ÿWPCC 3# ÚUNå %3 0ñ9U:*w@d4¤¸†ÇM BUrU@re² ³ 0J¹ 0  0T Æd 0^* 0hˆ AQð 0DA 0r… 0|÷ 0†s 0ù 1u‰ 0dþ 0@b D3¢ D/Õ BU>!U*_B)‰DC² AMõ°Bv~òvÓp˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ÉÞÍ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÔ€XíèXXXÔÑ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular " {# E$ D% & E' ( E) * Ó€+ äzz!3|x+ RASHIDQAWWIRobersonMcBee EvidBlouvettHorton d ɸ·`(ZapfCalligr BTTTHj2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(å3 Ì$¢¢Ý ƒÞÍ!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€XmXXXÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ý2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô$(Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2@ 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("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò 'ÿÿdxd**'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d----7Border 1dd$.Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ¦Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÑ  ÑÔ€,ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€,ÔÓ  ÓÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€,XÔó óÌò òÔ€,¼ÔÔ"USú ú, úÔÔ ƒ ÔÔ!  Ôó óÔ€,XÔÌÌò òCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.Ô€ Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€ ÂÔÔ€,ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€ ÔÔ€ XÔPtPtHHÚ(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€+ÔÑ  ÑÔ€,ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÑ7€/XdìdÈ7ÑÑ  Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌà@ àòòAT€JACKSON€óóÌà@ àAUGUST€1996€SESSIONÌÌÓӜـÙßR€/0.A1-j|YVº- `€€@ÿRß›STATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€#€02C01„9509„CC„00282€ÌÌà àà àAppellee,à àà à*à àMADISON€COUNTYÌÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€Franklin€Murchison,€JudgeÌÌELTON€DONALD€BOWERSà à*Ìa/k/a€RASHID€QAWWI,à à€à àà à(Aggravated€Robbery)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà à*à àÌà àà àAppellant.à àà à€à à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà à*ÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àÌòòFor€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àòòFor€Appellee:óóÌÌStephen€P.€Spracherà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ227€West€Baltimore€ÌJackson,€TN€€38301à àà àà àEllen€H.€Pollack€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493à àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDonald€Allen€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€2825€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJackson,€TN€€38302ÌÌÌà àà àà àÌÌOPINION€FILED:_____________________ÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDED€€ÌÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÇÓÓò òòòÓ  ÓOPINIONóóó óÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant,€Elton€Donald€Bowers,€also€known€as€Rashid€Qawwi,Ïwas€convicted€of€aggravated€robbery€and€possession€of€a€weapon€with€the€intent€toÏemploy€in€the€commission€of€the€robbery.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€39„13„402€andÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„307.€€The€trial€court€ordered€the€weapons€convictionÏmerged€with€the€aggravated€robbery,€classified€the€defendant€as€a€career€offender,Ïand€imposed€a€thirty„year€sentence.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€this€appeal€of€right,€the€defendant€insists€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÏprohibiting€the€use€of€an€unauthenticated€transcript€of€the€preliminary€hearing€andÏby€classifying€the€defendant€as€a€career€offender€(60%).ÌÌà àà àThe€conviction€is€affirmed;€because€the€defendant€was€erroneouslyÏclassified€a€career€offender,€the€cause€is€remanded€for€sentencing.€€ÌÌà àà àOn€March€11,€1992,€Lashun€Cole,€an€employee€at€the€Texaco€FoodÏMart€in€Jackson,€was€robbed€at€knife€point€by€a€five„and„a„half€to€six„foot,€slenderÏblack€€male€with€a€light€complexion€and€"a€toboggan€over€his€mouth."€€The€victim,Ïwho€was€alone€at€the€time€of€the€robbery,€"could€see€[the€robber]€from€the€nose€up."€ÏThe€robber€took€some€$40.00€from€the€cash€register.€€The€victim€looked€at€theÍrobber€only€once€before€she€was€directed€not€to€do€so.€€A€security€cameraÏvideotaped€the€robbery.€€The€entire€incident€took€less€than€five€minutes.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€next€day,€the€victim,€who€had€previously€reviewed€the€tape€€Ï(apparently€of€very€poor€quality)€of€the€robbery,€identified€the€defendant€from€aÏphotographic€lineup.€€According€to€police,€the€defendant€matched€the€descriptionÏgiven€by€the€victim€at€the€scene.€€At€the€time€of€his€arrest,€the€defendant€was€hidingÏunder€a€pile€of€laundry€in€a€utility€room.€€ÌÌà àà àLater,€at€the€time€of€trial,€the€victim€testified€that€she€had€seen€theÏdefendant€a€month€or€two€before€the€robbery€and€recognized€him€as€the€brother€ofÏher€friend,€Karen€Bowers;€the€victim€explained€that€she€did€not€know€his€name€atÏthat€time€and€did€not€know€his€name€at€the€time€of€the€robbery.€€ÌÌà@ àIÌà àà àA€little€over€two€weeks€after€the€robbery,€there€was€a€preliminaryÏhearing.€€A€tape„recording€of€the€proceeding€was€made€by€the€city€court€clerk€andÏmaintained€on€file€for€well€over€a€year;€the€tape€was€erased€before€the€trial€of€theÏcase.€€The€defendant€was€represented€at€the€time€by€an€attorney€who€resignedÏfrom€the€public€defender's€office€sometime€before€trial.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€was€conducted€some€two€and€one„half€years€after€theÏpreliminary€hearing.€€The€victim€was€cross„examined€about€her€testimony€at€theÏpreliminary€hearing.€€The€central€issue,€of€course,€was€whether€the€victim€had€beenÏable€to€make€an€accurate€identification€of€the€defendant.€€Defense€counselÏattempted€to€utilize€an€unauthenticated€transcription€of€the€preliminary€hearing€as€aÏmeans€of€challenging€the€identification;€the€transcription€had€been€prepared€by€theÏpublic€defender's€office,€apparently€from€a€recording€of€the€clerk's€original€tape€ofÏthe€preliminary€hearing.€€When€the€victim€could€not€recall€the€answers€she€hadÏprovided€at€the€earlier€proceeding,€defense€counsel€issued€an€instanter€subpoenaÏfor€the€city€court€clerk.€€Later,€the€clerk€of€the€city€court€testified€in€a€jury„outÏproceeding€that€she€could€not€recall€anyone€requesting€a€copy€of€the€tape;€inÏaccordance€with€established€office€policy,€the€tape€had€been€erased€about€one€andÏone„half€years€after€the€preliminary€hearing.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€testimony€of€the€victim€at€trial€wasÏinconsistent€with€much€of€her€testimony€at€the€preliminary€hearing.€€He€argues€thatÏthe€clerk€of€the€city€court€violated€Rule€5.1(a),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€which€provides,€inÏpertinent€part,€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€evidence€of€the€witnesses€is€not€required€to€beÏreduced€to€writing€by€the€magistrate,€or€under€theÏmagistrate's€direction,€and€signed€by€the€respectiveÏwitnesses;€òòbut€the€proceedings€shall€be€preserved€byÏelectronic€recordingóó€or€its€equivalent€and€when€theÏdefendant€is€subsequently€indicted€òòsuch€recording€shallÏbe€made€available€for€listening€to€by€the€defendant€orÏdefendant's€counselóó€to€the€end€that€they€may€beÏòòapprised€of€the€evidenceóó€introduced€upon€theÏpreliminary€examination.€ÌÌÓÓ(Emphasis€added).ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant,€whose€counsel€was€obviously€aware€of€the€content€ofÏthe€tape€and€whose€office€purportedly€made€a€copy,€argues€that€his€inability€toÏconfront€the€victim€with€her€prior€inconsistent€testimony€affected€his€right€to€a€fairÏtrial.€€It€was€stipulated€that€the€tape€in€the€public€defender's€office€had€been€in€theÏdefendant's€file€since€current€defense€counsel's€employment€on€April€1,€1993.€€TheÏpersonnel€in€the€public€defender's€office€apparently€changed€before€trial.€€"ThereÏwas€no€way,"€in€the€words€of€defense€counsel,€"to€get€our€copy€certified."€ÌÌà àà àAlthough€the€rule€requiring€the€maintenance€of€a€tape„recording€of€aÏpreliminary€hearing€is€mandatory,€the€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€establishÏprejudice€from€the€noncompliance€with€the€rule.€€òòState€v.€Robersonóó,€644€S.W.2dÏ696€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982);€òòState€v.€McBeeóó,€644€S.W.2d€425€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Í1982);€òòState€v.€Buttsóó,€640€S.W.2d€37€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€In€òòRobersonóó,ÏòòMcBeeóó,€and€òòButtsóó,€the€state€prevailed€even€though€the€defendant€was€not€providedÏaccess€to€a€tape€or€transcript€of€the€preliminary€hearing.ÌÌà àà àHere,€defense€counsel€had€access€to€the€tape€for€well€over€a€year.€€AÏrecording€was€made€of€the€original€and€maintained€in€the€office€of€the€publicÏdefender.€€The€content€was€typed€and,€although€not€presented€as€evidence,€wasÏmade€an€exhibit€for€identification€purposes.€€In€a€sense,€the€defendant€wasÏ"apprised€of€the€evidence€introduced€at€the€preliminary€examination"€as€requiredÏby€Rule€5.1,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€€That€is,€despite€the€fact€that€the€clerk€had€erased€theÏoriginal€tape,€the€copy€maintained€in€the€public€defender's€office€provided€notice€ofÏthe€victim's€testimony.€€Further,€by€using€his€own€office's€transcription,€defenseÏcounsel€actually€cross„examined€the€victim€about€the€content€of€her€prior€testimony.€ÏBecause€the€victim€could€not€recall€her€testimony€some€two€and€one„half€yearsÏearlier,€the€cross„examination€was€not€as€effective€as€desired€by€the€defense.€ÏObviously,€that€was€a€disappointment€from€the€defense€perspective.€€Had€anÏauthenticated€transcript€been€available,€the€state's€case€may€have€beenÏweakened.€€That€is,€however,€largely€speculative.€€ÌÌà àà àIt€is€the€duty€of€the€appellant€to€adequately€establish€a€basis€in€theÏrecord€for€the€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Milleróó,€737€S.W.2d€556€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€ÏAbsent€that,€there€is€a€presumption€the€trial€court€correctly€ruled.€€òòSeeóó€òòDearborne€v.ÏStateóó,€575€S.W.2d€259€(Tenn.€1978).€€Here,€we€cannot€find€that€the€specific€terms€ofÏRule€5.1€were€violated.€€Moreover,€the€record€does€not€demonstrate€that€theÏdefendant€was€prejudiced€by€the€erasure€of€the€original€tape.€€The€real€problem,€ofÏcourse,€is€that€the€defendant€was€unable€to€present€the€original€audiotape,€hisÏcopy,€or€an€authenticated€transcript€in€order€to€show€a€more€equivocal€identificationÏby€the€victim.€€òòSeeóó€Rule€901(a),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€€At€trial,€the€state€declined€toÏstipulate€the€authenticity€(or€the€accuracy)€of€the€transcription€made€in€the€office€ofÏthe€public€defender.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€this€appeal,€defense€counsel's€specific€complaint€is€that€his€office'sÏtranscription€was€excluded;€his€insistence€is€that€the€document€should€have€beenÏpermitted€into€evidence€under€Rule€803(6),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€as€a€"record€of€regularlyÏconducted€activity":€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àò òRecords€of€Regularly€Conducted€Activityó ó.€€AÏmemorandum,€report,€record,€or€data€compilation€in€anyÏform€of€acts,€events,€conditions,€opinions,€or€diagnosesÏmade€at€or€near€the€time€by€or€from€informationÏtransmitted€by€a€person€with€knowledge€and€a€businessÏduty€to€record€or€transmit€if€kept€in€the€course€of€aÍregularly€conducted€business€activity€to€make€theÏmemorandum,€report,€record,€or€data€compilation,€all€asÏshown€by€the€testimony€of€the€custodian€or€otherÏqualified€witness,€unless€the€source€of€information€or€theÏmethod€or€circumstances€of€preparation€indicate€lack€ofÏtrustworthiness.€€The€term€"business"€as€used€in€thisÏparagraph€includes€every€kind€of€business,€institution,Ïassociation,€profession,€occupation,€and€calling,Ïwhether€or€not€conducted€for€profit.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThis€was€not€the€issue€presented€in€the€trial€court.€€It€is,€therefore,Ïentirely€understandable€then€that€the€prerequisites€to€the€admission€of€evidenceÏunder€this€rule€had€not€been€met.€€The€record€does€not€establish€that,€among€otherÏthings,€a€custodian€of€the€document€recorded€the€information€in€the€regular€courseÏof€business€or€that€the€transcription,€which€is€unclear€in€parts,€is€trustworthy.€€ThisÏmay€appear€to€be€a€technical€distinction.€€Our€examination€of€the€office€transcript,Ïhowever,€indicates€that€the€transcriber€made€interpretations,€rather€than€verbatimÏaccounts,€of€at€least€two€of€the€answers€given€by€the€victim.€€For€example,€"uh„huh"Ïwas€interpreted€as€a€negative€response.€€That€is€cause€for€concern.€€òòÌóóÌà àà àIn€summary,€we€find€no€merit€to€this€issue.€€ÌÌà@ àIIÌà àà àNext,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€haveÏsentenced€him€as€a€Range€III,€persistent€offender€rather€than€a€career€offender.€€AÏcareer€offender€is€defined€by€statute:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àò ò40„35„108.€€Career€offender.ó ó„„(a)€€A€"careerÏoffender"€is€a€defendant€who€has€received€[either]:Ìà8 àà8 à€€€(1)€Any€combination€of€six€(6)€or€more€Class€A,€B€or€CÏprior€felony€convictions,€and€the€defendant's€convictionÏoffense€is€a€Class€A,€B€or€C€felony;€Ìà8 àà8 à€€€(2)€At€least€three€(3)€Class€A€or€any€combination€of€fourÏ(4)€Class€A€or€Class€B€felony€convictions€if€theÏdefendant's€conviction€offense€is€a€Class€A€or€B€felony;Ïor€Ìà8 àà8 à€€€(3)€€At€least€six€(6)€prior€felony€convictions€of€anyÏclassification€if€the€defendant's€conviction€offense€is€aÏClass€D€or€E€felony.Ì€à8 àÌÌÌÓÓà àà àA€persistent€offender,€Range€III,€is€also€defined€by€statute:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àò ò40„35„107.€€Persistent€offender.ó ó„„(a)€A€"persistentÏoffender"€is€a€defendant€who€has€received€[either]:Ìà8 àà8 à€€€(1)€Any€combination€of€five€(5)€or€more€prior€felonyÏconvictions€within€the€conviction€class€or€higher,€orÏwithin€the€next€two€(2)€lower€felony€classes,€whereÏapplicable;€or€Ìà8 àà8 à€€€(2)€At€least€two€(2)€Class€A€or€any€combination€of€threeÏ(3)€Class€A€or€Ô% € ÔClass€B€felony€convictions€if€theÏdefendant's€conviction€offense€in€a€Class€A€or€B€felony.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòà àà àóóBy€our€count,€the€defendant€had€been€convicted€of€12€felonies€ofÏvarious€classifications€by€the€time€sentence€was€imposed.€€The€offense€at€issue,€hisÍthirteenth€felony,€was€committed€March€11,€1992.€€In€order€to€be€classified€as€aÏcareer€offender€and€because€the€defendant€was€convicted€here€of€a€Class€B€felony,Ïthere€must€have€been€either€six€or€more€Class€A,€B,€or€C€prior€felony€convictions€orÏany€combination€of€four€Class€A€or€B€felony€convictions.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„108.€€Offenses€committed€as€a€single€course€of€conduct€within€twenty„four€hours,Ïunless€"resulting€in€bodily€injury€or€threatened€bodily€injury,"€count€as€only€one.€€òòIdóó.€€€ÌÌà àà àThere€was€an€aggravated€robbery€conviction€(Class€B)€and€aÏweapons€conviction€arising€out€of€an€incident€on€March€5,€1992;€there€was€anÏaggravated€robbery€(Class€B)€and€a€weapons€conviction€on€March€7,€1992.€€TheÏdefendant€argues€that€neither€of€these€can€be€counted€because,€by€the€words€ofÏthe€statute,€the€defendant€must€have€been€convicted€of€the€prior€felonies€before€heÏcommitted€the€crime€for€which€he€is€being€sentenced.€€In€òòState€v.€Blouvettóó,€904ÏS.W.2d€111€(Tenn.€1995),€our€supreme€court€ruled€that€the€legislature€intended€forÏ"prior€conviction"€to€be€"conviction€that€has€already€been€adjudicated€beforeÏcommission€of€the€offense€at€issue."€€òòIdóó.€at€113.€€Thus€neither€the€March€5€or€MarchÏ7,€1992,€offenses€would€qualify.€€ÌÌà àà àThose€offenses€for€which€the€defendant€had€been€convicted€beforeÏthe€commission€of€this€offense€on€March€11,€1992,€are€as€follows:ÌòòÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àDateóó€à àà àòòDate€of€ÌOffenseà àà àClassificationà àof€Offenseóó€€€€€òòConvictionóó€€€€òòSentenceóóà àà à€òòà àà àóóÌAggravated€Assault€à à€€€€€€Cà àà à5/7/83à à€€€9/28/83à à€€€€4ÌArmed€Robbery€à àà à€€€€€€Bà àà à5/7/83à à€€€9/28/83à à€€€30ÌTemporary€Use€of€Mo.€Vh.€€€€€€€Eà àà à5/7/83à à€€€9/28/83€€€€€€€€€€€1ÌArmed€Robbery€à àà à€€€€€€Bà àà à5/7/83€à à€€€9/28/83à à€€€30ÌArmed€Robberyà àà à€€€€€€Cà àà à8/22/78à à€€€1/25/79€à à€€€€5ÌThird€Degree€Burglaryà à€€€€€€Dà àà à9/18/76€à à€€€1/21/77à à€€€€4ÌThird€Degree€Burglaryà à€€€€€€Dà àà à9/18/76à à€€€1/21/77à à€€€€4ÌThird€Degree€Burglaryà à€€€€€€Dà àà à9/18/76à à€€€1/21/77à à€€€€4ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àFrom€this,€it€is€apparent€that€the€defendant€does€not€qualify€as€aÏcareer€offender;€that€is,€there€are€neither€six€A,€B,€or€C€felonies€or€four€A€or€BÏfelonies.€€The€next€lower€classification€is€that€of€a€persistent€offender.€€AnyÏcombination€of€five€A,€B,€C€or€D€felony€convictions€or€three€Class€A€or€B€feloniesÏqualifies€this€defendant€as€a€persistent€offender.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„107.€ÏFelonies€committed€within€a€twenty„four„hour€period€count€as€one€unless€theÏoffense€either€threatens€or€results€in€bodily€injury.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€record€indicates€that€the€three€1977€Class€D€felonies€all€occurredÏSeptember€18,€1976;€because€no€injury€occurred€or€was€threatened,€that€wouldÏonly€count€as€one€prior€conviction.€€Even€though€two€of€the€armed€robberies€andÏthe€aggravated€assault€occurred€within€24€hours€on€May€7,€1983,€all€involved€atÏleast€the€threat€of€bodily€injury€and,€in€our€view,€each€would€qualify€as€"priorÍconviction."€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hortonóó,€880€S.W.2d€732,€736€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€ÏThe€1983€offense€of€temporary€use€of€a€motor€vehicle,€a€felony€carrying€a€one„yearÏsentence,€would€be€classified€a€misdemeanor€under€the€1989€Act;€even€if€classifiedÏa€felony,€however,€it€would€receive€a€non„qualifying€Class€E€grade.€€Thus,€with€aÏtotal€of€five€Class€B,€C,€and€D€prior€convictions€at€the€time€of€this€offense,€theÏdefendant€should€have€been€classified€as€a€Range€III,€persistent€offender€(45%).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€imposed€a€thirty„year€sentence€as€required€of€a€careerÏoffender€who€has€committed€a€Class€B€felony.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„108(c),€„112(c)(2).€€As€a€persistent€offender,€however,€the€defendant€qualified€for€aÏrange€of€between€twenty€and€thirty€years.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(c)(2).€ÏThus,€there€must€be€a€remand€as€to€the€length€of€the€sentence€based€upon€theÏapplicable€enhancement€factors.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€conviction€is€affirmed.€€The€cause€is€remanded€forÏthe€imposition€of€a€sentence€within€Range€III.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌJerry€L.€Smith,€Judge€ÌÌ