ÿWPCð2 =# fU:q %« 0 (±w@Ù4-<DLT\ 0ld 0DÐ 0J 0Tf 0^º 0h 0r€ 0|ò 0†n 0@ô D34 Bg 0„ 1u 0d‰ AQí Æ> 0D 0DH D/Œ B» U *Ø B) DC+ AMn » ¤Ù½}á:#„'v~Ÿ+vÓ-˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡ ÅÆDÇÈÉDÊËÍÎÓ€Ú§aö"x3|xÚ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô# ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d33337Border 1dd* 4Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€2XÔÌÌò òAugust€21,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€2ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó šÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóOfficer€Huggins€acknowledged€at€one€point€in€cross€examination€that,Ïduring€the€operation,€conversations€were€recorded,€but€he€then€testified,€ð ðThereÏwere€no€transactions€on€those€tapes.ðð€€When€asked€if€the€tapes€containedÏstatements€wherein€the€defendant€said,€ð ðI€donððt€sell€drugs,ðð€the€officer€stated,Ïð ðNo€sir,ðð€and€then€the€officer€testified€there€were€no€conversations€with€theÏdefendant€on€any€of€the€tapes.€€The€officer€indicated€that€any€tapes€that€hadÏbeen€used€to€try€to€ensnare€the€defendant€in€a€drug€sale€had€ð ðprobablyðð€beenÏdestroyed.€€The€matter€was€not€further€pursued,€and€no€proof€concerning€theÏexistence€and/or€destruction€of€the€tapes€was€tendered€by€either€partyÏthroughout€the€trial€or€at€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial.Ì ³Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóAs€pointed€out€above,€the€pre„sentence€report,€which€containsÏinformation€about€the€defendantððs€previous€criminal€convictions,€is€found€in€theÏtechnical€record€as€prepared€and€certified€by€the€trial€court€clerk.€€The€copyÏincluded€in€the€record€bears€a€facsimile€of€the€clerkððs€filing€stamp€(indicating€thatÏthe€original€was€filed€with€the€clerk€on€September€9,€1994),€but€the€documentÏbears€no€notation€that€it€was€received€by€the€court€as€an€exhibit€to€theÏsentencing€hearing.€€In€the€transcript€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€courtÏreferred€to€the€pre„sentence€report€and€stated,€ð ðIt€will€be€considered€then€asÏamended€and€corrected.ðð€€However,€it€was€not€exhibited€to€the€sentencingÏhearing.€€There€was€no€objection€to€the€procedure€nor€to€the€ultimate€use€of€theÏreport.€€Within€the€context€of€the€proceeding€in€this€case,€the€trial€court€receivedÏthe€report,€if€not€by€stipulation,€then€by€tacit€acceptance€by€both€sides,€withoutÏobjection.€€Furthermore,€we€note€that,€whether€the€reportððs€admissibility€isÏstipulated€or€not,€the€courtððs€consideration€of€the€report€„„€and€hence€the€courtððsÏòòreceiptóó€of€the€report€„„€is€mandated€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„210(b)€(2)€(1990).€€Thus,€the€defendant€does€not€and€could€not€complain€ofÏthe€òòuseóó€of€the€report.ÌÌà àThe€issue€that€trial€courts€should€take€care€to€address,€however,€is€theÏorganization€of€the€sentencing€record€for€appellate€review.€€An€appellate€courtÏmust€be€able€to€identify€in€the€record€the€same€document€upon€which€the€trialÏcourt€relied.€€Even€though€a€report€in€this€case€may€have€been€a€òòde€factoóóÏexhibit,€amounting€to€evidence€submitted€on€behalf€of€the€state,€no€report€wasÏspecifically€identified€and€authenticated€in€the€record€by€the€trial€court.€€ForÏsituations€of€this€type,€the€following€well„reasoned€rule€was€developed:ÌÌÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒBefore€an€exhibit€may€be€considered€by€this€court,€it€must€have€been€(a)Ïreceived€into€evidence,€(b)€marked€by€the€trial€judge,€clerk€or€courtÏreporter€as€having€been€òòreceived€into€evidence€as€an€exhibitóó,€(c)Ïòòauthenticated€by€the€trial€judgeóó,€and€(d)€included€in€the€transcript€of€theÏevidence€transmitted€to€this€court.ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÌòòState€v.€Cooperóó,€736€S.W.2d€125,€131€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987)€(emphasisÏadded).€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(c).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóóòòState€v.€Richard€DouglasÏLoweryóó,€No.€03C01„9604„CC„00146,€slip€op.€at€9„10€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏKnoxville,€May€19,€1997)€(rule€applied€to€a€ð ðcriminal€history€reportðð€in€the€contextÏof€sentencing€hearing).€€Under€this€rule€a€pre„sentence€report€filed€only€with€theÏclerk€and€found€only€in€the€technical€record€is€not€in€evidence.€€As€pointed€outÏabove,€the€report€in€the€case€now€before€us€may€have€been€substantiallyÏð ðreceived€into€evidence€as€an€exhibit,ðð€but€ð ðauthenticated€by€the€trial€judgeðð€as€aÏmatter€of€record€it€was€not.€€(The€technical€record,€where€the€ostensible€reportÏappears€in€this€case,€is€certified€by€the€court€clerk,€not€authenticated€by€the€trialÏjudge.€€òòCompareóó€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(a)€(1)€òòwithóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(f)).€ÏSentencing€courts€should€take€care€to€assure€that€the€pre„sentence€report€isÏauthenticated€by€the€judge€òòas€evidence€received€in€the€sentencing€hearingóó.€€ÌÌà àWhile€this€issue€is€worthy€of€amplification€for€the€sake€of€sentencing€byÏcourts€in€the€future,€we€are€not€concerned€about€the€effect€of€the€lack€ofÏauthentication€or€identification€of€the€exhibit€in€this€case.€€First,€the€issue€was€notÏraised€in€the€trial€court€nor€on€appeal,€and€accordingly,€it€is€waived.€€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€13(b),€24(b),€36(a);€Tenn.€R.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€10(b).€€Secondly,€the€priorÏconvictions€that€were€utilized€by€the€trial€court€in€sentencing€the€defendant,Ïbeing€two€convictions€involving€the€carrying€of€weapons,€and€a€conviction€forÏevading€arrest€were€acknowledged€by€the€defendant€when€he€testified€at€theÏsentencing€hearing.€€Under€these€facts€any€error€in€not€authenticating€the€reportÏas€evidence€is€harmless.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€App.€52(a).Ì ×Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóWe€note,€for€example,€that€in€òòState€v€Dondi€B.€Dolanóó,€No.€03C01„9101„CR„283€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€March€25,€1992),€this€court€was€willing€toÏaccept€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€mitigating€factor€(1)€where€the€defendantÏsold€1.5€grams€of€cocaine.€€However,€in€òòDolanóówe€affirmed€the€trial€courtððsÏdetermination€that€the€enhancement€factors€outweighed€this€mitigating€factor,Ïand€likewise€in€the€case€now€before€us,€the€enhancement€factor€so€clearlyÏoutweighs€any€possible€benefit€to€the€defendant€of€applying€mitigating€factor€(1),Ïthat€we€do€not€feel€constrained€to€determine€the€applicability€of€this€mitigatingÏfactor€to€the€defendantððs€possession€of€6.2€grams€of€cocaine.€€This€conclusion€isÏfurther€facilitated€by€the€fact€that€neither€party€developed€the€mitigation€issue€inÏthe€briefs€filed€on€appeal.Ì zÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„302(d)€provides€that,€inÏimposing€a€misdemeanor€sentence,€ð ðthe€court€òòshallóó€fix€a€percentage€of€theÏsentence€which€the€defendant€shall€serve.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302(d)Ï(Supp.€1996)€(emphasis€added).€€(After€serving€the€required€percentage,€theÏprisoner€is€eligible€for€work€release,€furlough,€or€other€rehabilitative€programs.)€ÏThe€maximum€percentage€that€may€be€established€is€75%€(except€in€certainÏcases€not€applicable€here).€€ð ðIf€no€percentage€is€expressed€in€the€judgment,€theÏpercentage€shall€be€considered€zero€percent€(0%).ðð€€In€the€case€now€before€us,Ïthe€sentencing€order€specifies€no€percentage.€€With€respect€to€the€misdemeanorÏsentence,€the€ð ðadministrative€authorityðð€has€the€discretionary€authority€to€ð ðplaceÏthe€defendant€in€[rehabilitative]€programs€as€provided€by€law.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€However,€theÏimposition€of€concurrent€sentences€renders€the€zero€percentage€service€of€theÏmisdemeanor€sentence€meaningless.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€2ÔÝ  Ý›ØØÙ  ÙÓ  ÓÑ7€/¡XXdædÈ7ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° Òò òÓÓÑ  ќـ*ÙßR€564A1-j|¨ÿô` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€CRIMINAL€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌAT€JACKSONó óÌMARCH€1997€SESSIONÌÌò òÓÓÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellee,à àà àà à)€€€€€€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9602„CC„00069Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€Hardin€CountyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìò òJERRY€BLAYLOCKó ó,à àà àà à)€€€€€€Hon.€C.€Creed€McGinley,€JudgeÌò òà àà àó óà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellant.à àà àà à)€€€€€€(Possession€of€ControlledÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€ÏSubstances)à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà à€€€€€€€œFOR›€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌÌœRICHARD€W.€DEBERRY€(On€Appeal)›à à€€€€€€€œJOHN›€KNOX€WALKUPÌœAssistant€Public€Defender›à àà àà à€€œ€€€€€Attorney›€General€&€ReporterÌœ24th€Judicial€District›ÌœP.O.€Box€663à à›à àà àà àœ€€€€€€€ELLEN›€H.€POLLACKÌœCamden,€TN€38320›à àà àà àœ€€€€€€€Assistant›€Attorney€GeneralÌœà àà àà àà àà à›à àœ€€€€€€€450›€James€Robertson€Pkwy.ÌœSTEPHEN€HALE€(At€Trial)à à›à àœ€€€€€€€Nashville,›€TN€37243„0493ÌœAttorney€At€Law›ÌP.O.€Box€œ331›à àà àà àà àœ€€€€€€€ROBERT›€RADFORDÌœBolivar,€TN€38008à à›à àà àà àœ€€€€€€€District›€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœ€€€€€€€P.O.›€Box€686Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ€€€€€€€Huntingdon,›€TN€38344„0686ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœ€€€€€€€€JOHN›€OVERTONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœ€€€€€€€€Assistant›€Dist.€Attorney€GeneralÌ€€€à àà àà àà àà àà àœ€€€€€€€€Main›€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœ€€€€€€€€Savannah,›€TN€38372Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€_____________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌó óCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓOPINIONÌØØÙ  ÙÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant,€Jerry€Blaylock,€appeals€the€conviction€andÏsentence€he€received€in€the€Circuit€Court€of€Hardin€County.€€The€indictmentÏalleges€as€count€(1)€possession€of€cocaine€with€intent€to€manufacture,€deliver,Ïor€sell,€a€Class€B€felony,€and€as€count€(2)€possession€of€marijuana,€aÏmisdemeanor.€€The€jury€convicted€the€defendant€on€both€counts€andÏdetermined€that€fines€in€the€amount€of€$75,000€on€count€(1)€and€$1,250€onÏcount€(2)€were€appropriate.€€After€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€court€imposed€theÏfines€and€ordered€a€mid„Range€I€sentence€on€count€(1)€of€ten€years€and€theÏmaximum€sentence€on€count€(2),€eleven€months,€twenty„nine€œdays,€to›€runÏconcurrently.€€The€trial€court€declined€to€order€any€form€of€alternativeÏsentencing.ÌÌà àà àOn€this€appeal,€the€defendant€makes€the€following€arguments:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  Òà à(1)€The€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€convictions,Ïespecially€the€felony€conviction€of€possession€with€intent€to€deliverÏcocaine.Ìà à(2)€The€defendantððs€constitutional€rights€were€violatedÏthrough€the€stateððs€use€of€a€peremptory€challenge€of€a€juror.Ìà à(3)€A€witness€for€the€state€improperly€communicatedÏprejudicial€hearsay€evidence€through€his€testimony.Ìà à(4)€A€law€enforcement€officer€improperly€destroyedÏevidence€that€may€have€been€exculpative.Ìà à(5)€The€court€erred€in€its€use€of€enhancing€factors,€its€failureÏto€apply€mitigating€œfactors,›€and€in€its€failure€to€allow€alternativeÏsentencing.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àà àAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€record€on€appeal,€including€aÏtranscript€of€the€evidence€presented€at€the€trial€and€at€the€sentencing€hearing,Ïwe€conclude€that€the€defendantððs€appeal€is€meritless.€€The€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt€is€affirmed€in€all€respects.ÌÌà àà àIn€view€of€the€issues€raised,€a€short€statement€of€the€facts€of€thisÏcase€€is€in€order.€€The€cocaine€charge€(count€(1))€and€the€marijuana€chargeÏ(count€(2))€arose€from€separate€incidents.€€The€cocaine€arrest€occurred€onÏFebruary€6,€1994.€€Acting€on€information€supplied€by€various€informants,€officerÍBrian€Huggins€of€the€24th€Judicial€District€Drug€Task€Force,€accompanied€by€aÏsecond€officer,€entered€a€Savannah€apartment€€during€the€early€morning€hours.€ÏThe€tenant„occupant€of€the€apartment,€Patrice€Irvin,€consented€to€the€entry€andÏaccompanied€the€officers€whose€purpose,€as€announced€to€Ms.€Irvin,€was€toÏlocate€the€defendant€and€investigate€his€alleged€drug€activity.€€Ms.€Irvin€showedÏthe€officers€to€a€bedroom€in€the€apartment.€€The€officers€turned€on€the€lights€andÏfound€the€defendant€and€a€female€companion,€Cassandra€Porter,€bothÏunclothed€and€asleep€in€the€bed.€€Upon€waking,€the€defendant€reached€for,€andÏaccording€to€at€least€one€of€the€officers,€grabbed€a€pair€of€black€trousers€thatÏwas€lying€near€the€defendantððs€side€of€the€bed.€€The€defendant€then€stated€thatÏthe€pants€were€not€his€and€threw€them€aside.€€There€were€no€other€garmentsÏpresent,€and€the€defendant€wrapped€a€towel€around€himself.€€Officer€HugginsÏpicked€up€the€black€trousers,€which€were€accessorized€by€a€belt€that€bore€theÏname€ð ðJerry,ðð€and€discovered€a€rock€of€crack€cocaine.€€That€item€€became€theÏbasis€for€count€(1)€in€the€indictment.€€According€to€the€toxicologistððs€testimony,Ïthe€rock€consisted€of€6.2€grams€of€cocaine.ÌÌà àà àCount€(2)€arose€out€of€an€earlier€stop€of€the€defendantððs€vehicle€byÏOfficer€Huggins€on€November€10,€1993.€€Reacting€to€an€informantððs€tip,€theÏofficer€stopped€the€vehicle€driven€by€the€defendant€and€asked€for€and€receivedÏconsent€to€search€the€automobile.€€The€officer€found€a€small€amount€ofÏmarijuana€in€the€trunk.ÌÌà àà àThe€two€counts€were€tried€together.€€In€addition€to€the€testimony€ofÏHuggins€and€the€officer€who€assisted€in€the€arrest€in€the€Irvin€apartment,€IrvinÏand€Porter€testified.€€Irvin€confirmed€the€officersðð€account€of€the€entry€into€theÏapartment€and€the€discovery€of€the€œcontraband.ÌÌà àà àOfficer€Huggins€testified€that,€based€upon€his€experience€as€a€drugÏenforcement€officer,€the€street€value€of€the€large€rock€found€in€the€defendantððsÏtrousers€pocket€would€be€in€the€aggregate€$1,500€to€$2,500,€based€upon€itÏbeing€divided€into€smaller€rocks€that€could€be€sold€as€$25,€$50,€or€$100€units.€ÏThe€toxicologist€testified€that,€based€upon€approximately€1,500€submissions€ofÏcocaine€which€she€had€tested€in€the€laboratory,€the€average€quantity€perÏsubmission€was€.10€gram.€€At€6.2€grams,€the€rock€submitted€to€her€in€theÏdefendantððs€case€was€sixty„two€times€larger€than€the€average€rock€she€typicallyÏtests.›ÌÌà àà àMs.€Porter€testified€as€a€defense€witness€that€on€February€5,€1994,Ïthe€defendant€pawned€a€television€set,€raised€$250€to€$300,€and€went€toÏJackson€to€buy€cocaine.€€She€testified€she€had€been€a€cocaine€addict€for€eightÏyears,€the€defendant€had€been€and€was€still€her€boyfriend,€and€they€smokedÏcrack€together€every€day.€€She€stated€that€they€intended€to€smoke€the€crack€thatÏthe€defendant€purchased€on€February€5,€that€they€did€smoke€crack€on€that€day,Ïbut€that€œshe›€had€not€seen€the€rock€that€was€found€in€the€pants€pocket.€€SheÏtestified€that€she€uses€twenty€to€thirty€twenty„dollar€rocks€per€day.€€At€one€pointÍshe€said€that€the€defendant€used€a€like€amount,€but€later€in€her€testimony€sheÏdenied€saying€that.ÌÌà àà àIn€addition,€the€defense€called€a€drug€rehabilitation€counselor€whoÏtestified€that€during€May€and€part€of€June,€1994,€the€defendant€received€drugÏrehabilitation€at€True€Recovery€A&D€Treatment€Center,€where€the€witnessÏworked.€€He€stated€the€defendant€had€addictions€to€marijuana€and€crackÏcocaine.€€He€further€stated€that€some€crack€addicts€use€five€to€ten€rocks€per€day.€ÏIn€his€opinion,€a€person€could€not€function€after€using€that€much€crack.ÌÌà àà àÌÌà àà àThe€evidence€reflects€that€there€were€no€drug€paraphernalia€foundÏon€or€about€the€defendantððs€person€nor€in€the€apartment€where€he€wasÏdiscovered.€€Also,€a€search€of€his€personal€effects€from€the€scene€revealed€noÏsignificant€amounts€of€cash.ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€conducted€a€sentencing€hearing€on€September€16,Ï1994.€€The€presentence€report,€contained€in€the€technical€record€submitted€byÏthe€trial€court€clerk,€reflects€that€the€defendant€had€a€previous€conviction€recordÏconsisting€of€two€misdemeanor€convictions€for€possession€of€a€weapon,€aÏmisdemeanor€conviction€for€flight€to€avoid€arrest,€a€conviction€for€driving€withoutÏa€valid€driverððs€license,€and€a€conviction€for€violating€the€vehicle€registrationÍlaw.€€The€trial€court€approved€the€fines€as€fixed€by€the€jury€and€imposedÏconcurrent€sentences€of€ten€years€on€count€(1)€(a€Class€B€felony,€Range€I)€andÏeleven€months,€twenty„nine€days€on€Count€(2).€€The€ten„year€felony€sentence€isÏthe€midpoint€of€the€applicable€range€of€eight€to€twelve€years.€€The€court€belowÏenhanced€the€sentence€above€the€minimum€based€upon€findings€that€theÏdefendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behaviorÏœand€that›€there€were€no€mitigating€factors.€€The€court€declined€to€order€any€formÏof€alternative€sentencing.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓI.€€Sufficiency€of€the€œEvidence.Ì›ÌÓ  Óó óà àò òà àó óWhen€an€appeal€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€theÏstandard€of€review€is€whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€state,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443ÏU.S.€307,€318€(1979);€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€190„91€(Tenn.€1992);ÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€On€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€or€legitimate€inferencesÏwhich€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835,Ï(Tenn.€1978).€€This€court€will€not€re„weigh€the€evidence,€re„evaluate€theÏevidence,€or€substitute€its€evidentiary€inferences€for€those€reached€by€the€jury.€ÏòòState€v.€Careyóó,€914€S.W.2d€93,€95€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Furthermore,€in€aÏcriminal€trial,€great€weight€is€given€to€the€result€reached€by€the€jury.€€òòState€v.ÍJohnsonóó,€910€S.W.2d€897,€899€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).ÌÌà àà àOnce€approved€by€the€trial€court,€a€jury€verdict€accredits€theÏwitnesses€presented€by€the€state€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€state.€ÏòòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983).€€The€credibility€ofÏwitnesses,€the€weight€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€the€reconciliation€ofÏconflicts€in€the€proof€are€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€trier€of€fact.€ÏòòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984).€€A€juryððs€guilty€verdictÏremoves€the€presumption€of€innocence€enjoyed€by€the€defendant€at€trial€andÏraises€a€presumption€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.Ï1982).€€The€defendant€then€bears€the€burden€of€overcoming€this€presumption€ofÏguilt€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€175€(Tenn.€1991).à àà àÌÌà àà àA€crime€may€be€established€by€direct€evidence,€circumstantialÏevidence,€or€a€combination€of€the€two.€€òòState€v.€Tharpeóó,€726€S.W.2d€896,€899„900€(Tenn.€1987).€€Before€an€accused€may€be€convicted€of€a€criminal€offenseÏbased€upon€circumstantial€evidence,€the€facts€and€the€circumstances€ð ðmust€beÏso€strong€and€cogent€as€to€exclude€every€other€reasonable€hypothesis€save€theÏguilt€of€the€defendant,€and€that€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòState€v.€Crawfordóó,Ï225€Tenn.€(3€Pack)€478,€482,€470€S.W.2d€610,€612€(1971).€€ð ðA€web€of€guilt€mustÏbe€woven€around€the€defendant€from€which€he€cannot€escape€and€from€whichÏfacts€and€circumstances€the€jury€could€draw€no€other€reasonable€inference€saveÏthe€guilt€of€the€defendant€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€484,€470€S.W.2dÍat€613.ÌÌà àà àThe€offense€alleged€as€count€(1)€in€the€indictment€is€set€forth€inÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„15„417€(a)€(4)€(Supp.€1996),€whereby€itÏð ðis€an€offense€for€a€defendant€to€knowingly€.€.€.€possess€a€controlled€substanceÏwith€intent€to€manufacture,€deliver€or€sell€such€controlled€substance.ðð€€CocaineÏis€a€controlled€substance.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„408€(1991).€€Count€(2)Ïindicted€the€defendant€under€section€39„17„418€(a),€whereby€it€ð ðis€an€offense€forÏa€person€to€knowingly€possess€or€casually€exchange€œ[marijuana].ðð›€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„17„418€(a),€(b)€(Supp.€1996).ÌÌà àà àThe€evidence€is€cogent€and€overwhelming€that€the€defendantÏpossessed€controlled€substances€as€alleged€in€both€counts€of€the€indictment.€ÏHowever,€the€defendant€focuses€his€œappellate›€argument€not€on€proof€ofÏpossession,€but€on€the€sufficiency€of€proof€of€his€intent€to€possess€cocaine€forÏœdelivery.›€€Under€the€Code,€simple€knowing€possession€is€a€Class€AÏmisdemeanor,€while€the€crime€of€which€the€defendant€was€convicted,Ïpossession€with€intent€to€œdeliver,›€is€a€Class€B€felony.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„17„418(a),€(c)€(Supp.€1996);€ðð€39„17„417(c)(1)€(Supp.€1996).€€Section€39„17„419€provides:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓIt€may€be€inferred€from€the€amount€of€a€controlled€substanceÏor€substances€possessed€by€an€offender,€along€with€otherÏrelevant€facts€surrounding€the€arrest,€that€the€controlledÏsubstance€or€substances€were€possessed€with€the€purposeÏof€selling€or€otherwise€dispensing.€€It€may€be€inferred€fromÍcircumstances€indicating€a€casual€exchange€amongÏindividuals€of€a€small€amount€of€a€controlled€substance€orÏsubstances€that€the€controlled€substance€or€substances€soÏexchanged€were€possessed€not€with€the€purpose€of€sellingÏor€otherwise€dispensing€in€violation€of€the€provisions€of€ððÏ39„17„417€(a).€€Such€inferences€shall€be€transmitted€to€theÏjury€by€the€trial€judgeððs€charge,€and€the€jury€will€considerÏsuch€inferences€along€with€the€nature€of€the€substanceÏpossessed€when€affixing€the€penalty.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„419€(1991).€€The€trial€court€charged€the€jury€with€theÏinference€contained€in€the€first€sentence€of€section€39„17„419.€€The€secondÏinference,€arising€when€a€small€amount€of€controlled€substances€is€casuallyÏexchanged,€was€not€charged.€€Presumably,€this€portion€of€the€statute€wasÏomitted€because€there€was€no€proof€of€any€exchange,€casual€or€otherwise.ÌÌà àà àApplying€the€appropriate€standard€of€review€and€assessing€theÏevidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€we€find€sufficient€evidenceÏjustifying€any€rational€trier€of€fact€to€conclude€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€thatÏthe€defendant€€possessed€cocaine€with€intent€to€deliver€the€substance.€€BasedÏupon€the€amount€of€cocaine€œseized„„a›€large€amount,€according€to€twoÏexperienced€œwitnesses„„the›€state€was€entitled€to€the€inference€set€forth€in€theÏfirst€sentence€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„17„419.€€While€theÏproof€suggests€that€the€defendant€had€a€crack€cocaine€habit,€the€proof€is€lackingÏas€to€how€prodigious€his€habit€was.€€The€only€proof€submitted€came€through€theÏtestimony€of€Ms.€Porter.€€Not€only€were€her€statements€conflicting,€but€herÏtestimony€was€vulnerable€to€the€jury€making€critical€credibility€judgments.€€TheÏdefendant€did€not€testify.€€Being€constrained€to€not€reweigh€the€evidence€andÍnot€substitute€our€evidentiary€inferences€for€those€made€by€the€jury,€weÏconclude€that€the€defendant€has€not€carried€his€burden€of€overcoming€onÏappeal€the€presumption€of€guilt€that€arose€upon€his€conviction€in€this€case.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓII.€€Constitutional€Infringement:€Peremptory€Juror€ChallengeÌExercised€by€the€œState.Ì›ÌÓ  Óó óà àà àDuring€the€voir€dire€of€the€œvenire€members,›€one€juror,€Ms.ÏStackings,€a€black€female,€responded€to€questions€about€being€acquainted€withÏprospective€witnesses€by€stating€that€she€had€played€softball€in€the€past€withÏone€of€the€prospective€witnesses€and€that€the€two€were€ð ðstill€friends.ðð€€WhenÏasked€if€the€relationship€would€cause€her€to€give€an€inordinate€amount€of€weightÏto€the€œwitnessððs›€testimony,€Ms.€Stackings€replied€twice,€ð ðI€donððt€know,€it€might.ðð€ÏThe€court€then€examined€Ms.€Stackings€and€determined€that€she€couldÏadequately€disregard€the€personal€relationship€in€considering€the€factsÏpresented€in€evidence€and€declined€to€excuse€her€for€cause.€€After€the€venireÏwas€examined,€the€state€peremptorily€challenged€Ms.€Stackings.€€The€trial€courtÏcalled€counsel€to€the€bench€for€a€conference€out€of€the€hearing€of€theÏprospective€jurors.€€The€judge€noted€the€fact€that€Ms.€Stackings€is€black€and€thatÏthe€defendant€is€black€and€inquired€if€the€district€attorney€had€a€race„neutralÏreason€for€challenging€this€juror.€€The€district€attorney€said,€ð ðShe€is€a€friend€of€aÏperson€who€may€testify.ðð€€The€district€attorney€further€stated€that€while€theÏwitness€might€not€be€used,€she€was€under€subpoena.€€The€defense€objected€toÍthe€use€of€this€challenge,€but€the€trial€court€overruled€the€objection€and€orderedÏthe€jury€selection€to€be€resumed.ÌÌà àà àIn€òòBatson€v.€Kentuckyóó,€476€U.S.€79,€106€S.Ct.€1712,€90€L.Ed.2d€69Ï(1986),€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€stateððs€use€of€peremptoryÏchallenges€in€the€jury€selection€process€to€intentionally€exclude€jurors€of€theÏdefendantððs€race€violates€his€right€to€equal€protection€under€the€FourteenthÏAmendment€to€the€U.S.€Constitution.€A€prima€facie€case€of€purposefulÏdiscrimination€could€be€established€by€the€œdefendant›€showing€that€theÏdefendant€was€a€member€of€a€ð ðcognizable€racial€group,ðð€that€the€state€exercisedÏits€challenges€to€exclude€members€of€the€defendantððs€race,€and€that€all€of€theÏrelevant€circumstances€raised€an€inference€that€the€state€used€the€peremptoryÏchallenge€to€exclude€potential€jurors€because€of€their€race.€€476€U.S.€at€96,€106ÏS.Ct.€at€1723.€€If€the€defendant€is€able€to€establish€a€prima€facie€case€ofÏintentional€discrimination€against€prospective€jurors€from€his€own€race,€the€stateÏmust€then€show€there€was€a€race„neutral€reason€for€the€challenge(s).€€476€U.S.Ïat€97,€106€S.Ct.€at€1723.€€The€explanation€does€not€have€to€rise€to€the€levelÏjustifying€a€challenge€for€cause.€€In€determining€the€issue,€the€trial€courtÏexamines€the€ð ðtotality€of€the€relevant€facts.ðð€€òòState€v.€Bellóó,€759€S.W.2d€651,€653Ï(Tenn.€1988).€€Such€facts€may€include€the€number€of€members€of€theÏdefendantððs€race€that€were€excluded€through€the€stateððs€challenge,€òòbutóó€seeÏòòState€v.€Brownóó,€915€S.W.2d€3,€8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(cautioning€thatÏnumbers€alone€are€not€conclusive),€whether€the€state€failed€to€exhaust€itsÍperemptory€challenges€while€leaving€members€of€the€defendantððs€race€on€theÏjury€panel,€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€795€S.W.2d€680,€687€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990),€orÏwhether€the€challenged€venire€members€exhibited€or€acknowledged€someÏrace„neutral€attitude€or€relationship€so€that€the€state€was€justified€in€fearing€hisÏor€her€antipathy€to€the€prosecution.€€òòIdóó.;€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908,€914Ï(Tenn.€1994);€òòBrownóó,€915€S.W.2d€at€9.€€However,€we€point€out€that€the€exerciseÏof€ð ðeven€one€peremptory€challenge€in€a€purposefully€discriminatory€mannerÏwould€violate€equal€protection.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ellisonóó,€841€S.W.2d€824,€827€(Tenn.Ï1992).€€In€passing,€we€note€that€in€1991€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏmodified€òòBatsonóó€by€deleting€the€requirement€that€the€defendant€and€theÏwrongfully€excluded€jurors€must€be€of€the€same€race.€€òòPowers€v.€Ohioóó,€499€U.S.Ï400,€111€S.Ct.€1364,€œ113›€L.Ed.€2d€411€(1991).€€In€òòGeorgia€v.€McCollumóó,€505ÏU.S.€42,€112€S.Ct.€2348.€120€L.Ed.2d€33€(1992),€the€Supreme€Court€furtherÏamplified€òòBatsonóó€by€requiring€that€the€òòdefendantððsóó€peremptory€challenges€beÏsubject€to€equal€protection€scrutiny.ÌÌà àà àOn€appellate€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€findings€regarding€theÏòòBatsonóó€issue,€we€ð ðcannot€substitute€our€judgment€for€that€of€the€trial€court€orÏdeclare€error€absent€a€finding€that€the€trial€judge€abused€his€or€her€discretion.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Matthew€L.€Moatesóó,€No.€03C01„9610„CR„00383,€slip€op.€at€5€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€Knoxville,€June€24,€1997).ÌÌà àà àGuided€by€the€foregoing€principles,€we€find€no€abuse€of€discretionÍin€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€that€no€purposeful€discrimination€occurred.€€Indeed,€theÏrecord€fully€supports€a€finding€that,€not€only€was€the€stateððs€single€challenge€of€aÏblack€juror€based€on€a€race„neutral€factor,€but€the€defendant€failed€to€establishÏeven€a€prima€facie€case€of€purposeful€discrimination.Ìà àà àÌò òÓ  ÓIII.€€Hearsay.ÌÓ  Ӝ̛à àà àó óDuring€the€stateððs€direct€examination€of€Officer€Huggins,€theÏwitness€began€to€describe€the€information€given€to€him€by€an€informant€aboutÏthe€defendantððs€alleged€drug€sales.€€Defense€counsel€interposed€a€hearsayÏobjection€which€was€sustained,€and€the€trial€court€announced€that€the€witnessÏmay€not€ð ðstate€what€someone€else€told€him.ðð€€Later€in€his€testimony,€OfficerÏHuggins€was€asked€how€he€came€into€contact€with€Patrice€Irvin.€€He€responded,Ïð ðShe€was€seen€in€the€vehicle€that€the€informants€had€told€me€that€Mr.€BlaylockÏwould€be€in,€that€he€was€selling€crack€out€of.ðð€€A€further€objection€was€made€andÏwas€sustained,€but€the€trial€court€gave€no€admonitory€or€limiting€instructions€toÏthe€jury.ÌÌà àà àThe€state€argues€that€the€reference€to€the€defendant€selling€drugsÏwas€not€hearsay€because€it€was€not€offered€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matterÏasserted€by€the€absent€declarant,€citing€òòState€v.€Caughronóó,€855€S.W.2d€526Ï(Tenn.€1993).€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€801(c),€802.€€The€difficulty€with€the€stateððsÏargument€is€that€there€was€no€other€reason€for€offering€the€statement€other€thanÍto€suggest€that€the€defendant€had€been€selling€crack€from€a€vehicle.€€òòSeeóó€NeilÏP.€Cohen,€et€al,òò€Tennessee€Law€of€Evidence€óó€ðð€801.3€(3d€ed.€œ1995).›€€If€evenÏrelevant€to€the€question€being€answered,€the€comment€was€gratuitous,€and€weÏmust€bear€in€mind€that€the€person€testifying€was€the€prosecuting€officer.€ThereÏwas€no€other€relevant€reason€for€the€offered€information€except€to€show€that€theÏdefendant€sold€crack€from€this€vehicle,€and€for€a€such€a€purpose,€the€evidenceÏdepended€upon€the€credibility€and/or€accuracy€of€the€absent€declarant.ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€comment€was€objectionableÏhearsay,€but€we€further€hold€that€the€injection€of€this€comment€was€harmlessÏerror.€€The€defense€elicited€information€from€this€witness€that,€on€differentÏoccasions€when€the€defendant€came€to€Savannah,€the€officer€had€received€fiftyÏto€sixty€calls€from€persons€who€claimed€that€the€defendant€was€dealing€in€drugs.€ÏEven€though€the€witness€acknowledged€that€he€had€never€effected€a€ð ðbuyðð€fromÏthe€defendant€and€had€obtained€no€other€proof€of€the€defendant€selling€drugs,Ïthe€infusion€of€the€volume€of€informantsðð€tips€tends€to€overwhelm€and€minimalizeÏthe€hearsay€statement,€relegating€the€admission€of€the€statement€to€harmlessÏerror.€€Tenn.€R.€€App.€P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€œ52(a).›€œòò€Seeóó›€òòe.g.óó,€òòCaughronóó,€855ÏS.W.2d€526.€€òòState€v.€Summerallóó,€926€S.W.2d€272,€278€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1995);€òòMarsh€v.€Stateóó,€561€S.W.2d€767€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977);€òòSnowball€v.ÏStateóó,€477€S.W.2d€240€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1971).€€Furthermore,€we€observe€that,Ïin€the€same€cross„examination€that€elicited€the€fact€of€a€large€number€ofÏinformant€tips,€defense€counsel€was€effective€in€extracting€the€œwitnessððs›Íadmission€that€no€proof€of€any€actual€sale€of€drugs€had€been€obtained,€despiteÏall€of€the€informant€activity€and€the€intense€investigation€of€the€defendant€thatÏhad€been€ongoing€for€some€eight€months.€€The€record€reflects€a€palpableÏsuggestion€that€the€informantsðð€communications€were€œcontrived,›€œor›€at€leastÏunreliable,€thereby€diminishing€the€impact€of€the€insertion€of€inadmissibleÏhearsay€evidence.€€Accordingly,€the€issue€is€meritless.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓIV.€€Destruction€of€Exculpatory€Evidence.Ó  Óó óà àà àœÌà àThe›€defendant€asserts€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€destruction€of€audioÏtapes€which€may€have€preserved€the€defendantððs€statements€that€he€did€not€sellÏdrugs,€€allegedly€made€in€response€to€an€undercover€solicitation€to€buy€drugsÏfrom€him.€Officer€Huggins€admitted€that€attempts€had€been€made€to€equipÏinformants/undercover„operatives€with€tape€recorders€in€order€to€record€a€saleÏof€drugs€by€the€defendant€to€an€informant/operative.€€However,€the€record€doesÏnot€reflect€that€any€recording€of€the€defendant€was€ever€made.œ× ƒ7 ××  ×›€€Thus,€weÏresolve€the€issue€by€concluding€there€was€no€factual€basis€in€the€record€forÏfinding€that€the€state€failed€to€disclose€or€destroyed€exculpative€evidence.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓV.€€Sentencing.ÌÓ  Óà àœà àÌà àó óThe›€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€improperly€determined€€theÏlength€of€this€sentence€and€failed€to€grant€alternative€sentencing.à àÌÌà àà àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€ofÏservice€of€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòde€novoóó€review€ofÏthe€record€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€areÏcorrect.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„401(d)€(1990).€€This€presumption€isÏð ðconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÏconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€ð ðThe€burden€of€showingÏthat€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€the€appellant.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€169.€€In€the€event€theÏrecord€fails€to€demonstrate€the€required€consideration€by€the€trial€court,€reviewÏof€the€sentence€is€purely€òòde€novoóó.€€òòIdóó.€If€appellate€review€reflects€the€trial€courtÏproperly€considered€all€relevant€factors€and€its€findings€of€fact€are€adequatelyÏsupported€by€the€record,€this€court€must€affirm€the€sentence,€ð ðeven€if€we€wouldÏhave€preferred€a€different€result.ðð€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àà àIn€the€absence€of€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors,€theÏpresumptive€length€of€sentence€of€a€Class€B,€C,€D,€or€E€felony€is€the€minimumÍsentence€in€the€statutory€range€while€the€presumptive€length€of€sentence€for€aÏClass€A€felony€is€the€midpoint€in€the€statutory€range.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„210(c)€(Supp.€1996).€€Where€one€or€more€enhancement€factors€and€noÏmitigating€factors€exist,€the€trial€court€may€sentence€above€the€presumptiveÏsentence€but€still€within€the€range.€€òòIdóó.€ðð40„35„210(d).€€Where€bothÏenhancement€and€mitigating€factors€apply,€the€trial€court€must€start€at€theÏminimum€sentence,€enhance€the€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€forÏthe€enhancement€factors,€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€asÏappropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€òòIdóó.€ðð40„35„210(e).€€The€weight€affordedÏan€enhancement€or€mitigating€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€soÏlong€as€the€trial€court€complies€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€theÏTennessee€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€and€its€findings€areÏsupported€by€the€record.€€òòState€v.€Hayesóó,€899€S.W.2d€175,€185€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌà àà àIn€making€its€sentencing€determination,€the€trial€court,€at€theÏð ðconclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,ðð€determines€the€range€of€sentence€andÏthen€determines€the€specific€sentence€and€the€propriety€of€sentencingÏalternatives€by€considering€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€theÏsentencing€hearing;€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€of€sentencingÏand€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternative;€(4)€the€nature€and€characteristics€ofÏthe€criminal€conduct€involved;€(5)€evidence€and€information€offered€by€theÏparties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors;€(6)€any€statements€theÍdefendant€wishes€to€make€in€the€defendantððs€behalf€about€sentencing;€and€(7)Ïthe€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„210(a),€(b)Ï(Supp.€1996);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„103(5)€(1990);€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,€860ÏS.W.2d€53,€60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).à àÌà àà àIn€the€case€now€before€us,€the€trial€judge€placed€of€recordÏextensive€findings€of€fact€and€demonstrated€that€he€understood,€reviewed,€andÏconsidered€the€applicable€sentencing€principles.€€The€sentencingÏdeterminations,€therefore,€are€accompanied€by€the€presumption€of€correctness.ÌÌà àà àApplying€the€principles€of€sentencing€with€the€presumption€ofÏcorrectness,€the€length€of€each€sentence€is€fully€supported€in€the€record.€€TheÏtrial€courtððs€reliance€upon€the€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminalÏbehavior€is€warranted.œ× ƒ8 ××  ×›€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1)€(Supp.€1996).€ÍThe€trial€court€was€justifiably€concerned€about€the€dangerous€combination€ofÏdrug€trafficking€and€going€armed.€€Clearly,€the€trial€judge€determined€that€theÍrecord€of€prior€convictions€for€weapons€offenses€exacerbated€the€drug€offenseÏin€the€case€under€review,€causing€the€trial€court€to€give€controlling€weight€to€thisÏenhancement€factor.€€òòSeeóó€òòHayesóó,€899€S.W.2d€at€185.€€We€concur.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€argues€on€appeal€that€the€trial€court€should€haveÏconsidered€and€applied€the€statutory€mitigating€factor€that€the€criminal€conductÏneither€caused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injury.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„113(1)€(1990).€€However,€had€there€been€any€error€committed€in€failing€toÏuse€this€mitigating€factor,€it€would€be€harmless€based€upon€the€weight€justifiablyÏaccorded€to€the€applicable€enhancement€factor.œ× ƒ9 ××  ×›€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);€Tenn.ÏR.€Crim.€P.€52(a).ÌÌà àà àFinally,€we€examine€the€refusal€of€the€trial€court€to€allow€alternativeÏsentencing€in€this€case.× ƒ: ××  ×€€Under€the€Tennessee€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,Ía€defendant€who€is€ð ðan€especially€mitigated€or€standard€offender€convicted€of€aÏClass€C,€D,€or€E€felony,ðð€and€who€has€not€been€convicted€of€ð ðcommitting€theÏmost€severe€offenses,€possessing€[a]€criminal€histor[y]€evincing€a€clearÏdisregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€of€society,€and€evincing€failure€of€past€effortsÏof€rehabilitation,ðð€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternativeÏsentencing€options,€ð ðin€the€absence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„102(5),€(6)€(Supp.€1996).€€A€defendant€is€eligible€for€probation,€aÏparticular€alternative€sentencing€option,€when€the€sentence€ð ðactually€imposed€.€.Ï.€is€eight€(8)€years€or€less€.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(a)€(Supp.€1996)Ï(unless€the€defendant€is€convicted€of€aggravated€forms€of€kidnapping,€robbery,Ïchild€abuse,€or€sexual€battery€or€certain€drug€offenses€€not€applicable€in€theÏcase€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€was€convicted€of€a€Class€B€felony€and€received€aÏsentence€of€ten€years.€He€is€neither€eligible€for€probation€nor€is€he€presumed€toÏbe€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing.€€The€record€reflects€the€trialÏcourt€€was€guided€by€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€considered€alternativeÏsentencing,€and€that€is€all€that€we€can€require.€€There€is€no€basis€in€the€recordÍfor€upending€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€that€alternative€sentencing€options€wereÏnot€appropriate.€€In€other€words,€the€defendant€€has€failed€to€carry€his€burden€ofÏdemonstrating€that€the€manner€of€service€of€the€sentence€is€improper.€€There€isÏno€ground€for€altering€or€setting€aside€the€sentence€as€ordered€below.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓVI.€€œConclusion.Ì›ÌÓ  Óà àà àó óThe€conclusion€is€that€there€is€no€consequential€error€in€theÏproceedings€below,€and€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€in€all€respects€affirmed.ÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________Ì€à àà àà àà àà àà àCURWOOD€WITT,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ__________________________ÌJOE€B.€JONES,€Presiding€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àÌÌ__________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JudgeÌÌà àà àÌÌ