ÿWPCL …# Va %i 0(o 0J—U:áw@ 4[ o 0T~ 0^Ò 0h0 0r˜ 0| 0†† 0 1uœ U, 0d= U,¡ U*Í B)÷ DC  AMc° BÆv~ãvÓa D34 0@g AO§Æö 0D¼ D/ B/˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0  X($¡¡2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular Z[D\D]D^D_e`EaDbÓ€n»{s ˆÐ3|xn2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òMay€24,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€¶×XdædÈ7ÑÑ  Ñ›à@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌÙ€€ÙœßL€#$";+'h|v0` Å `€€Lß›à@ àòòAT€JACKSONóóÌà@ àFEBRUARY€1996€SESSIONÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€#€02C01„9503„CC„00064Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà à*à àMADISON€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€John€Franklin€Murchison,€JudgeÌÓÓELTON€DONALD€BOWERS,à à*à à(Aggravated€Robbery)ÌÌa/k/a€RESHID€QAWWI,à àà à*ÌÌà àAppellant.à àà àà à*ÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àòòFor€Appellee:óóÌÌStephen€P.€Spracherà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌAsst.€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ227€West€BaltimoreÌJackson,€TN€€38301à àà àà àMichelle€L.€LehmanÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCounsel€for€the€StateÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDon€AllenÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€2825Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJackson,€TN€€38301ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÇà@ àòòOPINIONóóÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€defendant,€Elton€Donald€Bowers,€was€convicted€of€aggravatedÏrobbery€and€possession€of€a€deadly€weapon.€€The€trial€court€imposed€concurrent,ÏRange€III€sentences€of€thirty€and€six€years€respectively.€€Thereafter,€the€defendantÏfiled€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€which,€among€other€things,€sought€a€dismissal€of€theÏpossession€of€a€weapon€conviction.€€The€Minute€Order€on€the€motion€for€a€new€trialÏindicates€that€the€trial€court€dismissed€the€possession€conviction.€€In€this€appeal€ofÏright,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€theÏaggravated€robbery€conviction€and€argues€that€the€sentence€is€excessive.€€ÌÌà àà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àà à€At€approximately€11:30€P.M.€on€March€7,€1992,€a€œman›€armed€with€aÏœknife›€robbed€the€Savings€Oil€convenience€store.€€The€clerk€on€duty,€Diane€MinorÏDeberry,€who€had€never€seen€the€defendant€before,€later€identified€the€defendantÏas€the€robber.€€Ms.€Deberry€testified€that€she€had€observed€the€defendant€standingÏin€the€store's€parking€lot€for€about€ten€minutes€when€he€walked€toward€the€back€ofÏthe€building€outside€of€her€line€of€vision.€€She€related€that€he€then€entered€the€store,Ïpulled€a€hairnet€down€over€his€face,€and€pointed€a€knife€in€her€direction.€€Ms.ÍDeberry€stated€that€she€could€see€the€defendant's€face€despite€the€hairnet€andÏclearly€noticed€a€gap€in€his€teeth.€€She€testified€that€the€defendant€jumped€on€theÏcounter€and€took€money€from€the€register€and€the€night€box.€€When€the€defendantÏleft€the€store,€Ms.€Deberry€called€the€police.ÌÌà àà àThe€investigating€officers€testified€that€they€found€a€hairnet€near€theÏstore€and€that€the€victim€was€able€to€identify€it€as€that€worn€by€the€robber.€€A€weekÏlater,€Ms.€Deberry€identified€a€photograph€of€the€defendant,€but€asked€to€see€oneÏshowing€his€teeth.€€The€next€day,€Ms.€Deberry€identified€a€second€photograph€ofÏthe€defendant.ÌÌà@ àIÌà àà àThe€defendant€claims€that€the€only€eyewitness€was€impeached€by€herÏconviction€for€passing€a€bad€check.€€He€argues€that€portions€of€her€testimony€wereÏso€inconsistent€as€to€require€a€reversal.€ÌÌà àà àOn€appeal,€of€course,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€might€be€drawnÏtherefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€The€credibility€ofÏthe€witnesses,€the€weight€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€the€reconciliation€ofÍconflicts€in€the€proof€are€matters€entrusted€to€the€jury€as€triers€of€fact.€€òòByrge€v.ÏStateóó,€575€S.W.2d€292,€295€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€When€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence€is€challenged,€the€relevant€question€is€whether,€after€reviewing€theÏevidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€haveÏfound€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.ÏWilliamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€465€U.S.€1073€(1984);€ÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€ÌÌà àà àHere,€the€jury€chose€to€accredit€the€testimony€of€the€victim.€€That€wasÏtheir€prerogative.€€The€victim€testified€that€the€defendant€robbed€the€victim€by€knifeÏpoint.€€That€alone€established€each€of€the€requisite€elements€for€aggravatedÏrobbery.€€Under€these€circumstances,€a€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€easilyÏconcluded€that€the€crime€was€committed€by€the€defendant€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307€(1979).€€ÌÌà@ àIIÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€not€haveÏsentenced€the€defendant€separately€on€the€possession€charge€when€theÏpossession€of€a€weapon€was€an€element€of€the€offense€of€aggravated€robbery€andÏcontends€that€it€was€error€to€classify€the€defendant€as€a€persistent€offender.€ÌÌà àà àIt€is€true€that€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€separately€on€theÏoffenses€of€possession€of€a€weapon€and€aggravated€robbery.€€Later,€however,€theÏtrial€court€set€aside€the€weapons€conviction€upon€motion€of€the€defense.€€BecauseÏof€that€corrective€action,€this€issue,€which€would€ordinarily€have€merit,€has€beenÏrendered€moot.€ÌÌà àà àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€serviceÏof€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€with€aÏpresumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„40l(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmativeÏshowing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€andÏall€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€l66,€l69€(Tenn.Ïl99l);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€SentencingÏCommission€Comments€provide€that€the€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€show€theÏimpropriety€of€the€€sentence.€€ÌÌà àà àOur€review€requires€an€analysis€of€(l)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€atÏthe€trial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€ofÏsentencing€and€the€arguments€of€counsel€relative€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€theÍnature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense;€(5)€any€mitigating€or€enhancing€factors;Ï(6)€any€statements€made€by€the€defendant€in€his€own€behalf;€and€(7)€theÏdefendant's€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„l02,Ï„l03,€and€„2l0;€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€l987).ÌÌò òà àà àó óIn€calculating€the€sentence€for€a€felony€conviction,€the€presumptiveÏsentence€is€the€minimum€within€the€range€if€there€are€no€enhancement€orÏmitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c).€€òòButóó€òòseeóó€1995€Tenn.€Pub.€ActsÏch.€493€(amending€the€statute€for€offenses€occurring€on€or€after€July€1,€1995,€toÏmake€the€presumptive€sentence€in€a€Class€A€felony€the€midpoint€in€the€range).€€IfÏthere€are€enhancement€factors€but€no€mitigating€factors,€the€trial€court€may€set€theÏsentence€above€the€minimum.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€€40„35„210(d).€€A€sentenceÏinvolving€both€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€requires€an€assignment€ofÏrelative€weight€for€the€enhancement€factors€as€a€means€of€increasing€the€sentence.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€The€sentence€may€then€be€reduced€within€theÏrange€by€any€weight€assigned€to€the€mitigating€factors€present.€€òòIdóó.€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€was€convicted€of€aggravated€robbery,€a€Class€BÏfelony.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„402(b).€€"[A]€'persistent€offender'€is€a€defendantÏwho€has€received€...€[a]ny€combination€of€five€(5)€or€more€prior€felony€convictionsÍwithin€the€conviction€class€or€higher,€or€within€the€next€two€(2)€lower€felonyÏclasses.ðð€€€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„107(a)(1).€€One€with€three€prior€Class€B€felonyÏconvictions€may€also€qualify€as€a€persistent€offender€"if€the€defendantððs€convictionÏoffense€is€a€Class€A€or€B€felony."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„107(a)(2).€€ÌÌà àà àHere,€the€following€prior€felonies€were€presented€for€rangeÏenhancement€purposes:ÌÓÓà8 àà0 à(1)€Aggravated€Robbery,€a€class€B€felony€(1993);ÌÌà0 àà8 à(2)€Armed€Robbery€(No.€83„466),€a€class€B€felony€(1983);ÌÌà8 àà0 à(3)€Armed€Robbery€(No.€83„465),€a€class€B€felony€(1983);ÌÌà8 àà0 à(4)€Aggravated€Assault€(No.€83„466),€a€class€C€felony€(1983);€ÌÌà8 àà0 à(5)€Robbery,€a€class€C€felony€(1979);ÌÌà8 àà0 à(6)€Burglary,€(No.€8118),€a€class€D€felony€(1977);ÌÌà8 àà0 à(7)€Burglary,€(No.€8119),€a€class€D€felony€(1977);€andÌÌà8 àà0 à(8)€Burglary,€(No.€8120),€a€class€D€felony€(1977).ÌÌÓÓOn€appeal,€the€state€concedes€that€the€defendantððs€1993€conviction€for€aggravatedÏrobbery€does€not€qualify€as€a€prior€conviction€for€range€enhancement€purposesÏbecause€it€had€not€yet€been€adjudicated€at€the€time€of€this€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏBlouvettóó,€904€S.W.2d€111€(Tenn.€1995).€€Thus,€the€defendant€does€not€qualify€as€aÍpersistent€offender€under€subsection€(a)(2).ÌÌà àà àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„107(b)(4),€provides€that€"[c]onvictions€forÏmultiple€felonies€committed€as€part€of€a€single€course€of€conduct€within€twenty„fourÏ(24)€hours€constitute€one€(1)€conviction€for€the€purpose€of€determining€priorÏconvictions:€however,€acts€resulting€in€bodily€injury€or€threatened€bodily€injury€toÏthe€victim€or€victims€shall€not€be€construed€to€be€a€single€course€of€conduct."€€TheÏdefendant€argues€that€the€three€prior€1977€burglary€convictions€were€committedÏwithin€a€twenty„four€(24)€hour€period€and€as€part€of€a€single€course€of€conduct.€€HeÏclaims€that€the€same€rule€requires€that€his€three€1983€convictions€for€armedÏrobbery€and€aggravated€assault€be€treated€as€only€two€convictions.ÌÌà àà àWe€disagree.€€Assuming€that€the€defendantððs€1977€burglaryÏconvictions€qualify€as€only€one€conviction€for€range€enhancement€purposes,€theÏdefendant€still€qualifies€as€a€persistent€offender€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„107(a)(1).€€The€1983€convictions€include€two€armed€robberies€and€one€aggravatedÏassault.€€Once€it€is€established,€as€here,€that€at€least€two€of€the€prior€felonies€from€aÏsingle€course€of€conduct€involved€threatened€bodily€injury€to€a€victim,€eachÏconviction€"would€be€treated€as€separate€convictions€for€range€enhancementÏpurposes."€€òòState€v.€Hortonóó,€880€S.W.2d€732,€736€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€ÌÌà àà àBecause€the€defendant€had€at€least€five€prior€class€B,€C,€or€D€felonyÏconvictions,€the€trial€court€properly€classified€the€defendant€as€a€persistent€offender.€ÏAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€Judge€ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJoe€B.€Jones,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJerry€L.€Smith,€Judge