ÿWPC$ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0lH 0D´ 0Jø 0TB 0^– 0hô 0r\ Î 0|Ö 0†R 0Ø 1uh U,Ý 0d U,m B™U>¶U*ôB)DCG AMŠ D3×, x6 0@®î(v~(vÓ¦ AOy"ÆÈ" 0DŽ# D/Ò# B$˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- kDlmEnopEqrDsÓ€»{s 3|x((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  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 d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ$$$$'ÿÿdxd "Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òJune€10,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó nÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ôÔIt€is€the€policy€of€this€Court€to€refrain€from€referring€by€name€to€minor€victims€of€sex€offenses.€€TheÏà0 àvictim€will€be€referred€to€by€her€initials.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ôÔ€€We€note€that€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€recently€held€that€this€enhancement€factor€isÏà0 ànot€an€essential€element€of€the€offense€of€rape€and€may€be€used€to€enhance€the€sentence€of€aÏconvicted€rapist.€€òòState€v.€Kissingeróó,€No.€02S01„9504„CR„00029,€1996€WL€208525,€at€*5€(Tenn.ÏApril€29,€1996).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ôÔ€€Although€not€raised€in€this€appeal,€ð ðcoercionðð€of€a€rape€victim€may€be€accomplished€through€theÏà0 àuse€of€parental€authority€over€a€child€less€than€fifteen€years€of€age.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„501(1).€€However,€in€this€case,€the€trial€judge,€in€sentencing€Appellant,€clearly€viewed€the€case€asÏone€involving€the€use€of€actual€force€to€accomplish€the€rape.€€Thus,€we€need€not€address€theÏissue€of€whether€coupling€proof€of€abuse€of€parental€authority€to€coerce€a€child€rape€victim€withÏabuse€of€such€authority€as€a€breach€of€a€private€trust€for€sentencing€enhancement€constitutes€aÏviolation€of€the€prohibition€against€double€enhancement.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„114.€€Moreover,Ïalthough€this€act€of€incest€involved€an€abuse€of€a€private€trust,€such€abuse€is€not€an€essentialÏelement€of€the€crime€of€incest.€€Therefore,€there€is€no€impediment€to€sentencing€Appellant€byÏapplying€the€enhancement€factor€of€abuse€of€a€private€trust.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Pruittóó,€No.€01C01„9304„CR„00123,€1994€WL€108936,€at€*5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Mar.€31,€1994);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€McKnightóó,Ï900€S.W.2d€36,€50€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€(embracing€the€proposition€that€even€though€it€isÏlikely€that€a€particular€enhancement€factor€will€be€present€during€the€commission€of€a€particularÏoffense,€the€enhancement€factor€may€still€be€applied).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€%ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€&ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ö%XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò ò›IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙœßL€)+(;+'h|“Ý` Å `€€Lß›ÌAT€JACKSONÌÌFEBRUARY€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.ÏNO.€02C01„9507„CC„00193Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àWEAKLEY€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€WILLIAM€B.€ACREE,€JR.ó óÌò òROBERT€J.€BURTON,€SR.,ó óà àò ò)à àPRESIDING€JUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(Rape€and€Incest€„€Direct€Appeal)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌVICTORIA€L.€DIBONAVENTURAà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌAttorney€at€Lawà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ209€West€Wood€StreetÌParis,€TN€€38242à àà àà àà àWILLIAM€DAVID€BRIDGERSÌ(at€trial)à àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌJOSEPH€P.€ATNIPà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌDistrict€Public€DefenderÌ(at€new€trial)à àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€A.€THOMASÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌLANGDON€S.€œUNGER,›€JR.ÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àALLEN€J.€STRAWBRIDGE,€JR.Ì27th€Judicial€Districtà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌP.O.€Box€1022à àà àà àà àP.€O.€Box€218ÌMartin,€TN€€38237à àà àà àà àUnion€City,€TN€€38261Ì(on€appeal)ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇÓ  Óòòò òÔ€&„ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€&ŠÔÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àA€Weakley€County€Circuit€Court€jury€found€Appellant€Robert€Burton€guiltyÏof€one€count€of€rape€and€one€count€of€incest.€€As€a€Range€I€standard€offender,ÏAppellant€received€a€sentence€of€twelve€years€for€the€rape€conviction€and€aÏsentence€of€six€years€for€the€incest€conviction.€€The€sentences€were€orderedÏserved€concurrently.€€In€this€appeal,€Appellant€presents€two€issues€for€review:Ï(1)€whether€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€is€legally€sufficient€to€sustainÏconvictions€for€rape€and€incest;€and€(2)€whether€the€length€of€sentence€isÏexcessive.€€Additionally,€the€State€presents€an€issue€unaddressed€by€AppellantÏregarding€the€introduction€of€testimony€under€the€fresh€complaint€doctrine.ÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€ÌÌÓ  Óò òI.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€alleges€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€is€legally€insufficientÏto€sustain€convictions€for€rape€and€incest.€€When€an€appeal€challenges€theÏsufficiency€of€the€evidence,€the€standard€of€review€is€whether,€after€viewing€theÏevidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€couldÏhave€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€ÏòòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€318€(1979);€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,Í190„91€(Tenn.€1992);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitledÏto€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€or€legitimateÏinferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2dÏ832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€This€Court€will€not€re„weigh€the€evidence,€re„evaluateÏthe€evidence,€or€substitute€its€evidentiary€inferences€for€those€reached€by€theÏjury.€€òòState€v.€Careyóó,€914€S.W.2d€93,€95€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€In€a€criminalÏtrial,€great€weight€is€given€to€the€result€reached€by€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,Ï910€S.W.2d€897,€899€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).ÌÌà àOnce€approved€by€the€trial€court,€a€jury€verdict€accredits€the€witnessesÏpresented€by€the€State€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòState€v.ÏWilliamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983).€€The€credibility€of€witnesses,€theÏweight€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€the€reconciliation€of€conflicts€in€the€proofÏare€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,Ï676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984).€€A€juryððs€guilty€verdict€removes€theÏpresumption€of€innocence€enjoyed€by€the€defendant€at€trial€and€raises€aÏpresumption€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€TheÏdefendant€then€bears€the€burden€of€overcoming€this€presumption€of€guilt€onÏappeal.€€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€175€(Tenn.€1991).€€We€will€review€theÏfacts€of€this€case€in€light€of€the€foregoing€well„established€principles€of€law.ÌÌà àOn€the€afternoon€of€Friday,€March€25,€1994,€Appellant€invited€his€thirteen„year„old€daughter€S.B.€to€accompany€him€to€his€workshop.× ƒ, ××  ×€€Once€there,€S.B.Ïassisted€Appellant€in€the€repair€of€an€air€conditioner.€€After€some€period€of€time,ÏAppellant€approached€S.B.,€pulled€down€her€shorts€and€underwear,€andÏpushed€her€back€onto€a€couch.€€Appellant€then€unbuttoned€and€unzipped€hisÏpants,€kneeled€down€on€top€of€S.B.,€and€vaginally€penetrated€her.€€HavingÏejaculated,€Appellant€returned€to€his€work€on€the€air€conditioner.€€After€ten€orÏfifteen€minutes,€Appellant€and€S.B.€left€the€workshop€together€and€returnedÏhome.ÌÌà àOn€the€following€Thursday,€S.B.€told€Sherry€Page,€her€school€guidanceÏcounselor,€about€the€incident.€€At€the€behest€of€Ms.€Page,€S.B.€then€told€herÏmother.€€Ms.€Page€contacted€the€Department€of€Human€Services€and€asked€theÏagency€to€investigate€S.B.ððs€claim.€€The€Department€of€Human€ServicesÏinterviewed€S.B.€on€the€following€Monday€and€arranged€for€Dr.€Susan€Brewer,Ïa€pediatrician,€to€examine€her€for€signs€of€sexual€abuse.€€During€theÏexamination,€S.B.€again€recounted€the€details€of€the€incident.€€The€physicalÏexamination€revealed€that€S.B.ððs€hymenal€opening€was€enlarged€for€her€ageÏand€that€she€had€significant€vaginal€scarring,€as€a€result€of€ð ðtearsðð€in€the€vaginalÍtissue.€€Dr.€Brewer€stated€that€these€physical€characteristics€indicate€vaginalÏpenetration.€ÌÌà àHaving€heard€the€foregoing€evidence,€the€jury€found€Appellant€guilty€ofÏone€count€of€rape€and€one€count€of€incest.€€In€order€to€sustain€a€conviction€forÏrape€in€this€case,€the€State€was€required€to€prove€that€Appellant€unlawfullyÏpenetrated€S.B.€and€that€the€penetration€was€accompanied€by€force€orÏcoercion.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„503(a)(1)€(Supp.€1995).€€S.B.€testifiedÏthat,€on€the€afternoon€in€question,€Appellant€removed€her€shorts€and€underwear,Ïpushed€her€back€onto€a€couch,€and€vaginally€penetrated€her.€€Medical€evidenceÏsupported€the€fact€that€S.B.€had€been€vaginally€penetrated.€€This€evidence€isÏsufficient€to€allow€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€conclude€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÏthat€a€rape€had€been€committed.ÌÌà àIn€order€to€sustain€a€conviction€for€incest€in€this€case,€the€State€wasÏrequired€to€prove€that€Appellant€sexually€penetrated€S.B.€and€that€AppellantÏwas€S.B.ððs€natural€father.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€39„15„302(a)(1)€(1991).€€S.B.€testified€thatÏAppellant€vaginally€penetrated€her€on€the€afternoon€in€question€and€thatÏAppellant€is€her€natural€father.€€S.B.ððs€sister€Priscilla€also€testified€that€AppellantÏis€S.B.ððs€father.€€The€foregoing€is€sufficient€to€allow€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€findÏthe€essential€elements€of€incest€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ÌÌà àAppellant€contends€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€is€insufficient€toÏsustain€his€convictions€because€the€actions€of€S.B.€were€not€consistent€withÏone€who€had€just€been€raped,€because€there€was€inconsistent€testimonyÏregarding€S.B.ððs€search€for€a€lost€earring€just€before€the€attack,€because€theÏmedical€examination€failed€to€specify€when€and€by€whom€S.B.€had€beenÏpenetrated,€and€because€the€jury€failed€to€give€adequate€weight€to€AppellantððsÏunrefuted€alibi€testimony.€€However,€as€stated€previously,€determining€theÏcredibility€of€witnesses€and€the€weight€to€be€given€their€testimony€and€resolvingÏconflicts€in€the€proof€are€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€trier€of€fact.€ÏòòSheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€at€547.€€This€Court,€even€if€it€wished€to€do€so,€may€notÏsubstitute€its€evidentiary€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€jury.€€òòCareyóó,€914ÏS.W.2d€at€95.€€Here,€it€appears€that€the€jury€chose€to€believe€the€testimony€ofÏS.B.€regarding€the€attack€and€to€disbelieve€the€testimony€of€Appellantððs€alibiÏwitness.€€Under€well„settled€Tennessee€law,€it€was€within€the€province€of€theÏjury€to€do€so.€€Thus,€we€find€that,€when€viewed€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€theÏState,€the€evidence€is€more€than€legally€sufficient€to€support€AppellantððsÏconvictions€for€rape€and€incest.ÌÓ  ÓÌò òII.€€FRESH€COMPLAINT€DOCTRINEÌÓ  Óó óà àThe€trial€court€admitted€the€testimony€of€S.B.ððs€school€guidance€counselorÏunder€the€fresh€complaint€doctrine€for€the€purpose€of€corroborating€S.B.ððs€accountÏof€the€attack.€€Under€the€fresh€complaint€doctrine,€the€fact€that€a€rape€victimÏmade€an€immediate€complaint€is€admissible€in€the€prosecutionððs€case„in€chief€forÏlimited€purposes.€€òòState€v.€Kendricksóó,€891€S.W.2d€597,€602„03€(Tenn.€1994).€ÏThis€doctrine€evolved€from€the€sexist€expectation€that€a€ð ðnormalðð€woman€wouldÏmake€an€immediate€outcry€if€raped.€€òòId.óó€at€604.€€However,€finding€no€acceptableÏbasis€for€the€extension€of€the€doctrine€to€child€victims,€the€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt€recently€held€that,€in€cases€where€the€victim€of€sexual€abuse€is€a€child,Ïneither€the€fact€of€the€complaint€nor€the€details€of€the€complaint€are€admissible.€ÏòòState€v.€Livingstonóó,€907€S.W.2d€392,€395€(Tenn.€1995).€€Despite€this€limitation,Ïthe€Court€noted€that€ð ðevidence€in€the€nature€of€fresh„complaint€may€beÏadmissible€.€.€.€as€corroborative€evidence€if€it€satisfies€the€prior€consistentÏstatement€rule.ðð€€òòId.óó;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Meeksóó,€867€S.W.2d€361,€374€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1993),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€114€S.€Ct.€1200€(1994)€(holding€that,€when€theÏcredibility€of€a€witness€is€impeached€with€the€suggestion€that€the€testimony€isÏfabricated€or€based€upon€faulty€recollection,€prior€consistent€statements€may€beÏintroduced€for€the€sole€purpose€of€corroborating€the€testimony€of€the€witness).€ÏHere,€Appellantððs€trial€counsel€cross„examined€S.B.€regarding€whether€she€hadÏever€lied€to€get€someone€else€in€trouble,€whether€she€had€lied€to€her€motherÏabout€setting€the€house€on€fire,€and€whether€she€had€previously€told€herÍteachers€that€her€parents€were€not€feeding€her.€€We€find€that,€although€theÏguidance€counselorððs€testimony€is€inadmissible€under€the€fresh€complaintÏdoctrine€contemplated€in€òòLivingstonóó,€reversal€of€Appellantððs€convictions€isÏunwarranted€because€the€testimony€was€admissible€as€a€prior€consistentÏstatement€to€rebut€Appellantððs€suggestions€that€S.B.€had€fabricated€her€claim.ÌÓ  ÓÌò òIII.€€SENTENCINGó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€alleges€that€his€length€of€sentence€is€excessive€due€to€improperÏapplication€of€two€enhancement€factors.€€When€an€appeal€challenges€theÏlength,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€the€appellate€court€conducts€aÏòòde€novoóó€review€with€a€presumption€that€the€determination€of€the€trial€court€wasÏcorrect.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1990).€€However,€the€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€only€applies€when€the€record€demonstrates€that€the€trial€courtÏproperly€considered€the€relevant€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€andÏcircumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€InÏconducting€a€review€of€the€sentence,€this€Court€must€consider€the€evidence,€theÏpresentence€report,€the€sentencing€principles,€the€arguments€of€counsel,€theÏnature€and€character€of€the€offense,€mitigating€and€enhancement€€factors,€anyÏstatements€made€by€the€defendant,€and€the€potential€for€rehabilitation€orÏtreatment.€€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,€860€S.W.2d€53,€60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€TheÍdefendant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€the€impropriety€of€the€sentenceÏimposed.€€òòState€v.€Gregoryóó,€862€S.W.2d€574,€578€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).ÌÌà à€In€the€absence€of€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors,€the€presumptiveÏlength€of€sentence€for€a€Class€B,€C,€D,€and€E€felony€is€the€minimum€sentence€inÏthe€statutory€range.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c)€(Supp.€1995).€€Where€oneÏor€more€enhancement€factors€apply€but€no€mitigating€factors€exist,€the€trial€courtÏmay€sentence€above€the€minimum€but€still€within€the€range.€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„210(d).€ÏWhere€both€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€apply,€the€trial€court€must€startÏat€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range,€enhance€the€sentence€within€the€rangeÏas€appropriate€to€the€enhancement€factors,€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€withinÏthe€range€as€appropriate€to€the€mitigating€factors.€€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€€TheÏweight€afforded€an€enhancement€or€mitigating€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€theÏtrial€court€so€long€as€the€trial€court€complies€with€the€purposes€and€principles€ofÏthe€Tennessee€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€and€its€findings€areÏsupported€by€the€record.€€òòState€v.€Hayesóó,€899€S.W.2d€175,€185€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1995).€ÌÌà àAppellant€was€convicted€of€one€count€of€rape,€a€Class€B€felony,€and€oneÏcount€of€incest,€a€Class€C€felony.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„13„503(b),€39„15„302(b).€€As€a€Range€I€standard€offender,€Appellant€was€eligible€for€aÍsentence€of€eight€to€twelve€years€on€the€rape€conviction€and€three€to€six€yearsÏon€the€incest€conviction.€€In€determining€the€length€of€sentence,€the€trial€courtÏfound€the€following€four€enhancement€factors€applicable€to€both€the€rapeÏconviction€and€the€incest€conviction:€(1)€ð ð[a]€victim€of€the€offense€was€particularlyÏvulnerable€because€of€age€or€physical€or€mental€ability€.€.€.€,ðð€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„114(4);Ï(2)€ð ð[t]he€offense€involved€a€victim€and€was€committed€to€gratify€the€defendantððsÏdesire€for€pleasure€or€excitement,ððòòid.óó€ðð€40„35„114(7);× ƒ. ××  ×€(3)€ð ð[t]he€felony€resulted€inÏdeath€or€bodily€injury€or€involved€the€threat€of€death€or€bodily€injury€to€anotherÏperson€and€the€defendant€has€previously€been€convicted€of€a€felony€thatÏresulted€in€death€or€bodily€injury,ðð€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„114(11);€and€(4)€ð ð[t]he€defendantÏabused€a€position€of€public€or€private€trust€.€.€.€.ð ð€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„114(15).× ƒ/ ××  ×€€The€trialÍcourt€found€no€mitigating€offenses.€€Based€on€the€foregoing,€Appellant€receivedÏthe€maximum€sentences€of€twelve€years€for€the€rape€conviction€and€six€yearsÏfor€the€incest€conviction.€€Because€the€trial€court€considered€the€principles,Ïpurposes,€and€goals€of€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€theÏpresumption€of€correctness€applies€to€these€sentences.ÌÌà àWhile€not€considered€by€the€trial€court€during€sentencing,€the€StateÏsubmits€the€following€additional€enhancement€factors:€ð ð[t]he€defendant€has€aÏprevious€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€thoseÏnecessary€to€establish€the€appropriate,ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€andÏð ð[t]he€personal€injuries€inflicted€upon€or€the€amount€of€damage€to€propertyÏsustained€by€or€taken€from€the€victim€was€particularly€great.ðð€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„114(6).€ÏIn€our€òòde€novoóó€review€of€Appellantððs€sentence,€we€may€consider€any€factorÏsupported€by€the€record.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Kyteóó,€874€S.W.2d€631,€633€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1993).€€Given€Appellantððs€Illinois€felony€conviction€for€aggravated€batteryÏand€the€fact€that€his€status€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender€requires€noÏprevious€convictions,€we€conclude€that€enhancement€factor€(1)€is€applicable.€ÏFurthermore,€this€Court€has€previously€held€that€enhancement€factor€(6)€isÏapplicable€to€injuries€psychological€in€nature.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€891€S.W.2dÏ922,€930€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòsee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Hunteróó,€No.€01C01„9410„CR„00335,€1995€WL€623785,€at€*5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Oct€25,€1995).€€TheÍrecord€reveals€that€S.B.€suffered€severe€psychiatric€problems€as€a€result€of€theÏrape.€€The€record€€further€reveals€that,€as€a€result€of€these€problems,€S.B.€wasÏadmitted€into€the€acute€care€psychiatric€unit€at€Goodlark€Regional€MedicalÏCenter.€€She€received€thirty€days€of€treatment€for€post„traumatic€stress€disorderÏand€depressive€disorder€with€no€organic€ideology.€€Once€discharged€from€theÏpsychiatric€hospital,€S.B.€was€placed€into€a€residential€facility€with€on„siteÏpsychiatric€staff.€€At€the€time€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€S.B.€was€only€spendingÏweekends€with€her€family.€€Based€on€the€serious€psychiatric€problems€sufferedÏby€the€victim€as€a€result€of€the€rape,€we€conclude€that€enhancement€factor€(6)€isÏapplicable.ÌÌà àAppellant€first€argues€that€the€trial€court€improperly€applied€theÏenhancement€factor€of€the€victimððs€particular€vulnerability€to€the€rape€conviction,Ïsubmitting€that€this€factor€was€an€essential€element€of€the€offense.€€AppellantÏrelies€upon€the€fact€that€one€of€the€definitions€of€rape€is€the€unlawful€penetrationÏof€a€victim€where€ð ðthe€defendant€knows€or€has€reason€to€know€that€the€victim€isÏmentally€defective,€mentally€incapacitated€or€physically€helpless.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€39„13„503(a)(3)€(Supp.€1995).€€However,€Appellant€was€not€indicted€underÏsubsection€(a)(3).€€Appellant€was€indicted€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„503(a)(1),€which€defines€rape€as€the€unlawful€penetration€of€a€victimÏòòaccompanied€by€force€or€coercionóó.€€Because€particular€vulnerability€was€not€anÍessential€element€of€Appellantððs€rape€conviction€under€Section€39„13„503(a)(1),Ïthe€trial€court€was€not€barred€from€considering€this€enhancement€factor.€€A€victimÏis€particularly€vulnerable€when€incapable€of€resisting,€summoning€help,€orÏtestifying€against€the€perpetrator.€€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€31,€34„35€(Tenn.Ï1993).€€This€factor€relates€more€to€the€natural€physical€and€mental€limitations€ofÏthe€victim€than€merely€to€the€victimððs€age.€€òòId.óó€€The€State€bears€the€burden€ofÏshowing€particular€vulnerability.€€òòId.óó€€While€the€record€contains€proof€of€pre„offense€behavioral€problems,€the€State€fails€to€show€that€these€behavioralÏproblems€made€S.B.€particularly€vulnerable€to€the€rape€attack.€€Therefore,€weÏconclude€that€the€application€of€enhancement€factor€(4)€was€inappropriate.€ÏHowever,€in€light€of€the€strength€and€the€number€of€other€enhancement€factors,Ïwe€further€conclude€that€the€improper€application€of€enhancement€factor€(4)Ïconstitutes€harmless€error.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).ÌÌà àAppellant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€improperly€applied€the€bodilyÏinjury€enhancement€factor€to€both€the€rape€and€the€incest€conviction,€submittingÏthat€S.B.€did€not€suffer€bodily€injury.€€ð ðBodily€injuryðð€includes€ð ða€cut,€abrasion,Ïbruise,€burn€or€disfigurement;€physical€pain€or€temporary€illness€or€impairment€ofÏthe€function€of€a€bodily€member,€organ,€or€mental€faculty.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„11„106(a)(2)€(Supp.€1995).€€In€support€of€the€application€of€thisÏenhancement€factor,€the€State€points€out€that€S.B.€suffered€an€enlarged€hymen,Ívaginal€scarring,€and€psychological€injuries.€€While€it€is€questionable€whetherÏthese€injuries€constitute€bodily€injury€as€anticipated€by€enhancement€factor€(11),Ïit€is€without€question€that€the€severity€of€her€resulting€psychological€problemsÏalone€qualify€as€particularly€great€personal€injuries€under€enhancement€factor€(6).€ÏTherefore,€we€do€not€choose€to€address€the€question€of€whether€an€enlargedÏhymen,€vaginal€scarring,€and€psychological€problems€constitute€bodily€injuryÏunder€enhancement€factor€(11).ÌÌà àIn€sum,€the€record€supports€the€application€of€enhancement€factors€(1),Ï(6),€(7),and€(15)€to€both€of€Appellantððs€convictions.€€Upon€òòde€novoóó€review€and€inÏaccord€with€the€presumption€of€correctness,€we€find€that€the€length€ofÏAppellantððs€sentences€are€not€excessive.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmedÔ€&ôÔ.Ô€&ŠÔà àÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGE