ÿWPC« ÷ªz7Ö÷£ñn’Åà°{Ö ¢íâL­V›Ë§´Åf<ó‡/ǃdîÓÇŒNòÖÅÎr’Jå~1)õa¢.0c_üÊa ¨Ûò_uU–ƒR+½Z|'Í­h%¿î—¬ŽLREÅkæ5DyyÎ?¥&û~|ª3@ÑúÓûE® WDËöÚ n}á%|FyعOÕÿσ“‚rô¢<$ñaFTãºÏréØVpÌ•V1Ñ®Xíh⦡5Ÿcr¶™ÈmQk_WÚÔ&uÏ«“c(XØØÁÃñÿì©û ÄÎ~0Ù _n“,›–«Â<£¡Ç/$ðÄÚäv;¼Ñ^ +¤XuO›Edš‘•³|è]sãëã=œgŸq òoùšÁ¬·ŸÍѤcaëä·ã'H›\ØÓA¤‰Zôè“Õ­ÊÊî2ù^E{Ñv1—¨ïZ².󢿘Âtÿœ’ƒ>ëHc9/ÏŒwtŸ‡ù¨Âc˜tM:Ϫ@FeŠîÈ¿3MC¢"þéC“Ô Þj.¬ª›ûÝ•™I?S‘Ú¼§›ýžµ —»7µ¾õ'1,Ú®¸O1N}öNÕºS& ?\žä:”ÂÝŒ¯J|‰OÖ͘¸¥“]ü­•b %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ ‘ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë U@±Nñ"óÉEÞ 0Dà!$hE¤­­­QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQb¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢ 0몪ªª B•• 0¤² D3V D-‰ 0K¶¶ ASÆT 0¤ 0D¾ A©»:}ì( (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÖJ~'ì]  3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0 Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(uHš Z‹(Times New Roman  Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ ¿Ý ƒR"H$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€XkX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€That€skill€was€the€defendantððs€trade€as€a€home€contractor.€€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒR"H$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€XkX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€The€defendant€admitted€at€the€sentencing€hearing€that€he€was€found€with€a€bottle€of€pillsÐ ° Ðfrom€the€Alabama€residence€in€his€possession€but€then€exercised€his€privilege€against€self„Ð –æ Ðincrimination.€€Our€accord€with€the€trial€courtððs€finding€lack€of€truthfulness€and€responsibility€doesÐ |Ì Ðnot€encompass€the€defendantððs€reticence€on€that€issue.€€ ^Ý ƒR"H$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€XkX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€A€trial€court€may€impose€probation€equaling€the€statutory€minimum€for€the€class€of€theÐ ° Ðoffense.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(c),€Sentencing€Commððn€Comments;€òòState€v.€KristinaÐ –æ ÐSchindleróó,€No.€03C01„9610„CR„00376€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€Sept.€9,€1997,€at€Knoxville),€òòÔ_ÔaffððdÔ_ÔÐ |Ì Ðand€modified€on€other€groundsóó,€òòState€v.€Schindleróó,€986€S.W.2d€209€(Tenn.€1999). šÝ ƒR"H$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€XkX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Although€the€pre„trial€hearing€addressed€admission€of€the€evidence€for€impeachmentÐ ° Ðpurposes,€the€testimony€under€these€circumstances€constituted€substantive€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòLaird€v.Ð –æ ÐStateóó,€565€S.W.2d€38,€40€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978). GÝ ƒR"H$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€XkX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô‡XkXXXkÔThis€factor€may€also€be€applied€when€a€defendant€violates€a€trust.Ô#†XkXXXk€#Ô€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð ° Ððð€40„35„114(15).- ù-(|G2"H$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€XkX»»Ô d(|3Îl$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Îl$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z›&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼»»»ÔÑ8€kXXdæ»»d8ÑÑ€*ÑÓ  ÓIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐÓóÓà@§§$ìàAT€NASHVILLEˆÐ ¾ ÐÔ‡XkX»¼ÔÓ  ÓÌò òÔ#†¼»XXk…#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€RONALD€WAYNE€Ô_ÔASHBYÔ_ÔÔ‡XkX»¼Ôó óÐ ² ÐÌà@@¼¼ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Lincoln€CountyÐ ¦ ö Ðà@@ôôìàNo.€S9800101€€€€€William€Charles€Lee,€Trial€JudgeÐ Œ Ü ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<= ` AßÐ > Ž  ÐÌà@@QQìàNo.€M1999„01247„CCA„R3„CD€„€Ô_ÔDecidedÔ_Ô€July€12,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ 3ƒ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<þ` AßÐ ÿO  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant€appeals€his€aggravated€burglary€conviction.€€He€asserts€that€insufficient€evidenceÐ ôD  Ðsupported€the€jury€verdict,€that€the€trial€court€improperly€admitted€evidence€of€another€crime,€andÐ Ú*  Ðthat€his€sentence€is€excessive.€€We€conclude€that€sufficient€evidence€supported€the€verdict€and€thatÐ À Ðthe€ð ðother€crimeðð€evidence€was€properly€admitted.€€We€affirm€the€sentence.Ð ¦ö ÐÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óÐ r ÐÌòòWilliams,€J.Ô#†¼»àXk#ÔÔ‡XkX.¼Ôóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,óó€and€òòSmith,€J.óó,€joined.Ð >Ž ÐÌLarry€Wallace,€Assistant€Public€Defender,€Fayetteville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Ronald€WayneÐ  Z ÐÔ_ÔAshbyÔ_Ô,€at€trial.€€Robert€Massey,€Ô_ÔPulaskiÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Ronald€Wayne€Ô_ÔAshbyÔ_Ô,€atÐ ð@ Ðsentencing€and€motion€for€new€trial.Ð Ö& ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter,€Jennifer€L.€Ô_ÔBledsoeÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General,Ð ¢ò ÐWilliam€Michael€Ô_ÔMcCownÔ_Ô,€District€Attorney€General,€Ann€L.€Filer,€Assistant€District€Attorney,€forÐ ˆØ Ðthe€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð n¾ Ѐ€€€€€€€à@ìì*ìàˆÐ T¤ Ðò òÓ  ÓOPINIONó óÔ#†¼»XXkÎ#ÔÔ‡XkX»¼ÔÐ : Š  ÐÔ#†¼»XXkÒ #ÔÓ™ ÓÔ‡XkX»¼ÔÌà@ËË$ìàò òIntroductionó óˆÐ "V" ÐÌà  àThe€defendant,€Ronald€Wayne€Ô_ÔAshbyÔ_Ô,€was€tried€by€jury€in€the€Lincoln€County€Circuit€CourtÐ Ò#"$ Ðand€convicted€as€charged€of€aggravated€burglary.€€At€trial,€the€trial€court€admitted€evidence€regardingÐ ¸$ % Ða€crime€allegedly€committed€by€the€defendant€while€on€bond€for€the€instant€offense.€€After€the€juryÐ ž%î & Ðverdict,€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender€to€four€years€and€threeÐ „&Ô!' Ðmonths.€€That€court€imposed€split€confinement,€with€nine€months€to€be€served€in€the€Lincoln€CountyÐ j'º"( ÐJail,€followed€by€five€years€of€probation.Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€From€this€conviction€and€sentencing,€the€defendant€nowÐ P( #)ý ÐÑ*Ñâ âÑÑÑ  Ñâ âÑ  ÑÔ_Ôappeals.Ð ° Ðà  àÌÓ  Óà @ àà @` àà @¸ àà @ àà @h àò òFactsó óÔ#†¼»XXk9 #ÔÔ‡XkX»¼ÔÐ |Ì ÐÌÓÓà  àFrom€the€jury€verdict€of€guilty,€we€review€the€facts€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€state.€€OnÐ H˜ Ðor€about€June€22,€1998,€at€approximately€10:30€a.m.,€Reverend€Don€Russell,€the€victim,€was€in€ParkÐ . ~ ÐCity€Baptist€Church€and€saw€a€truck€in€the€driveway€of€his€residence€across€the€street.€€Investigating,Ð  d Ðthe€victim€entered€his€home€and€intercepted€the€defendant€leaving€the€area€of€the€masterÐ ú J Ðbedroom/bathroom.€€The€defendant€asked€the€victim€if€he€was€a€ð ðMr.€Gulley,ðð€with€whom€theÐ à 0 Ðdefendant€claimed€an€agreement€to€repair€bathroom€sheet€rock€in€the€Gulley€residence.€€AccordingÐ Æ   Ðto€the€defendant,€Gulley€was€to€leave€his€residence€unlocked€for€entry.€€The€victim€informed€theÐ ¬ ü  Ðdefendant€he€was€in€the€wrong€house€and€that€Mr.€Gulley€lived€approximately€two„tenths€of€a€mileÐ ’â  Ðdown€the€road.€€Satisfied€with€this€explanation,€the€victim€returned€to€the€church.€€However,€aÐ xÈ  Ðsubsequent€investigation€resulted€in€the€arrest€of€the€defendant€charging€him€with€aggravatedÐ ^®  Ðburglary.€€The€investigation€revealed,€as€well€as€the€evidence€at€trial,€that€no€such€agreement€orÐ D”  Ðarrangement€existed€between€Gulley€and€the€defendant.€Ð *z  Ðà  àÌà  àBy€the€trial€date,€the€defendant€had€been€indicted€for€a€burglary€in€Alabama,€allegedlyÐ öF Ðcommitted€under€similar€circumstances€while€on€bond€from€the€instant€case.€€The€trial€courtÐ Ü, Ðconducted€a€pre„trial€hearing€and€held€that€evidence€of€this€crime€would€be€admissible€for€crossÐ Â Ðexamination€purposes€regarding€identity€and€absence€of€mistake.€€At€trial,€the€trial€court€admittedÐ ¨ø Ðthe€evidence€after€concluding€that€the€defendant€had€ð ðopened€the€door,ðð€during€cross€examinationÐ ŽÞ Ðof€the€victim€and€of€an€investigating€officer,€by€implying€that€the€defendant€entered€the€victimððsÐ tÄ Ðresidence€for€legitimate€purposes€and€without€intent€to€commit€theft.€€Ð Zª ÐÌà  àAfter€the€jury€verdict€of€guilty,€the€trial€court€conducted€a€sentencing€hearing€that€includedÐ &v Ðtestimony€from€the€victim,€the€defendant,€and€the€defendantððs€wife.€The€defendant€was€sentencedÐ  \ Ðto€four€years€and€three€months€split€confinement:€seven€months€incarceration€followed€by€five€yearsÐ òB Ðof€probation.€òòÐ Ø( Ðóóò òÓ  ÓÌSufficiency€of€Evidenceó óÔ#†¼»XXk#ÔÔ€XkX»¼ÔÐ ¤ô ÐÓ  ÓÌÓ  Óà  àThe€defendant€was€convicted€of€aggravated€burglary:€Entry€of€a€residence€with€neitherÐ p!À  Ðexpress€nor€constructive€permission€with€the€intent€to€commit,€in€this€case,€a€theft.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ V"¦! ÐAnn.€ðððð€39„14„401,€„402,€„403.€€As€noted,€the€defendant€has€asserted€that€evidence€regarding€hisÐ <#Œ" Ðcommitting€€a€similar€crime€was€improperly€admitted€at€trial.€€Although€the€defendantððs€argumentÐ "$r# Ðis€without€merit,€the€remaining€evidence€nevertheless€sufficiently€supports€conviction.€ò òó óÔ‡XkXXXkÔWe€addressÐ %X $ Ðsufficiency€of€evidence€questions€under€our€well„established€standard€of€review.€€Ð î%>!% ÐÌà  àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€Court€must€review€theÐ º' #' Ðrecord€to€determine€if€the€evidence€adduced€during€the€trial€was€sufficient€ð ðto€support€the€findingsÐ  (ð#( Ðby€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€This€CourtÐ †)Ö$) Ðneither€reweighs€nor€reevaluates€the€evidence,€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ð l*¼%* Ð1978),€nor€substitutes€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence,Ð R+¢&+ Ðòòseeóó€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859€(Tenn.€1956).€€To€the€contrary,€this€Court€is€required€toÐ 8,ˆ', Ðafford€the€party€prevailing€at€trial€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€theÐ ° Ðrecord€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóóÐ –æ ÐòòState€v.€Tuttleóó,€914€S.W.2d€926,€932€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ð |Ì ÐÌà X àà ° àà  àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€theÐ H˜ Ðevidence,€and€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€facts,€not€thisÐ . ~ ÐCourt.€€òòId.óó€€€In€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÐ  d Ðstated,€ð ðA€guilty€verdict€by€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€theÐ ú J Ðwitnesses€for€the€State€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€theory€of€the€State.ððÐ à 0 ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€established€that€the€defendant€opened€a€€door€and€entered€the€Russell€residence.Ð ¬ ü  ÐÔ#†XkXXXkR#ÔTherefore,€the€crux€of€our€inquiry€addresses€the€intent€behind€that€entry:€Did€sufficient€proof€supportÐ ’â  Ðthe€juryððs€finding€that,€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€the€defendant€entered€the€Russell€house€toÐ xÈ  Ðcommit€theft,€especially€when€the€defendant€possessed€no€property€from€that€house?€€While€suchÐ ^®  Ðpossession€may€constitute€direct€proof€of€intent,€its€absence€does€not€preclude€a€burglary€conviction.€Ð D”  Ðð ðIn€fact,€intent€can€rarely€be€shown€by€direct€proof€and€must,€necessarily,€be€shown€by€circumstantialÐ *z  Ðevidence.ðð€€òòHall€v.€Stateóó,€490€S.W.2d€495,€496€€(Tenn.€1973).€€In€òòHallóó,€the€defendant€wasÐ ` Ðapprehended€in€a€residence€but€possessed€none€of€the€ownerððs€property,€and€he€asserted€thatÐ öF Ðinsufficient€evidence€supported€the€conclusion€that€he€entered€the€residence€with€the€requisite€intent.€Ð Ü, ÐòòId.óó€at€495„96.€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€rejected€that€assertion€and€upheld€the€conviction,Ð Â Ðrecognizing:Ð ¨ø ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓ[a]€general€proposition€that€where€one€is€apprehended€.€.€.€gain[ing]€illegal€entry€intoÐ ŽÞ Ða€residence€.€.€.€in€which€there€is€property€which€is€the€subject€of€larceny,€a€juryÐ tÄ Ðwould€be€warranted€in€inferring,€in€the€absence€of€an€acceptable€excuse,€that€theÐ Zª Ðentry€was€made€.€.€.€with€the€intent€to€commit€larceny.Ð @ ÐÓ XÆ)ÓÓ X¸)ÓòòId.óó€at€496.€€Therefore,€ð ðthe€intent€to€steal€may€be€inferred€from€the€breaking€and€entering€of€aÐ &v Ðbuilding€which€contains€things€of€value€or€from€the€attempt€to€do€so.ðð€€òòId.óó;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€€òòState€v.€WilliamÐ  \ ÐPaul€Bogusóó,€No.€02C01„9506„CC„00169€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€Jan.€22,€1998,€at€Jackson)(appliedÐ òB Ðthe€òòHallóó€holding€under€the€present€aggravated€burglary€statute).Ð Ø( ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€supported€any€rational€trier€of€factððs€concluding€that€the€elements€of€theÐ ¤ô Ðcharged€offense€were€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Russell€testified€that€he€left€his€house€withÐ Š Ú Ðone€door€unlocked€but€closed.€€Entry€through€that€closed€door€satisfied€the€ð ðbreaking€and€enteringððÐ p!À  Ðelement.€€òòSeeóó€òòIvey€v.€Stateóó,€598€S.W.2d€806€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979).€€The€testimony€establishedÐ V"¦! Ðthat€the€defendant€did€not€have€permission€to€enter€the€Russell€residence€and€that€no€one€acquiescedÐ <#Œ" Ðto€that€entry.€€Finally,€Russell€entered€the€house€and€met€the€defendant€exiting€the€master€bedroom.€Ð "$r# ÐÌà  àThe€defendantððs€excuse€for€his€presence€in€the€residence€collapsed€on€subsequent€inquiry.€Ð î%>!% ÐMichael€Ray€Gulley€testified€that€although€the€defendant€approached€him€two€or€three€months€beforeÐ Ô&$"& Ðthe€burglary€regarding€work,€he€neither€scheduled€work€with€the€defendant€nor€agreed€to€leave€hisÐ º' #' Ðresidence€unlocked€for€him.€€The€defendantððs€discussion€with€Gulley€€did€not€even€involve€sheetrockÐ  (ð#( Ðin€a€bathroom€but€rather€a€stairwayò òó ó.€€The€houses€are€separated€by€approximately€.2€of€a€mile,€withÐ †)Ö$) Ðseparate€driveways.€€The€residences€are€of€contrasting€styles€and€structures:€€the€Russell€familyððsÐ l*¼%* Ðò òó óbrick€one„story€ranch€style€residence€versus€Gulleyððs€grey€vinyl€siding€two„story€Cape€Cod„styleÐ R+¢&+ Ðstructure.€€Further,€the€defendant€had€worked€at€Gulleyððs€residence€in€1992€and€had€spoken€face„to„Ð 8,ˆ', Ðface€with€Gulley€two€or€three€months€prior€to€the€burglary.€€These€facts€adequately€supported€theÐ ° Ðjuryððs€rejection€of€the€defendantððs€proffered€ð ðacceptable€excuse.ðð€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€Ð –æ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÌò òÓ  ÓEvidence€of€Other€Crimes€or€Bad€Actsó óÐ b² ÐÌÓ  Óà  àAs€previously€discussed,€sufficient€evidence€supported€the€verdict,€even€absent€the€404(b)Ð . ~ Ðevidence.€€That€evidence€addressed€intent,€however,€and€would€support€the€verdict€against€theÐ  d Ðdefendant.€ò òó óThe€trial€court€admitted€the€challenged€404(b)€evidence€after€concluding€that€theÐ ú J Ðdefendant€€implied€that€he€was€in€the€Russell€house€by€mistake,€believing€that€he€was€in€a€residenceÐ à 0 Ðto€perform€repair€work.€€Ð Æ   ÐÌà  àWe€review€admission€of€404(b)€evidence€by€an€abuse€of€discretion€standard€if€€ð ðthere€hasÐ ’â  Ðbeen€substantial€compliance€with€the€procedural€requirements€of€the€Rule.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€DuBoseóó,Ð xÈ  Ð953€S.W.2d€649,€652€(Tenn.€1997).€€Generally,€evidence€of€other€bad€acts€or€crimes€by€a€€defendantÐ ^®  Ðis€prohibited€because€such€evidence€could€confuse€the€jury€or€unduly€prejudice€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóóÐ D”  ÐTenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b);€òòState€v.€Mooreóó,€6€S.W.3d€235,€239€(Tenn.€1999).€€Such€evidence€isÐ *z  Ðadmissible,€however,€to€prove€an€issue,€other€than€conduct€in€conformance€with€a€character€trait,€thatÐ ` Ðis€relevant€and€contested€at€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòBunch€v.€Stateóó,€605€S.W.2d€227,€230€(Tenn.€€1980).€€ForÐ öF Ðexample,€such€evidence€may€be€admissible€when€it€logically€tends€to€ð ðrebut€a€claim€or€mistake€orÐ Ü, Ðassertion€of€accident€as€a€defense.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€McCaryóó,€922€S.W.2d€511,€514€(Tenn.€1996).€€TheÐ Â ÐRule€establishes€the€following€procedure€for€proper€admission:€Ð ¨ø ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ ¡,°œXÓ(1)€The€court€upon€request€must€hold€a€hearing€outside€the€juryððs€presence;Ð ŽÞ Ðà0 4 àà  à(2)€The€court€must€determine€that€a€material€issue€exists€other€than€conductÐ tÄ Ðconforming€€with€a€character€trait€and€must€upon€request€state€on€the€record€theÐ Zª Ðmaterial€issue,€the€ruling,€and€the€reasons€for€admitting€the€evidence;€andÐ@4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  à(3)€The€court€must€exclude€the€evidence€if€its€probative€value€is€outweighed€by€theÐ &v Ðdanger€of€unfair€prejudice.Ð \4Ð 4Ð  ÐÓ Xo<ÓÓ X}<ÓÓ" °œX¡,‹<"ÓTenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b)(1)„(3).€€Additionally,€the€trial€court€must€find€by€ð ðclear€and€convincingððÐ òB Ðevidence€that€the€defendant€committed€the€other€crime.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404,€Advisory€CommððnÐ Ø( ÐComment;òòóó€òòState€v.€Partonóó,€694€S.W.2d€299€(Tenn.€1985).Ð ¾ ÐÌà  àIn€the€instant€case,€the€trial€court€held€a€pre„trial€hearing€regarding€the€Alabama€incident.€Ð Š Ú ÐThat€court€determined€the€evidence€potentially€relevant€for€purposes€of€cross€examination€on€theÐ p!À  Ðissues€of€identity€or€absence€of€mistake.Ð V"¦! ÐÌà  àDuring€trial,€the€defendantððs€counsel€asked€Russell€if€the€defendant€had€given€him€a€businessÐ "$r# Ðcard.€€Counsel€asked€both€Russell€and€the€investigating€officer€if€the€defendant€had€any€of€theÐ %X $ ÐRussell€familyððs€possessions.€On€the€stateððs€request,€the€trial€court€conducted€a€jury„out€hearing,€Ð î%>!% Ðdetermined€that€the€defendant€had€ð ðopened€the€doorðð€regarding€the€issue€of€intent,€and€admittedÐ Ô&$"& Ðtestimony€of€the€alleged€Alabama€offense.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð º' #' Їà  àRegarding€the€Alabama€charge,€James€Moore€testified€that€on€August€21,€1998,€heÐ ° Ðintercepted€the€defendant€leaving€his€fatherððs€residence.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€asked€him€if€heÐ –æ Ðwas€ð ðSmithðð€and€stated€that€he,€the€defendant,€must€be€at€the€wrong€address€because€he€wasÐ |Ì Ðscheduled€to€do€repair€work€at€a€Smith€residence€in€that€area.€€Moore€also€said€he€believed€that€theÐ b² Ðdefendant€had€searched€€the€house€and€prepared€to€take€certain€items€before€Mooreððs€arrival:€MooreÐ H˜ Ðfound€open€drawers€and€unplugged€electrical€devices.ò òÐ . ~ ÐÌà  àó óJohn€Wall,€an€investigator€with€the€local€sheriffððs€office,ò ò€ó ótestified€that€the€defendant€statedÐ ú J Ðthat€he€initially€approached€that€residence€to€do€repair€work€for€a€Mr.€Smith.€€Entering€the€residenceÐ à 0 Ðand€finding€no€one€home,€he€took€a€bottle€of€pain€pills€and€was€met€and€held€by€Moore.€€TheÐ Æ   Ðdefendant€was€charged€under€Alabama€law€with€third€degree€burglary.Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌà  àAlthough€a€balancing€of€probative€value€versus€unfair€prejudice€apparently€did€not€occur€at€Ð xÈ  Ðthe€jury„out€hearing€conducted€during€the€trial,€the€trial€court€did€address€this€balance€at€the€pre„trialÐ ^®  Ðhearing.€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€court€sufficiently€followed€the€required€procedure.ò òó ó€€òòSeeóó€òòDuBoseóó,Ð D”  Ð953€S.W.2d€at€652„53òòò òóóó ó;ò ò€ó ó€òòState€v.€Electroplating,€Inc.óó,€990€S.W.2d€212,€223€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998).ò òó ó€Ð *z  ÐFurther,€we€do€not€find€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€by€concluding€that€the€defendantÐ ` Ðcontested€intent€at€trial.€€Once€the€issue€of€intent€was€raised,€the€evidence€of€the€subsequent€incidentÐ öF Ðin€Alabama€became€especially€important:€ð ðlittle€direct€proof€of€intent€increase[d]€the€probative€valueÐ Ü, Ðof€the€testimony,€rather€than€decrease[d]€it.ðð€€òòElectroplating,€Inc.óó,€990€S.W.2d€at€224.€€While€anÐ Â Ðindictment€on€a€pending€charge€does€not€necessarily€constitute€clear€and€convincing€evidence,€theÐ ¨ø Ðuncontroverted€testimony€at€trial€sufficiently€met€the€required€standard.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€223.€€We€concludeÐ ŽÞ Ðthat€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€admitting€the€evidence.€€Further,€any€error€in€theÐ tÄ Ðadmission€did€not€ð ðmore€probably€than€not€affect[]€the€judgment€or€.€.€.€result€in€prejudice€to€theÐ Zª Ðjudicial€process,ðð€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b),€or€ð ðaffirmatively€appear€to€have€affected€the€result€of€theÐ @ Ðtrial€on€the€merits,ðð€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€App.€52(a).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð &v ÐÌà@%ìàò òSentencingó óˆÐ òB ÐÌà  àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€found€two€mitigating€factors€applicable:€ð ðtheÐ ¾ Ðdefendantððs€criminal€conduct€neither€caused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injury,ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð ¤ô Ððð€40„35„113(1);€and€the€defendant€had€a€drug€problem.€€Regarding€the€latter€factor,€the€record€doesÐ Š Ú Ðnot€establish€whether€the€trial€court€applied€it€as€strong€provocation€for€commission€of€a€criminalÐ p!À  Ðoffense,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(2),€or€under€the€ð ðcatch„allðð€provision,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ V"¦! ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„113(13).€€That€court€then€determined€that€the€defendant€previously€exhibited€criminalÐ <#Œ" Ðbehavior,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€and€ð ðused€a€special€skill׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€in€a€manner€thatÐ "$r# Ðsignificantly€facilitated€the€commission€or€the€fulfillment€of€the€offense,ðð€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„Ð %X $ Ð35„114(15).€€Assigning€little€weight€to€the€mitigating€factors€and,€under€the€circumstances€of€theÐ î%>!% Ðsimilar€crime€committed€while€on€bond,€substantial€weight€to€enhancement€factor€(1),€the€trial€court€Ð Ô&$"& Ðraised€the€presumptive€three„year€minimum€sentence€for€a€Class€C€standard€offender€to€four€yearsÐ º' #' Ðand€seven€months€and€then€lowered€that€sentence€to€four€years€and€three€months.€€The€first€nineÐ  (ð#( Ðmonths€were€to€be€served€in€a€Lincoln€County€jail,€with€the€subsequent€five€years€on€probation.€€TheÐ †)Ö$) Ðdefendant€argues€that€this€sentence€is€in€error€because:€€Ð ° ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓ(1)€He€is€statutorily€presumed€eligible,€and€should€receive,€alternative€sentencing;€€Ð –æ Ѐ€€€€andÐ |Ì Ð(2)€confinement€exceeding€that€already€served€is€inappropriate.Ð b² ÐÓ XÕVÓÓ XãVÓò òÌà  àó óOur€granting€a€presumption€of€correctness€to€the€trial€courtððs€sentencing€determinations€isÐ . ~ Ðconditioned€on€ò òÔ€XkXXXkÔó óthe€record€affirmatively€showing€that€the€trial€court€Ô‡XkXXXkÔconsidered€the€sentencingÐ  d Ðprinciples€and€the€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.Ô#†XkXXXkáX#Ô€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d);€òòState€v.Ð ú J ÐPooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166€(Tenn.€1991).€€Ð à 0 ÐÌà  àAfter€reviewing€case€law€regarding€the€ð ðspecial€skillðð€enhancement€factor,€we€do€not€concurÐ ¬ ü  Ðwith€its€application€in€the€instant€case.€€Without€determining€whether€the€defendantððs€vocationÐ ’â  Ðconstituted€a€ð ðspecial€skillðð€as€contemplated€by€the€statute,€we€conclude€that€a€stronger€relationshipÐ xÈ  Ðbetween€a€skill€and€commission€of€a€crime€should€predicate€application€of€that€factor.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€plainÐ ^®  Ðlanguage€of€the€statute€requires€a€ð ðsignificant€relationshipðð€between€the€application€of€the€skill€andÐ D”  Ðthe€facilitation€of€the€crime.€€The€enhancement€factor€may€be€properly€applied€when€a€respiratoryÐ *z  Ðtherapy€technician€uses€his€position€in€the€medical€field€and€relationship€to€medical€professionalsÐ ` Ðand€pharmacists€to€fraudulently€obtain€codeine€and€hydrocodoneò ò€ó ófrom€pharmacies.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð öF ÐCummingsóó,€868€S.W.2d€661€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€€The€factor€is€also€appropriate€when€an€officeÐ Ü, Ðmanager€and€bookkeeper€uses€her€position€with€an€employer€to€embezzle€funds€and€to€cover€theÐ Â Ðcrime€with€false€bookkeeping€entries.€€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Lesa€Mae€€Maloneóó,€No.€01C01„9706„CC„00234Ð ¨ø Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€July€30,€1998,€at€Nashville);€òòState€v.€Barbara€D.€Frankóó,€No.€03C01„9209„Ð ŽÞ ÐCR„00303€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€Dec.€22,€1993,€at€Knoxville).òòóó€€In€contrast,€when€the€owner€of€anÐ tÄ Ðindustrial€business€discharges€chemicals€and€waste€in€contravention€of€Tennessee€environmentalÐ Zª Ðlaws,€the€defendantððs€mere€possession€of€€ð ðspecialized€knowledge€regarding€the€manufacture€ofÐ @ Ðchemicalsðð€does€not€indicate€exercise€of€a€ð ðskill€so€specialized€as€to€facilitate€the€commission€of€actsÐ &v Ðof€environmental€vandalism.ðð€€òòState€v.€Phillip€Drew€Cantwellóó,€No.€01C01„9701„CC„00035€(Tenn.Ð  \ ÐCrim.€App.€filed€Nov.€16,€1998,€at€Nashville).Ð òB ÐÌà  àIn€the€instant€case,€the€correlation€between€defendantððs€criminal€activity€and€his€vocation€wasÐ ¾ Ðminimal:€Ostensibly,€his€vocation€involves€his€driving€in€communities€without€the€immediateÐ ¤ô Ðsupervision€of€an€employer€€and€with€an€excuse€should€he€be€discovered€in€a€residence.€€SuchÐ Š Ú Ðrelationship€does€not€merit€application€of€the€factor.€€The€record€indicates€no€further€correlationÐ p!À  Ðbetween€the€skill€and€the€crime.€€Nothing€establishes€that€the€defendant€ð ðcasedðð€residences€whileÐ V"¦! Ðworking€in€them,€and€nothing€indicates€that€he€used€his€construction€skills€or€tools€to€aid€in€entry.€Ð <#Œ" ÐAmy€Renfroe,€a€witness€who€testified€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€said€that€the€defendant€rattled€theirÐ "$r# Ðdoorknob€and€looked€under€the€mat€for€a€key,€actions€that€do€not€involve€any€special€skill.€€Ð %X $ ÐÌ€€Ô‡XkXXXkÔà  àHowever,€we€find€no€reversible€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€sentencing.Ô#†XkXXXkÄf#Ô€€A€Class€C€standardÐ Ô&$"& Ðoffender,€presumed€a€favorable€candidate€for€probation,€must€prove€such€probation€is€in€ð ðthe€bestÐ º' #' Ðinterest€of€both€the€public€and€the€defendant.ðð€€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„303(b);€òòóó€òòStateÐ  (ð#( Ðv.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€456€(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€787€(Tenn.Ð ° ÐCrim.€App.€1991)òòóó.€€The€trial€court€must€determine€that€incarceration€in€a€given€case€is€appropriate.Ð –æ ÐFirst,€the€evidence€at€the€hearing€indicated€that€the€defendant€had€committed€another€similar€crime,Ð |Ì Ðunder€circumstances€congruent€with€those€of€the€instant€crime,€while€on€bond.€€Thus,€a€€measure€lessÐ b² Ðrestrictive€than€confinement€had€been€recently,€and€unsuccessfully,€applied€to€him.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ H˜ ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(C).€€Although€pending€charges€are€not€proper€bases€for€applying€TennesseeÐ . ~ ÐCode€Annotated€ðð€40„35„114(1),€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Buckmeiróó,€902€S.W.2d€418,€424€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð  d Ð1995),€a€trial€court€may€apply€that€factor€if€the€underlying€criminal€behavior€is€established€by€aÐ ú J Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence,€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Caricoóó,€968€S.W.2d€280€(Tenn.€1998).€€The€witnessesððsÐ à 0 Ðtestimony,€credited€by€the€trial€court,€established€that€preponderance.€€Before€invoking€his€rightÐ Æ   Ðagainst€self„incrimination€at€the€hearing,€the€defendant€did€admit€coming€from€the€AlabamaÐ ¬ ü  Ðresidence€with€pills.€€That€defendant€also€admitted€to€engaging€in€illicit€narcotics€transactions€andÐ ’â  Ðabuse.€€Ð xÈ  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€further€determined€that€the€defendant€was€not€being€truthful€with€the€court€andÐ D”  Ðwas€not€taking€responsibility€for€his€actions,€circumstances€indicative€of€lowered€potential€forÐ *z  Ðrehabilitation.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Zeoliaóó,€928€S.W.2d€457,€463€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);€òòState€v.€Dowdyóó,Ð ` Ð894€S.W.2d€301,€306€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð öF ÐÌÓ  Óà @ àà @` àà @¸ àà @ àò òConclusionó óÐ Â ÐÓ“pÓÌà  àThe€judgment€and€sentence€from€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.