ÿWPCE% …UBV %˜U.žÌnXÜ 0 P4 4„ 0”˜ 0D, 0Jp 0Tº 0^ 0hl Ô 0rÔ w F 0|P 0†Ì 0R 1uâ U,W 0dƒ BçU,U 60 D3fB)™DC 0@ AMEC’šÕmošÜsvpéöYv~OvÓÍ AO #Æï# 0Dµ$ D/ù$ B(%<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|X «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  Ó÷}± (D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ 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 Ó€2J 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 d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New$$$$'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ 9Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òMayÏ28,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÔ€ÔUnder€the€1989€sentencing€reform€act,€the€sentence€range€for€second„degree€murder€is€tenÏto€twenty„five€years.€€T.C.A.€€ðð€39„13„210€(1990);€ðð€40„35„112€(1990).€€Ì cÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔThe€trial€court€also€directed€the€defendant€to€receive€credit€for€the€2,223€days€of€jail€time€whichÏhe€had€already€served.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔThe€Eighth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€contains€no€double€jeopardyÏprovision.€€That€provision€is€found€in€the€Fifth€Amendment€to€the€U.S.€Constitution.Ì iÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔAlthough€neither€party€raises€the€issue€of€the€applicability€of€the€1989€Act,€we€think€it€is€anÏissue€worthy€of€some€discussion.Ì fÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÔ€ÔClearly,€this€provision€was€drafted€to€include€a€situation€with€the€procedural€history€like€that€inÏòòState€v.€Pearsonóó.€€Ì ìÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÔ€ÔWe€will€not€discuss€the€remaining€sentencing€issues,€however,€in€order€to€assist€the€trial€courtÏin€resentencing€the€appellant,€we€merely€point€out€that€the€State€conceded€the€improper€application€ofÏtwo€of€the€enhancement€factors:€€"(1)€[t]he€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€orÏcriminal€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range;€and€(6)[t]he€personalÏinjuries€inflicted€upon€.€.€.€the€victim€was€particularly€great."€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(1),(6)€(1990).€ÌPtPtHHÚ(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€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€((X„d&ÓÑ#€((Xd#ÑÔ€)ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ X ÑÑ7€÷ÿXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÔ€Ôà àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙßL€./,;+'h|` 81 `€€LßÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÓ  Óà@ àFEBRUARY€1994ÏSESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.ÏNO.€03C01„9307„CR„00223ó óÌà àà àAppellee,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àKNOXÏCOUNTYó óÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.ÏRAY€LEE€JENKINS€,ÌMACK€EDWARD€BROWN,à àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óAppellant.ò òà àà àà à)à àó ó(Sentencing)ò òÌó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THEÏAPPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òRANDALL€E.ÏREAGANà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.ÏBURSONÌó ó602€Gay€St.,€Suite€905à àà àà àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€&€Reporterò òÌó óKnoxville,€TN€€37902ò òÌó óà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àMERRILYN€FIERMANó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.ÏAttorney€GeneralÌ€€à àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€JamesÏRobertsonÍPkwy.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àRANDALL€E.€NICHOLSó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àROBERT€JOLLEYó 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€€37902ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÌò òPER€CURIAMó óÌÇÓ  ÓÑ Ü ÑÑ7€÷ÿXdÈXXdÈ7Ñòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àThe€defendant,€Mack€Edward€Brown,€appeals€as€of€right€from€theÏsentence€of€twenty„five€(25)€years€set€by€the€Knox€County€Criminal€Court.€€Initially,€onÏMay€22,€1989,€a€jury€sentenced€the€defendant€to€death€after€having€found€him€guiltyÏof€first„degree€murder.€€In€the€same€proceeding,€the€jury€also€convicted€the€defendantÏof€child€neglect,€a€misdemeanor€for€which€he€received€a€sentence€of€eleven€monthsÏand€twenty„nine€days.€€After€his€trial,€the€defendant€appealed€only€his€murderÏconviction€which€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€reversed,€finding€that€the€defendantÏwas€guilty,€instead,€of€second„degree€murder.€€The€Court€then€remanded€theÏdefendant's€cause€to€the€trial€court€which€entered€the€twenty„five€year€sentence€fromÏwhich€he€now€appeals.€ÌÌà àà àIn€this€appeal€as€of€right,€the€defendant€presents€six€issues€for€review.€ÏIn€his€first€issue€he€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€ordering€this€sentence€to€runÏconsecutive€to€his€previously€imposed€misdemeanor€sentence.€€In€his€second,€third,Ïand€fourth€issues€he€contends€that€the€trial€court€employed€improper€enhancingÏfactors.€€In€his€fifth€issue€he€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€find€anyÏmitigating€factors.€€Finally,€he€complains€that€his€sentence€is€excessive.€€Finding€thatÍthe€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing,€we€reverse€and€remand€for€resentencing.ÌÌÓ  Óò òBACKGROUNDó óÌÓ  Óà àà àThis€case€arises€out€of€the€beating€death€of€the€defendant's€€four„year„old€son,€Eddie€Eugene€Brown.€€The€facts€underlying€this€offense€were€summarized€inÏdetail€by€our€Supreme€Court€in€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€531„37€(Tenn.Ï1992).€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€neither€the€defendant€nor€the€State€presented€anyÏevidence.€€Each€party€argued€its€case,€and€a€presentence€report€was€entered€intoÏevidence.€€The€trial€judge€stated€that€"[t]he€court€has€had€the€benefit€of€the€evidenceÏreceived€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing,€[and]€the€presentence€report."€€TheÏcourt€found€that€the€following€enhancement€factors€were€applicable:ÌÓÓÌÒ ô ÒÒ ° ÒThe€defendant,€first,€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions;€Ïhowever,€that€is€given€little€weight€in€the€sentencing.€€The€CourtÏfeels€that€the€defendant€was€a€leader€in€the€commission€of€theÏoffense€involving€two€or€more€criminal€actors.€€That€the€victim€wasÏparticularly€vulnerable€because€of€age.€€The€Court,€also,€finds€thatÏthe€defendant€treated€the€victim€with€exceptional€cruelty€duringÏthe€commission€of€the€offense.€€Further,€that€the€personal€injuriesÏwere€great€„„€particularly€great.€€That€the€defendant€had€noÏhesitation€about€committing€the€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€lifeÏwas€high.€€That€the€defendant€abused€a€position€of€trust,€parentalÏtrust.€€And€that€the€crime€was€committed€under€circumstancesÏunder€which€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€was€great.ÌÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÌÓÓà àà àWith€regard€to€mitigating€evidence,€the€trial€judge€stated€that€heÏconsidered€the€defendant's€allegation€that€he€suffered€from€a€mental€or€physicalÏcondition€that€significantly€reduced€his€culpability.€€The€court,€however,€€did€not€feelÏthat€this€mitigating€factor€was€"borne€out€by€the€proof."€€The€court€also€disagreed€thatÏthe€defendant's€sentence€should€be€mitigated€because€he€assisted€the€authorities€inÏlocating€or€recovering€property€involved€in€the€crime.€€The€trial€judge€stated€that€thisÏfactor€was€"more€directed€toward€the€recovery€of€the€fruits€of€a€larceny€or€burglary€orÏthing€of€that€nature."€€After€considering€all€of€the€enumerated€factors,€the€courtÏremained€"[un]convinced€that€any€of€those€factors€apply€in€this€case."ÌÌà àà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€sentencedÏthe€defendant€to€the€maximum€sentence€for€second„degree€murder„„€twenty„fiveÏyears.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€This€sentence€was€to€be€served€consecutively€to€the€misdemeanor€sentenceÏof€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€.× ƒ1 ××  ×ÌÓ  ÓÌò òDOUBLE€JEOPARDYó óÌÓ  Óà àà àIn€his€first€issue€the€defendant€contests€the€trial€court's€imposition€ofÏconsecutive€sentences.€€As€previously€noted,€the€trial€court€originally€ordered€theÏdefendant€to€serve€his€death€sentence€concurrently€to€his€sentence€for€misdemeanorÏchild€neglect.€€The€defendant€contends€that€by€subsequently€mandating€consecutiveÏsentencing,€the€court€altered€the€terms€of€the€misdemeanor€sentence€in€violation€ofÏ"the€Double€Jeopardy€Provision€of€the€Eighth€Amendment€to€the€United€StatesÏConstitution€and€Article€I,€ðð€10"€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€The€defendantÏemphasizes€the€fact€that€the€misdemeanor€sentence,€imposed€in€1989,€was€neverÏappealed€and€was€already€completely€served€at€the€time€that€the€court€resentencedÏthe€defendant.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€relies€upon€Tennessee€case€law€which€prohibits€theÏmodification€of€a€criminal€defendant's€sentence€occurring€after€his€original€sentenceÏhas€been€partially€executed.€€òòSeeóó€òòTinker€v.€Stateóó,€579€S.W.2d€905€€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1979).€€In€òòTinkeróó,€the€trial€judge€realized€"he€had€inadvertently€sentenced€theÏdefendant€from€four€to€ten€years€and€ordered€him€to€return€to€court"€after€he€hadÏalready€begun€serving€his€sentence.€€òòId.óó€at€906.€€The€judge€then€resentenced€theÏdefendant€to€a€five€to€ten€year€term€as€he€had€originally€intended.€€This€CourtÍreversed€on€double€jeopardy€grounds€and€directed€the€trial€court€to€reinstate€theÏinitial€judgment.€€òòId.óó€at€906,€908.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€State€argues€that€this€authority€in€not€applicable€to€the€defendant'sÏsituation€as€he€was€not€resentenced€on€an€executed€judgment.€€We€agree.€€It€is€well„established€that€"[i]n€those€cases€where€an€appeal€requires€a€reversal€of€theÏpunishment€or€there€is€a€mistrial€as€to€punishment,€a€new€sentencing€hearing€doesÏnot€constitute€double€jeopardy."€€9€Raybin,€òòTennessee€Criminal€Practice€andÏProcedureóó€ðð€16.188€(1984);€€òòseeóó€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€576€S.W.2d€588,€590€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1978).€€The€defendant€was€merely€resentenced€for€the€charge€of€second„degree€murder€subsequent€to€the€reversal€of€his€first„degree€murder€conviction€andÏdeath€sentence.€€The€fact€that€the€new€sentence€for€murder€was€to€be€servedÏconsecutively,€rather€than€concurrently,€did€not€amount€to€an€alteration€of€theÏmisdemeanor€sentence.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òEX€POST€FACTOó óÌà àà àWe€next€turn€to€the€defendant's€ex€post€facto€challenge.€€He€argues€thatÏthe€trial€court€improperly€applied€enhancement€factors€which€were€not€enacted€untilÏafter€the€date€of€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€theÏdefendant€in€accordance€with€the€Tennessee€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€ofÍ1989.€€T.C.A.€€ðð€40„35„101,€et.€seq.€€(1990).€€In€so€doing,€the€following€twoÏenhancement€factors€were€employed€which€were€not€included€in€the€preceding€1982ÏAct:ÌÓÓÌÒ ô ÒÒ ° Ò(15)€€The€defendant€abused€a€position€of€public€or€private€trust,€orÏused€a€special€skill€in€a€manner€that€significantly€facilitated€theÏcommission€or€the€fulfillment€of€the€offense;€[and]ÌÌ(16)€€The€crime€was€committed€under€circumstances€under€whichÏthe€potential€for€bodily€injury€to€a€victim€was€great.ÌÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓT.C.A.€€ðð€40„35„114€(1990);€€òòsee€alsoóó€T.C.A.€€ðð€40„35„111€(1982).€€Ì€Ìà àà àThe€Supreme€Court€addressed€the€question€of€"whether€anÏenhancement€factor„„€created€by€the€1989€Sentencing€Act„„€to€a€criminal€offenseÏoccurring€before€the€Act's€effective€date€violated€the€ex€post€facto€prohibition€of€theÏUnited€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions."€€òòState€v.€Pearsonóó,€858€S.W.2d€879,Ï880€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€court€concluded€that,€in€order€to€satisfy€state€and€federal€exÏpost€facto€laws,ÌÓÓà8 àÌÒ ô ÒÒ ° Ò[a]€trial€court€imposing€a€sentence€after€the€effective€date€of€theÏ1989€statute€for€a€crime€committed€before€that€date€must€calculateÏthe€appropriate€sentence€under€both€the€1982€sentencing€statuteÏand€the€1989€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act,€and€then€imposeÏthe€lesser€sentence€of€the€two.ÌÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓòòPearsonóó,€858€S.W.2d€at€880.€€The€defendant€in€òòPearsonóó€had€been€sentenced€inÏ1990€after€a€plea€of€guilty€for€offenses€committed€in€1989€prior€to€the€effective€date€ofÏthe€1989€Act.€€Our€Supreme€Court€remanded€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€aÏdetermination€of€the€appropriate€sentence€under€each€Act€so€that€the€lesser€could€beÏimposed.€€òòId.óó€at€884.ÌÌà àà àIn€its€brief,€the€State€cited€òòPearsonóó€for€the€proposition€that€a€sentenceÏmust€be€calculated€entirely€under€either€the€1982€or€the€1989€statute.€€The€StateÏfurther€declared€that€because€"the€possible€maximum€sentence€for€second„degreeÏmurder€pursuant€to€the€1989€Act€was€considerably€lower€than€under€the€1982€Act[,]Ïthe€trial€court€properly€sentenced€the€defendant€under€the€entirety€of€the€1989€Act.€ÏAccordingly,€the€trial€court€properly€considered€the€enhancement€factors€which€wereÏonly€included€in€the€1989€Act."€€However,€as€this€Court€has€held,€"without€calculatingÏthe€defendant's€sentence€separately€under€both€Acts,€it€is€unclear€how€the€differentÏenhancement€and€mitigating€factors€might€have€been€applied."€€òòManning€v.€Stateóó,Ï883€S.W.2d€635,€638€€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€if€òòState€v.ÏPearsonóó€is€applicable€to€this€case,€it€must€be€remanded€to€the€trial€court€forÏresentencing€consistent€with€that€case.ÌÌà àà àHowever,€before€we€determine€that€the€sentencing€analysis€of€òòPearsonóóÏis€required,€we€must€first€address€the€preliminary€issue€of€whether€the€1989€Act€isÏinvolved€at€all.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€While€the€defendant€in€€òòPearsonóó€was€convicted€and€sentenced€forÏthe€first€time€in€1990,€the€defendant's€conviction€and€initial€sentencing€occurred€onÏMay€22,€1989,€prior€to€the€November€1,€1989,€effective€date€of€the€1989€Act.€ÏApplication€of€the€1989€Act€was€not€possible€until€after€the€Supreme€Court€reversedÏthe€defendant's€first„degree€murder€conviction€and€ordered€a€new€sentencingÏhearing€which€was€held€on€October€26,€1992.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€an€attempt€to€address€issues€engendered€by€the€enactment€of€aÏcompletely€new€sentencing€law,€the€legislature€included€the€following€provision€inÏthe€1989€Act:ÌÓÓà8 àÌÒ ô ÒÒ ° ÒUnless€prohibited€by€the€United€States€or€Tennessee€constitution,Ïany€person€sentenced€on€or€after€November€1,€1989,€for€anÏoffense€committed€between€July€1,€1982€and€November€1,€1989,Ïshall€be€sentenced€under€provisions€of€this€chapter.× ƒ4 ××  ×ÌÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„117(b)€(1990).€€However,€the€legislature€also€enacted€the€followingÍprovision€which€was€not€codified€because€of€its€temporary€effect:ÌÓÓÌÒ ô ÒÒ ° ÒThis€act€shall€not€affect€rights€and€duties€that€matured,€penaltiesÏthat€were€incurred,€òòor€proceedings€that€were€begun€before€itsÏeffective€dateóó.ÌÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒPublic€Acts€1989,€Ch.€591,€ðð€115€(emphasis€added).ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àRelying€in€part€upon€the€latter€provision,€our€Supreme€Court€held€thatÏthe€1982€Act€remained€applicable€to€a€defendant€sentenced€initially€under€the€1982ÏAct€but€whose€sentence€had€become€subject€to€partial€modification€subsequent€toÏthe€effective€date€of€the€1989€Act.€€òòState€v.€Polkóó,€845€S.W.2d€171,€173€(Tenn.€1992).€ÏThe€Court€stated€that€resentencing€for€the€purpose€of€partially€modifying€the€originalÏsentence€"constitutes€a€continuation€of€the€original€procedure€subject€to€the€1982Ïact."€€òòPolkóó,€845€S.W.2d€at€173.€€Significantly,€the€Court€qualified€its€holding€with€theÏfollowing€language:ÌÓÓÌÒ ô ÒÒ ° ÒIf€the€entire€sentence€had€been€set€aside€due€to€a€substantive€orÏprocedural€flaw€in€the€original€sentencing€hearing€or€to€lack€ofÏjurisdiction,€and€if€the€case€had€then€been€remanded€for€anÏentirely€new€penalty€hearing,€a€different€result€might€well€follow.ÌÌòòÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓId.óóÌÌà àà àFollowing€òòPolkóó,€our€Court€recently€held€that€"when€an€original€sentenceÏunder€the€1982€act€includes€a€Range€II,€especially€aggravated€offender€status€whichÏwas€correctly€determined,€a€requirement€of€resentencing€to€address€an€invalidÏpersistent€offender€determination€and€invalid€enhancement€within€Range€IIÏconstitutes€only€a€modification€of€the€original€sentence."€€òòSills€v.€Stateóó,€884€S.W.2dÏ139,€144€€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€These€were€not€circumstances€in€which€"anÏentirely€new€sentencing€hearing€was€required€and€an€entirely€new€sentence€had€toÏbe€imposed."€€òòId.óó€ÌÌà àà àOn€the€other€hand,€this€case€required€an€entirely€new€sentencingÏhearing.€€This€is€precisely€the€situation€to€which€the€òòPolkóó€holding€was€referring€in€theÏrestrictive€language€quoted€above.€€The€Supreme€Court€set€aside€the€originalÏconviction€"due€to€a€substantive€flaw"„„€insufficient€evidence.€€The€court€thenÏremanded€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€a€new€sentencing€hearing.€€Since€the€1989ÏAct€is€implicated€here,€the€ex€post€facto€concerns€which€were€discussed€earlier€areÏpresent.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€improperly€applied€otherÏenhancing€factors€in€addition€to€the€two€based€on€his€ex€post€facto€challenge.€€TheÏState€concedes€that€the€trial€judge€improperly€applied€the€factors€involving€priorÍcriminal€history€and€the€fact€that€the€injuries€inflicted€were€particularly€great.€€T.C.A.€ððÏ40„35„114(1),(6).€€We€agree€that€these€should€not€have€been€employed.€€OtherÏfactors€used€were€not€elements€of€the€offense€and€may€or€may€not€be€supported€byÏthe€proof.ÌÌà àà àTherefore,€we€remand€this€case€for€imposition€of€a€sentence€inÏcompliance€with€òòState€v.€Pearsonóó,€858€S.W.2d€879€(Tenn.€1993).× ƒ5 ××  ×ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à(SCOTT,€PEAY€&€COLTON,€S.J.)