ÿWPCA 8UB  %bU .h 0C–Ùné 04ì w@(4h 0J| 0TÆ 0¿U:Ù 0^ 0hq 0rÙ 0|K 0†Ç 0M 1uÝ 0dR U6¶ ì Bì 0P ÆY AQ 0Dp 0@´ D3ô D/' BVB)sU@œeÜDCÝ AM ÝmåJÁ/v~ðvÓn<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT(ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó3|xF«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±QXP%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpi¼¼gä2¼P±Q¼P( ¤T$¡¡Ó  Ó =D>?D@ADBCDDEÓ€Fäzz!2¼ddd2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(o(2)q$¤¤Ý ƒ ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  ÓÔ€XßÃXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Courier New d((3M¹$¢¢Ý ƒ ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ݃Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5&%)(+Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò$$$$'ÿÿdxd,,'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd% Line 7 d ɸ·`(ZapfCalligr BTTT----7Border 1dd&)0Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÓÝ ƒ !ÝÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ%"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ÔÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€XÔó óÌò òÔ€¼ÔÔ"USú ú, úÔÔ ƒ/ ÔÔ!  Ôó óÔ€XÔÌÌò òCecil€Crowson,€Jr.Ô€.Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€.ÂÔÔ€ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellate€Court€Clerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€.ÔÔ€.XÔ ÛÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€term€"owner"€is€defined€as€"a€person€in€lawful€possession€of€property,Ïwhether€the€possession€is€actual€or€constructive."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„401(3).€ÏThe€victim€leased€the€duplex€in€question.€€Consequently,€she€was€an€"owner"€withinÏthe€meaning€of€the€statute.Ì ·Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€term€"habitation"€is€defined€as€"any€structure,€including€buildings,€moduleÏunits,€mobile€homes,€trailers,€and€tents,€which€is€designed€or€adapted€for€the€overnightÏaccommodations€of€persons."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„401(1)(A).€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(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 ÒÝ ƒ !ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  Ý›Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑœÞ ÞÌIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€JACKSON̜ـ&ÙßR€130A1-j|tþââ `€€@ÿRß›ÌMARCH€1996€SESSIONÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà à€€APPELLEE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€02„C„01„9511„CC„00347Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àTipton€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJoseph€H.€Walker,€III,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Aggravated€Burglary€and€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Aggravated€Rape)ÌBOBBY€BAKER,à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àAPPELLANT.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌJ.€Thomas€Caldwellà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌAttorney€at€Lawà àà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ114€Jefferson€Streetà àà àà àà àà à500€Charlotte€AvenueÌRipley,€TN€38063à àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0497ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àEllen€H.€PollackÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àElizabeth€T.€RiceÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à302€Market€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSomerville,€TN€38068ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJames€Walter€Freeland,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÍGeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à302€Market€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSomerville,€TN€38068ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:_______________________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌJoe€B.€Jones,€Presiding€JudgeÌÑ#€öØXÿÿd#ÑÌÑ7€>‡XXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÓ  ÓÔ€¼Ôò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÓ  ÓÔ€XÔÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant,€Bobby€Baker,€was€convicted€of€aggravated€rape,€a€Class€AÏfelony,€and€aggravated€burglary,€a€Class€C€felony,€by€a€jury€of€his€peers.€€The€trialÏcourt,€finding€that€the€appellant€was€a€multiple€offender€in€the€aggravated€rape€case,Ïimposed€a€Range€II€sentence€consisting€of€confinement€for€thirty„five€(35)€years€in€theÏDepartment€of€Correction.€€The€trial€court€further€found€that€the€appellant€was€aÏpersistent€offender€in€the€aggravated€burglary€case€and€imposed€a€Range€III€sentenceÏconsisting€of€confinement€for€twelve€(12)€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€TheÏsentences€are€to€be€served€consecutively.€€The€effective€sentence€imposed€wasÏconfinement€for€forty„seven€(47)€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€The€appellantÏpresents€eleven€issues€for€review.€€After€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€the€briefs€ofÏthe€parties,€and€the€authorities€which€govern€the€issues€raised€by€the€appellant,€it€isÏthe€opinion€of€this€Court€that€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€should€be€affirmed.€Ìà àOn€the€evening€of€August€9,€1994,€the€victim,€Angela€Thompson,€entertainedÏfriends€at€her€residence.€€Her€friends€left€the€residence€to€visit€a€mutual€friend€atÏapproximately€2:15€a.m.€on€the€morning€of€August€10,€1994.€€The€friends€were€to€returnÏto€Thompsonððs€residence€to€spend€the€night.€€Ms.€Thompson€examined€the€door€andÏthe€windows€to€make€sure€they€were€locked.Ìà àThe€victim's€two€children,€ages€eleven€months€and€two,€and€a€friend's€ten„year„old€child€were€asleep€in€the€residence.€€The€victim€went€to€bed€and€fell€asleep.Ìà àThe€appellant€opened€a€window€in€the€back€bedroom€of€Thompsonððs€residenceÏand€entered€the€victim's€residence€between€2:30€a.m.€and€3:00€a.m.€€He€disabled€theÏtelephone,€entered€the€victim's€bedroom,€and€threw€a€lit€cigarette€on€the€floor.€€HeÏused€his€foot€to€extinguish€the€cigarette.Ìà à€€The€victim€felt€the€presence€of€someone€leaning€over€her€and€awoke.€€TheÏappellant€was€leaning€over€the€victim.€€She€asked:€€"Who€are€you?"€€The€appellant€didÏnot€respond.€€He€then€placed€a€knife€against€the€throat€of€the€victim.€€He€told€her€toÏcooperate€with€him€or€he€would€kill€her.€€The€appellant€fondled€the€victim,€performedÏcunnilingus€upon€her,€and€vaginally€penetrated€her€with€his€sexual€organ.€€Once€theÏappellant€ejaculated,€he€"jumped€up€and€[ran]€out€of€the€room."€€He€exited€theÏresidence€through€the€back€door.Ìà àThe€investigating€officers€found€a€footprint€in€the€rear€bedroom.€€Two€officersÏwent€to€the€rear€of€the€residence€and€discovered€a€path€of€footprints€leading€to€theÏwindow€and€from€the€rear€door.€€The€officers€could€see€the€tracks€due€to€a€heavy€dewÏthat€was€on€the€ground.€€The€footprints€leading€to€the€back€window€revealed€that€theÏappellant€was€walking€at€a€slow€gait,€while€the€footprints€leading€away€from€theÍwindow€established€that€the€appellant€was€running€away€from€the€residence.€€One€ofÏthe€officers€was€a€certified€tracking€instructor.€€The€officers€began€tracking€theÏfootprints.€€They€tracked€the€footprints€to€a€residence€occupied€by€the€appellant's€auntÏand€uncle.Ìà àAn€independent€witness,€who€knew€the€appellant,€saw€him€in€the€neighborhoodÏon€the€morning€in€question.€€A€friend€of€the€victim€saw€the€appellant€running€from€theÏThompson€residence.€€The€appellant€was€not€wearing€a€shirt.€€A€witness€also€saw€theÏappellant€"knocking€on€the€window€trying€to€tell€somebody€to€let€him€in"€at€a€relativeððsÏresidence.€€The€appellantððs€second€cousin€came€to€the€door€and€permitted€him€toÏenter.€€The€appellant€left€before€his€relatives€arose€later€that€morning.Ìà àThe€investigating€officers€obtained€a€search€warrant€to€obtain€blood€samplesÏfrom€the€appellant€and€to€obtain€additional€evidence€from€his€person.€€Before€theÏofficers€took€the€appellant€to€the€hospital,€they€gave€him€the€òòMirandaóó€warnings.€€TheÏappellant€told€one€of€the€officers:€€"I'm€not€denying€having€sex€with€the€girl,€but€[s]heÏconsented€to€it."Ìà àThe€vaginal€swabs€tested€positive€for€spermatozoal.€€DNA€testing€connected€theÏappellant€to€the€crimes€in€question.€€The€known€blood€sample€of€the€appellantÏmatched€the€fluids€taken€from€the€victim's€vagina.€€The€expert€stated€the€chance€of€aÏnon„family€member€matching€the€appellant's€blood€traits€was€one€in€236,000,000.Ìà àThe€appellant€testified€in€support€of€his€defense.€€He€claimed€he€had€madeÏarrangements€with€the€victim€to€have€sexual€relations€with€her€for€$40.€€He€returned€toÏthe€residence,€gave€the€victim€$40,€and€they€engaged€in€numerous€sexual€activities.€ÏWhen€he€was€leaving,€he€took€the€$40.€€He€claimed€the€victim€became€angry€becauseÍhe€took€the€money€and€claimed€she€was€raped.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓI.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€contends€the€evidence€is€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€toÏsupport€a€finding€that€he€was€guilty€of€aggravated€rape€and€aggravated€burglaryÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€He€argues€the€state€failed€to€prove€there€was€a€"forcedÏentry"€into€the€residence€and€he€possessed€a€knife€when€he€committed€the€offenses.€Ìà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€thisÏCourt€must€review€the€record€to€determine€if€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial€is€sufficientÏ"to€support€the€finding€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€13(e).€€This€rule€is€applicable€to€findings€of€guilt€based€upon€direct€evidence,Ïcircumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòStateÏv.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€253€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990).Ìà àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€this€Court€does€notÏreweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence,€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990).€€Nor€may€this€Court€substitute€itsÏinferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.ÏStateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859,€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€352€U.S.€845,€77€S.Ct.Ï39,€1€L.Ed.2d€49€(1956).€€To€the€contrary,€this€Court€is€required€to€afford€the€State€ofÏTennessee€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€asÏwell€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€theÏevidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).Ìà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€toÏbe€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€Court.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€In€òòState€v.ÏGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973),€our€Supreme€Court€said:€€"A€guilty€verdictÏby€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€theÏState€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€theory€of€the€State."Ìà àSince€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€itÏwith€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused€has€the€burden€of€illustrating€to€this€Court€whyÏthe€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.ÏTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€This€Court€will€not€disturb€a€verdict€of€guiltÏdue€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€unless€the€facts€contained€in€the€record€areÏinsufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€that€the€accused€is€guiltyÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914.Ìà àThe€only€issue€the€trier€of€fact€was€required€to€resolve€was€the€credibility€of€theÏwitnesses.€€The€appellant€presented€evidence€that€he€paid€the€victim€to€engage€inÏsexual€activities€with€him.€€The€state€presented€evidence€that€someone€enteredÏthrough€a€back€bedroom€window€which€was€locked€when€the€victim€went€to€bed,€theÏappellant€forced€the€victim€to€have€sexual€relations€with€him€by€placing€the€victim€inÏfear€of€her€life€with€a€knife,€and€the€appellant€left€the€residence€through€the€back€door,Ïwhich€also€was€locked€when€the€victim€went€to€bed.€€The€victim€felt€the€blade€of€theÏknife€against€her€throat.€€She€also€felt€the€knife€when€she€attempted€to€take€it€awayÏfrom€the€appellant€while€he€was€performing€cunnilingus€on€her.€€The€jury€accreditedÏthe€testimony€of€the€victim.€€It€is€obvious€the€jury€did€not€believe€the€testimony€given€byÍthe€appellant.Ìà àThe€evidence€given€by€the€victim€was€sufficient€to€establish€the€appellant€wasÏarmed€with€a€knife€when€he€raped€her.€€Burglary€does€not€require€a€"forced€entry"€asÏthe€appellant€argues.€€In€the€context€of€this€case,€aggravated€burglary€is€committedÏwhen€a€person,€without€the€effective€consent€of€the€property€owner,× ƒ4 ××  ×€enters€a€privateÏresidence× ƒ5 ××  ×€with€the€intent€to€commit€a€felony€in€the€residence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„403.€€Thus,€€an€entry€through€an€open€window€or€an€open€door€without€the€consentÏof€the€victim€constitutes€an€"entry"€within€the€statute.Ìà àThis€Court€concludes€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€was€clearly€sufficientÏto€support€a€finding€by€a€rational€trier€of€fact€that€the€appellant€was€guilty€of€bothÏaggravated€rape€and€aggravated€burglary€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.ÏP.€13(e);€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979).ÌÌò òÓ  ÓII.ó óÌÓ  Óà àÌà àThe€appellant€contends€the€trial€court€did€not€perform€its€function€as€theÏthirteenth€juror.€€He€argues€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€him€a€new€trial€becauseÏthe€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderated€against€the€guilty€verdicts€of€theÍjury€and€in€favor€of€his€innocence.Ìà à€€The€trial€court€performed€its€function€as€thirteenth€juror.€€The€court€stated€at€theÏconclusion€of€the€motion€for€a€new€trial:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ X ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌThe€jury€in€this€matter€found€that€the€defendant€unlawfullyÏentered€the€home€of€the€victim€in€the€early€morning€hours;€Ïthat€he,€while€armed€with€a€weapon,€raped€the€victim€in€herÏown€bedroom;€€that€he€threatened€to€kill€her€and€her€youngÏchild€who€was€in€the€bed€with€her€if€she€was€not€[quiet],Ïsubmit€to€a€sexual€assault.€€The€Court€finds€and€found€at€theÏtrial,€or€at€sentencing,€that€the€„„€as€thirteenth€juror€that€the€„„Ïapproved€of€the€finding€of€the€jury.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓà àSince€the€trial€court€views€the€evidence€as€a€thirteenth€juror€to€determine€whereÏthe€preponderance€lies,€this€Court€cannot€review€the€decision€of€the€court€as€theÏthirteenth€juror.€€€òòState€v.€Burlisonóó,€868€S.W.2d€713,€719€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€ÌÌò òÓ  ÓIII.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€investigating€officers€obtained€a€search€warrant€to€obtain€"a€quantity€ofÏblood,€saliva€and€pubic€and€head€hairs€from€the€person€of€Bobby€Rydale€Baker€.€.€.Ïsuitable€for€testing."€€The€affidavit€given€by€an€officer€outlined€what€had€beenÏdiscovered€during€the€course€of€the€investigation€in€minute€detail.€€The€appellantÏmoved€to€suppress€the€evidence€obtained€from€his€body.€€The€trial€court€denied€theÏmotion.€€The€samples€taken€from€the€appellant€were€used€to€establish€his€identity€asÏthe€perpetrator.Ìà à€€The€appellant€contends€the€trial€court€committed€error€of€prejudicialÍdimensions€by€refusing€to€suppress€this€evidence.€€He€argues€the€affidavit€supportingÏthe€issuance€of€the€warrant€does€not€state€probable€cause,€there€is€no€statementÏcontained€in€the€warrant€which€establishes€the€veracity€of€the€informants€as€requiredÏby€òòState€v.€Jacuminóó,€778€S.W.2d€430€(Tenn.€1989),€and€he€was€entitled€to€anÏadversarial€hearing€when€the€officers€sought€the€warrant.€€He€further€argues€theÏaffidavit€fails€to€state€(a)€the€reason€for€obtaining€the€samples€from€his€body,€namely,Ïthe€samples€will€be€compared€to€other€evidence,€and€(b)€there€is€other€evidence€forÏcomparison.Ìà àThe€appellant€was€not€entitled€to€an€adversarial€determination€of€probableÏcause€for€the€issuance€of€the€search€warrant.€€His€reliance€upon€the€authority€cited€isÏmisplaced.€€It€is€clear€the€investigating€officers€had€two€procedural€methods€forÏobtaining€the€samples€from€the€appellant.€€First,€the€officers€could€obtain€a€searchÏwarrant€authorizing€them€to€obtain€the€samples€from€the€appellant's€body.€€Second,Ïthe€officers€could€have€enlisted€the€assistance€of€the€District€Attorney€General's€Office,Ïfiled€a€motion€in€the€trial€court€seeking€the€entry€of€an€order€permitting€the€officers€toÏobtain€the€samples,€and€both€parties€could€have€litigated€the€issues€at€an€adversarialÏevidentiary€hearing.€€The€officers€opted€to€obtain€a€search€warrant.€€The€appellant€wasÏnot€entitled€to€be€present€or€litigate€the€issue€of€whether€the€officers€had€probableÏcause€to€support€the€issuance€of€the€warrant€prior€to€the€warrant€being€issued.Ìà àThe€affidavit€given€to€support€the€issuance€of€the€search€warrant€meets€theÏrequirements€of€the€United€States€Constitution,€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€and€theÏcommon€law€rules€created€by€the€appellate€courts€of€this€state.€€The€affidavit€recites€inÏminuscule€detail€the€nature€of€the€crimes€the€appellant€is€alleged€to€have€committed,Íthe€steps€taken€during€the€course€of€the€investigation,€and€the€information€receivedÏfrom€the€independent€witnesses€having€knowledge€of€the€facts.€€€The€affidavit€wasÏclearly€sufficient€to€justify€the€issuance€of€the€search€warrant.Ìà àThe€appellant's€contention€that€the€information€contained€in€the€affidavit€wasÏstale€defies€logic,€technology,€and€common€sense.€€It€does€not€take€an€expert€toÏconclude€that€a€person's€blood,€saliva,€and€hair€do€not€become€stale.€€As€long€as€thatÏperson€is€alive,€he€or€she€will€have€the€same€blood€type,€the€same€saliva€content,€andÏthe€same€hair€texture.€œ€In›€short,€when€these€items€are€sought,€they€will€always€be€freshÏas€opposed€to€stale.Ìà àThe€appellant's€reliance€upon€òòJacuminóó€is€misplaced.€€The€factual€situation€inÏthis€case€is€distinguishable.€€In€òòJacuminóó€the€officers€received€information€from€citizensÏwho€were€involved€in€the€criminal€community.€€Here,€the€witnesses,€law„abidingÏcitizens,€saw€what€happened€and€related€the€events€they€witnessed€to€the€police.€TheyÏdid€not€participate€in€the€crimes€committed€by€the€appellant,€and€they€were€notÏmembers€of€the€criminal€community€in€Tipton€County.€€Consequently,€the€two„prongÏtest€approved€in€òòJacuminóó€was€not€applicable.€€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€638€S.W.2d€342,€355„56€(Tenn.€1982),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€459€U.S.€1137,€103€S.Ct.€770,€74€L.Ed.2d€983€(1983);€ÏòòState€v.€œSheila›€Elaine€Thomasóó,€Maury€County€No.€01„C„01„9304„CC„00131€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€Nashville,€February€23,€1996).Ìà à€€The€affidavit€states€the€officers€were€seeking€"€a€quantity€of€blood,€saliva€andÏpubic€and€head€hair€from€the€person€of€Bobby€Rydale€Baker€.€.€.€suitable€for€testing."€€ItÏalso€states€that€the€victim€had€been€raped.€€Common€sense€tells€us€the€officers€wantedÏthese€samples€to€compare€them€to€samples€taken€from€the€rape€victim.€€Legions€ofÍcases€state€affidavits€are€to€be€viewed€in€a€common€sense€rather€than€technicalÏmanner.€€Why€would€the€officers€want€to€waste€their€time€and€obtain€samples€from€theÏappellant€if€there€was€no€physical€evidence€to€compare€with€the€samples?€Ìà àIf€the€appellant€also€challenges€the€statement€he€gave€to€the€police,€this€CourtÏfinds€the€ruling€of€the€trial€court€was€correct.€€The€only€evidence€contained€in€the€recordÏwas€given€by€the€police€officer€who€took€the€appellant€to€the€hospital€to€obtain€theÏsamples€pursuant€to€the€search€warrant.€€The€officer€advised€the€appellant€of€theÏòòMirandaóó€warnings€before€transporting€him,€but€the€officer€did€not€attempt€to€questionÏhim.€€The€appellant€volunteered€the€statement€attributed€to€him.€€It€was€clearlyÏadmissible€as€substantive€evidence€at€the€trial.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓÇIV.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€has€a€lengthy€record€of€prior€convictions.€€The€state€gave€notice€itÏintended€to€use€certain€prior€convictions€to€impeach€the€appellant€if€he€testified€inÏsupport€of€his€defense.€€The€appellant€moved€the€trial€court€òòinóó€òòlimineóó€to€determine€theÏadmissibility€of€the€appellant's€prior€convictions€for€burglary€and€theft.€€The€trial€courtÏruled€the€state€could€not€use€these€convictions€as€part€of€its€case€in€chief,€but,€if€theÏappellant€took€the€stand€and€testified€in€support€of€his€defense,€the€state€could€use€theÏoffenses€to€impeach€him.Ìà àDuring€the€trial,€the€appellant€took€the€stand€and€testified€in€support€of€hisÏdefense.€€The€state€used€six€prior€felonies€to€impeach€the€appellant:€€two€priorÏconvictions€for€burglary€second€degree,€two€prior€convictions€for€burglary,€and€twoÏprior€convictions€for€theft€over€$500.€€The€appellant€was€convicted€of€these€offensesÏbetween€1986€and€1992.Ìà àThe€State€of€Tennessee€may€use€a€prior€conviction€to€impeach€an€accused€ifÏthe€conviction€meets€the€criteria€established€by€Rule€609,€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏEvidence.€€According€to€this€rule,€a€prior€adult€conviction€may€be€used€to€impeach€theÏtestimony€of€an€accused€if€(a)€the€conviction€was€for€a€crime€that€is€punishable€byÏdeath€or€imprisonment€in€excess€of€one€(1)€year€or€a€misdemeanor€involvingÏdishonesty€or€false€statement,€(b)€less€than€ten€years€have€elapsed€between€the€dateÏthe€accused€was€released€from€confinement€and€the€commencement€of€theÏprosecution,€(c)€the€state€gives€reasonable€written€notice€of€the€particular€conviction€orÏconvictions€it€intends€to€use€to€impeach€the€accused€prior€to€trial,€and€(d)€the€trial€courtÍfinds€the€probative€value€of€the€felony€or€misdemeanor€on€the€issue€of€credibilityÏoutweighs€its€unfair€prejudicial€effect.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Farmeróó,€841€S.W.2d€837,€839Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1992).Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€first€three€requirements,€(a)€through€(c),€have€been€satisfied.€ÏThus,€the€only€issue€which€this€Court€must€resolve€is€whether€the€trial€court€was€correctÏin€finding€the€probative€value€of€the€felonies€outweighed€their€unfair€prejudicial€effectÏbecause€the€felonies€were€similar€in€nature€to€the€offenses€charged€in€the€indictment.Ìà àIn€determining€whether€the€probative€value€of€a€felony€used€to€impeach€anÏœaccused€outweighs›€its€unfair€prejudicial€effect€on€the€issues€to€be€resolved€by€the€jury,Ïa€trial€court€should€(a)€"assess€the€similarity€between€the€crime€on€trial€and€the€crimeÏunderlying€the€impeaching€conviction,"€and€(b)€"analyze€the€relevance€the€impeachingÏconviction€has€to€the€issue€of€credibility."€€N.€Cohen,€D.€Paine,€and€S.€Sheppeard,ÏòòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€609.9€at€p.€376€(3rd€ed.€1995);€òòseeóó€òòFarmeróó,€841€S.W.2dÏat€839.€€When€this€analysis€is€made€in€this€case,€it€is€clear€the€trial€court€did€not€abuseÏits€discretion€in€ruling€the€six€felonies€could€be€used€to€impeach€the€appellant€if€heÏopted€to€testify€in€support€of€his€defense.Ìà àThe€mere€fact€a€prior€conviction€of€the€accused€is€identical€or€similar€in€nature€toÏthe€offense€for€which€the€accused€is€being€tried€does€not,€as€a€matter€of€law,€bar€theÏuse€of€the€conviction€to€impeach€the€accused€as€a€witness.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Milleróó,€737ÏS.W.2d€556,€560€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1987).€€The€appellateÏcourts€of€this€state€have€held€that€the€offenses€of€burglary€and€theft€are€"highlyÏprobative€of€credibility,"€€òòState€v.€Crankóó,€721€S.W.2d€264,€266„67€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),Ïòòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1986),€because€these€crimes€involve€dishonesty.€€òòState€v.ÍTuneóó,€872€S.W.2d€œ922,›€927€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1993);€òòMilleróó,Ï737€S.W.2d€at€560;€òòCrankóó,€721€S.W.2d€at€266„67.€€Thus,€the€appellate€courts€of€thisÏstate€have€held€that€convictions€for€these€felonies€may€be€used€to€impeach€an€accusedÏbeing€tried€for€one€or€more€of€these€offenses€absent€circumstances€which€require€aÏdifferent€result.€€òòTuneóó,€872€S.W.2d€at€927€(burglary€conviction€admissible€to€impeachÏaccused€in€a€prosecution€for€burglary);€€òòMilleróó,€737€S.W.2d€at€560€(burglary€convictionÏadmissible€to€impeach€accused€in€a€prosecution€for€burglary);€òòState€v.€Coleóó,€665ÏS.W.2d€407,€410€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€œ1984)(burglary›Ïconviction€admissible€to€impeach€an€accused€in€a€prosecution€for€burglary);€òòJohnsonÏv.€Stateóó,€596€S.W.2d€97,€104€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979)(burglary€conviction€admissibleÏto€impeach€an€accused€in€a€prosecution€for€burglary);€€òòPrice€v.€Stateóó,€589€S.W.2d€929,Ï931„32€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1979)(convictions€for€burglary€andÏgrand€larceny€admissible€to€impeach€an€accused€in€a€prosecution€for€burglary).Ìà àThe€appellant's€reliance€upon€òòState€v.€Farmeróó€is€misplaced.€€In€òòFarmeróó,€aÏœconviction€€for›€assault€with€intent€to€commit€manslaughter€was€used€to€impeach€theÏaccused€in€a€conviction€for€murder€in€the€second€degree.€€This€Court€held€theÏprejudicial€effect€of€introducing€the€prior€conviction€outweighed€the€probative€value€ofÏthe€conviction.€€As€this€Court€said€in€òòFarmeróó,€the€probative€value€of€the€conviction€wasÏ"slight€or€nonexistent."€€841€S.W.2d€at€840.€€In€this€case,€the€convictions€areÏ"particularly€probative€regarding€credibility."€€òòTuneóó,€872€S.W.2d€at€927.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.€Ìà àÌò òÓ  ÓV.ó óÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€appellant€contends€the€trial€court€committed€error€of€prejudicial€dimensionsÏby€refusing€to€grant€him€a€new€trial.€€He€argues€a€juror,€Jacqueline€Dye,€hadÏknowledge€the€appellant€had€previous€ð ðrun„ins€with€the€law,ðð€but€she€failed€to€discloseÏthis€information€when€questioned€during€voir€dire€examination.€€When€asked€if€sheÏknew€the€appellant,€she€told€counsel:€ð ðI€donððt€know€him.€€I€know€him,€but€I€donððt€knowÏhim€„„€that€case€and€everything.€€I€donððt€know€what€happened€in€that€case.ððÌà àMs.€Dye€was€called€as€a€witness€during€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial.€ÏAlthough€the€record€reflects€all€of€the€prospective€jurors€were€questioned€about€theÏmatter€in€controversy,€she€denied€being€asked€if€she€knew€the€appellant.€€TheÏfollowing€colloquy€occurred€during€the€motion€for€a€new€trial:ÌÓÓÓ` °„X‡À–XÓà8 àà8 àQ.à àDid€you€know€that€Bobby€Baker€had€been€in€troubleÏwith€the€law€previously?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.à àItððd€been€a€long€time€ago,€ððcause€I€donððt„„ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ.à àBut€you€did€know€that?ÌÌà àà àA.à àYeah,€but€I€donððt€know€nothing€like€that,€the€case€what€I€was€on.ÌÌà àà àQ.à àSo,€you€knew€that€he€had€run„ins€with€the€law€in€a€previous„„ÌÌà àà àA.à àYes,€I€did.ÌÌà àà àQ.à à„„some€previous€way?ÌÌà àà àA.à àAll€I€know€in€the€newspaper,€thatððs€all€I€read,€the€newspaper.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà à*€*€*€*Ìà8 àà8 àQ.à àOkay.€€And€when€you€went€back€to€the€jury€room€didÏyou€tell€these€other€jurors€that€you€knew€Bobby€Brown€„„ÏBobby€Baker?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.à àThey€asked€me,€and€I€told€them,€ð ðYeah,€I€know€him€aÏlong€time€ago.ðð€€And€I€donððt€go€nowhere.ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ.à àDid€you€tell€them€that€you€had€read€in€the€paper€thatÏheððd€been€in€previous€trouble?ÌÌà àà àA.à àNo,€I€donððt.ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ.à àOkay.€€But€you€had€that€in€your€„„€in€you€ownÏbackground€and€in€you€own€knowledge?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.à àRight.ÌÌà àà àQ.à àYou€think€that€had€an€influence€on€your€determination„„ÌÌà àà àA.à àNo.ÌÌà àà àQ.à à„„of€his€guilt€in€this€case?ÌÌà àà àA.à àNo,€it€donððt.ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ.à àDo€you€think€that€it€may€have€been€that€he€would€haveÏhad€to€remove€his€„„€his€right€to€presumption€of€innocenceÏby€proof€because€of€what€you€already€knew€about€him?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.à àI€donððt€know€„„€I€didnððt€know€nothing€about€that€rapeÏcase€at€all€till€when€I€got€on€the€jury€duty.€€Thatððs€about€theÏonly€time€that€I€know€something€about€it.ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ.à àYou€donððt€think€that€this€fact€„„€the€fact€that€you€knewÏBobby€Baker€and€knew€that€he€had€previous€trouble€withÏthe€law€would€have€had€an€impact€on€how€you€voted€in€thisÏcase?ÌÌà àà àA.à àNo,€it€donððt.ÌÓÓÌà àWhen€a€jurorððs€apparent€misrepresentation€or€concealment€of€informationÏduring€voir€dire€examination€is€challenged€during€a€hearing€incident€to€the€motion€for€aÏnew€trial,€the€accused,€as€the€moving€party,€has€the€burden€of€showing€he€or€sheÏincurred€actual€bias€or€prejudice€as€a€result€of€the€failure€to€reveal€the€information.€ÍòòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€805€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Caughronóó,€855€S.W.2dÏ526,€539€(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó.,€_____€U.S.€_____,€114€S.Ct.€475,€126€L.Ed.2d€426Ï(1993).€€In€this€case,€the€appellant€admits€the€record€is€devoid€of€evidence€that€theÏknowledge€possessed€by€Ms.€Dye€resulted€in€either€bias€or€prejudice.€€He€candidlyÏadmits€in€his€brief€Ms.€Dye€did€not€let€the€information€she€possessed€influence€herÏdecision€as€to€the€appellantððs€guilt;€and€she€did€not€reveal€this€information€to€otherÏjurors.€€Moreover,€all€of€the€jurors€were€made€aware€of€the€appellantððs€priorÏconvictions.€€The€State€of€Tennessee€used€these€convictions€to€impeach€the€appellantÏas€a€witness.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ò òÌà àó óÌò òÓ  ÓVI.ÌÌÓ  Óó óà àThe€appellant€contends€the€sentences€imposed€are€excessive,€the€sentencesÏshould€be€served€concurrently,€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€reduce€the€sentences,Ïand€the€trial€court€erroneously€ruled€the€presentence€officer€could€relate€hearsayÏinformation€concerning€his€prior€parole€violations.€€This€Court€finds€the€sentences€areÏappropriate€and€should€be€served€consecutively.Ìà àÌò òÓ  ÓA.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length€and€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€itÏis€the€duty€of€this€Court€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€on€the€record€with€a€presumptionÍthat€"the€determinations€made€by€the€court€from€which€the€appeal€is€taken€are€correct."€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€theÏaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencingÏprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,Ï169€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€presumption€does€not€apply€to€the€legal€conclusions€reachedÏby€the€trial€court€in€sentencing€the€accused€or€to€the€determinations€made€by€the€trialÏcourt€which€are€predicated€upon€uncontroverted€facts.€€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€900€S.W.2dÏ305,€311€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€891€S.W.2d€922,€929€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994);€€òòState€v.€Bonestelóó,€871€S.W.2d€163,€166€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1993).€€However,€this€Court€is€required€to€give€great€weight€to€the€trialÏcourt's€determination€of€controverted€facts€as€the€trial€court's€determination€of€theseÏfacts€is€predicated€upon€the€witnesses'€demeanor€and€appearance€when€testifying.Ìà àIn€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€Court€must€consider€(a)€anyÏevidence€received€at€the€trial€and/or€sentencing€hearing,€(b)€the€presentence€report,Ï(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing,€(d)€the€arguments€of€counsel€relative€to€sentencingÏalternatives,€(e)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense,€(f)€any€mitigating€orÏenhancing€factors,€(g)€any€statements€made€by€the€accused€in€his€own€behalf,€and€(h)Ïthe€accused's€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðððð€40„35„103€and€„210;€€òòState€v.€Scottóó,€735€S.W.2d€825,€829€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),Ïòòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1987).Ìà àThe€party€challenging€the€sentences€imposed€by€the€trial€court€has€the€burdenÏof€establishing€that€the€sentences€are€erroneous.€€Sentencing€Commission€CommentsÏto€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401;€€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169;€€òòButleróó,€900€S.W.2d€atÍ311.€€In€this€case,€the€appellant€has€the€burden€of€illustrating€the€sentences€imposedÏby€the€trial€court€are€erroneous.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓB.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant's€contention€concerning€€the€testimony€of€the€presentence€officerÏhas€been€waived.€€The€appellant€has€failed€to€cite€any€authority€to€support€this€issue.€ÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a)(7);€€Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€R.€10(b);€€òòState€v.€Brothersóó,€828€S.W.2dÏ414,€416€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1992).€Ìà àThis€Court€parenthetically€notes€that€"reliable€hearsay.€.€.may€be€admitted€if€theÏopposing€party€is€accorded€a€fair€opportunity€to€rebut€any€hearsay€evidence€soÏadmitted."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„209(b).€€òòState€v.€Richardsonóó,€875€S.W.2d€671,Ï677€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994);€€òòState€v.€Wagneróó,€753ÏS.W.2d€145,€146€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1988).€The€trial€court€isÏalso€required€to€consider€the€presentence€report€before€imposing€sentence.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(b)(2).€€Moreover,€the€Tennessee€Criminal€Sentencing€ReformÏAct€of€1989€contemplates€that€much€of€the€information€contained€in€a€presentenceÏreport€will€be€hearsay.€€However,€the€information€is€reliable€because€it€is€based€uponÏthe€presentence€officer's€research€of€the€records,€contact€with€relevant€agencies,€andÏthe€gathering€of€information€which€is€required€to€be€included€in€a€presentence€report.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„205.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓC.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€trial€court€considered€several€enhancement€factors€when€imposing€theÏsentences€in€question.€€The€court€found€the€following€factors€were€supported€by€theÏevidence:€(a)€the€crime€was€committed€to€satisfy€the€desire€for€pleasure€and/orÏexcitement,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(7),€(b)€the€appellant€had€a€previous€historyÏof€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€into€theÏcommunity,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(8),€(c)€the€appellant€employed€a€dangerousÏweapon€when€committing€the€offenses,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(9),€(d)€theÏappellant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€wasÏhigh,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(10),€(e)€the€appellant€was€on€parole€when€theÏoffenses€were€committed,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(13),€and€(f)€the€appellantÏcommitted€the€offenses€under€circumstances€in€which€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€toÏthe€victim€was€great,€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(16).€€The€trial€court€did€not€specifyÏwhich€factors€were€used€to€enhance€the€individual€crimes.€€The€appellant€contends€theÏtrial€court€committed€error€of€prejudicial€dimensions€by€using€some€of€these€factors€toÏenhance€his€sentences€within€the€appropriate€range.Ìà àThe€appellant€argues€the€trial€court€should€not€have€used€factor€(9)€because€theÏuse€of€the€knife€was€an€element€of€€aggravated€rape.€€This€Court€agrees€factor€(9)Ïcannot€be€used€to€enhance€the€sentence€in€the€aggravated€rape€case€because€theÏuse€of€the€weapon€is€an€element€of€the€offense.€€However,€this€factor€was€properlyÏused€to€enhance€the€aggravated€burglary€conviction.€€The€burglary€was€elevated€fromÏburglary€to€aggravated€burglary€because€he€broke€into€and€entered€a€dwelling€whereÏpeople€lived.€€The€use€of€the€knife€was€not€an€element€of€aggravated€burglary.Ìà àNext,€the€appellant€argues€the€trial€court€should€not€have€used€enhancementÏfactor€(8)€to€enhance€his€sentences.€€He€argues€the€trial€court€used€his€prior€paroleÏviolations€to€support€both€factor€(8)€and€factor€(13).€€This€Court€finds€the€trial€courtÏproperly€œapplied€both›€factors.€€The€two€prior€revocations€of€parole€were€used€toÏenhance€the€appellant's€sentence€pursuant€to€factor€(8).€€The€fact€the€appellant€was€onÏparole€when€he€committed€these€offenses€was€used€to€enhance€the€sentencesÏpursuant€to€factor€(13).€As€the€appellant€argues,€the€fact€the€appellant's€last€violation€ofÏparole€ended€in€the€parole€being€revoked€after€these€offenses€were€committed€couldÏnot€be€used€to€establish€factor€(8).€€Moreover,€the€last€revocation€of€parole€was€notÏnecessary€to€establish€factor€(8)€since€there€were€two€violations€of€parole€whichÏoccurred€prior€to€the€commission€of€the€offenses€in€question.€€€€Ìà àAlthough€there€are€cases€holding€that€factor€(16)€should€not€be€applied€in€anÏaggravated€rape€case,€the€Supreme€Court€held€in€òòState€v.€Kissingeróó,€922€S.W.2d€482,Ï488€(Tenn.€1996),€factor€(16)€may€be€used€to€enhance€a€sentence€within€theÏappropriate€range€in€aggravated€rape€cases.€€In€òòKissingeróó,€the€act€was€the€analÏpenetration€of€a€young€boy.€€The€court€held€an€act€of€anal€intercourse€with€a€young€boyÏhas€the€potential€for€bodily€injury.€€However,€the€court€said€it€should€be€accorded€littleÏweight.€€Here,€there€was€vaginal€intercourse€with€a€normal€female€adult.€€œBesides›€theÏconduct€which€caused€the€offense€to€be€elevated€to€aggravated€rape,€there€is€nothingÏin€the€record€to€establish€that€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€was€great€within€theÏmeaning€of€factor€(16).Ìà àAlthough€factor€(9)€should€not€have€been€used€to€enhance€the€appellant'sÏsentence€in€the€aggravated€rape€case,€and€factor€(16)€should€not€have€been€used€toÍenhance€either€sentence,€this€does€not€entitle€the€appellant€to€a€reduction€in€eitherÏsentence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Keelóó,€882€S.W.2d€410,€423€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.Ïòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€remaining€factors€are€entitled€to€great€weight,€namely,€theÏcommission€of€this€offense€to€gratify€pleasure€and€excitement,€the€prior€revocations€ofÏparole,€the€lack€of€hesitation€to€commit€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€an€infant€elevenÏmonths€of€age€and€in€the€bed€with€his€mother€was€high,€and€the€commission€of€theseÏoffenses€while€on€parole.€€€€Ìà àThe€trial€court€ordered€the€sentences€in€this€case€to€be€served€consecutively€toÏthe€sentences€for€which€the€appellant€was€on€parole€when€he€committed€theseÏoffenses.€€This€was€mandated€by€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€32(c).€€This€rule€makes€it€mandatoryÏthat€such€sentences€be€served€consecutively.€€However,€the€trial€court€also€ordered€theÏœsentencesÇfor›€aggravated€rape€and€aggravated€burglary€to€be€served€consecutively€as€well.€€TheÏtrial€court€found€the€appellant€was€a€professional€criminal€and€a€dangerous€offender.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„115(b)(1)€and€(b)(4).Ìà àThe€record€is€devoid€of€evidence€which€establishes€the€appellant€was€aÏprofessional€criminal€other€than€his€record€of€convictions.€€However,€the€record€doesÏsupport€a€finding€that€the€appellant€has€an€extensive€record€of€criminal€activity.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(2).€€Six€felony€convictions€were€used€to€impeach€him€whenÏhe€testified€during€the€trial.€€He€admitted€he€was€convicted€of€all€six€felonies.€€TheseÏcrimes€were€committed€over€a€relatively€short€period€of€time.Ìà àThe€trial€court€properly€found€the€appellant€is€a€dangerous€offender.€€In€thisÏcase,€the€appellant€entered€the€residence€armed€with€a€knife.€€There€were€threeÏchildren€asleep€besides€the€victim.€€He€placed€the€knife€against€the€victim's€throat,€andÏhe€threatened€to€kill€her€and€her€infant€son,€who€was€asleep€in€his€mother's€bed.€€TheÏappellant€raped€the€victim€in€her€bed€while€her€son€lay€asleep€beside€her.€€Thus,€heÏcommitted€dangerous€offenses.Ìà àThe€lengthy€sentences€imposed€by€the€trial€court€were€appropriate.€€TheseÏsentences€"reasonably€relate€to€the€severity€of€the€offense[s]€committed"€by€theÏappellant.€€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€939€(Tenn.€1995).€€Also,€theseÏsentences€are€"necessary€to€protect€the€public€against€further€criminal€conduct"€at€theÏhands€of€the€appellant.€€òòIdóó.€€The€appellant€has€been€sentenced€to€serve€a€prison€termÏon€several€occasions.€€He€was€released€on€parole€on€three€occasions,€and€he€violatedÏall€of€the€paroles.€€€€It€is€obvious€the€appellant€is€beyond€the€stage€of€rehabilitation.€€IfÏreleased€after€serving€a€shorter€sentence,€there€is€every€indication€the€appellant€willÍcontinue€to€engage€in€criminal€conduct€following€his€release.€€The€public€needs€to€beÏprotected€from€the€appellant's€propensity€to€commit€crimes.ÌÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€GARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ___________________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€WILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEÌÌ€€ÌÌÌÌÌ