been€to€the€house€three€to€four€weeks€earlierÏand€that€he€did€not€notice€the€back€doors€being€open€at€that€time.€€He€reported€theÏburglary€to€the€Maury€County€Sheriffððs€Department,€his€wife,€and€her€sister,€JaneÏCollier.Ì€Ìà àMay€Jane€Collier€testified€that€she€and€her€five€siblings€had€not€yetÏdecided€how€to€divide€their€motherððs€possessions€after€her€death€and€that€they€were€allÏchecking€on€the€property€periodically.€€She€recalled€that€she€had€been€to€the€propertyÏin€€early€April€1993€and€that€everything€was€secure€at€the€time.€€She€said€that€she€wentÏto€the€house€after€receiving€the€telephone€call€from€Ron€Mabry€and€discovered€thatÏseveral€items€of€antique€furniture,€china€and€some€sleeping€bags€were€missing.€€SheÏtestified€that€she€has€collected€antiques€as€a€hobby€for€over€twenty€years,€and€sheÏestimated€that€the€value€of€the€stolen€items€totaled€three€thousand€and€five€hundredÏdollars.€€Specifically,€she€estimated€the€value€of€an€antique€pie€safe€to€be€nineÏhundred€dollars€and€the€value€of€a€cherry€table€to€be€six€hundred€dollars.€€Ms.€CollierÏstated€that€she€began€looking€around€local€antique€shops€for€the€stolen€items€andÏdiscovered€several€pieces€at€the€Sante€Fe€Pike€Antique€Shop.€ÌÌà àBetty€Gibson,€the€owner€of€the€Sante€Fe€Pike€Antique€Shop,€recalled€thatÏshe€bought€items€from€the€defendant€and€his€brother,€Ricky,€in€May€1993.€€She€saidÏthat€she€had€known€the€brothers€since€they€were€young€children€and€that€they€soldÏitems€to€her€for€the€first€time€around€May€5,€1993.€€On€that€occasion€she€paid€themÏbetween€sixty„five€and€eighty„five€dollars€for€a€wood€night€table€and€otherÏmiscellaneous€items.€€About€a€week€later,€the€brothers€returned€to€her€store€and€soldÏher€a€pie€safe€and€various€other€items€for€one€hundred€fifty€dollars.€€She€said€that€sheÏtold€the€boys€that€she€did€not€want€anything€that€had€been€stolen€and€that€they€assuredÏher€that€they€had€been€roofing€houses€and€had€received€the€pie€safe€and€otherÏmerchandise€to€clean€out€a€garage.€€She€also€recalled€that€the€defendantððs€brother,ÏRicky,€sold€her€some€more€items€about€a€week€after€she€purchased€the€pie€safe.€€Ms.ÏGibson€estimated€the€total€value€of€everything€she€bought€from€the€defendant€and€hisÏbrother€at€four€or€five€hundred€dollars€and€testified€that€she€sold€the€table€for€oneÏhundred€twenty„five€dollars€and€the€pie€safe€for€two€hundred€fifty€dollars.Ì€€€€€€€à àà àÌà àInvestigator€George€Holt€of€the€Maury€County€Sheriffððs€DepartmentÏtestified€that€he€took€individual€statements€from€the€defendant€and€Ricky€on€June€2,Ï1993.€€He€said€that€both€the€defendant€and€Ricky€admitted€to€going€to€the€house,Ïtaking€the€items€and€selling€them€to€Betty€Gibson.€€He€stated€that€Ricky€told€him€that€anÏindividual€named€Ray€Erwin€had€given€them€permission€to€take€the€items€from€theÏhouse.€€Investigator€Holt€also€testified€that€a€search€of€Rickyððs€trailer€uncovered€threeÍsleeping€bags€that€were€identified€at€trial€as€missing€from€the€house.€€The€defenseÏrested€without€presenting€any€proof.ÌÌà@ àò òIó óÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€dismiss€theÏindictment€because€it€was€not€signed€by€the€grand€jury€foreperson.€€The€state€arguesÏthat€the€indictment€was€proper.€€Although€the€copy€of€the€indictment€in€the€record€in€thisÏcase€does€not€bear€the€signature€of€the€grand€jury€foreperson,€the€record€reflects€thatÏthe€grand€jury€foreperson€did€sign€the€original€indictment€sometime€after€it€was€handedÏdown€and€before€the€trial€in€this€case.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€was€indicted€and€tried€jointly€with€his€brother,€RickyÏAnderson,€and€his€sister„in„law.€€The€defendant€made€a€pretrial€motion€for€theÏindictment€to€be€dismissed€because€it€was€not€signed€by€the€grand€jury€foreperson.€€AtÏa€€hearing€on€the€motion,€the€defendantððs€counsel€acknowledged€that€the€state€hadÏtried€to€remedy€the€problem€by€having€the€foreperson€sign€the€indictment€but€arguedÏthat€the€signing€of€the€indictment€was€invalid.€€At€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€a€newÏtrial,€the€defendantððs€attorney€renewed€his€motion€that€the€indictment€be€dismissed.€ÏHowever,€he€acknowledged€that€€a€single€indictment€named€all€of€the€defendants€andÏthat€the€original€indictment€had€been€signed€by€the€grand€jury€foreperson.€€The€factÍthat€the€defendantððs€copy€of€the€original€indictment€never€got€signed€does€not€entitleÏhim€to€relief.€ÌÌà@ àò òIIó óÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€his€motionÏfor€judgment€of€acquittal€at€the€close€of€the€stateððs€proof.€€He€argues€that€the€state€failedÏto€prove€that€he€acted€without€the€effective€consent€of€all€six€of€the€Collier€siblings€who,€Ïas€heirs,€were€the€owners€of€the€property€and€the€house€that€was€the€object€of€theÏoffenses.€€The€state€contends€that€there€is€overwhelming€proof€that€the€defendantÏacted€without€the€effective€consent€of€May€Jane€Collier€and€that€there€is€sufficientÏcircumstantial€evidence€that€the€defendant€acted€without€the€effective€consent€of€theÏfive€other€siblings.€€€€€€ÌÌà àœIn›€Tennessee,€whether€the€issue€of€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€forÏacquittal€purposes€is€being€considered€by€the€trial€court€upon€motion€for€a€judgment€ofÏacquittal€or€by€an€appellate€court€upon€review,€the€standard€to€apply€is€the€same.€ÏòòState€v.€Adamsóó,€916€S.W.2d€471,€473€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€That€standard€isÏ"whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€òòanyóóÏrational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt."€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789Ï(1979).€€This€means€that€we€may€not€reweigh€the€evidence,€but€must€presume€that€theÍjury€has€resolved€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€and€drawn€all€reasonable€inferencesÏfrom€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547Ï(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).ÌÌà àMay€Jane€Collier€testified€that€neither€she€nor€her€siblings€gave€anyoneÏpermission€to€enter€her€motherððs€home€and€take€items.€€Mr.€Mabry€testified€that€heÏdiscovered€that€the€house€had€been€burglarized€and€property€stolen€when€he€foundÏthe€lock€on€the€back€door€had€been€broken,€and€Ms.€Gibson€testified€that€theÏdefendant€and€his€brother€told€her€that€they€got€the€items€they€sold€her€from€a€garage,Ïnot€a€house.€€The€jury€could€reasonably€infer€from€the€damage€to€the€lock€and€theÏdefendantððs€lack€of€truthfulness€that€the€defendant€did€not€have€permission€to€enter€orÏtake€property€from€the€home.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€toÏestablish€that€the€defendant€acted€without€the€permission€or€consent€of€the€ownersÏwhen€he€entered€the€home€and€took€the€items.€€€€Ìà àÌà àà@ àò òIIIó óÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€hearsayÏevidence€regarding€whether€the€non„testifying€Collier€siblings€gave€the€defendantÏpermission€to€take€items€from€the€house.€€He€also€contends€that€the€admission€of€Ms.ÏCollierððs€statement€that€none€of€her€other€siblings€had€granted€anyone€permission€toÏenter€the€home€violates€the€Confrontation€Clause€of€both€the€United€States€andÍTennessee€Constitutions.€€He€cites€the€following€exchange€between€the€state€and€Ms.ÏCollier€as€violative€of€the€hearsay€rule€and€his€rights€under€the€Confrontation€Clause:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àSTATE:€To€your€knowledge,€has€anybody€ever€given€„„€hasÏany€of€you€six€children,€the€owners€of€this€property€Ìà àÌà à.€.€.€ÌÑ€4ÑÇà8 àDEFENSE€COUNSEL:€Objection€to€that.€€It€would€be€callingÏfor€hearsay;€the€six€owners,€Your€Honor.ÌÌà8 àCOURT:€Overruled.ÌÌà8 àSTATE:€To€your€knowledge,€have€any€of€the€six€„„ÌÌà8 àDEFENSE€COUNSEL:€I€would€also€make€that€on€theÏground€of€the€confrontation€clause.ÌÌà8 àCOURT:€Well,€overruled.€€Go€ahead.ÌÌà8 àSTATE:€Have€any€of€the€six€given€permission€to€Ray€ErwinÏto€enter€on€this€property?ÌÌà8 àMS.€COLLIER:€No,€sir.ÌÌà8 àSTATE:€Given€him€permission€to€give€anybody€elseÏpermission€to€enter€on€the€property?Ì€Ìà8 àMS.€COLLIER:€€No,€sir.€€We€do€not€know€him,€and€myÏbrothers€and€sisters€have€not€given€anyone€permission€toÏgo€into€our€parentsðð€home€to€take€anything€out€of€it.ÌÓÓÓ  Ó€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àHearsay€is€defined€as€ð ða€statement,€other€than€one€made€by€theÏdeclarant€while€testifying€at€the€trial€or€hearing,€offered€into€evidence€to€prove€the€truthÏof€the€matter€asserted.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€801(c).€€On€the€record€before€us,€we€are€unableÏto€determine€the€extent,€if€any,€to€which€Ms.€Collierððs€testimony€is€based€upon€hearsay.€ÏMs.€Collier€may€have€based€her€testimony€on€her€personal€observations€of€herÏsiblings.€€Although€Ms.€Collier€may€have€lacked€personal€knowledge€about€whetherÏher€siblings€gave€the€defendant€consent€to€enter€their€motherððs€house,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€R.ÍEvid.€602,€she€did€not€testify€to€an€out„of„court€statement.€€Thus,€her€testimony€did€notÏconstitute€hearsay,€and€the€trial€court€properly€overruled€the€defendantððs€objection.€ÌÌà àWe€also€disagree€with€the€defendantððs€contentions€regarding€his€rightsÏunder€the€Confrontation€Clause€of€the€federal€and€state€constitutions.€€òòSeeóó€U.S.€Const.Ïamend.€VI;€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€9.€€The€defendant€argues€that€he€was€deprived€of€hisÏright€to€confront€the€witnesses€against€him€because,€although€he€did€not€have€theÏopportunity€to€question€Ms.€Collierððs€siblings,€Ms.€Collier€was€permitted€to€testify€thatÏher€siblings€did€not€give€anyone€their€consent€to€enter€the€house.ÌÌà àPursuant€to€the€Confrontation€Clause€of€the€United€States€andÏTennessee€Constitutions,€the€defendant€had€the€right€to€face€and€cross„examine€theÏwitnesses€who€testified€against€him.€€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€332Ï(Tenn.€1992).€€In€this€case,€the€defendant€faced€and€cross„examined€Ms.€Collier.€€AsÏpreviously€noted,€Ms.€Collier€did€not€identify€the€basis€for€her€conclusion€that€none€ofÏher€siblings€gave€anyone€permission€to€enter€the€house.€€Because€nothing€in€theÏrecord€before€us€establishes€that€Ms.€Collierððs€siblings€presented€evidence€against€theÏdefendant,€we€conclude€that€admission€of€Ms.€Collierððs€testimony€did€not€violate€theÏdefendantððs€confrontation€rights€under€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions.€€Ìò òÌà àà@ àIVó óÌà àNext,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€state€made€improper€remarks€in€itsÏclosing€argument.€€He€argues€that€the€prosecuting€attorney€suggested€to€the€jury€thatÏthey€should€find€the€defendant€guilty€even€if€they€were€not€convinced€of€theÏdefendantððs€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€He€also€contends€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€overruling€his€objection€and€motion€for€a€mistrial€when€the€prosecutingÏattorney€commented€about€the€defendantððs€initial€intention€to€plead€guilty€in€this€case.€ÏWe€conclude€that€the€trial€court€committed€reversible€error€relative€to€the€prosecutorððsÏremarks€about€the€defendantððs€intention€to€plead€guilty.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€prosecuting€attorney€committedÏreversible€error€when€he€commented:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 à[L]ike€I€said,€there€will€be€details€that€canððt€be€answered.€ÏProof€that€canððt€be€presented.€€But,€now€ladies€andÏgentlemen,€you€know,€if€you€are€talking€to€your€neighbor,Ïlater€on,€and€you€say,€well,€we€know€that€Ricky€and€RandyÏAnderson€did€it,€but€there€were€just€to[o]€many€unansweredÏquestions,€and€the€State€didnððt€present€enough€proof;€if€youÏhave€said€that,€then€your€doubts€are€not€based€on€commonÏsense.€€Your€common€sense€is€telling€you€that€they€did€it.€ÌÓÓÓ  ÓÌAlthough€we€agree€with€the€defendant€that€this€part€of€the€stateððs€closing€argumentÏdescribes€a€lower€standard€of€proof€than€is€required€for€a€criminal€conviction€inÏTennessee,€the€defendant€waived€the€issue€by€failing€to€object€at€trial.€€òòSeeóó€T.R.A.P.Ï36(a).€€In€any€event,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€on€its€duty€to€consider€the€caseÏand€return€a€verdict€based€upon€the€appropriate€standard€of€proof.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€did,€however,€object€when€the€prosecuting€attorney€Ïcommented€on€his€initial€intention€to€plead€guilty€in€this€case.€€The€prosecutingÏattorney€stated:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 à[L]et€me€explain€the€mysteries€in€this€case.€€I€mean,€you€areÏsaying,€why€are€we€having€a€trial?€€These€folks€confessed.Ìà8 àÌà8 àà àLadies€and€gentlemen,€every€body€has€a€right€to€aÏjury€trial.€€These€two€men€confessed€to€George€Holt.€€TheyÏsaid,€I€went€in€there.€€I€took€the€stuff.€€I€sold€it€at€Mrs.ÏGibsonððs.€€Both€of€them.€€And€Iððm€sure€you€are€asking€whyÏare€we€having€a€trial?€€You€have€a€right€to€have€a€trial;€toÏhave€twelve€people€pass€a€verdict€on€your€case.ÌÌà8 àà àObviously,€at€the€very€beginning,€Ricky€and€RandyÏwanted€to€own€up€to€it,€and€wanted€to€pled€[sic]€€guilty,€andÏdidnððt€want€a€trial,€but€they€changed€their€mind.ÓÓÓ  ÓAfter€the€trialÏcourt€overruled€defense€counselððs€objection€to€the€aboveÏargument,€the€prosecuting€attorney€continued,€ð ðNow,€theÏreason€for€that€we€donððt€know.€€Thatððs€another€of€thoseÏunanswered€questions.€€Suspicion€at€the€time€that€thereÏmay€be€a€desire€to€maybe€take€the€route€and€get€[theÏdefendantððs€sister„in„law]€out,€but€we€donððt€know.€€Thatððs€anÏunanswered€questioned.€€They€changed€their€minds€later.ðð€ÏAfter€the€closing€argument,€the€defendant€moved€for€aÏmistrial,€but€the€trial€court€refused.€Ì€€Ìà àThe€state€contends€that€these€remarks€were€proper€because€theÏprosecuting€attorney€was€merely€articulating€a€conclusion€that€most€people€wouldÏdraw€after€a€person€makes€a€confession.€€We€disagree.€€The€proof€at€trial€did€notÏestablish€that€the€defendant€ever€intended€to€plead€guilty€to€the€charges€against€him.€ÏIn€fact,€the€state€would€have€been€prohibited€from€introducing€proof€regarding€pleaÏnegotiations€that€it€had€with€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€410;€Tenn€R.€Crim.€P.Ï11(e)(6).€€€ÌÌà àWe€also€disagree€with€the€stateððs€characterization€of€the€defendantððsÏstatement€as€a€confession.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Leeóó,€631€S.W.2d€453,€455€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1982)€(error€for€prosecutor€to€refer€to€defendantððs€statement€as€a€confession€becauseÏdefendant€did€not€admit€to€all€of€the€elements€of€the€crime).€€The€only€proof€regardingÏthe€defendantððs€statement€was€admitted€through€the€testimony€of€Investigator€Holt.€ÏHolt€testified€that€the€defendant€admitted€going€to€the€house,€taking€the€items€andÏselling€them.€€Nothing€in€the€record€indicates€that€the€defendant€admitted€that€he€actedÏwithout€the€ownersðð€effective€consent€when€he€entered€the€house€and€exercisedÏcontrol€over€the€property€in€it.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðððð€œ39„14„102€and€„402.›Ìà àÌà àThe€prosecuting€attorneyððs€comments€regarding€the€defendantððs€initialÏintention€to€plead€guilty€were€undoubtedly€improper.€€However,€the€ultimate€issue€isÏnot€whether€the€prosecuting€attorneyððs€remarks€were€improper,€but€whether€theÍimproper€remarks€could€have€affected€the€verdict.€€òòSeeóó€òòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2dÏ340,€344„45€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).€€In€òòJudgeóó,€this€court€identified€the€following€fiveÏfactors€to€be€considered€in€assessing€the€prejudicial€effect€of€improper€argument€orÏconduct:ÌÓÓÓ  ÓÓ ` °<•X Óà8 à1.€The€conduct€complained€of€viewed€in€context€and€in€lightÏof€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case.ÌÌà8 à2.€The€curative€measures€undertaken€by€the€court€and€theÏprosecution.ÌÌà8 à3.€The€intent€of€the€prosecutor€in€making€the€improperÏstatement.ÌÌà8 à4.€The€cumulative€effect€of€the€improper€conduct€and€anyÏother€errors€in€the€record.ÌÌÓÓà8 à5.€The€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€case.ÌòòÓ  ÓIdóó.€at€344.€€The€prosecuting€attorney€told€the€jury€that€the€defendant€intended€to€pleadÏguilty€in€this€case€but€later€changed€his€mind.€€The€trial€court€did€not€take€any€curativeÏmeasures,€but,€instead,€sanctioned€the€improper€remarks€by€overruling€theÏdefendantððs€objection€and€allowing€the€prosecuting€attorney€to€encourage€the€jury€toÏspeculate€about€the€reason€the€defendant€changed€his€mind€about€pleading€guilty.€€ÌÌà àThe€contested€aspect€of€this€case€was€the€defendantððs€mental€state,€the€Ïremoval€of€property€from€the€house€being€admitted.€€He€claimed€innocent€purpose,Ïwhile€the€state€did€not€have€overwhelming€evidence€of€his€having€a€criminal€intent.€ÍUnder€these€circumstances,€the€prosecutorððs€comment€was€damaging€and€prejudicial.€ÏThus,€the€defendantððs€convictions€must€be€reversed.ÌÌà@ àò òVó óÌà àWith€respect€to€his€sentencing,€the€defendant€contends€that€his€sentenceÏof€five€years€for€aggravated€burglary€is€excessive€and€that€the€trial€court€should€haveÏimposed€some€alternative€to€incarceration.€€The€state€responds€that€the€trial€courtÏcorrectly€enhanced€the€defendantððs€sentence€based€upon€his€criminal€history€and€thatÏthe€trial€court€was€justified€in€denying€an€alternative€sentence€based€upon€theÏdefendantððs€history€of€criminal€convictions€and€his€admission€to€the€daily€use€ofÏmarijuana€up€until€the€time€of€his€convictions€in€this€case.€à àÌÌà àAs€a€Range€I,€standard€offender,€the€defendant€faced€a€sentence€of€threeÏto€six€years€for€the€aggravated€burglary€conviction.€€The€trial€court€enhanced€theÏdefendantððs€sentence€to€five€years€based€upon€the€defendantððs€history€of€criminalÏbehavior.€€òòSeeóó€œT.C.A.›€ðð€40„35„114(1).€€The€presentence€report€reflects€multipleÏconvictions€for€driving€while€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant,€simple€possession€ofÏmarijuana,€driving€on€a€revoked€license€as€well€as€convictions€for€reckless€driving,Ïpublic€intoxication,€misdemeanor€theft,€violation€of€a€protective€order€and€theÏintentional€killing€of€animals.€€The€defendant€acknowledged€many€of€these€convictionsÍat€the€sentencing€hearing.€€The€convictions€date€back€to€1983,€when€the€defendantÏwas€eighteen€years€old,€and€continue€with€the€bulk€of€convictions€occurring€in€1991.€ÌÌà àThe€record€also€supports€enhancement€of€the€defendantððs€sentenceÏbased€on€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(8),€regarding€the€defendantððs€unwillingness€to€complyÏwith€conditions€of€release.€€The€presentence€report€reflects€that€the€defendantÏcommitted€the€present€offenses€and€his€third€D.U.I.€offense€while€he€was€on€probationÏfor€killing€his€animals.€€The€presentence€report€also€indicates€that€the€defendant€wasÏon€probation€in€1991€when€he€committed€various€offenses.€ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€mitigation,€the€defendant€asserts€that€his€conduct€neitherÏcaused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injury.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€œ40„35„210(1).›€€The€record€isÏunclear€as€to€whether€the€trial€court€considered€this€fact€in€mitigation.€€However,€evenÏconsidering€that€the€defendantððs€actions€neither€caused€nor€threatened€serious€bodilyÏinjury,€a€five„year€sentence€for€aggravated€burglary€remains€justified€in€light€of€theÏdefendantððs€history€of€criminal€behavior€and€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€withÏconditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€into€the€community.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€œ40„35Ì„114(1)›€and€(8).€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€also€claims€that€he€should€have€been€granted€anÏalternative€sentence.€€As€a€Range€I,€standard€offender€convicted€of€Class€C€and€ClassÍD€felonies,€the€defendant€was€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternativeÏsentencing€options.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„102(6).€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€theÏdefendant€presented€evidence€that€he€was€approved€for€entry€into€the€CommunityÏCorrections€Program€and€that€he€would€maintain€full„time€employment€if€he€receivedÏan€alternative€sentence.€€However,€the€defendantððs€prior€record€and€his€past€lack€ofÏamenability€to€less€restrictive€sentencing€sufficiently€rebutted€the€presumption€ofÏsuitability€for€alternative€sentencing.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(A)€and€(C).€€TheÏrecord€supports€the€sentence€the€trial€court€imposed.ÌÌà àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing,€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€theÏdefendantððs€convictions€for€theft€and€aggravated€burglary€are€reversed€and€the€case€isÏremanded€to€the€Circuit€Court€of€Maury€County.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìóóà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóPaul€G.€Summers,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ€€€