ÿWPC0 …# VUNa %¯ 0Gµ RüUDN 4’ ¦ µ wµ 0JË 0T 0^i 0hÇ 0r/ 0|¡ 0† 0£ 1u3 U,¨ 0dÔ U,8U>dB)¢DCË AMU*[ B…%¢v~ÇvÓE D3 0@K AO‹ÆÚ 0D  D/ä B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0†(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(Ý¢$¡¡Ô€X& XXXÔHv8ëu $Z,Century-WP Regular‡€G 3|x¯¢Ó€®¯2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial d Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌò òFebruary€13,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€$ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€6:XXd슊d7ÑÙ€€ÙßL€#&";+'h|7è` Å `€€LßÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE€Ìà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌ_____________________________________________________________________________ÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEà àà àCoffee€Circuit€No.€26,023FÌà àà àà àà àà àà àC.C.A.€No.€01„C01„9504„CC„00115Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà àà àÌà àà àÌvs.à àà àà àà àà àà àHon.€Gerald€L.€Ewell,€Sr.€JudgeÌÌRICHARD€LEE€ANTHONY,à àà à(Aggravated€Robbery€&€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€Aggravated€Burglary)Ìà àAppellantÌÌROBERT€S.€PETERS,€Swafford,€Peters€&€Priest,€WinchesterÌAttorney€for€Appellant€ÌÌCHARLES€W.€BURSON,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€Nashville.ÌWILLIAM€DAVID€BRIDGERS,€Assistant€Attorney€GeneralÌÒ  ÒÒ î ÒAttorneys€for€AppelleeÌÌò òòòAFFIRMEDóóó óÌÌOpinion€Filed:€€Ì____________________________________________________________________________Ìò òÌTOMLIN,€Sr.J.ó óÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àRichard€Lee€Anthony€(ð ðdefendantðð)€appeals€his€conviction€in€theÏCircuit€Court€of€Coffee€County€for€aggravated€robbery€and€aggravatedÏburglary.€€The€trial€court€imposed€sentences€of€20€years€and€10€years,Ïrespectively,€to€be€served€consecutively.€€Defendant€has€presented€threeÍissues€for€our€consideration:€(1)€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€toÏsupport€the€verdict;€(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€admittingÏcertain€evidence€under€the€excited€utterance€exception€to€the€hearsayÏrule;€and€(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€imposing€consecutiveÏsentences€for€the€two€offenses.€€€We€find€no€error€and€affirm.ÌÌà àThe€proof€in€this€case€is€as€follows:€€For€a€few€weeks€prior€toÏMarch€18,€1993,€defendant€and€his€friend€Jesse€Charles€ð ðChuckieðð€CrouchÏhad€discussed€the€probability€of€robbing€someone€or€some€business.€€OneÏday€Chuckie€was€in€the€store/pool€hall€of€Gene€Hennessee,€who€made€theÏunfortunate€mistake€of€showing€Chuckie€a€wad€of€bills€that€he€kept€onÏhis€person.€€Chuckie€advised€defendant€that€Hennessee€was€a€likelyÏtarget€for€their€plans.€€On€March€18,€1993€defendant€and€Chuckie€waitedÏin€Chuckieððs€vehicle€outside€the€Hennessee€home€in€the€early€hours€of€theÏmorning.€€Chuckie€was€aware€of€the€fact€that€Mrs.€HennesseeððsÏemployment€required€her€to€leave€home€every€morning€at€approximatelyÏ3:15€a.m.€€When€they€observed€her€leaving,€defendant€exited€ChuckieððsÏvehicle€and€proceeded€to€enter€the€Hennesseððs€house.€€Defendant€wore€aÏblue€toboggan,€cut€in€the€front,€covering€his€face€and€he€was€armed€withÏa€baseball€bat.€€Upon€entering€the€premises,€defendant€found€Hennessee€inÍthe€bedroom.€€When€Hennessee€attempted€to€get€up,€defendant€threatenedÏhim€with€the€bat.€€Defendant€removed€Hennesseeððs€wallet€from€his€pantsÏwhich€were€lying€at€the€foot€of€the€bed€and€took€approximately€$10,000Ïfrom€his€wallet.€€When€he€left€defendant€again€warned€Hennessee€not€toÏget€up,€threatening€him€again€with€the€bat.ÌÌà àShortly€after€defendant€left€the€house,€Hennessee€drove€to€theÏhome€of€his€son,€Billy€who€lived€approximately€€three„fourths€of€a€mileÏaway.€€Hennessee,€who€had€a€heart€condition,€was€excited€and€nervousÏand€there€described€to€his€son€the€robbery€and€what€took€place.€€BillyÏHennessee€testified€that€his€father€was€still€visibly€nervous€and€shakingÏconsiderably€as€a€result€of€the€incident.€€Hennessee€called€Deputy€SheriffÏRobert€Argraves€of€the€Coffee€County€Sheriffððs€Department€to€report€theÏincident.€€His€father€then€described€the€incident€in€detail€to€him.€€GeneÏHennessee€stated€that€when€the€robber€came€into€the€bedroom,€he€raisedÏup€slightly,€whereupon€the€man€told€him€to€lay€back€down€or€he€wouldÏhurt€him,€so€he€laid€back€down.€€After€taking€his€billfold€and€the€money,Ïthe€robber€told€Gene€Hennessee€ð ðold€man€donððt€get€up€too€fast,€I€mightÏhurt€you,ðð€and€then€he€left.ÌÌà àShortly€after€the€investigation€was€underway,€officers€hadÏoccasion€to€stop€the€vehicle€of€Chuckie€Crouch,€who€permitted€them€toÏsearch€it.€€Under€the€front€seat,€they€found€cash€in€excess€of€$4,000.00.€ÏAfter€giving€Chuckie€his€Miranda€rights,€he€was€interrogated€and€readilyÏconfessed€to€his€role€in€the€robbery,€at€the€same€time€implicatingÏdefendant.€€When€defendant€was€apprehended€at€his€home€he€was€found€toÏbe€in€possession€of€cash€in€excess€of€$4,000.00€as€well,€as€didÏdefendantððs€wife,€who€was€in€no€way€involved€in€the€robbery,€but€who€hadÏbeen€given€$500.00€by€her€husband.€€ÌÌà àIn€a€jury€trial,€defendant€was€convicted€of€one€count€of€aggravatedÏburglary€and€one€count€of€aggravated€robbery.€€The€trial€court€foundÏdefendant€to€be€a€Range€II€offender€and€sentenced€him€to€20€years€forÏaggravated€robbery€and€10€years€for€aggravated€burglary.€€€The€trialÏjudge€in€addition€ordered€that€the€sentences€be€served€consecutivelyÏafter€finding€that€defendant€was€an€offender€with€extensive€criminalÏactivity€and€that€his€behavior€indicated€little€or€no€regard€for€human€lifeÏand€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€humanÏlife€was€high.ÌÌ€à@ àI.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEÌÌà àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€in€a€case€such€asÏthis,€our€standard€of€review€on€appeal€is€whether€after€viewing€theÏevidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€any€rational€trier€ofÏfact€could€find€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319„20€(1979);€òòState€v.ÏSheltonóó,€851€S.W.2d€134,€138€(Tenn.€1993);€T.R.A.P.€13(e).€€A€convictionÏby€a€jury€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€raises€a€presumptionÏof€guilt€on€appeal.€€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).€ÏThe€defendant€has€the€burden€of€overcoming€this€presumption€on€appeal..€ÏòòState€v.€Brownóó,€551€S.W.2d€329,€330€(Tenn.€1977).€€It€is€not€the€functionÏof€this€court€to€reweigh€the€evidence€presented€at€a€criminal€trial.€€AÏjury€verdict€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€testimony€of€theÏstateððs€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€testimony€in€favor€of€theÏtheory€of€the€state.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983),Ïòòcert.€deniedóó,€465€U.S.€1073€(1984).ÌÌà à€€A€person€commits€aggravated€burglary€by€entering€the€habitationÏof€another€without€the€consent€of€the€owner€with€an€intent€to€commit€aÍfelony€or€theft.€€T.C.A.€ðððð€39„14„402€&€„403€(1991).€€After€viewing€theÏevidence€as€to€this€offense€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€we€areÏof€the€opinion€that€any€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€defendant€guilty€ofÏaggravated€burglary€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ÌÌà àA€person€comitts€robbery€by€ð ðthe€intentional€or€knowing€theft€ofÏproperty€from€the€person€of€another€by€violence€or€by€putting€the€personÏin€fear.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„402€(1991).€€Aggravated€robbery€is€robberyÏð ðaccomplished€with€a€deadly€weapon€or€by€display€of€any€article€used€orÏfashioned€to€lead€the€victim€to€reasonably€believe€it€to€be€a€deadlyÏweapon.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„402€(1991)€€The€record€reflects€that€defendantÏutilized€a€baseball€bat€to€threaten€and€create€fear€in€Gene€Hennessee.€ÏDefendantððs€contention€that€he€cannot€be€convicted€of€robbery€becauseÏHennessee€was€not€in€ð ðactual€possession€of€the€walletðð€is€without€merit.€ÏThe€requirement€of€ð ðtheft€from€the€person€of€anotherðð€is€satisfied€by€theÏshowing€that€the€property€was€taken€in€the€victimððs€presence.€€€òòSee,€e.g.,ÏState€v.€Howardóó,€693€S.W.2d€365,€368€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€We€alsoÏhold€that€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€aggravated€robbery€committed€by€defendant€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.ÌÌÓ  ÓII.€€THE€ð ðEXCITED€UTTERANCEðð€EXCEPTIONÌÓ  ÓÓ ` pˆX? ’X ÓÌà àThe€trial€court€permitted€Billy€Hennessee€to€testify€as€to€theÏstatements€made€to€him€by€his€father€immediately€after€the€robbery,€andÏto€permit€the€jury€to€consider€this€testimony€for€the€truth€of€the€matterÏasserted.€€The€decision€to€admit€or€exclude€evidence€is€left€to€theÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€court€and€that€decision€will€not€be€disturbedÏunless€that€discretion€has€been€arbitrarily€exercised.€€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€872ÏS.W.2d€950,€955€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Tennessee€Rule€of€EvidenceÏ803(2)€creates€an€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule€for€an€ð ðexcitedÏutterance,ðð€which€is€therein€defined€as€a€ð ðstatement€relating€to€aÏstartling€event€or€condition€made€while€the€declarant€was€under€theÏstress€of€excitement€caused€by€the€event€or€condition.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï803(2).€€In€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€857€S.W.2d€1€(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€114€S.€Ct.Ï561€(1993),€our€supreme€court€stated€the€test€for€determining€when€aÏstatement€is€admissible€as€an€excited€utterance:ÌÓ ` °œXÓÓÓà8 à[t]he€ultimate€test€is€spontaneity€and€logical€relation€to€theÏmain€event€and€where€an€act€or€declaration€springs€out€of€theÏtransaction€while€the€parties€are€still€laboring€under€theÏexcitement€and€strain€of€the€circumstances€and€at€a€time€soÏnear€as€to€preclude€the€idea€of€deliberation€and€fabrication.ÌÌÓ ` pƒX<h—X ÓÓÓòòId.óó€at€9;€òòsee€alsoóó€Neil€P.€Cohen€et€al.,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ððÏ803(2).2,€at€412„13€(2d€ed.€1990).ÌÌà àDefendant€contends€that€there€was€a€sufficient€amount€of€timeÏbetween€the€robbery€itself€and€Hennesseeððs€arrival€at€his€sonððs€house€toÏrender€Gene€Hennessee€statements€inadmissible€and€thus€falling€outsideÏof€the€excited€utterance€exception.€€We€disagree.€€In€òòState€v.€Winfreyóó,€No.Ï0„2„C01„9210„CC„00235,€1994€WL€53642€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Feb.€23,Ï1994)€this€court€held€that€statements€made€by€a€rape€victim€one€to€twoÏhours€after€she€had€been€attacked€were€admissible€because€at€the€timeÏthe€statements€were€made€she€was€still€upset€and€nervous€as€a€result€ofÏthe€attack.€€òòId.óó€at€*2.€€The€record€in€the€case€before€us€shows€that€GeneÏHennessee€immediately€drove€to€his€sonððs€house€some€three„quarters€ofÏa€mile€away€after€the€robbery.€€€The€record€reflects€that€robberyÏoccurred€at€around€3:15€a.m.€and€that€Billy€Hennessee€called€DeputyÏSheriff€Argraves€at€around€3:50€a.m.€€Billy€Hennessee€testified€that€hisÏfather€was€still€visibly€nervous€and€shaking€at€the€time€he€arrived€at€hisÏhome.€€We€find€this€issue€to€be€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓIII.€€CONSECUTIVE€SENTENCINGÓ  ÓÌà àT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„115€(1990)€provides€in€relevant€part€that€the€trialÏcourt€may€order€sentences€for€multiple€convictions€served€consecutivelyÏto€one€another€if€the€court€finds€by€preponderance€of€the€evidence€one€ofÏthe€seven€enumerated€factors€justifying€consecutive€sentencing.€€In€theÏcase€involved,€the€trial€court€found€that€consecutive€sentences€wereÏappropriate€because€defendantððs€record€of€criminal€activity€wasÏextensive€and€that€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€whose€behaviorÏindicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life€and€no€hesitation€aboutÏcommitting€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€is€high.ÌÌà àDefendant€contends€that€the€record€does€not€support€the€trial€courtÏfindings€that€he€is€a€dangerous€offender€as€defined€by€the€statute€justÏcited.€€€ÌIn€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,€599„600€(Tenn.€1994),€our€supremeÏcourt€outlined€the€procedure€for€reviewing€sentencing€on€appeal:ÌÓÓà8 àTo€facilitate€meaningful€appellate€review,€the€Act€providesÏthat€the€trial€court€must€place€on€the€record€its€reasons€forÏarriving€at€the€final€sentencing€decision,€identify€theÏmitigating€and€enhancement€factors€found,€state€the€specificÏfacts€supporting€each€enhancement€factor€found,€andÏarticulate€how€the€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors€haveÏbeen€evaluated€and€balanced€in€determining€the€sentence.€ÍT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210(f)€(1990).€.€.€.€€Where€the€trial€court€hasÏcomplied€with€these€provisions€of€the€statute,€the€sentenceÏis€reviewed€de€novo€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1990).ÌÌÓÓÌà àDefendantððs€contention€is€completely€contrary€to€the€record.€€TheÏPre„Sentence€Report€prepared€by€the€Tennessee€Department€ofÏCorrection€reveals€that€defendant€had€nine€prior€criminal€convictionsÏdating€back€to€1988,€including€one€conviction€for€concealing€stolenÏproperty€with€a€value€in€excess€of€$200,€one€conviction€for€aggravatedÏburglary,€one€conviction€for€conspiracy€to€commit€aggravated€robbery,Ïtwo€convictions€for€assault,€two€convictions€for€public€intoxication,€andÏone€conviction€for€the€possession€of€marijuana.€€€This€record€isÏsufficient€to€support€a€finding€that€the€defendantððs€criminal€activity€hasÏbeen€extensive.€€òòSee€also€State€v.€Chrismanóó,€885€S.W.2d€834,€839€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1994).€€Because€only€one€of€the€enumerated€factors€in€T.C.A.€ððÏ40„35„115(b)€must€be€found€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€in€orderÏto€impose€consecutive€sentencing,€we€need€not€address€the€matter€of€theÏtrial€court€finding€€defendant€to€be€a€dangerous€offender€under€T.C.A.€ððÏ40„35„115(b)(4).€€òòSee€also€Manning€v.€Stateóó,€883€S.W.2d€635,€641€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1994).ÌÌà àDefendant€also€contends€that€because€his€conviction€arose€out€ofÏthe€same€criminal€event,€consecutive€sentencing€was€inappropriate,Ïrelying€upon€òòState€v.€Anthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€299€(Tenn.€1991).€€DefendantððsÏreliance€upon€òòAnthonyóó€€is€misplaced.€€The€opinion€in€òòAnthonyóó€€makes€noÏmention€of€consecutive€sentencing.€€Furthermore,€to€the€extent€thatÏdefendant€contends€that€his€conviction€for€aggravated€burglary€cannot€beÏsustained€because€that€act€was€merely€incidental€to€the€commission€ofÏaggravated€robbery,€this€issue€is€without€merit€as€well.€€€òòState€v.ÏStephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530€(Tenn.€1994)€ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ Î Òà àIn€order€to€convict€defendant€of€aggravated€burglary,€the€stateÏmust€prove€that€defendant€€(1)€entered€Hennesseeððs€house,€(2)€withoutÏhis€consent,€€(3)€with€the€intent€to€commit€a€felony€or€theft.€€T.C.A.€ððððÏ39„13„401€&€„402€(1991).€€However,€to€convict€defendant€ofÏaggravated€robbery,€the€state€must€prove€that€defendant€(1)Ïintentionally€or€knowingly€stole€the€property€of€Hennesse,€(2)€byÏviolence€or€putting€him€in€fear,€and€(3)€accomplished€same€with€aÏdeadly€weapon.€€T.C.A.€ðððð€39„13„401€&€„402€(1991).€€The€elements€ofÏthe€two€offenses€involved€in€this€case€before€us€are€not€such€thatÍproving€one€offense€necessarily€proves€the€elements€for€the€other,€norÏis€neither€offense€a€lesser€included€offense€of€the€other.€€òòSee€HowardÏv.€Stateóó,€578€S.W.2d€83,€85€(Tenn.€1979).€€We€find€this€issue€to€beÏwithout€merit.ÌÌà àFor€the€above€state€reasons,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€isÏaffirmed€in€all€respects.ÌÔ% € ÔÌÓÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________________à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àTOMLIN,€Sr.€JÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWADE,€J.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€(CONCURS)ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWELLES,€J.à à€€€€€(CONCURS)à àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌ