ÿWPC  …# VUNa %¯ 0Ƶ4{  ž ¦ 0@¦ 0Jæ w 0 0T: 0^Ž 0hì 0rT 0|Æ 0†B 0È 1uXU,Í 0dùU,]U>‰U6ÇB)ýDC& AMiU*¶»à D3›|Î BJ 0Cgv~ªvÓ( 0áû AOÜÆ+ 0Dñ D/5 Bd ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0†(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(žjÆ$¡¡Ñ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓÔ¡¨ 6X3|xi("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô`Ó€2" 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< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ±Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌMayÏ24,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó,,,,'ÿÿdxd rÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€#ôÔÔ€$ÔThe€first€four€criteria€are€found€in€òòGrayóó.€€A€fifth€category€in€òòGrayóó,Ïbased€on€a€specific€number€of€prior€felony€convictions,€may€enhance€theÏsentence€range€but€is€no€longer€a€listed€criterion.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„115,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.Ì d(ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò(¹2%û$¤¤Ý ƒjÆ!ÝÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ý€‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÑ7€æXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÙ€€ÙßL€')&;+'h|` ´- `€€Lßà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌà@ àòòAT€NASHVILLEóóÌà@ àOCTOBER€1995€SESSIONÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à€€*€€C.C.A.€#ÏO1CO1„9412„CR„00411Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà à€€*à àDAVIDSONÏCOUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à€€*à àHonorableÏSeth€Norman,€JudgeÌSAMUEL€MYRON€CARTER,€JR.,€€*à à(Sale€of€aÏControlled€Substance)Ìà àAppellant.à àà à€€*ÌÌòòÌÌFor€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àòòForÏAppellee:óóÌÓÓTheresa€W.€Doyleà àà àà àCharles€W.ÏBursonÌAttorneyà àà àà àà àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€&€ReporterÌ211€Printer's€Alley€Bldg.ÌSuite€400à àà àà àà àà àClinton€J.ÍMorganà àà àNashville,€TN€€37201à àà àCounsel€for€the€Stateà àÌà 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 àM.€Don€HimmelbergÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWashington€Square,€Suite€500Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à222€Second€Avenue,€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37201„1469ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDED€ÌÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÇà@ àòòOPINIONóóÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€defendant,€Samuel€Myron€Carter,€Jr.,€was€convictedÏof€two€counts€of€selling€.5€grams€or€more€of€cocaine.€€The€trialÏcourt€imposed€consecutive,€sixteen„year€sentences€on€each€countÏfor€an€effective€sentence€of€32€years€as€a€Range€II,€multipleÏoffender.€€The€sentences€were€also€ordered€to€be€servedÏconsecutively€to€an€unrelated€conviction€for€which€the€defendantÏhad€already€been€incarcerated.ÌÌà àà àIn€this€appeal€of€right,€the€defendant€presents€theÏfollowing€issues€for€review:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€byÏallowing€a€witness€to€testify€who€was€notÏlisted€on€the€indictment€or€otherwiseÏidentified€in€advance€of€trial€as€aÏpotential€state€witness;€€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€byÏconsidering€the€defendant's€prior€out„of„state€criminal€record€in€sentencing;€andÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€byÏimposing€consecutive€sentences.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àWe€affirm€the€judgment;€because€the€trial€court€failedÏto€determine€the€statutory€basis€for€consecutive€sentencing,€theÏcause€is€remanded€for€consideration€on€that€issue.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€sold€cocaine€to€Samuel€Owens,€Jr.,€aÏconfidential€police€informant,€on€two€separate€dates€in€1992.€ÏOn€each€occasion,€the€informant€paged€the€defendant€from€a€phoneÏin€the€police€department.€€When€the€defendant€returned€theÏcalls,€the€conversations€setting€up€the€location€of€the€cocaineÏsale€were€recorded.€€Allen€Mitchell,€a€vice€officer€with€theÏMetropolitan€Police€Department,€testified€that€he€searched€OwensÏbefore€each€buy€and€Owens€was€always€in€his€sight€during€theÏtransactions.€€Owens€wore€a€recording€device,€was€given€theÏmoney€to€purchase€the€cocaine,€and€was€paid€cash€for€hisÏservices€on€each€occurrence.€€While€Officer€Mitchell€did€notÏactually€see€the€defendant€make€the€two€sales,€Owens€positivelyÏidentified€the€defendant€at€trial€as€the€seller€of€the€cocaine.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€first€transaction€took€place€at€a€Pizza€Hut€inÏDavidson€County€on€July€1,€1992.€€The€defendant,€who€was€drivingÏa€gray€Cadillac,€had€a€passenger€in€the€vehicle.€€OwensÏtestified€that€he€gave€the€money€to€the€defendant€and€that€theÏpassenger€handed€him€the€cocaine.€€Afterwards,€Owens€gaveÏOfficer€Mitchell€the€cocaine.€€Audio€tapes€of€the€phone€call€andÏthe€actual€transaction€were€played€for€the€jury.€€TBI€forensicÍscientist€Sean€Burch€testified€that€the€transaction€involved€12Ïgrams€of€cocaine.ÌÌà àà àThe€second€purchase€occurred€on€July€6,€1992,€at€aÏMcDonald's€in€Davidson€County.€€The€defendant€was€alone€in€theÏCadillac.€€Police€had€followed€the€vehicle€as€it€was€driven€fromÏthe€defendant's€residence€to€the€place€of€the€sale.€€OwensÏtestified€that€he€bought€cocaine€from€the€defendant€and€thenÏturned€the€cocaine€over€to€Officer€Mitchell.€€The€audio€tapes€ofÏthe€phone€call€and€the€sale€were€played€for€the€jury.€€BurchÏtestified€that€the€second€purchase€involved€13€grams€of€cocaine.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€offered€no€proof€at€trial.ÌÌà@ àIÌà àà àThe€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€Ïallowing€the€confidential€informant€to€testify.€€The€defendantÏargues€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€state's€failure€to€listÏOwens€on€the€indictment€as€required€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„17„106.€€The€record€does€not€contain€a€copy€of€the€defendant'sÏdiscovery€request€or€the€state's€response;€the€hearing€on€theÏmotion,€however,€included€references€to€the€fact€that€the€stateÍresponded€to€the€defendant's€request€for€a€list€of€witnesses€byÏreferring€to€the€indictment.€€The€confidential€informant€was€notÏlisted€there.€€This€statute€provides€as€follows:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[I]t€is€the€duty€of€the€district€attorneyÏgeneral€to€endorse€on€each€indictment€orÏpresentment,€at€the€term€at€which€the€sameÏis€found,€the€names€of€such€witnesses€as€heÏintends€shall€be€summoned€in€the€cause,€andÏsign€his€name€thereto.€€ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„17„106.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àIt€is€well€settled€in€Tennessee€that€this€provision€isÏdirective,€rather€than€mandatory.€€òòState€v.€Hutchisonóó,€898ÏS.W.2d€161,€170€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€òò€€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€€óó,€116ÏS.€Ct.€137€(1995);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€69€(Tenn.Ï1992),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€507€U.S.€954€(1993);€òòState€v.€Streetóó,€768ÏS.W.2d€703,€711€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988);€òòState€v.€Crabtreeóó,€655ÏS.W.2d€173,€177€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983);€òòThomas€v.€Stateóó,€3ÏTenn.€Crim.€App.€589,€596„97,€465€S.W.2d€887,€889„90€(1970).€ÏThe€purpose€of€this€section€is€to€limit€the€possibility€ofÏsurprise€and€to€provide€the€defendant€a€basis€upon€which€toÏprepare€a€theory€of€defense€against€his€accusers.€òòState€v.ÏMelsonóó,€638€S.W.2d€342,€364€(Tenn.€1982),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€459€U.S.Ï1137€(1983);€òòState€v.€Streetóó,€768€S.W.2d€at€710„11;€òòState€v.ÍRobersonóó,€644€S.W.2d€696,€699€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€TheÏfailure€to€list€or€provide€the€names€of€witnesses€neitherÏdisqualifies€the€witness€nor€entitles€the€defendant€to€relief,Ïunless€prejudice€can€be€shown.€€òòState€v.€Hutchisonóó,€898€S.W.2dÏat€170;€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€at€69;€òòState€v.€Robersonóó,Ï644€S.W.2d€at€699.€€"In€this€context,€it€is€not€the€prejudiceÏwhich€resulted€from€the€witnesses€testimony€but€the€prejudiceÏwhich€resulted€from€the€defendant's€lack€of€notice€which€isÏrelevant...."€€òòState€v.€Jesse€Eugene€Harrisóó,€No.€88„188„IIIÏ(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€June€7,€1989),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóóÏòòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1989).€€ÌÌà àà àRule€16,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€neither€requires€norÏauthorizes€pretrial€discovery€of€the€names€and€addresses€of€theÏState's€witnesses.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€at€69;€òòState€v.ÏMartinóó,€634€S.W.2d€639,€643€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€TheÏdecision€whether€to€allow€a€witness€to€testify€in€theseÏcircumstances€is€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€ÏòòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€213€Tenn.€15,€26„27,€372€S.W.2d€173,€179€(1963),Ïòòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€377€U.S.€955€(1964);€òòState€v.€Underwoodóó,€669ÏS.W.2d€700,€703€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€Where€there€is€noÏsurprise,€prejudice,€or€disadvantage,€the€trial€court€may€admitÍtestimony€of€witnesses€even€though€their€names€were€omitted€fromÏthe€indictment.€€òòState€v.€Craftóó,€743€S.W.2d€203,€204€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1987);€òòState€v.€Martinóó,€634€S.W.2d€at€643.€€ÌÌà àà à"When€additional€witnesses€are€added€to€the€list€ofÏthose€the€state€intends€to€call€and€the€defendant€contends€heÏhas€not€had€sufficient€opportunity€to€interview€such€witnesses,Ïthe€trial€court€must€determine€whether€a€continuance€is€requiredÏin€order€that€the€defendant€will€not€be€unfairly€prejudiced."€ÏòòState€v.€Crabtreeóó,€655€S.W.2d€at€177.€€"[W]hen€defense€counselÏwas€or€should€have€been€aware€of€the€possibility€of€a€witnessÏtestifying€and€when€the€substance€of€the€testimony€was€availableÏto€the€defense,€Tennessee€courts€have€not€hesitated€to€admit€theÏtestimony."€€òòState€v.€Leonard€Lebron€Rossóó,€No.€03CO1„9404„CR„00153€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€June€15,€1995)(citingÏnumerous€cases),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òògrantedóó€òòandóó€òòremandedóó€òòonóó€òòotheróóÏòògroundsóó,€(Tenn.€1995).€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€issue€here€is€a€troublesome€one.€€The€recordÏdemonstrates€that€the€state€failed€to€act€in€accordance€with€theÏstatute€by€disclosing€the€name€of€the€confidential€informant.€ÏIn€consequence,€the€defendant€could€not€be€certain€as€to€theÍidentity€of€his€primary€accuser.€€That€does€not€mean,€however,Ïthat€the€defendant€suffered€unfair€prejudice€due€to€the€lack€ofÏnotice.€€The€transcript€of€the€hearing€on€the€motion€toÏdisqualify€the€witness€establishes€that€the€defense€knew€that€aÏconfidential€informant€was€involved€in€the€drug€sales.€€TheÏrecord€shows€that€the€informant€had€actually€known€the€defendantÏfor€about€twenty€years€by€the€time€of€trial.€€The€state€claimedÏto€have€informed€defense€counsel€in€advance€of€trial€"[w]e€haveÏgot€a€confidential€informant"€and€that€he€was€"going€toÏtestify."€€Through€its€own€investigation,€the€defense€learnedÏabout€Owens;€counsel€had€a€copy€of€Owens'€driver's€license€and€aÏdefense€investigator€had€actually€questioned€Owens€the€weekÏbefore€the€trial.€€Owens,€however,€refused€to€cooperate€with€theÏinvestigator.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€a€jury„out€hearing,€Owens€acknowledged€he€had€beenÏquestioned€by€the€investigator€but€denied€that€a€driver'sÏlicense€photograph,€which€was€actually€that€of€his€father,€wasÏhis.€€Owens€did€admit€that€the€birth€date€on€the€license€was€hisÏand€not€that€of€his€father.€€Owens€stated€that€the€investigatorÏclaimed€that€he€"worked€with€Bobby€Brown€Investigations"€butÏ"wouldn't€show€me€any"€identification.€€Owens€claimed€that€heÍrefused€to€cooperate€and€denied€any€knowledge€of€the€upcomingÏtrial€when€the€investigator€developed€"an€attitude".€€òòSeeóó€òòCookÏv.€Stateóó,€3€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€685,€466€S.W.2d€530€(1971)(the€factÏthat€a€witness€refuses€to€talk€with€the€defense€is€immaterial€onÏsuch€an€issue€because€there€is€no€right€to€question€a€witnessÏpretrial).€€ÌÌà àà àEven€if€these€facts€do€not€excuse€the€lack€of€noticeÏto€the€defense,€they€do€shed€light€on€the€issue€of€prejudice.€ÏThe€trial€court€heard€all€of€the€pertinent€testimony€and€ruledÏthat€it€was€"absolutely€apparent"€that€the€defense€was€aware€ofÏthe€confidential€informant€and€would€not€be€unfairly€prejudicedÏby€the€lack€of€official€notice.€€Unless€the€evidence€in€theÏrecord€requires€a€different€result,€we€must€defer€to€theÏfindings€of€the€trial€judge.€€An€order€of€continuance€is€theÏusual€remedy€and€would€have€perhaps€been€warranted€in€theseÏcircumstances.€€Yet€the€defendant€sought€only€theÏdisqualification€of€the€witness.€€A€reasonable€inference€is€thatÏthe€defendant€could€not€have€been€better€prepared€for€theÏsubstance€of€Owens'€testimony€no€matter€how€much€additional€timeÏhad€been€granted.€€Moreover,€the€failure€on€the€part€of€theÏconfidential€informant€to€cooperate€in€the€defense€investigationÍcould€have€served€as€a€basis€for€effective€cross„examination.€ÏWhile€we€believe€the€state€should€have€provided€the€informationÏin€advance€of€the€trial,€we€yield€to€the€trial€court'sÏconclusion€that€the€defense€failed€to€establish€any€unfairÏprejudice€due€to€the€lack€of€advance€notice.€€We€cannot€concludeÏthat€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretionary€authority€inÏmaking€that€assessment.€€ÌÌà@ àIIÌà àà àThe€defendant€next€claims€(1)€that€the€trial€courtÏshould€not€have€considered€his€prior,€out„of„state€criminalÏrecord€for€sentencing€and€(2)€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÏimposing€consecutive€sentences.ÌÌà àà àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€orÏmanner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€court€toÏconduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€with€a€presumption€that€theÏdeterminations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„40l(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€theÏaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÏconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€andÏcircumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€l66,€l69€(Tenn.Íl99l);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597€(Tenn.€1994).€€TheÏSentencing€Commission€Comments€provide€that€the€burden€is€on€theÏdefendant€to€show€the€impropriety€of€the€sentence.€€ÌÌà àà àOur€review€requires€an€analysis€of€(l)€the€evidence,Ïif€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€theÏpresentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€theÏarguments€of€counsel€relative€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)Ïthe€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense;€(5)€anyÏmitigating€or€enhancing€factors;€(6)€any€statements€made€by€theÏdefendant€in€his€own€behalf;€and€(7)€the€defendant's€potentialÏfor€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„l02,Ï„l03,€and€„2l0;€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€Ñ7€u$XdìXdì7Ñ(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€l987).ÌÌò òà àà àó óIn€calculating€the€sentence€for€a€felony€conviction,Ïthe€presumptive€sentence€is€the€minimum€within€the€range€ifÏthere€are€no€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€40„35„210(c).€€òòButóó€òòseeóó€1995€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts€ch.€493€(amendingÏthe€statute€for€offenses€occurring€on€or€after€July€1,€1995,€toÏmake€the€presumptive€sentence€in€a€Class€A€felony€the€midpointÏin€the€range).€€If€there€are€enhancement€factors€but€noÍmitigating€factors,€the€trial€court€may€set€the€sentence€aboveÏthe€minimum.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(d).€€A€sentenceÏinvolving€both€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€requires€anÏassignment€of€relative€weight€for€the€enhancement€factors€as€aÏmeans€of€increasing€the€sentence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€The€sentence€may€then€be€reduced€within€the€range€byÏany€weight€assigned€to€the€mitigating€factors€present.€€òòIdóó.€ÌÌà àà àPrior€to€the€enactment€of€the€Criminal€SentencingÏReform€Act€of€l989,€the€limited€classifications€for€theÏimposition€of€consecutive€sentences€were€set€out€in€òòGray€v.ÏStateóó,€538€S.W.2d€39l,€393€(Tenn.€l976).€€In€that€case,€ourÏsupreme€court€ruled€that€aggravating€circumstances€must€beÏpresent€before€placement€in€any€one€of€the€classifications.€ÏLater,€in€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€739€S.W.2d€227€(Tenn.€l987),€theÏcourt€established€an€additional€category€for€those€defendantsÏconvicted€of€two€or€more€statutory€offenses€involving€sexualÏabuse€of€minors.€€There€were,€however,€additional€words€ofÏcaution:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[C]onsecutive€sentences€should€not€beÏroutinely€imposed€...€and€...€the€aggregateÏmaximum€of€consecutive€terms€must€beÏreasonably€related€to€the€severity€Ñ7€u$XdìXdì7Ñof€theÏoffenses€involved.ÌÌÓÓ739€S.W.2d€at€230.€€The€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€adoptedÏthe€cautionary€language.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115.€€The€1989ÏAct€is,€in€essence,€the€codification€of€the€holdings€in€òòGrayóó€andÏòòTayloróó;€consecutive€sentences€may€be€imposed€in€the€Ìdiscretion€of€the€trial€court€only€upon€a€determination€that€oneÏor€more€of€the€following€criteria× ƒ+ ××  ×€exist:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(l)à àThe€defendant€is€a€professionalÏcriminal€who€has€knowingly€devoted€himselfÏto€criminal€acts€as€a€major€source€ofÏlivelihood;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)à àThe€defendant€is€an€offender€whoseÏrecord€of€criminal€activity€is€extensive;€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)à àThe€defendant€is€a€dangerous€mentallyÏabnormal€person€so€declared€by€a€competentÏpsychiatrist€who€concludes€as€a€result€ofÏan€investigation€prior€to€sentencing€thatÏthe€defendant's€criminal€conduct€has€beenÏcharacterized€by€a€pattern€of€repetitive€orÏcompulsive€behavior€with€heedlessÏindifference€to€consequences;€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)à àThe€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offenderÏwhose€behavior€indicates€little€or€noÏregard€for€human€life,€and€no€hesitationÏabout€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€riskÏto€human€life€is€high;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)à àThe€defendant€is€convicted€of€two€(2)Íor€more€statutory€offenses€involving€sexualÏabuse€of€a€minor€with€consideration€of€theÏaggravating€circumstances€arising€from€theÏrelationship€between€the€defendant€andÏvictim€or€victims,€the€time€span€ofÏdefendant's€undetected€sexual€activity,€theÏnature€and€scope€of€the€sexual€acts€and€theÏextent€of€the€residual,€physical€and€mentalÏdamage€to€the€victim€or€victims;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(6)à àThe€defendant€is€sentenced€for€anÏoffense€committed€while€on€probation;€orÌÌà8 àà8 à(7)à àThe€defendant€is€sentenced€forÏcriminal€contempt.ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„ll5(b).€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àIn€òòGrayóó,€our€supreme€court€had€ruled€that€beforeÏconsecutive€sentencing€could€be€imposed€upon€the€dangerousÏoffender,€as€now€defined€by€subsection€(b)(4)€in€the€statute,Ïother€conditions€must€be€present:€€(a)€that€the€crimes€involvedÏaggravating€circumstances;€(b)€that€consecutive€sentences€are€aÏnecessary€means€to€protect€the€public€from€the€defendant;€andÏ(c)€that€the€term€reasonably€relates€to€the€severity€of€theÏoffenses.€€ÌÌà àà àMore€recently,€in€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,Ï938€(Tenn.€1995),€our€high€court€reaffirmed€those€principles,Ïholding€that€consecutive€sentences€cannot€be€required€of€theÍdangerous€offender€"unless€the€terms€reasonably€relate€to€theÏseverity€of€the€offenses€committed€and€are€necessary€in€order€toÏprotect€the€public€from€further€serious€criminal€conduct€by€theÏdefendant."€€The€òòWilkersonóó€decision,€which€modified€somewhat€theÏstrict,€factual€guidelines€for€consecutive€sentencing€adopted€inÏòòState€v.€Woodsóó,€814€S.W.2d€378,€380€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991),Ïdescribed€sentencing€as€"a€human€process€that€neither€can€norÏshould€be€reduced€to€a€set€of€fixed€and€mechanical€rules."€ÏòòWilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€938€(footnote€omitted).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€appellant,€however,€has€the€burden€to€prepare€aÏrecord€on€appeal€that€presents€a€complete€and€accurate€accountÏof€what€transpired€in€the€trial€court€with€respect€to€the€issuesÏon€appeal.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b).€€The€failure€to€do€soÏgenerally€results€in€a€waiver€of€such€issues€and€a€presumptionÏthat€the€ruling€of€the€trial€court€was€correct.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,ÏòòState€v.€Oodyóó,€823€S.W.2d€554,€559€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991);€ÏòòState€v.€Draperóó,€800€S.W.2d€489,€493€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€challenges€the€trial€court'sÏdetermination€that€he€was€a€Range€II,€multiple€offender.€€TheÏdefendant€does€not€challenge€the€validity€of€his€priorÍconvictions.€€He€does€argue,€however,€that€there€was€noÏstatutory€method€for€the€trial€court€to€determine€the€TennesseeÏclassification€of€the€out„of„state€convictions€for€rangeÏenhancement€purposes.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„106(a)(1)Ï(requiring€a€minimum€of€two€but€not€more€than€four€prior€classÏA,€B,€C,€or€D€felony€convictions€for€Range€II€classification€onÏa€Class€B€felony).€€ÌÌà àà àHere,€we€are€handicapped€in€our€review€by€theÏdefendant's€failure€to€include€the€copies€of€the€out„of„stateÏconvictions€contained€in€the€trial€court€record€and€relied€uponÏat€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Technically,€the€issue€has€beenÏwaived€by€the€omission.€€At€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€notedÏthat€one€of€the€prior€convictions€was€a€class€B€felony€out€ofÏTennessee.€€The€court€then€found€that€one€of€the€previousÏoffenses€out€of€Florida€was€for€felony€possession€of€cocaine€andÏthat€under€Tennessee€law€there€is€no€similar€felony€offenseÏwhich€is€graded€at€less€than€a€class€C€felony.€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„17„417€(possession€with€intent).€€Thus,€the€trialÏcourt€determined€that€these€two€prior€offenses€were€sufficientÏto€establish€the€range.€€€While€we€note€that€simple€possessionÏof€cocaine€in€Tennessee€may€be€classified€as€a€class€AÍmisdemeanor€or€a€class€E€felony,€we€cannot€determine€on€theÏrecord€before€us€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€comparing€theÏout„of„state€felony€offense€with€the€Tennessee€statutes.€ÏAccordingly,€we€defer€to€the€trial€court's€determination€on€theÏissue.€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€challenged€the€trial€court'sÏfinding€that€he€had€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictionsÏor€behavior€in€addition€to€that€necessary€to€establish€theÏrange.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1).€€The€presentenceÏreport,€however,€supports€the€trial€court's€application€of€thisÏfactor.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€also€properly€ordered€the€sentencesÏimposed€to€be€consecutive€to€the€sentence€for€which€theÏdefendant€was€on€parole€at€the€time€these€offenses€occurred.ÏTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€32(c)(3)(A).€€Neither€the€judgment€form€norÏthe€transcript€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€however,€expresslyÏindicates€why€the€two€sentences€at€issue€here€were€ordered€to€beÏconsecutive.€€The€state€argued€that€the€sentences€should€beÏconsecutive€because€the€presentence€report€established€that€theÏdefendant€had€an€extensive€criminal€history€and€that€he€hadÍsupported€himself€by€selling€cocaine.€€The€trial€court€laterÏstated€that€it€was€"adopt[ing]€the€enhancement€factors€as€setÏout€in€the€pre„sentence€report€in€making€the€judgment";€theÏreport,€however,€did€not€include€any€reference€to€the€issue€ofÏconsecutive€sentencing€or€to€the€factors€which€may€support€suchÏa€sentence.€€There€must€be€a€statutory€basis€for€consecutiveÏsentencing.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b).€€Thus,€a€remandÏto€the€trial€court€for€the€limited€purpose€of€determining€theÏbasis€for€consecutive€sentencing€is€in€order.€€If€none€exists,Ïthe€law€requires€a€concurrent€sentence.€€ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed;€the€cause€isÏremanded€to€the€trial€court€on€the€consecutive€sentencing€issue.€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDavid€H.€Welles,€JudgeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌRobert€E.€Corlew,€III,€Special€Judge