ÿWPCA, …UBV %˜U.žÌnXÜ 0 44 4h 1m| 0cé w@L 0xŒ 0D H 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ B& 0|C 0†¿ 0E 1uÕ 0dJ D3® 0@áU6!B)WDC€ AMÃJ&ÓpÂC:?ÁÌØv~evÓã 0w¶% 0Š-& 0 ·& 0´W' 0Ç ( 0ÛÒ( 0ï­) AOœ*Æë* 0D±+ D/õ+ B$,<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|X«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP( ¤T$¡¡Ó  ÓR¦" tuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;s˜$´´Ô2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à kElPmDnEoUpbqFerr‚sDtÓ€(((3Þ $¤¤Ý ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô#$% ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ 'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d33337Border 1dd€-4Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òJune€5,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó @Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÝ  ÝÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€defendant€was€indicted€along€with€co„defendant€Dennis€James€Ogle.€€In€a€separateÏproceeding,€Ogle€also€pled€guilty€to€the€charges.Ì ÉÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÝ  ÝÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóOvertonððs€testimony€is€from€the€first€day€of€the€defendantððs€trial.€€Because€the€defendantÏchanged€his€plea€and€pled€guilty,€the€testimony€from€all€other€victims€was€heard€as€part€of€the€StateððsÏoffer€of€proof€in€support€of€the€guilty€pleas.Ô€2ÔÌ ¸Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÝ  ÝÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóAlthough€the€published€opinion€spells€the€defendantððs€name€with€two€tððs,€the€originalÏindictment€spells€his€name€with€only€one€t,€and€it€is€the€practice€of€this€Court€to€list€the€defendant€as€hisÏname€appears€on€the€indictment.Ô€2ÔÌ 0Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÝ  ÝÒ D ÒÒ ¢ ÒÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóSubsection€(a)(3)€of€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„108€was€not€part€of€the€commissionððs€original€proposal.Ô€2ÔÌ ƒÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÝ  ÝÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóIn€1985,€in€Sevier›€County,€the€defendant€pled€guilty€to€simple€robbery.€€In€1988,€also€in€œSevier›ÏCounty,€he€pled€guilty€to€petit€larceny€and€attempted€third€degree€œburglary.Ô€2Ô›€€Ì ·Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÝ  ÝÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€trial€court€noted€that€the€defendant€also€received€concurrent€sentences€at€his€originalÏsentencing€hearing.€€At€the€original€hearing,€the€trial€court€judge€stated,€ð ðIn€this€case,€it€is€the€CourtððsÏunderstanding,€after€conversation€with€counsel,€when€[the€defendant]€chose€to€change€his€plea€fromÏnot€guilty€to€guilty,€that€it€was€announced€at€that€time€that€these€sentences€would€be€servedÏconcurrently€with€each€other€on€the€basis€of€the€continued€pleas€in€the€other€cases.ððÔ€2ÔÌ ÎÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÝ  ÝÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóIn€federal€court,€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€three€counts€of€bank€robbery.€€For€these€threeÏcounts,€he€received€a€sentence€of€160€months.€€He€received€an€additional€60€month€consecutiveÏsentence€for€carrying€a€firearm€during€the€commission€of€a€crimeÔ€2Ô.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò(OÞ{$µµà0  àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b²D$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xÓñ$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒÆ‚$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿù…$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³¶4$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Ǫ»$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€2ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ7€VXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓ  ÓԀԜـ€ÙßR€564A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÓ  Óà@ àMARCH€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.€NO.€ó ó€ò ò03C01„9603„CR„00114ó óÌà àà àAppellee,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àKNOX€COUNTYó óÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€RICHARDÏBAUMGARTNER,ÌCORBY€MARTIN€BLOUVET,€IIà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)ó óà à(Certified€question€of€law€andÏà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àsentencing)ÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òA.€PHILIP€LOMONACOó óà àò òà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPó óÌ112€Durwood€Dr.à àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌKnoxville,€TN€€37922Ìò òà àà àà àà àà àà àà àELIZABETH€T.€RYANó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.ÏAttorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Pkwy.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òRANDALL€E.€NICHOLSó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òROBERT€L.€JOLLEY,€JR.ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCity„County€Bldg.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TN€€37902à àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,ÌJudgeÌÑ  Ñà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant€was€indicted€by€presentment€in€May€of€1991€onÏnumerous€charges€related€to€a€spree€of€robberies€and€other€crimes.€€After€a€day€ofÏtrial,€the€defendant€decided€to€enter€a€plea€of€guilty.× ƒ7 ××  ×€€He€was€convicted€of€nineÏcounts€of€aggravated€robbery,€two€counts€of€attempted€aggravated€robbery,€andÏthree€counts€of€aggravated€kidnapping.€€Following€a€hearing,€the€defendant€wasÏsentenced.€€On€appeal,€the€defendant€questioned€the€appropriateness€of€hisÍsentence€and€sought€to€raise€a€certified€question.€€This€Court€and€ultimately€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court€determined€that€the€trial€court€improperly€sentenced€theÏdefendant€and€remanded€the€case€for€re„sentencing.€€This€Court€also€determinedÏthat€while€the€defendant€did€not€properly€certify€his€question€on€appeal,€he€couldÏattempt€to€do€so€upon€completion€of€the€re„sentencing.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€re„sentencing,€the€defendant€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€IÏstandard€offender€for€the€counts€of€aggravated€robbery€and€aggravated€kidnapping.€ÏHe€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offender€for€the€attempted€aggravatedÏrobbery€counts.€€The€trial€court€determined€that€all€his€sentences€should€runÏconcurrently€for€an€effective€sentence€of€twenty„two€years.€€The€court€alsoÏdetermined€that€these€state€sentences€should€run€concurrently€with€the€defendantððsÏsentences€in€federal€prison.€€However,€the€court€concluded€that€the€state€and€federalÏsentences€should€run€consecutively€to€an€earlier€sentence€from€Sevier€County.ÌÌà àà àIn€the€appeal€now€before€this€Court,€the€defendant€raises€the€followingÏcertified€question:€€ð ð[W]hether€the€facts€surrounding€[the€defendantððs]€treatment€of€theÏthree€victims€during€a€robbery€of€the€Small€Packages€Store€constitutes€sufficientÏevidence€to€sustain€three€convictions€of€aggravated€kidnapping.ððÌÌà àà àIn€its€cross€appeal,€the€State€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€itÏclassified€the€defendant€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender€and€when€it€determined€thatÏthe€defendantððs€sentences€should€run€concurrently€with€each€other€and€with€hisÏsentences€in€federal€prison.€€After€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€ofÏthe€court€below.€ÌÌò òÓ  ÓI.€€BACKGROUND€FACTSó óÌÓ  Óà àà àDuring€the€months€of€February€and€March€of€1990,€the€defendant€andÏDennis€James€Ogle€committed€several€criminal€acts.€€They€robbed€three€banks€in€theÏEast€Tennessee€area,€robbed€five€Knoxville€area€businesses,€and€attempted€to€robÏone€of€the€five€businesses€a€second€time.€€The€defendant€was€arrested€by€the€FBI€onÏMarch€20,1990,€and€eventually€pled€guilty€to€all€the€above€crimes.€€As€the€certifiedÏquestion€on€this€appeal€pertains€solely€to€the€robbery€of€one€of€the€businesses,ÏSmall€Packages,€we€limit€our€discussion€of€the€facts€to€that€robbery€only.ÌÌà àà àOn€March€15,€1990,€Melanie€Overton,€the€part„time€accountant€forÏSmall€Packages,€a€childrenððs€clothing€store,€was€working€in€the€small€office€in€theÏback€of€the€store€with€the€storeððs€back€door€open.€€The€door€was€open€because€of€theÍwarm€weather.€€Overton€testified× ƒ8 ××  ×€that€she€had€seen€someone€walk€past€the€door,€butÏshe€did€not€have€time€to€see€who€it€was€before€the€defendant€entered€the€back€areaÏof€the€store€wearing€a€ski€mask€and€holding€a€gun.€€Ms.€Overton€testified€that€she€hadÏfirst€thought€it€was€a€joke,€but€the€defendant€had€told€her€it€was€no€joke€and€hadÏshown€her€the€bullets€in€the€gun.€€The€defendant€told€Ms.€Overton€to€sit€on€the€floor.€ÏHe€then€produced€a€roll€of€black€electrical€tape€and€taped€Ms.€Overtonððs€hands€andÏankles.€€The€defendant€then€rifled€through€everything€in€the€office€and€took€eightyÏdollars€($80)€from€Ms.€Overtonððs€purse.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€walked€to€the€door€separating€the€front€of€the€store€fromÏthe€back€apparently€in€order€to€listen€to€the€activities€in€the€store.€€Ms.€OvertonÏtestified€that€the€defendant€had€then€returned€to€her€and€told€her€to€yell€to€the€front€ofÏthe€store.€€So€that€she€could€be€heard€through€the€door,€the€defendant€picked€up€Ms.ÏOverton€from€the€floor€and€moved€her€nearer€the€door.€€Ms.€Overton€testified€that€theÏdefendant€ð ðlifted€[her]€front€ways,€just€sort€of€under€the€arms€and€not€„„€not€bodily€butÏjust€from€the€front€and€just€helped€[her]€over€to€the€door€.€.€.€and€leaned€[her]€upÏagainst€the€side€of€the€doorway.ðð€€She€further€testified€that€the€defendant€had€at€firstÍtold€her€to€walk€to€the€door,€but€that€because€her€feet€were€taped€she€could€not.€€SheÏasked€the€defendant€to€remove€the€tape€so€that€she€could€walk€to€the€door,€but€heÏcarried€her€instead.ÌÌà àà àShortly€after€Ms.€Overton€called€to€the€front€of€the€store,€anotherÏemployee,€Marguerite€Hogan,€entered€the€back€area€of€the€store.€€The€defendant€toldÏMs.€Overton€and€Ms.€Hogan€to€sit€next€to€each€other€on€the€floor€and€then€taped€Ms.ÏHoganððs€feet€and€hands€as€he€had€taped€Ms.€Overtonððs.€€The€defendant€then€left€theÏtwo€women€and€returned€to€listen€at€the€door.€€At€this€time,€Mr.€Howard€Edmonds,€anÏemployee€of€Cookððs€Pest€Control,€entered€the€back€area€of€the€store€in€order€to€sprayÏfor€insects.€€When€Mr.€Edmonds€entered€the€back€area,€the€defendant€instructed€himÏto€go€into€the€bathroom.€€Mr.€Edmonds€did€as€instructed€and€remained€there€until€theÏdefendant€left€the€building.ÌÌà àà àMs.€Overton€testified€that€after€Mr.€Edmonds€had€been€placed€in€theÏbathroom,€the€defendant€returned€to€the€door.€€She€testified€that€she€had€not€beenÏable€to€see€the€defendant€from€her€spot€on€the€floor€but€that€suddenly€she€heard€himÏrun€away€from€the€door€and€back€through€the€back€area€to€exit€the€back€door.€€SheÏand€Ms.€Hogan€then€jumped€up€and€cut€the€tape€on€their€feet€and€hands€with€aÍnearby€box€opener.€€Ms.€Overton€testified€that€she€had€later€learned€that€theÏdefendant€had€fled€the€store€after€being€sprayed€with€Mace€by€another€employee€ofÏthe€store,€Callie€Cullum.€€Ms.€Overton€testified€that€the€entire€incident€lasted€betweenÏtwenty€and€thirty€minutes€and€that€the€defendant€held€the€gun€the€entire€time.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€ultimately€pled€guilty€to€aggravated€robbery€andÏaggravated€kidnapping€of€Melanie€Overton,€attempted€aggravated€robbery€of€CallieÏCullum,€aggravated€kidnapping€of€Marguerite€Hogan,€and€aggravated€kidnapping€ofÏHoward€Edmonds.€€Ì€Ìò òÓ  ÓII.€€CERTIFIED€QUESTIONó óÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant€alleges€that€under€the€principles€of€òòState€v.€Anthonyóó,Ï817€S.W.2d€299€(Tenn.€1991),€he€was€erroneously€convicted€of€both€aggravatedÏrobbery€and€aggravated€kidnapping.€€He€challenges€all€three€aggravated€kidnappingÏconvictions.€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòAnthonyóó,€two€criminal€cases€were€consolidated€in€which€eachÏdefendant€had€been€convicted€of€armed€robbery€and€aggravated€kidnapping€as€aÏresult€of€a€single€incident.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€addressed€the€issue€ofÍwhether€either€defendantððs€due€process€rights€had€been€violated€when€he€wasÏconvicted€of€these€two€crimes.€€The€Court€formulated€the€following€test€to€determineÏwhether€each€conviction€can€stand€on€its€own:ÌÒ ô ÒÒ ¦ ÒÒ ô ÒÒ \ ÒÓÓ[W]hether€the€confinement,€movement,€or€detention€isÏessentially€incidental€to€the€accompanying€felony€and€isÏnot,€therefore,€sufficient€to€support€a€separate€convictionÏfor€kidnapping,€or€whether€it€is€significant€enough,€in€andÏof€itself,€to€warrant€independent€prosecution€and€is,Ïtherefore,€sufficient€to€support€such€a€conviction.€.€.€.€[O]neÏmethod€of€resolving€this€question€is€to€ask€whether€theÏdefendantððs€conduct€ððsubstantially€increased€[the]€risk€ofÏharm€over€and€above€that€necessarily€present€in€the€crimeÏof€robbery€itself.ððÌ€ÌÒ D ÒÒ \ ÒÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓòòAnthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€306€(citation€omitted).ÌÌà àà àAs€to€the€aggravated€kidnapping€convictions€of€Marguerite€Hogan€andÏHoward€Edmonds,€we€conclude€there€is€no€reason€these€convictions€should€notÏstand.€€The€aggravated€kidnappings€of€Ms.€Hogan€and€Mr.€Edmonds€were€certainlyÏnot€ð ðessentially€incidentalðð€to€the€accompanying€felony€of€aggravated€robbery€of€Ms.ÏOverton.€€Ms.€Overton€had€already€been€robbed€before€Ms.€Hogan€or€Mr.€EdmondsÏwere€kidnapped.€€The€kidnappings€of€Ms.€Hogan€and€Mr.€Edmonds€had€absolutelyÏno€connection€to€the€robbery€of€Ms.€Overton.€€The€defendantððs€convictions€for€theÏaggravated€kidnappings€of€Ms.€Hogan€and€Mr.€Edmonds€are€affirmed.ÌÌà àà àAs€for€the€conviction€of€aggravated€kidnapping€of€Ms.€Overton,€theÏanalysis€is€not€as€simple.€€The€defendant€bound€Ms.€Overtonððs€feet€and€hands€inÏorder€to€rob€her€and€to€get€her€out€of€the€way€while€he€went€about€accomplishing€hisÏultimate€goal€of€taking€money€from€the€front€of€the€store.€€Under€the€principles€ofÏòòAnthonyóó,€we€find€that€the€initial€binding€of€Ms.€Overton€was€essentially€incidental€toÏthe€aggravated€robbery.€€In€òòAnthonyóó,€the€Court€found€that€the€kidnapping€convictionsÏof€the€two€defendants€could€not€stand€on€their€own€because€none€of€the€victims€wasÏsubjected€to€any€substantially€increased€risk€of€harm€in€addition€to€that€harm€whichÏwas€necessarily€present€in€the€crime€of€robbery€itself.€€817€S.W.2d€at€307.€€We€reachÏthe€same€conclusion€here.€€The€defendant€taped€Ms.€Overtonððs€feet€and€hands€soÏthat€he€could€take€money€from€her€purse.€€Taping€her€hands€and€feet€did€notÏsubstantially€increase€the€risk€of€harm€to€Ms.€Overton.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sandersóó,€842ÏS.W.2d€257,€260€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)(finding€no€substantial€increase€of€harmÏwhere€victimsðð€hands€were€bound€with€duct€tape);€òòState€v.€Kevin€R.€Mosleyóó,€No.Ï01C01„9108„CC„00235,€Humphreys€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€April€29,€1992,Ïat€Nashville)(reversing€kidnapping€conviction€where€victimsðð€feet€and€wrists€wereÏbound€in€order€to€facilitate€robbery€and€escape).€€Thus,€if€the€defendant€had€left€theÏstore€immediately€after€robbing€Ms.€Overton,€we€would€be€forced€to€reverse€andÍdismiss€the€aggravated€kidnapping€conviction.€€Because€the€defendant€did€not€leaveÏthe€store,€but€rather,€he€continued€to€hold€Ms.€Overton€at€gunpoint€and€then€removedÏher€from€where€he€first€taped€her€hands€and€feet,€we€must€continue€our€inquiry.ÌÌà àà àThe€initial€analysis€under€òòAnthonyóó€is€ð ðwhether€the€confinement,Ïmovement,€or€detention€is€essentially€incidental€to€the€accompanying€felony.ðð€€817ÏS.W.2d€at€306.€€After€completing€the€felony€of€aggravated€robbery,€the€defendantÏcontinued€to€hold€Ms.€Overton€at€gunpoint€and€then€picked€her€up€and€carried€her€toÏthe€door€leading€to€the€front€of€the€store.€€He€leaned€her€against€the€door€and€told€herÏto€call€to€the€front€of€the€store.€€When€another€employee€entered€the€back€area,€theÏdefendant€moved€Ms.€Overton€again€and€placed€her€on€the€floor€with€Ms.€Hogan.€ÏMs.€Overton€testified€that€the€defendant€œhad€had›€the€gun€displayed€the€entire€time.€ÏHolding€Ms.€Overton€at€gunpoint€and€moving€her€about€the€store€is€certainly€notÏincidental€to€the€already€accomplished€felony€of€aggravated€robbery.€€Thus,€weÏconclude€that€the€defendantððs€conduct€from€the€time€after€he€robbed€Ms.€Overton€untilÏhe€exited€the€store€is€sufficient€to€uphold€his€conviction€for€the€aggravatedÏkidnapping€of€Ms.€Overton.€€We€also€note€that€these€facts€were€sufficient€enough,€inÏand€of€themselves,€to€warrant€independent€prosecution€for€the€offense€of€aggravatedÏkidnapping.€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌò òÓ  ÓIII.€€SENTENCING€ISSUESó óÌÓ  Óà àà àAfter€his€first€sentencing€hearing,€the€defendant€was€sentenced€as€aÏRange€III€career€offender.€€The€defendant€challenged€this€status€on€appeal€andÏargued€that€the€trial€court€misconstrued€certain€statutory€sentencing€provisions.€€TheÏTennessee€Supreme€Court€agreed€with€the€defendant€and€determined€that€ð ðððpriorÏconvictionðð€means€a€conviction€that€has€been€adjudicated€prior€to€the€commission€ofÏthe€more€recent€offense€for€which€sentence€is€to€be€imposed.ðð€€òòState€v.€œBlouvett›óó,€904ÏS.W.2d€111,€113€(Tenn.€1995).œ× ƒ9 ××  ×›€€Thus,€the€case€was€remanded€for€re„sentencing.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€re„sentencing,€the€defendant€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€IÏstandard€offender€for€the€nine€counts€of€aggravated€robbery€and€the€three€counts€ofÏaggravated€kidnapping.€€For€each€of€the€aggravated€robbery€counts,€he€receivedÏtwelve€years.€€For€each€of€the€aggravated€kidnapping€counts,€he€received€twenty„twoÏyears.€€However,€he€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offender€for€the€twoÏattempted€aggravated€robbery€counts€and€received€ten€years€for€each€count.ÌÌà àà àThe€State€first€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€classifying€theÏdefendant€as€a€Range€III€persistent€offender€for€the€nine€Class€B€felonies€ofÏaggravated€robbery.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„107€provides:ÌÒ D ÒÒ \ ÒÒ ô ÒÒ \ ÒÓÓœ(a)›€A€ð ðpersistent€offenderðð€is€a€defendant€who€hasÏreceived:ÌÌ(1)€Any€combination€of€five€(5)€or€more€òòprior€felonyÏconvictionsóó€within€the€conviction€class€or€higher,€or€withinÏthe€next€two€(2)€lower€felony€classes,€where€applicable;€orÌÌ(2)€At€least€two€(2)€Class€A€or€any€combination€of€three€(3)ÏClass€A€or€Class€B€òòfelony€convictionsóó€if€the€defendantððsÏconviction€offense€is€a€Class€A€or€B€felony(emphasisÏadded).ÌÌÒ ô ÒÒ ¦ ÒÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓThe€State€contends€that€because€(a)(2)€says€ð ðfelony€convictionsðð€and€not€ð ðpriorÏfelony€convictionsðð€like€(a)(1),€the€legislature€must€have€intended€that€òòanyóó€Class€A€orÏB€felony€conviction€can€be€considered€regardless€of€whether€it€meets€the€definition€ofÏð ðprior€conviction.ðð€€To€support€this€theory,€the€State€points€to€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„108,€theÏcareer€offender€statute,€where€(a)(1)€of€that€statute€uses€the€term€ð ðprior€felonyÏconvictionsðð€while€(a)(2)€of€that€statute€uses€the€term€ð ðfelony€convictions.ðð€€Again,Ï(a)(2)€of€this€statute,€like€the€persistent€offender€statute,€refers€to€Class€A€and€BÏfelonies.€€ÌÌà àà àWe€note,€however,€that€(a)(3)€of€the€career€offender€statute,€referring€toÍClass€D€and€E€felonies,€does€use€the€term€ð ðprior€felony€convictionsðð€and€that€bothÏsections€of€the€multiple€offender€statute,€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„106,€use€the€term€ð ðpriorÏfelony€convictions.ðð€€We€note€this€because€ð ð[œr]elated›€code€provisions€must€beÏconstrued€together,€and€the€construction€of€one,€if€doubtful,€may€be€aided€byÏconsideration€of€the€language€and€legislative€intent€of€the€other.ðð€€òòBlouvettóó,€904ÏS.W.2d€at€113.ÌÌà àà àIn€the€Tennessee€Sentencing€Commissionððs€Proposed€SentencingÏReform€Act€of€1989,€both€subsections€(a)(1)€and€(a)(2)€of€the€persistent€offenderÏstatute€use€the€term€ð ðprior€felony€convictions.ðð€€The€same€subsections€in€the€careerÏoffender€statute€also€use€that€term.œ× ƒ: ××  ×›€€The€State€argues€that€the€omission€of€the€wordÏð ðpriorðð€in€subsection€(a)(2)€of€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„107€and€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„108€wasÏintentional€because€that€section€addresses€the€more€serious€Class€A€and€B€felonies.€ÏWe€do€not€agree.€€€€ÌÌà àà àFirst,€the€Stateððs€argument€fails€to€take€the€multiple€offender€statute€intoÏconsideration.€€That€statute€destroys€the€theory€that€Class€A€and€B€felonies€are€to€beÏtreated€differently.€€Subsection€(a)(2)€of€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„106,€the€multiple€offenderÍstatute,€allows€a€defendant€to€be€classified€as€a€multiple€offender€if€he€has€one€ClassÏA€òòprior€felony€convictionóó€and€where€his€conviction€offense€is€a€Class€A€or€B.€€That€theÏterm€ð ðprior€felony€convictionðð€is€used€here€with€a€Class€A€felony€dispels€the€StateððsÏargument€œthat€the›€legislature€intended€to€treat€earlier€Class€A€or€B€œfelony€convictions›Ïdifferently€from€felonies€of€a€lower€class.ÌÌà àà àSecond,€the€comments€from€the€sentencing€commission€provide€a€lookÏinto€the€intent€behind€the€sentencing€range€statutes.€€The€Sentencing€CommissionÏComments€to€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„107,€the€persistent€offender€statute,€state:ÌÒ ô ÒÒ ¦ ÒÒ ô ÒÒ \ ÒÓÓœSubdivision›€(a)(1)€permits€sentencing€as€a€persistentÏoffender€where€the€defendant€has€five€or€more€òòfelonyÏconvictionsóó€within€the€same€or€higher€class€or€within€theÏnext€two€lower€felony€classes.€€In€keeping€with€theÏcommissionððs€belief€that€òòprior€felony€convictionsóó€should€beÏð ðweighted,ðð€subdivision€(a)(2)€provides€that€òòmultiple€priorÏClass€A€or€Class€B€felony€convictionsóó€will€trigger€a€€RangeÏIII€sentence€if€the€defendant€is€being€sentenced€for€aÏClass€A€or€B€felony.€€Thus,€fewer€numbers€of€òòpriorÏconvictionsóó€are€necessary€if€the€defendant€commits€aÏserious€offense€and€has€a€prior€record€of€serious€crimes.€ÏApart€from€the€numbers€of€òòprior€felony€convictionsóó,€theÏprovisions€of€this€section€are€the€same€as€ðð€40„35„106Ïconcerning€multiple€offenders€(emphasis€œadded).›ÌÒ D ÒÒ \ ÒÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒœÓÓÓÓÌ›ÌÓÓà àà àFrom€the€above,€we€have€concluded€that€the€legislature€intended€thatÏonly€those€convictions€which€meet€the€definition€of€ð ðprior€felony€convictionðð€should€beÍconsidered€when€determining€a€defendantððs€sentencing€range.€€In€fact,€the€commentÏexplaining€subsection€(a)(2)€uses€the€word€prior€to€describe€the€necessary€convictionÏrequirements.€€We€conclude€that€the€legislatureððs€intent€must€have€been€that€theÏstatute€remain€consistent€within€its€own€subsections.€€To€reach€any€other€conclusionÏwould,€to€use€the€trial€judgeððs€words,€reach€an€absurd€result.€€We€see€no€reason€whyÏthe€legislature€would€have€intended€that€one€subsection€could€use€only€ð ðprior€felonyÏconvictionsðð€while€another€subsection€could€use€any€felony€conviction.€€ÌÌà àà àFurthermore,€we€note€that€it€is€a€well„settled€rule€that€ambiguity€inÏcriminal€statutes€must€be€construed€in€favor€of€the€defendant.€€òòKey€v.€Stateóó,€563ÏS.W.2d€184,€188€(Tenn.€1978).€€Thus,€we€conclude€that€only€ð ðprior€felonyÏconvictionsðð€may€be€used€to€determine€a€defendantððs€status€as€a€persistent€offender.€ÏThe€trial€court€correctly€sentenced€the€defendant€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender€forÏhis€Class€B€felonies.€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€State€next€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€ordered€theÏdefendantððs€sentences€to€run€concurrently€rather€than€consecutively.€€The€StateÏargues€that€the€sentences€for€each€criminal€incident€should€run€consecutively€toÏeach€other€and€to€the€defendantððs€sentence€in€federal€court.€€The€defendantððs€stateÍconvictions€stem€from€six€different€incidents.€€ÌÌà àà àWhen€the€State€complains€of€a€defendantððs€sentence,€we€must€conductÏa€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„402(d).€€TheÏburden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€the€appealing€party.€€T.C.A.€œÌðð›€40„35„401(d)€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€This€presumption,€however,€ð ðisÏconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€consideredÏthe€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„115€provides€for€when€aÏdefendantððs€multiple€convictions€should€be€ordered€to€run€consecutively.€€This€statuteÏis€essentially€a€codification€of€two€cases,€òòGray€v.€Stateóó,€538€S.W.2d€391€(Tenn.1976)Ïand€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€739€S.W.2d€227€(Tenn.1987).€€€In€òòGrayóó,€the€Supreme€CourtÏstated€that€œð ða›€consecutive€sentence€should€be€imposed€only€after€a€finding€by€theÏtrial€judge€that€confinement€for€such€a€term€is€necessary€in€order€to€protect€the€publicÏfrom€further€criminal€conduct€by€the€defendant."€€538€S.W.2d€at€393.€€€Thus,€theÏdefendant's€potential€for€rehabilitation€is€a€significant€factor€in€the€òòGrayóó€rationale.€Ï538€S.W.2d€at€393.€€€Similarly,€in€òòTayloróó,€the€Supreme€Court€stated€that€consecutiveÍsentences€should€not€be€routinely€imposed€and€that€the€aggregate€sentence€"mustÏbe€reasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€involved."€€òòTayloróó,€739€S.W.2d€atÏ230.€€€Taken€together,€these€two€cases€establish€"that€consecutive€sentences€cannotÏbe€imposed€unless€the€terms€reasonably€relate€to€the€severity€of€the€offensesÏcommitted€and€are€necessary€in€order€to€protect€the€public€from€further€seriousÏcriminal€conduct€by€the€defendant."€€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€938Ï(Tenn.1995).ÌÌà àà àAt€the€defendantððs€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€judge€thoroughlyÏdiscussed€each€of€the€criteria€listed€in€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„115.€€As€to€factor€(1),€that€theÏdefendant€is€a€professional€criminal,€the€trial€judge€found€that€while€the€defendantÏhad€an€extensive€juvenile€record€and€had€been€previously€convicted€of€threeÏfelonies,œ× ƒ; ××  ×›€he€was€not€a€ð ðprofessional€criminal.ðð€€The€trial€judge€said€that€although€theÏdefendant€was€on€his€way€to€becoming€a€professional€criminal,€he€did€not€think€theÏdefendant€had€reached€that€point.€€The€trial€judge€pointed€to€the€fact€that€theÏdefendant€was€only€twenty„two€years€old€at€the€time€he€committed€these€crimes€andÏthat€they€were€committed€within€a€short€period€of€time€as€further€evidence€that€theÍdefendant€did€not€meet€the€definition€of€a€professional€criminal.ÌÌà àà àIn€looking€to€factor€(2),€that€the€defendant€has€an€extensive€record€ofÏcriminal€activity,€the€trial€judge€found€that€the€defendantððs€history€of€criminal€activityÏdid€not€reach€the€level€of€ð ðextensive.ðð€€The€trial€judge€stated€that€it€was€his€belief€thatÏfactor€(2)€was€to€be€applied€to€those€with€a€substantially€longer€criminal€record€thanÏthat€of€the€defendant.ÌÌà àà àAs€to€factor€(4),€that€the€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€with€little€orÏno€regard€for€human€life,€the€trial€court€found€this€factor€to€be€true.€€The€trial€judgeÏstated:ÌÒ ô ÒÒ ¦ ÒÒ ô ÒÒ \ ÒÓÓœAnyone›€who€uses€a€firearm,€who€places€people€in€fear,Ïwho€takes€their€property€by€use€of€a€firearm€is€aÏdangerous€offender.€.€.€.€€But€I€think€that€the,€again,€theÏstatute€is€designed€to€apply€to€people€who€have€moreÏextensive€activity€than€[the€defendant]€has.€.€.€.€€And€aÏfinding€œthat€that›€single€condition€would€be€met€does€not€inÏthis€Courtððs€mind€justify€a€consecutive€sentencing€in€andÏof€itself.€ÌÒ D ÒÒ \ ÒÒ D ÒÒ ¦ Ҝ̛ÓÓThus,€the€trial€court€ordered€that€the€defendantððs€sentences€be€served€concurrentlyÍrather€than€€consecutively.œ× ƒ< ××  ×›€€ÌÌà à€€€€€While€it€is€quite€possible€that€the€defendantððs€history€could€have€œsupported›Ïthe€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences,€we€do€not€find€that€the€trial€court€abused€itsÏdiscretion€in€ordering€the€sentences€to€be€served€concurrently.€€It€is€not€the€functionÏof€this€Court€to€substitute€its€judgment€for€that€of€the€trial€court.€€The€determination€ofÏconcurrent€or€consecutive€sentences€is€a€matter€left€to€the€sole€discretion€of€the€trialÏcourt.€€òòState€v.€Jamesóó,€688€S.W.2d€463€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€We€find€no€abuseÏof€discretion€and€as€a€result,€find€that€the€State€has€failed€to€carry€its€burden€ofÏproving€that€the€sentences€were€improper.€€Thus,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€order€toÏrun€these€state€sentences€concurrently.ÌÌà àà àAs€to€whether€these€sentences€should€be€served€concurrently€to€theÏdefendantððs€federal€sentences,€we€turn€to€Rule€32(c)(2)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏCriminal€Procedure.€€The€rule€provides€that€ð ð[œi]f›€the€defendant€has€additionalÏsentences€or€portions€thereof€to€serve,€as€the€result€of€conviction€in€other€states€or€inÍfederal€court,€the€sentence€imposed€shall€be€consecutive€thereto€unless€the€courtÏshall€determine€in€the€exercise€of€its€discretion€that€good€cause€exists€to€run€theÏsentences€concurrently€and€explicitly€so€orders.ððÌÌà àà àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€judge€found€that€good€cause€didÏexist€and€therefore,€ordered€the€defendantððs€state€and€federal€sentences€to€runÏconcurrently.€€The€trial€judge€observed€that€the€state€and€federal€crimes€wereÏcommitted€within€a€short€period€of€time€as€part€of€a€continuous€scheme.€€He€furtherÏobserved€that€the€defendant€was€a€young€man€who€had€already€been€sentenced€toÏserve€a€substantial€amount€of€time€in€federal€prison.œ× ƒ= ××  ×›€€In€explaining€the€reason€forÏordering€the€state€and€federal€sentences€to€run€concurrently,€the€trial€judge€stated:ÌÒ D ÒÒ \ ÒÒ ô ÒÒ \ ÒÓÓà àI€believe€that€the€punishment€imposed€.€.€.€isÏappropriate€and€sufficient.€€I€base€that€further€on€myÏobservations€of€[the€defendant]€during€this€sentencingÏhearing€and€his€testimony.€€I€guess€Iððve€been€fooled€in€theÏpast€and€will€be€again€in€the€future.€€But€my€sense€was€inÏobserving€[the€defendant]€and€listening€to€his€testimonyÏyesterday€that€he€has€a€very€good€chance€of€being€aÏproductive€and€successful€citizen€who€can€live€in€societyÏwithout€having€to€resort€to€criminal€activity€after€he€isÏreleased.€€And€I€think€œthat€that›ððs€the€purpose€and€theÏobjective€of€our€penal€system.€€We€want€to€punishÍindividuals€for€the€crimes€that€they€commit.Ìà à[The€defendant]€has€been€„„€has€had€substantialÏpunishment€imposed€upon€him.€€We€hope€at€theÏcompletion€of€that€period€of€time€that€he€is€rehabilitated€toÏthe€point€where€he€can€return€to€society€and€be€aÏproductive€member€of€society.€€And€my€sense€is€œthat€that›€isÏa€very€strong€likelihood€of€happening€in€this€case.€ÌÒ D ÒÒ \ ÒÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓÓӜ̛ÓÓAgain,€we€see€no€reason€to€disturb€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€good€causeÏexists€for€running€the€sentences€concurrently.€€By€examining€the€record,€it€is€obviousÏthat€the€trial€judge€gave€great€thought€to€this€issue€before€sentencing€the€defendant.€ÏFinding€no€abuse€of€discretion,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€order€that€the€state€andÏfederal€sentences€be€served€concurrently.€€We€do€note,€however,€that€the€state€andÏfederal€sentences€are€to€be€served€consecutively€to€the€defendantððs€previousÏsentences€in€œSevier›€County.ÌÌà àà àTherefore,€for€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€courtÏbelow.ÌœòòÓÓÌÌ›à àà àà àà àœà àà àà à›€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó€€Ìà àà àà àà à€œà àà àà àJOHN›€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌœÌÌÌCONCUR:›ÌÌœòòÌÌ›€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó€€€ÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌÌÌœòò›€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó€€€ÌCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€œJudgeÌ›