ÿWPCb …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ4Ýñ 0l 0Dt w@¸ 0Jø 0TB 0^– 0hô 0r\ 0|Î 0†J 0Ð 1u` U,Õ 0dU,eU>‘ BÏU*ìB)DC? AM‚*Ï D3ùv~,vÓª 0@} AO½Æ  0DÒ D/ BE˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡»{s ppppdp3|xš ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó † L‡ Dˆ E‰ EŠ U‹ UŒ E Ž Ó€š 2 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  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`(&Times New Roman d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òMay€1,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó$$$$'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÑ7€¦XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °‚Xª ¸ ™XÓÔ€%ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÙ€€ÙßL€()';+'h|Ü` Å `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALSÏOF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌà@ àJUNE€1995€SESSIONÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àNO.€02C01„9410„CR„00237Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)à àMADISON€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€FRANKLIN€MURCHISONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGE€ÌJAMES€BRUGGEMAN,à àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Theft€and€Criminal€Impersonation)Ìà àà àAppellantà àà àà àà à)à àÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌBill€R.€Barron€andà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌJ.€Mark€Johnsonà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌContract€Appellant€Defendersà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌ124€East€Court€Squareà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493ÌTrenton,€Tennessee€38382Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCharlotte€H.€RappuhnÌGeorge€Morton€Googeà àà àà àà àAssistant€Atty.€Gen.€&€ReporterÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌ227€West€Baltimore€Streetà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493ÌJackson,€Tennessee€38301Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDon€AllenÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€2825Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJackson,€Tennessee€38301à àÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóà àÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌMary€Beth€LeibowitzÌSpecial€JudgeÌÓÓÌòòÌÌÓ Ð Óà@ àOPINIONóóÌThis€is€an€appeal€as€of€right€by€the€appellant,€James€Bruggeman,€following€aÏjury€verdict€finding€him€guilty€of€theft€and€criminal€impersonation.€€The€appellantÏargues€that:ÌÓÓ(1)à8 àThe€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€a€verdict€of€guilty.ÌÌ(2)à8 àThe€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€State€to€presentÏdemonstrative€evidence€without€establishing€a€properÏchain€of€custody.ÌÌÓ ` °œXÓ(3)à8 àThe€trial€court€failed€to€sentence€the€appellant€in€a€timelyÏmanner€in€accordance€with€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏsection€40„35„209.ÌÌ(4)à8 àThe€trial€court€gave€the€appellant€an€excessive€sentenceÏafter€determining€that€there€were€no€significant€enhancingÏor€mitigating€factors.€€ÌÌÓÓœFollowing€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€trial€court.ÌThe›€evidence€at€trial€established€that€on€April€12,€1993,€a€1993ÏMediterranean€green€Dodge€Dynasty€automobile€was€stolen€in€Memphis€fromÏWilliam€Larry€Homsley.€€The€automobile€had€been€provided€to€Mr.€Homsley€by€hisÏemployer.€€Mr.€Homsley€testified€that€he€parked€his€automobile€near€the€front€door€ofÏa€Mapco€convenience€store€shortly€after€1:00€p.m.€and€went€into€the€store.€€He€left€hisÏkeys€in€the€car.€€Approximately€three€to€five€minutes€later,€Homsley€exited€the€storeÏand€found€his€car€missing.€€An€unidentified€man€came€up€to€Homsley€and€said,€ð ðWell,ÏI€seen€a€guy€that€was€standing€over€by€the€phone€booth€with€what€seemed€to€be€aÏsleeping€bag€or€a€little€bedroll,€run€over€to€the€car,€look€in€it,€throw€his€bedroll€in€it,Ïjump€in€the€car€and€drive€off.ðð€€Homsley€testified€that€he€recalled€seeing€a€manÏstanding€at€the€phone€booth€by€the€corner€of€the€store€when€he€first€drove€into€theÏconvenience€store€parking€lot.€€He€described€that€man€as€white,€wearing€shabbyÏclothes,€and€wearing€a€cap€covering€long€hair.€€Homsley€testified€that€he€tookÏpossession€of€the€automobile€in€January€of€1993,€and€that€it€had€a€value€of€$18,000.€ÏHe€further€testified€that€a€telephone€had€been€mounted€inside€the€automobile.€€HeÏalso€testified€that€he€gave€no€one€permission€to€take€his€car.€ÌFour€days€after€the€theft,€Homsley€received€a€telephone€call€from€theÏMadison€County€Sheriffððsððs€Department€advising€him€that€his€automobile€had€beenÏrecovered.€€Homsley€visited€Bob€Parkerððs€Service€Center€in€Jackson,€Tennessee,Ïwhere€his€car€had€been€towed€and€discovered€that€the€automobile€was€muddy,€hadÏbeen€scratched€and€scraped,€and€that€all€of€the€files€he€kept€in€the€car€had€beenÏð ðtrashed.ðð€€The€car€phone€and€mount€were€missing€as€well€as€his€camera€andÏcheckbook.€€When€he€first€viewed€the€car€after€its€recovery,€Homsley€also€found€itemsÏthat€did€not€belong€to€him€inside€the€car.€€These€items€included€a€food€processor,€aÏsleeping€bag,€a€motel€key,€several€items€of€clothing€that€were€still€in€their€originalÏpackaging,€several€papers,€and€a€Western€Union€money€transfer€with€the€appellantððsÏname€on€it.€€Homsley€subsequently€turned€these€items€over€to€Madison€CountyÏSheriffððs€investigator,€David€Woolfork.€€ÌSergeant€Asa€Duncan€of€the€Madison€County€Sheriffððs€Department€testifiedÏthat€he€responded€to€a€call€on€April€15,€1993,€concerning€an€automobile€that€wasÏparked€in€a€field€off€Highway€412€East€in€Madison€County.€€Sergeant€DuncanÏtestified€that€the€car€was€some€thirty€yards€off€the€road€in€a€very€muddy€field,€and€thatÏwhen€he€approached€the€car,€the€windows€were€fogged.€€Duncan€said€that€when€heÏwalked€up€to€the€driverððs€window,€the€appellant€was€found€sleeping€in€theÏautomobile.€€After€awaking€the€appellant,€Duncan€asked€the€appellant€to€show€hisÏhands€and€open€the€car€door.€€The€appellant€complied.€€When€asked€by€Sgt.€DuncanÍwhy€he€was€parked€in€the€field,€the€appellant€told€him€that€he€œhad€had›€too€much€toÏdrink€the€night€before€and€had€pulled€over€in€the€field€to€sleep€it€off.€€When€asked€toÏproduce€identification,€the€appellant€responded€that€he€had€none.€€When€asked€toÏgive€his€name€and€date€of€birth,€the€appellant€advised€Sgt.€Duncan€that€his€nameÏwas€John€Birch,€and€that€his€date€of€birth€was€April€18,€1965.€€He€gave€his€address€asÏDenver,€Colorado.€€Sergeant€Duncan€saw€no€one€else€around€the€automobile,€andÏobserved€no€footprints€or€car€tracks€nearby.ÌAt€about€that€time,€Sgt.€Duncan€was€notified€over€his€radio€that€the€car€hadÏbeen€stolen€œin›€Memphis.€€At€that€point,€the€appellant€was€arrested€and€placed€in€theÏpatrol€car.€€While€waiting€on€a€wrecker€to€arrive€to€tow€the€automobile,€Duncan€brieflyÏlooked€through€the€automobile€to€verify€that€no€drugs,€weapons€or€contraband€wereÏinside,€and€while€conducting€this€brief€inspection,€several€business€cards€and€otherÏitems€were€found€which€caused€Duncan€to€eventually€learn€that€the€owner€of€theÏautomobile€was€Mr.€Homsley.€€ÌOn€cross„examination,€Sgt.€Duncan€testified€that€the€appellant€told€him€anÏunknown€white€male€had€been€with€him,€but€the€appellant€said€he€did€not€know€theÏother€manððs€name.€€The€appellant€also€said€that€he€and€the€other€man€had€met€at€aÏbar€in€Memphis.€€Sergeant€Duncan€said€that€the€defendant€may€have€also€advisedÏhim€that€he€fought€with€the€other€man€because€the€other€manððs€girlfriend€had€stolenÏhis€wallet,€and€that€the€other€man€left€after€the€fight.€€ÌInvestigator€David€Woolfork€of€the€Madison€County€Sheriffððs€DepartmentÏtestified€that€he€processed€the€appellant€at€the€sheriffððs€department€following€hisÏarrest.€€Woolfork€testified€that€the€appellant€identified€himself€as€John€Birch€andÏsigned€four€fingerprint€cards€to€that€effect.€€After€taking€the€fingerprints€of€theÏappellant,€Woolfork€faxed€those€fingerprints€and€a€photograph€to€the€FBI€office€inÏWashington.€€Woolfork€then€received€information€indicating€the€appellantððs€real€nameÏwas€John€Allen€Bruggeman,€and€that€his€actual€date€of€birth€was€April€18,€1966.€ÏWhen€confronted€by€Woolfork€with€this€information,€the€appellant€laughed€and€stated,Ïð ðWell€you€had€to€work€a€little€bit.ðð€€ÌFinally,€Woolfork€testified€that€while€in€custody,€the€appellant€had,€on€severalÏoccasions,€asked€for€the€food€processor€found€in€the€car.€€He€testified€that€theÏappellant€advised€him€that€the€other€man€owed€him€the€food€processor€because€heÏhad€stolen€the€appellantððs€wallet.€€ÌNo€evidence€was€introduced€on€behalf€of€the€appellant,€and€based€on€theÏforegoing,€the€appellant€was€found€guilty€of€theft€of€property€over€ten€thousandÏdollars€($10,000)€and€criminal€impersonation.ÌThe€appellant€argues€that€the€State€did€not€present€evidence€which€wouldÏsupport€a€finding€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€he€knowingly€obtained€orÏexercised€control€over€the€vehicle.€€He€argues€that€the€evidence,€in€the€light€mostÍfavorable€to€the€State,€established€only€that€he€was€found€sleeping€in€the€vehicleÏafter€a€night€of€drinking€and€fighting.€€ÌOn€appeal,€the€appellant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€why€the€proof€atÏadduced€at€trial€was€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€of€the€trier€of€facts.€€òòState€v.ÏGregoryóó,€862€S.W.2d€574,€577€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€ÌWhen€an€appellant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€theÏappellate€court€is€to€review€the€record€to€determine€if€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial€isÏsufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€verdict€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€T.R.A.P.€13(e);ÏòòState€v.€Gregoryóó€862€S.W.2d€at€577.€€This€Court€will€not€disturb€a€guilty€verdict€forÏlack€of€sufficient€evidence€unless€the€facts€and€any€inferences€therefrom€areÏinsufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€defendant€guiltyÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòId.óó€€Questions€concerning€credibility€of€witnesses,€theÏweight€to€be€given€to€the€evidence,€as€well€as€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence,Ïare€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€Court.€€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€832€S.W.2d€300,€301Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€ÌThis€Court€does€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence€and€is€required€toÏafford€the€State€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record,Ïas€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€ÏòòState€v.€Gregoryóó,€862€S.W.2d€at€577.€€A€verdict€of€guilt€rendered€by€the€trier€of€factÏand€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€the€StateÍand€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€Stateððs€theory.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2dÏ561,€568„69€(Tenn.€1983).€€A€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocenceÏand€replaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt.€€òòId.óó€€ÌThe€offense€of€theft€of€property€requires€a€showing€that€the€defendant,€withÏthe€intent€to€deprive€the€owner€of€the€property,€knowingly€obtained€or€exercisedÏcontrol€over€the€properties€without€the€ownerððs€effective€consent.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïœðð39„14„103›€(1991€Repl.).€€It€has€long€been€the€law€in€this€State€that€proof€of€theÏpossession€of€recently€stolen€goods,€if€not€satisfactorily€explained,€gives€rise€to€theÏinference€that€the€possessor€has€stolen€them.€€òòBush€v.€Stateóó,€541€S.W.2d€391€(Tenn.Ï1976);€òòState€v.€Landóó,€681€S.W.2d€589,€591€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€ÌThe€evidence€in€this€case€established€that€the€appellant€was€found€inÏpossession€of€the€automobile,€stolen€only€three€days€earlier,€and€upon€his€arrest€heÏgave€the€police€a€false€name€and€date€of€birth.€€The€evidence€also€established€thatÏseveral€items€were€found€in€the€automobile€not€belonging€to€the€victim,€but€belongingÏto€the€appellant.€€Specifically,€there€was€a€food€processor€claimed€to€be€owned€byÏthe€appellant€and€a€Western€Union€money€transfer€with€the€appellantððs€nameÏappearing€on€it.€€Additionally,€the€appellant€admitted€to€Sgt.€Duncan€that€he€hadÏbeen€in€Memphis,€where€the€car€had€been€stolen,€a€few€days€before€he€was€arrested.€€ÌWeighed€against€this€evidence€was€the€appellantððs€explanation€that€he€hadÏmet€another€man€at€a€bar€in€Memphis,€the€other€manððs€girlfriend€had€stolen€his€wallet,Íhe€had€fought€with€the€other€man,€and€the€other€man€had€left€the€car.€€The€appellantÏwas€unable€to€provide€the€name€for€this€other€man,€however,€and€Sgt.€DuncanÏtestified€that€he€was€unable€to€locate€any€footprints€or€car€tracks€around€the€stolenÏvehicle€when€he€arrested€the€appellant.€€ÌUnder€these€circumstances,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€was€more€œtha›œn›Ïsufficient€to€support€the€defendantððs€convictions€for€theft€of€property€with€a€value€inÏexcess€of€ten€thousand€dollars€($10,000)€and€for€criminal€impersonation.€€This€issueÏis€without€merit.€€ÌNext,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€State€toÏpresent€demonstrative€evidence€without€establishing€a€proper€chain€of€custody.€€TheÏappellant€contends€that€the€chain€of€custody€was€not€established€as€to€the€identityÏand€integrity€of€the€objects€located€within€the€car.€€The€State€argues€that€the€only€itemÏintroduced€at€the€trial€to€directly€implicate€the€appellant€was€the€Western€UnionÏmoney€transfer€found€in€the€stolen€vehicle.€€The€item€directly€links€the€appellant€andÏbased€upon€the€appellantððs€own€argument€that€a€chain€of€custody€would€not€beÏnecessary€if€the€object€were€easily€identifiable,€this€object€was€properly€before€theÏjury.€€With€regard€to€the€food€processor,€its€label€indicated€that€it€had€been€purchasedÏat€a€K„Mart€in€Memphis€which€created€an€inference€that€the€appellant€had€been€inÏMemphis€prior€to€his€arrest.€€Moreover,€the€record€does€not€indicate€that€the€appellantÏmade€a€timely€objection€to€the€admission€of€the€food€processor;€thus€this€issue€hasÍbeen€waived.€€Even€if€there€was€error€in€its€introduction,€it€is€harmless€in€the€light€ofÏthe€appellantððs€overwhelming€guilt.€€òòBolen€v.€Stateóó,€544€S.W.2d€918€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1976).€€ÌThe€appellant€next€asserts€that€he€was€not€sentenced€in€a€timely€manner€andÏwas€prejudiced€by€that€delay€for€the€reason€that€he€was€incarcerated€in€the€local€jailÏawaiting€sentencing,€and€that€since€he€was€not€in€the€custody€of€the€Department€ofÏCorrections€was€not€eligible€for€time€credit€for€good€behavior.€€He€also€complainedÏbecause€of€difficulty€with€certain€civil€litigation€in€which€he€was€involved.€€This€CourtÏfinds€that€the€delay€in€sentencing€was€partially€due€to€the€appellantððs€repeatedÏrequests€to€represent€himself,€followed€by€his€withdrawal€of€those€requests,€and€hisÏinsistence€upon€certified€copies€of€certain€documents€from€out€of€state€in€support€ofÏthe€presentence€report.€€All€such€documents€were€subsequently€obtained€and€foundÏto€be€accurate.€€ÌWith€regard€to€his€claim€of€prejudice€in€the€delay€in€transferring€him€to€theÏDepartment€of€Corrections€so€that€he€could€begin€to€earn€good„time€credits,€we€noteÏthat€the€acceptance€by€the€Department€of€Corrections€of€any€sentenced€offender€isÏnot€within€the€purview€of€the€trial€court€but€within€the€purview€of€the€Department€ofÏCorrections,€and€there€is€no€guarantee€that€the€appellant€would€begin€to€earn€thoseÏcredits€at€any€specific€time,€nor€that€the€appellantððs€behavior€would€be€such€as€toÏearn€credits.€€Further,€because€the€appellant€may€have€been€inconvenienced€byÍsome€civil€litigation,€such€inconvenience€does€not€amount€to€prejudice€sufficient€toÏrequire€reversal.€€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€729€S.W.2d€683€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986);€òòState€v.ÏJohnsonóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9208„CC„00258,€opinion€filed€February€18,€1993,€atÏNashville;€òòState€v.€Booneóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9202„CC„00048,€opinion€filed€JanuaryÏ7,€1993,€at€Nashville.€€In€fact,€the€record€in€this€case€indicates€that€the€appellant€didÏbenefit€from€the€delay€because€after€the€certified€copies€of€certain€records€wereÏobtained€from€California,€the€trial€judge€concluded€that€the€appellant€was€not€aÏRange€III€offender€as€urged€by€the€State,€but€was€in€fact€a€Range€II€offender,€andÏsentenced€him€accordingly.€€The€appellant€was€not€prejudiced€by€delay€in€hisÏsentencing,€and€this€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌThe€last€issue€presented€by€the€appellant€is€that€the€court€disregarded€certainÏmitigating€factors€and€improperly€sentenced€the€appellant€to€the€maximum€sentenceÏwithin€his€range.€€The€appellant€asserts€that€the€trial€judge€did€not€find€any€enhancingÏor€mitigating€factors,€and€thus€should€have€sentenced€the€appellant€to€the€minimumÏwithin€Range€II.€€This€Court€reviews€the€trial€judgeððs€sentence€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€with€theÏpresumption€that€the€determination€of€the€trial€court€was€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð40„35„401(d)€œ(1990Repl.).›€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Byrdóó,€861€S.W.2d€377€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1993).€€Procedurally,€the€trial€court€is€to€start€with€the€statutory€minimumÏsentence€and€enhance€the€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€forÏenhancement€factors€which€are€found,€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€as€appropriateÍfor€mitigating€factors€present.€€The€weight€to€be€given€to€each€mitigating€or€enhancingÏfactor€is€left€to€the€trial€courtððs€discretion.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210€œ(1990Repl.);›ÏœòòState›€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229€(Tenn.€1986).€€The€burden€is€upon€the€appellant€toÏshow€that€the€sentence€imposed€was€improper.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)Ïœ(1990Repl.);›€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805ÏS.W.2d€785€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€After€considerable€discussion€and€review€ofÏthe€record,€the€trial€court€determined€that€the€defendant€should€be€sentenced€as€aÏmultiple€offender€based€upon€his€two€prior€convictions€in€the€State€of€Colorado.€€TheÏtrial€court€refused€to€sentence€the€appellant€as€a€persistent€offender€because€it€wasÏnot€sure€whether€previous€convictions€received€in€California€were€felonies€or€were€inÏfact€misdemeanors€for€purposes€of€determining€the€appropriate€range.€€However,€theÏtrial€court€did€find€that€the€convictions€from€California,€as€well€as€several€others€fromÏother€states,€which€are€a€part€of€the€record,€indicated€that€the€defendant€had€anÏextensive€criminal€record€and€was€in€fact€on€parole€from€the€State€of€Colorado€at€theÏtime€he€committed€this€offense.€€It€is€therefore€this€courtððs€opinion€that€the€extensiveÏcriminal€record€of€the€appellant€above€the€requirement€for€Range€II€justified€theÏsentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court.€€ÌHaving€found€no€error€in€the€record,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€in€allÏrespects€œaffirmed.›ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àMARY€œBETH€LEIBOWITZ,›€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÓ  ÓÌCONCUR:Ì̛̜Ìòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌœÌòò›€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGE