ÿWPCo …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0lH 0D´ ø 0J 0TJ 0^ž 0hü 0rd 0|Ö 0†R 0Ø 1uh 0dÝ U>AU*B)©DCÒ D3 BH AMe 0@²òëŽëv~yvÓ÷ AOÊÆ 0Dß D/# BR˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- « E¬ ­ ® ¯ ° D± ² ³ D´ Ó€Ô¡¨ 3|x½ ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd++++'ÿÿdxd d€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌMarch€27,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó áÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ôÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„417(a)(4).Ì „Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ôÔ€€The€relevant€portion€of€Schedule€II€reads:ÌÓ  ÓÒ ½ ÒÒ Ü ÒCoca€leaves€(DEA€Drug€Code€No.€9040)€and€any€salt,€compound,€derivative€or€preparation€ofÏcoca€leaves€(including€cocaine€(DEA€Drug€Code€No.€9041)€and€ecgonine€(DEA€Drug€Code€No.Ï9180)€and€their€salts,€isomers,€derivatives€and€salts€of€isomers€and€derivatives),€and€any€salt,Ïcompound,€derivative,€or€preparation€thereof€which€is€chemically€equivalent€or€identical€withÏany€of€these€substances,€except€that€the€substances€shall€not€include€decocainized€cocaÏleaves€or€extraction€of€coca€leaves,€which€extractions€do€not€contain€cocaine€or€ecgonine;ÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Ó€€€€€€€€€€€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„408(b)(4).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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 Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€&ŠÔÔ€'ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€·8XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€,.)A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€œNASHVILLE›ÌÌœNOVEMBER›€SESSION,€œ1996›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,›à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€œ01C01„9602„CC„00057›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœOVERTON›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œJOHN€TURNBULLó ó›Ìœò òNORMAN€G.€COPELAND,ó ó›à àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àœó ó(Felony€Drugs)ò ò›Ìó óÌÌò òÓ  ÓON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌœCRIMINAL›€COURT€OF€œOVERTON€COUNTY›ó óÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌœONNIE€L.€WINEBARGER›à àà àœCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌAttorney€for€the€Appellantà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌJOHN€H.€LITTLEà àà àà àà àMICHAEL€J.€FAHEY,€IIÌAttorney€for€the€Appellantà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌP.O.€Box€397à àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌLivingston,€TN€38570à àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àBILL€GIBSONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àOWEN€G.€BURNETTÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€706Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àLivingston,€TN€38570›ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœCONVICTION€AFFIRMED;€SENTENCE€MODIFIED›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€'°ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€'ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThis€is€an€appeal€as€of€right€pursuant€to€Rule€3,€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏAppellate€Procedure.€€The€Defendant,€Norman€Copeland,€was€convicted€by€anÏOverton€County€jury€of€possession€of€more€than€.5€grams€of€cocaine€with€intentÏto€sell€or€deliver.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€The€jury€œimposed›€a€fine€of€œone€hundred›€thousand€dollarsÏ($100,000.00).€€He€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€II,€multiple€offender€to€eighteenÏyears€and€six€œmonths›€imprisonment€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€TheÏDefendant€appeals€both€his€conviction€and€sentence,€raising€the€followingÏissues:€€(1)That€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€suppress€all€the€evidence€asÏlisted€on€a€search€warrant€return;€(2)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€suppressingÏevidence€seized€pursuant€to€an€invalid€capias;€(3)€that€the€trial€œcourt›€erred€œ(a)€by›Ïœimposing›€a€sentence€of€eighteen€years€and€six€months€rather€than€theÏpresumptive€minimum€of€twelve€years,€œand€(b)›€œin›€finding€the€Defendant€ineligibleÏfor€community€œcorrections;›€and€(4)€that€improper€comments€made€by€theÏprosecution€during€closing€arguments€require€a€reversal€of€his€conviction.€€AfterÏcarefully€considering€the€above€contentions,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt,€but€modify€the€sentence.ÌÌà àOn€June€4,€1994,€officers€with€the€Livingston€Police€Department€executedÏa€criminal€capias€issued€for€an€indictment€against€the€Defendant€œissued€on›€JuneÏ3,€1994.€€The€indictment€was€submitted€as€part€of€a€drug€roundup€and€theÏcapias,€€issued€by€the€criminal€court€clerk,€€ordered€the€arrest€of€the€DefendantÏpursuant€to€Rule€9,€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€€Officers€Bates,ÏAnderson€and€Allred,€under€the€direction€of€Sergeant€Rick€Brown€of€theÏLivingston€Police€Department€arrived€at€the€Defendantððs€home€at€approximatelyÏ10:00€a.m.€€Sergeant€Brown€was€also€accompanied€by€Captain€Greg€PhillipsÏof€the€Overton€County€Sheriffððs€Department.€€Sergeant€Brown€knocked€on€theÏfront€door€and€heard€voices€and€movement€within€the€house.€€He€knockedÏagain,€identifying€himself,€and€then€Ronald€Harris€opened€the€door.€€TheÏDefendant€was€seated€in€a€recliner€in€the€living€room.€€Harris€sat€down€on€theÏcouch.€€Sergeant€Brown€told€the€Defendant€about€the€criminal€capias.€€TheÏother€officers€made€a€protective€sweep€of€the€house.€€Sergeant€Brown€did€aÏpat„down€search€of€the€Defendant,€discovering€twenty„three€(23)€half„ounceÏpackets€of€cocaine€in€the€pocket€of€the€dress€shirt€he€was€wearing.€€SergeantÏBrown€confiscated€the€packets.€€Harris€went€outside€and€talked€with€the€otherÏofficers.€€ÌÌà àSergeant€Brown€œadvised€the€Defendant€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€and›Ïrequested€a€consent€to€search,€but€œthe›€œDefendant€refused.›€€He€complained€ofÍfeeling€sick€and€wanted€a€drink€of€water.€€Sergeant€Brown€followed€him€to€theÏkitchen€sink€while€the€Defendant€got€a€glass€of€water.€€They€returned€to€theÏliving€room,€but€he€œstated›€he€œstill€felt›€sick€and€wanted€more€water.€€When€theyÏwent€back€into€the€kitchen,€the€Defendant€grabbed€a€towel€on€the€kitchen€tableÏand€flipped€it€over€to€more€fully€cover€some€items€on€the€table.€€Later,€he€againÏcomplained€of€feeling€ill€and€wanted€to€return€to€the€kitchen.€€With€SergeantÏBrown€following€him,€the€Defendant€grabbed€a€bowl€from€the€table€and€ranÏtowards€the€sink€in€an€apparent€attempt€to€dump€the€bowl.€€Sergeant€BrownÏgrabbed€the€Defendantððs€hands€around€the€bowl€and€physically€forced€him€toÏput€the€bowl€back€on€the€table.€€The€bowl€was€filled€with€a€white€powder€thatÏthe€Sergeant€believed€to€be€cocaine.€€He€also€observed€a€sifter€in€the€bowl€andÏelectronic€scales€on€the€table.€€He€took€the€Defendant€back€into€the€living€roomÏand€handcuffed€him.€€Sergeant€Brown€left€the€bowl€with€the€white€powder€onÏthe€table.€€The€Defendant€was€transported€to€jail€by€Officer€Anderson,€whoÏsigned€the€return€on€the€capias.€ÌÌà àOfficers€secured€the€house€while€Sergeant€Brown€and€Officer€Burnett€leftÏto€obtain€a€search€warrant.€€Judge€Steve€Daniels€issued€the€search€warrant€atÏapproximately€1:30€p.m.€€The€officers€returned€to€the€house€with€a€drug€dog,€but€Ïthe€search€yielded€no€new€evidence€of€drugs.€€The€cocaine€confiscated€duringÏthe€arrest,€including€the€packets€found€in€the€Defendantððs€pocket€and€in€theÍbowl€on€the€table,€was€listed€on€the€search€warrant€€as€inventory.€€SubsequentÏtesting€revealed€that€the€powder€was€cocaine€and€the€packets€measured€10.8Ïgrams€with€41.6%€purity.€€The€cocaine€in€the€bowl€totaled€55.4€grams€and€wasÏ61.3%€pure.€€The€Defendant€maintained€that€the€drugs€found€in€his€pocket€andÏin€the€kitchen€were€the€result€of€a€ð ðset„up,ðð€even€alluding€to€police€involvement.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€was€charged€with€possession€of€cocaine€with€intent€toÏsell€or€deliver.€€He€was€found€guilty€by€a€jury€verdict,€fined€$100,000,€and€wasÏsentenced€to€eighteen€and€one„half€years.€€It€is€from€this€conviction€andÏsentence€that€the€Defendant€appeals.ÌÌÓ  ÓI.ÌÌÓ  Óà àIn€his€first€issue,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€notÏsuppressing€all€of€the€evidence€obtained€pursuant€to€a€subsequently€invalidÏsearch€warrant.€€Sergeant€Brown€was€in€the€Defendantððs€home€to€execute€aÏcapias.€€He€conducted€a€pat„down€search€which€yielded€twenty„three€packetsÏof€cocaine.€€Sergeant€Brown€kept€the€packets.€€€Sergeant€Brown€followed€theÏDefendant€as€he€went€into€the€kitchen€three€times€to€get€a€drink€of€water.€€OnÏthe€third€occasion,€the€Defendant€lunged€for€a€bowl€containing€cocaine€andÏattempted€to€dump€it€in€the€sink.€€Sergeant€Brown€physically€restrained€theÍDefendant€by€grabbing€the€bowl€and€forcing€the€Defendant€to€put€it€on€theÏkitchen€table.€€Sergeant€Brown€moved€the€Defendant€from€the€kitchen€to€theÏliving€room€and€restrained€him€with€handcuffs.€€With€the€bowl€still€on€the€table,Ïthe€officers€left€to€obtain€a€search€warrant.€€Listed€on€the€items€to€be€seizedÏwere€the€packets€of€cocaine€as€well€as€the€bowl€and€accompanyingÏparaphernalia.€€A€written€inventory€was€returned€pursuant€to€Rule€41(d),ÏTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€€The€cocaine€packets€and€the€cocaineÏin€the€bowl€were€listed€as€inventory€on€the€search€warrant.€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€the€evidence€obtained€from€theÏsearch€warrant.€€In€a€hearing€on€December€13,€1994,€the€trial€court€found€thatÏthe€search€warrant€was€invalid€and€suppressed€all€items€seized€as€a€result€ofÏthat€warrant.€€However,€the€court€found€that€the€packets€and€the€bowl€wereÏseized€€incident€to€a€lawful€arrest€on€the€capias€and€thus,€were€admissible€asÏevidence.€€At€a€œsubsequent€hearing›€œon›€the€Defendantððs€supplemental€motion€toÏsuppress€challenging€the€validity€of€the€capias€and€the€items€seized,€the€trialÏcourt€again€ruled€that€the€cocaine€evidence€was€admissible.ÌÌà àIn€this€appeal,€the€Defendant€charges€that€because€the€packets€and€theÏcocaine€in€the€bowl€were€listed€on€the€return€of€the€search€warrant€that€wasÏsubsequently€determined€to€be€invalid,€those€items€should€have€beenÍsuppressed.€€€The€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€Constitution€of€the€United€StatesÏprovides€that€ð ð[t]he€right€of€the€people€to€be€secure€in€their€persons,€houses,Ïpapers,€and€effects€against€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures€shall€not€beÏviolated.ðð€€Article€1,€Section€7€of€the€Constitution€of€Tennessee€guarantees€thatÏthe€people€shall€be€secure€in€their€persons,€houses,€papers,€and€possessionsÏfrom€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures.€€€Accordingly,€both€the€FourthÏAmendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€1,€Section€7€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution€prohibit€"unreasonable"€searches€and€seizures.€€€TheÏState€may€not€invade€the€personal€constitutional€right€of€an€individual€exceptÏunder€the€most€exigent€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Bartramóó,€925€S.W.2d€227,€229,Ï(Tenn.€1996).€€A€warrantless€search€is€òòperóó€òòseóó€unreasonable,€unless€it€falls€intoÏone€of€the€narrowly€defined€and€carefully€drawn€exceptions€to€the€warrantÏrequirement,€i.e.,€searches€incident€to€a€lawful€arrest,€those€made€by€consent,€inÏthe€"hot€pursuit"€of€a€fleeing€criminal,€"stop€and€frisk"€searches,€and€those€basedÏon€probable€cause€in€the€presence€of€exigent€circumstances.€€€òòState€v.€Shawóó,Ï603€S.W.2d€741,€742€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1980).€€€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€ruled€the€evidence€was€admissible€because€the€searchÏwas€incident€to€a€lawful€arrest.€€€The€scope€of€such€searches€is€limited€toÏ"search€of€the€arrestee's€person€and€the€area€'within€his€immediate€control'€",€i.e.,Ïthe€area€from€within€which€he€might€gain€possession€of€a€weapon€orÍdestructible€evidence,€the€so„called€"grab€area".€€€€òòChimel€v.€Californiaóó,€395€U.S.Ï752,€763,€89€S.Ct.€2034,€2040,€23€L.Ed.2d€685€(1969);€€òòState€v.€McMahanóó,€650ÏS.W.2d€383,€386€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€Furthermore,€ð ð[t]he€ððplain€viewððÏexception€to€the€Fourth€Amendment€warrant€requirement€permits€a€lawÏenforcement€officer€to€seize€what€clearly€is€incriminating€evidence€when€it€isÏdiscovered€in€a€place€where€the€officer€has€a€right€to€be.ðð€€òòWashington€v.ÏChrismanóó,€455€U.S.€5,€5„6,€102€S.Ct.€812,€œ816,›€œ70›€L.Ed.2d€778€(1982);€òòCoolidgeÏv.€New€Hampshireóó,€403€U.S.€443,€91€S.Ct.€2022,€29€L.Ed.2d€564€(1971);€òòStateÏv.€Byerleyóó,€635€S.W.2d€511,€513€(Tenn.€1982).€€An€officer€may€also€monitor€theÏactivities€of€an€arrestee€to€maintain€custody€over€the€individual.€€òòChrismanóó,€455ÏU.S.€at€6„7,€102€S.Ct.€at€816„17.€€If€evidence€is€in€plain€view€while€an€officerÏhas€a€lawful€right€to€be€in€that€area,€such€as€when€maintaining€custodialÏauthority€over€an€arrested€person,€that€evidence€may€be€seized€withoutÏoffending€œthe€Fourth›€Amendment€reasonableness€requirement.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€contends€that,€because€the€packets€and€the€cocaine€inÏthe€bowl€were€listed€on€the€return€of€the€search€warrant€that€was€found€to€beÏinvalid,€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€suppressing€those€items.€€However,€we€cannotÏagree€that€a€subsequently€invalidated€search€warrant€should€preclude€the€StateÏfrom€admitting€evidence€as€a€result€of€a€search€and€a€seizure€conducted€incidentÏto€a€lawful€arrest.€€Regarding€the€packets€obtained€in€the€search€of€theÍDefendantððs€person,€the€search€was€conducted€pursuant€to€his€arrest.€€AÏsearch€of€his€person€was€clearly€warranted€to€prevent€the€destruction€ofÏevidence.€€òòState€v.€Harrisonóó,€756€S.W.2d€716,€717€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€ÏWe€also€find€that€the€packets€were€seized€when€the€officer€took€them€and€keptÏthem.€€Although€the€packets€were€listed€on€the€search€warrant€as€inventory,ÏSergeant€Brown€had€a€lawful€right€to€search€the€Defendant€and€seize€anyÏevidence€before€the€search€warrant€was€issued.€€The€trial€court€properlyÏadmitted€the€cocaine€packets€as€incident€to€a€lawful€arrest.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€also€properly€admitted€the€bowl€of€cocaine,€although€weÏfind€it€was€admissible€as€contraband€in€plain€view.€€ð ðA€ððseizureðð€of€propertyÏoccurs€when€there€is€some€meaningful€interference€with€an€individualððsÏpossessory€interests€in€that€property.ðð€€òòUnited€States€v.€Jacobsenóó,€466€U.S.112,Ï113,€104€S.Ct.€1652,€1656,€80€L.Ed.2d€85€(1984).€€Seizure€of€an€object€in€plainÏview€does€not€constitute€a€search€implicating€Fourth€Amendment€privacyÏinterests.€€òòByerleyóó,€635€S.W.2d€at€513;€òòArmour€v.€Tottyóó,€486€S.W.2d€537,€539Ï(Tenn.€1972).ÌÌà à€€In€€òòArmouróó€the€court€set€out€the€necessary€requirements€for€such€aÏseizure€in€Tennessee:€€(1)€The€object€must€be€in€plain€view,€(2)€the€viewer€mustÏhave€the€right€to€be€in€that€position€for€the€view,€(3)€the€seized€object€must€beÍdiscovered€inadvertently€or€exigent€circumstances€must€exist€where€the€seizureÏis€not€based€on€a€valid€warrant,€and€(4)€the€incriminating€nature€of€the€objectÏmust€be€apparent€from€such€viewing,€i.e.,€there€must€be€probable€cause€toÏbelieve€that€the€object€is€evidence€of€crime,€contraband€or€otherwise€subject€toÏseizure.€€òòSeeóó€òòArizona€v.€Hicksóó,€480€U.S.€321,€107€S.Ct.€1149,€1153„54€(1987).€ÏWe€note€that€since€then,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€dispensed€withÏthe€inadvertent€discovery€requirement.€òòHorton€v.€Californiaóó,€€€€€€€€110€S.Ct.€2301€Ï(1990).ÌÌà àFirst,€it€is€apparent€that€the€bowl€was€seized€when€œSergeant›€BrownÏgrabbed€it,€rather€than€when€the€officers€returned€with€the€search€warrant.€ÏAlthough€it€is€not€a€seizure€in€the€orthodox€manner€of€actually€taking€the€bowlÏaway€at€that€point,€Sergeant€Brown€interfered€with€the€Defendantððs€possessoryÏinterests€after€stopping€him€from€destroying€the€evidence,€forcing€him€to€put€downÏthe€bowl,€and€securing€the€Defendant€in€handcuffs€away€from€the€bowl.€€This,Ïwe€feel,€is€essentially€a€seizure.€€Also,€the€bowl€of€white€powder€was€in€plainÏview€after€the€Defendant€grabbed€the€bowl€and€headed€for€the€sink.€€€TheÏofficer€had€a€lawful€right€to€follow€the€Defendant€as€he€went€into€the€kitchen€forÏthe€purposes€of€maintaining€the€integrity€of€the€arrest€and€to€prevent€theÏdestruction€of€evidence.€€There€were€clearly€exigent€circumstances€to€justify€theÏseizure€of€the€bowl€when€the€officer€observed€the€Defendant€trying€to€dump€theÍwhite€powder.€€Finally,€probable€cause€existed€that€the€powder€was€indeedÏcontraband,€particularly€after€the€packets€had€been€discovered€on€theÏDefendantððs€person.€€Under€this€ð ðplain€viewðð€exception,€the€officer€lawfullyÏseized€the€bowl.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€failing€to€suppress€theÏbowl€of€cocaine.ÌÌà àHowever,€the€Defendant€claims€that€the€capias€itself€was€invalid,Ïtherefore€nullifying€the€otherwise€lawful€arrest€and€the€evidence€flowing€from€it.€ÏHe€œargues›€two€grounds.€€First,€he€cites€Rule€9(a),€Tennessee€Rules€of€CriminalÏProcedure,€which€states:€€ð ðAfter€the€return€of€an€indictment€or€presentment€by€theÏgrand€jury,€the€clerk€shall€issue€a€capias€or€a€criminal€summons€for€eachÏdefendant€named€in€the€indictment€or€presentment€who€is€not€in€actual€custody,Ïor€who€has€not€been€released€on€recognizance€or€on€bail,€or€whoseÏundertaking€of€bail€has€been€declared€forfeited.ðð€€€The€Defendant€argues€that,Ïbecause€he€was€already€out€on€an€appearance€bond€issued€on€an€indictmentÏpresented€on€February€22,€1994,€the€clerk€did€not€have€authority€to€issue€aÏcapias€and€the€resulting€arrest€was€unlawful.€€However,€the€capias€that€wasÏexecuted€on€June€€4,€1994€was€issued€as€a€result€of€new€indictmentsÏpresented€on€June€3,€1994.€€The€arrest€on€June€6,€1994€was€from€the€capiasÏfor€the€new€charges.ÌÌà àThe€State€counters€that€Rule€9(a)€only€applies€to€a€capias€issued€whenÏa€defendant€is€out€on€bond€for€the€same€offense€as€that€in€the€new€capias.€ÏWe€agree€that€the€restrictions€in€9(a)€refer€to€a€second€arrest€on€a€capias€for€theÏsame€offense.€€In€that€case,€the€clerk€does€not€have€authority€to€issue€a€newÏcapias,€it€is€only€valid€by€order€of€the€trial€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòRussell€v.€Stateóó,€134€Tenn.Ï640,€185€S.W.€693€(1915);€òòPoteete€v.€Stateóó,€68€Tenn.€261,€40€Am.€R.€90€(1878).ÌHere,€the€capias€was€issued€by€the€clerk€on€a€new€indictment€and€was€valid,Ïregardless€of€whether€the€Defendant€was€on€an€appearance€bond€for€aÏprevious€indictment.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€also€argues€that€the€capias€was€not€executed€properlyÏbecause€Sergeant€Brown€served€the€capias€and€another€officerððs€signatureÏwas€on€the€return.€€Rule€9(c)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€ProcedureÏprovides€that€ð ð[t]he€officer€executing€a€warrant€shall€make€return€thereof€to€theÏmagistrate€or€clerk€or€other€officer€before€whom€the€defendant€is€broughtÏpursuant€to€Rule€5.ðð€€Here,€Sergeant€Brown€testified€that€he€executed€theÏcapias.€€The€signature€on€the€return€was€Officer€Andersonððs,€who€brought€theÏDefendant€to€the€police€station.€€The€Defendant€claims€that€this€resulted€in€anÏimproper€execution.€€However,€Sergeant€Brown€testified€that€Officer€AndersonÏaccompanied€him€when€he€went€to€the€Defendantððs€home€and€that€he€wasÏpresent€when€the€Defendant€answered€the€door€and€was€informed€of€theÍcapias€and€the€arrest.€€Therefore,€Officer€Anderson€was€just€as€much€an€ð ðofficerÏexecuting€a€warrantðð€as€Sergeant€Brown.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€properly€found€the€evidence€thatÏwas€obtained€from€the€lawful€arrest€of€the€Defendant€to€be€admissible.ÌÓ  ÓœII.›ÌÓ  Óà àAs€his€next€issue,€the€Defendant€charges€that€the€assistant€districtÏattorney€made€three€improper€comments€during€his€closing€argument€that€requireÏthe€verdict€be€reversed.€€Assuming€that€the€assistant€district€attorneyððsÏstatements€were€improper,€they€must€be€such€that€they€œprejudiced›€the€outcomeÏof€the€trial.€€Ìà àThe€Defendant€first€contends€that€the€prosecutor€improperly€referred€to€theÏhim€as€a€drug€dealer€with€the€following€comment:€ð ðWe€know€heððs€a€convictedÏdrug€dealer,€apparently€thereððs€been€some€money€thatððs€been€made€from€thatÏdrug€dealing€in€the€past.€€By€his€own€pleas€of€guilty€heððs€been€convicted€threeÏtimes€of€selling€controlled€substances.ðð€€Defense€counsel€made€no€objection€andÏno€curative€instructions€were€proffered€by€the€trial€judge.€€We€note€that€anÏappellant€ordinarily€may€not€complain€about€allegedly€improper€argument€in€theÏabsence€of€a€contemporaneous€objection€at€trial.€òòState€v.€Byerleyóó,€658€S.W.2dÏ134,€139€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983);€òòState€v.€Suttonóó,€562€S.W.2d€820,€825Ï(Tenn.1978).€€In€the€second€instance,€the€prosecutor€stated€that€ð ð[t]he€bad€guysÍare€not€the€police€officers€in€this€case,€the€bad€guy€is€this€convicted€drug€dealerÏwhoððs€sitting€over€there€who€had€6€grams„„.ðð€€Defense€counsel€objected€at€thisÏpoint€and€the€trial€court€issued€the€following€curative€instructions:ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓ[Y]ou€may€not€consider€in€determining€whether€or€not€the€defendant€isÏguilty€of€this€offense€whether€or€not€heððs€ever€been€convicted.€€CertainÏconvictions€have€been€admitted€to€to[sic]€your€hearing€for€the€purpose€of,Ïnumber€one,€of€impeaching€possible€intent.€€But€the€fact€that€a€personÏhas€been€convicted€prior€to€that€time€can€have€no€bearing€on€your€verdictÏand€it€would€be€a€violation€of€your€oath€to€consider€that.ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌFinally,€the€Defendant€challenges€the€assistant€district€attorneyððs€statementsÏmade€at€the€conclusion€of€his€closing€argument.€€ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓ[T]hatððs€167€people€in€Overton€County€that€Mr.€Copeland€could€sellÏcocaine€to€and€a€lot€of€those€people€could€be€young€people,€ladies€andÏgentlemen.€€In€fact,€there€was€enough€cocaine€in€that€house€and€on€Mr.ÏCopelandððs€person€that€he€could€have€gotten€every€graduating€memberÏof€the€Livingston€Academy€hooked€on€cocaine.ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌDefense€counsel€objected€and€the€trial€court€issued€this€curative€instruction:€ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓ[T]he€law€provides€that€the€possession€of€cocaine€with€the€intent€to€resellÏis€against€the€law.€€You€must€consider€this€case€on€its€own€merits,€andÏthe€law€has€proscribed€that€conduct,€theyððve€said€you€canððt€do€that.€€SoÏthat€last€argument€was€improper€and€Iððll€ask€you€to€disregard€that.à àÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓÒ  ÒÒ „ Òà àOur€review€consists€of€considering€five€factors€to€determine€whether€theÏprosecutorððs€statements€affected€the€verdict.€€òòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,Ï344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976);€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€872€S.W.2d€950,€953„54€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App€1993).€€These€are:€(1)€the€conduct€complained€of€viewed€in€theÍcontext€and€in€light€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case;€(2)€any€curativeÏmeasures€undertaken€by€the€court€and€the€prosecution;€(3)€the€intent€of€theÏprosecutor€in€making€the€improper€statement;€(4)€the€cumulative€effect€of€theÏimproper€conduct€and€any€other€errors€in€the€record;€and€(5)€the€relative€strengthÏand€weakness€of€the€case.€€òòJudgeóó,€539€S.W.2d€at€344.€€ÌÌà àWe€have€considered€the€preceding€factors€in€the€context€of€this€case.€InÏthis€instance,€the€trial€judge,€upon€the€objections€of€defense€counsel,€issuedÏcurative€instructions€to€the€jury€clearly€stating€that€the€comments€were€improper€€ÏThe€prompt€instruction€of€a€trial€judge€generally€cures€any€error€unless€the€error€isÏso€prejudicial€that€it€is€more€probable€than€not€that€it€affected€the€judgment.€ÏòòState€v.€Philpottóó,€882€S.W.2d€394€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.€Tyleróó,€598ÏS.W.2d€798,€802€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€The€Defendant€œargues€that›€theÏprosecutorððs€purpose€in€making€these€statements€was€to€inflame€the€jury,€andÏthis€may€very€well€have€been€the€case.€€However,€the€œrecord€does›€notÏœdemonstrate›€that€the€State€maintained€a€pattern€of€such€improper€commentsÏthroughout€the€trial.€€Moreover,€the€case€against€the€Defendant€for€this€offense,Ïregardless€of€any€improper€comments,€was€extremely€strong.€€In€light€of€theÏoverwhelming€evidence€in€this€case,€we€find€that€the€statements€could€not€haveÏprejudiced€the€Defendant.€€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓIII.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àIn€his€final€issue,€the€Defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏimposing€a€sentence€of€eighteen€years,€œsix€months.›€€When€an€accusedÏchallenges€the€length,€range,€or€the€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€this€courtÏhas€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€sentence€with€a€presumptionÏthat€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€inÏthe€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevantÏfacts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àIn€conducting€a€de€novo€review€of€a€sentence,€this€court€must€consider:Ï(a)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€theÏpresentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€toÏsentencing€alternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conductÏinvolved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statementÏthat€the€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€ofÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€'XÔððððÔ€'ŠÔ€40„35„102,€„103,Ïand€„210;€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencingÏprocedure,€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€andÏproper€weight€to€the€factors€and€principals€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,Ïand€that€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,Ïthen€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€aÏdifferent€result.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€was€charged€œwith€and›€convicted€of€the€Class€B€felony€ofÏpossession€of€over€.5€grams€of€cocaine€with€intent€to€sell€or€deliver.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„17„417(a)(4).€€The€Defendant€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€II,€multipleÏoffender€based€on€two€previous€felony€convictions€pursuant€to€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€40„35„106(a)(1),€which€carries€a€sentence€range€ofÏtwelve€(12)€to€twenty€(20)€years.€€Without€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors,€aÏdefendant€is€entitled€to€the€presumptive€minimum€sentence€of€twelve€(12)€years.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c)€(Supp.€1996).€€He€does€not€contest€theÏpropriety€of€the€trial€courtððs€sentencing€him€as€a€multiple€offender,€but€argues€thatÏthe€trial€judge€misapplied€the€enhancement€factors€contained€in€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€40„35„114€and€that€the€eighteen„and„a„half€yearÏsentence€is€excessive.€€Because€we€find€that€the€trial€court€misapplied€twoÏenhancement€factors,€we€review€the€sentence€on€this€appeal€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€withoutÏthe€presumption€of€correctness.ÌÌà àThe€presentence€report€œstates›€that€the€Defendant€was€a€54€year„oldÏmale€who€completed€high€school.€€He€lived€alone€in€his€house€near€Livingston.€ÏHis€œformer€wife›€and€one€son€live€in€Livingston€and€another€son€had€notÏcontacted€him€in€four€years.€€The€Defendant€had€maintained€a€variety€of€jobsÏover€the€years€until€he€became€disabled€in€1990.€€His€most€recent€employmentÏwas€a€sign€business,€which€he€owned.€€He€was€receiving€a€monthly€SSIÏpayment€of€$458.00€at€the€time€the€report€was€prepared.€€He€was€disabled€dueÏto€a€number€of€health€problems,€including€alcohol€hepatitis,€pancreatitis,Ïmetabolic€acidosis,€diabetes,€orthopedic€problems,€hypertension€andÏheadaches.€€He€was€on€a€number€of€medications€for€these€maladies.€€TheÏDefendant€also€reported€that€œhe€began›€drinking€when€he€was€in€the€Navy,€butÏdeveloped€a€severe€drinking€problem€after€his€divorce€in€1987.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€has€a€string€of€drug€convictions.€€In€1990,€he€wasÏconvicted€œof›€three€drug€offenses,€the€possession€and€sale€of€Schedule€III€drugs,Ïdihydrocodeinone,€Schedule€VI€drugs,€marijuana,€and€Schedule€IV€drugs,Ïdiazepam.€€He€was€fined€and€was€placed€on€probation.€€He€compliedÏsatisfactorily€with€the€conditions€of€his€probation€and€was€discharged€on€JuneÏ16,€1993.€€He€was€arrested€and€indicted€on€drug€sale€charges€in€February,Ï1994€and€June,€1994.€€€He€was€also€arrested€for€cocaine€possession€inÍOctober,€1994.€€Captain€Tim€Emerton€testified€that€he€had€received€a€report€thatÏthe€Defendant€was€ð ðback€in€business€again,ðð€but€he€observed€no€activity€atÏthe€Defendantððs€home.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€testified€at€the€sentencing€hearing€regarding€his€chronicÏhealth€problems.€€He€also€testified€about€his€assets,€stating€that€he€owned€aÏlife„estate€in€his€house,€a€converted€garage,€and€owned€a€1988€Chevrolet€car.€ÏHe€testified€that€he€did€not€have€a€history€of€violent€behavior.€€The€DefendantÏalso€admitted€a€game€and€fish€conviction€dated€September€7,€1993,€involvingÏthe€payment€of€a€fine,€for€drinking€alcoholic€beverages€in€a€state€natural€area.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€œclassified€the›€Defendant€as€a€Range€II,€multiple€offenderÏbased€on€two€convictions€for€sale€of€œdiazepam,›€a€Schedule€III€controlledÏsubstance€and€a€D€felony,€and€the€sale€of€dihydrocodeinone,€a€Schedule€IVÏcontrolled€substance,€also€a€D€felony.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„417(a)(3),Ï(d)€and€(e).€€€The€trial€court€also€considered€several€enhancement€and€mitigatingÏfactors€in€setting€the€sentence€above€the€presumptive€minimum€of€twelve€(12)Ïyears.€€First,€the€trial€judge€applied€enhancement€factor€number€(1),€that€ð ð[t]heÏdefendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior€inÏaddition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range.ðð€Tenn.€CodeÏœAnn.›€ðð€40„35„114(1).€€The€convictions€used€to€enhance€the€sentence€were€theÍ1990€sale€of€a€Schedule€VI€drug,€marijuana,€a€Class€E€felony€and€the€gameÏand€fish€conviction,€although€this€was€afforded€little€weight.€€The€trial€judge€alsoÏused€a€conviction€the€Defendant€admitted€occurred€some€twenty€years€prior,Ïand€evidence€of€other€criminal€behavior.€€The€Defendant€argues€that€the€trialÏcourt€inappropriately€considered€his€other€arrests€as€evidence€of€criminalÏbehavior€and€cites€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€532,€541„42€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1993)€for€the€proposition€that€ð ð[an]€arrest€or€charge€is€not€consideredÏevidence€of€the€commission€of€a€crime.ðð€€òòId.óó€€We€agree€with€the€DefendantððsÏcontention,€but€this€does€not€invalidate€the€use€of€enhancement€factor€(1)€in€thisÏcase.€€The€trial€judge€clearly€considered€the€Defendantððs€prior€felony€conviction,Ïthe€game€and€fish€conviction€and€the€older€conviction.€€These€are€sufficient€toÏsupport€the€application€of€enhancement€factor€(1).ÌÌà àNext,€the€trial€court€applied€enhancement€factors€(10)€and€(16).€€FactorÏ(10)€€is€applied€when€ð ð[t]he€defendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€aÏcrime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€highðð€and€factor€(16)€is€applied€whenÏð ð[t]he€crime€was€committed€under€circumstances€under€which€the€potential€forÏbodily€injury€to€a€victim€was€great.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(10),€(16).€ÏThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€misapplied€both€factors.€€During€theÏsentencing€hearing,€the€State€produced€testimony€from€Captain€Tim€EmertonÏregarding€the€purity€of€the€cocaine€that€was€seized.€€The€police€seized€66.2Ígrams€of€cocaine.€€The€10.8€grams€obtained€from€the€packets€found€in€theÏDefendantððs€pocket€was€41.6%€cocaine.€€The€55.4€grams€of€powder€from€theÏbowl€was€61.3%€cocaine.€€He€testified€that€the€cocaine€in€the€bowl€was€in€theÏprocess€of€being€ð ðstepped€onðð€or€combined€with€other€nonactive€substances€toÏincrease€the€amounts€for€retail€sale.€€He€also€testified€that€the€61.3%€percentÏpurity,€in€particular,€was€higher€than€the€average€percentage€of€cocaine€in€streetÏdoses,€which€is€around€30%.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€contends€that€the€application€of€these€factors€was€notÏappropriate.€€This€Court€has€held€that€the€inherent€œdangerous€nature›€of€cocaineÏis€essentially€an€element€of€the€offense€and€this€is€not€sufficient€to€justify€theÏapplication€of€enhancement€factors€(10)€and€(16).€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Keelóó,€882ÏS.W.2d€410,€420€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€532,€Ï542€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€òòBut€seeóó€òòState€v.€Millbrooksóó,€819€S.W.2d€441Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991),€òòno€perm.€to€appeal€filedóó.€ÌÌà àControlled€substances€have€been€placed€into€schedules€according€toÏtheir€respective€potential€for€abuse€and€resulting€dangers.€€In€establishing€thisÏstructure,€the€legislature€has€considered€the€inherent€nature€of€various€drugs€byÏproviding€different€punishments€for€the€respective€schedules.€€Cocaine€has€beenÏdesignated€as€a€Schedule€II€controlled€substance€and€is€in€the€category€ofÍdrugs€found€to€have€a€"high€potential€for€abuse"€which€"may€lead€to€severeÏpsychic€or€physical€dependence."€€€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„407;€òòseeóó€òòKeelóó€,Ï882€S.W.2d€at€420;€òòMarshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€at€542.€The€legislature€hasÏconsidered€the€seriousness€of€cocaine€use€and€has€determined€that€cocaineÏfelonies€with€a€quantity€over€.5€grams€are€to€be€treated€as€Class€B€felonies,Ïrather€than€as€œthe€Class›€C€felonies€set€for€the€rest€of€the€Schedule€II€offenses.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„417(c)(1)„(2).€€Furthermore,€the€legislature€hasÏestablished€increased€penalties€when€the€amount€of€cocaine€involvedÏincreases.€€If€a€violation€occurs€where€twenty„six€(26)€grams€or€more€cocaine€isÏinvolved,€it€remains€a€Class€B€felony,€but€the€maximum€fine€increases€fromÏ$100,000€to€$200,000.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„417(i)(5).€€If€three€hundredÏ(300)€grams€or€more€cocaine€is€involved,€it€becomes€a€Class€A€felony€carrying€aÏmaximum€fine€of€$500,000.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„417(j)(5).ÌÌà àThe€State€argues€that,€although€the€trial€court€acknowledged€that€cocaineÏoffenses€may€not€be€enhanced€based€on€the€inherent€nature€of€the€drug,€theÏparticular€facts€of€this€case€support€the€application€of€factors€(10)€and€(16).€ÏNamely,€the€trial€court€enhanced€the€sentence€based€on€ð ðthe€quantity€of€cocaineÏin€this€particular€case€and€the€purity€of€the€cocaine€used€in€this€particular€case.ðð€ÏThe€State€cites€two€unpublished€cases€for€the€proposition€that€it€has€beenÏsuggested€that€the€purity€œor›€quantity€of€the€cocaine€could€possibly€be€used€toÍenhance€a€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Michael€S.€Hurtóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9306„CC„00189,€Marshall€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Nashville,€Dec.€9,€1993);€òòState€v.ÏKenneth€Bernard€Nevelsóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9112„CR„00381,€Davidson€CountyÏ(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Dec.€3,€1992).€€However,€in€neither€of€these€casesÏdid€this€Court€actually€apply€the€enhancement€factors€in€œquestion,›€and€we€areÏreluctant€to€do€œso€absent€clear€legislative€intent.›ÌÌà àIn€support€of€its€decision€to€enhance€based€on€the€quantity€of€cocaineÏseized,€66.2€grams,€the€court€stated:€ð ðitððs€many,€many,€many€times€the€amountÏof€cocaine€that€would€have€been€necessary€to€find€him€guilty€of€this€range€ofÏpunishment€and€this€range€of€offense.ðð€€Yet,€the€legislature€has€alreadyÏaddressed€the€severity€of€the€offense€based€on€the€quantity€involved.€€TheÏDefendant€was€prosecuted€for€possession€and€sale€of€cocaine€over€.5€gramsÏand€was€fined€$100,000,€or€the€maximum.€The€amount€involved,€66.2€grams,Ïwas€quite€a€bit€more€than€was€required€to€be€convicted€of€that€offense.€€WeÏnote,€however,€that€the€Defendant€could€have€been€prosecuted€for€possessionÏof€cocaine€over€26€grams,€to€be€subject€to€a€$200,000€fine.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„17„417(i)(5).€€Thus,€the€quantity€here€cannot€be€used€to€justify€anÏenhanced€sentence€because€the€amount€involved€is€an€element€of€the€offense.Ìà àThe€trial€court€also€found€that€the€purity€of€the€cocaine€could€be€used€toÏapply€factors€(10)€and€(16).€€Again,€the€schedules€for€certain€drugs,€includingÍcocaine,€have€been€established€while€considering€the€inherent€dangerousÏnature€of€the€drugs.€€Cocaine€is€in€Schedule€II€because€it€has€a€"high€potentialÏfor€abuse"€which€"may€lead€to€severe€psychic€or€physical€dependence."€€€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„407.€€The€description€of€coca„derived€drugs€includes€aÏnumber€of€different€forms€they€may€take.œ× ƒ0 ××  ×›€€There€is€no€schedule€dividingÏoffenses€based€on€the€purity€of€the€drug,€such€as€whether€its€been€ð ðstepped„onðð€or€is€of€street€strength.€€This€implies€that€even€cocaine€that€is€one„hundredÏpercent€pure,€because€of€its€inherent€attributes,€belongs€in€Schedule€II.ÏMoreover,€the€legislature€has€determined€the€appropriate€punishment€forÏoffenses€in€Schedule€€II.€€Therefore,€we€œmust€conclude›€that€purity€of€the€cocaineÏcannot€be€used€to€enhance€the€sentence€through€factors€(10)€and€(16).ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€also€notes€that€the€trial€court€inappropriately€consideredÏas€a€factor,€his€lack€of€remorse.€€We€agree€that€this€is€not€contained€within€theÏstatutory€enhancement€factors.€€However,€the€court€considered€that€theÏDefendant€was€a€threat€to€the€community€and€applied€€this€in€relation€to€factorsÍ(10)€and€(16)€€which€we€have€already€found€are€not€applicable.€€The€trial€courtÏfound€no€mitigating€factors€and€we€agree€that€none€are€applicable€in€this€case.€ÏConsidering€œonly€enhancement€factor›€(1),€that€the€Defendant€has€a€prior€historyÏof€criminal€convictions,€œand€based€on€our€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review,€we›€œmodify›€theÏsentence€to€fifteen€years.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€sentenceÏhim€to€community€corrections.€€The€Community€Corrections€Act€allows€certainÏeligible€offenders€to€participate€in€community„based€alternatives€to€incarceration.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€'XÔððÔ€'ŠÔ€40„36„103.€€A€defendant€must€first€be€a€suitable€candidateÏfor€alternative€sentencing.€€If€so,€a€defendant€is€then€eligible€for€participation€in€aÏcommunity€corrections€program€if€he€also€satisfies€several€minimum€eligibilityÏcriteria€set€forth€at€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„36„106(a).€€ÌÌà àHowever,€even€though€an€offender€meets€the€requirements€of€eligibility,€theÏœlaw›€does€not€provide€that€the€offender€is€automatically€entitled€to€such€relief.€ÏòòState€v.€Grandberryóó,€803€S.W.2d€706,€707€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990);€òòState€v.ÏTayloróó,€744€S.W.2d€919,€922€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€Rather,€the€statuteÏprovides€that€the€criteria€shall€be€interpreted€as€minimum€standards€to€guide€aÏtrial€courtððs€determination€of€whether€that€offender€is€œsuitable€for›€communityÏcorrections.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(d).€€ÌÌà àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€Defendant€did€not€meet€theÏminimum€requirements€for€community€corrections.€€With€this€we€cannot€agree.€€ItÏappears€that€the€Defendant€did,€in€fact,€satisfy€the€basic€requirements€forÏalternative€sentencing.€€Yet,€this€does€not€foreclose€the€possibility€ofÏincarceration.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103;€òòState€v.€Menceróó,€798€S.W.2dÏ543,€549€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€The€trial€court€retains€that€discretion.€€It€isÏclear€that€the€trial€judge€was€concerned€with€the€danger€to€the€community€thatÏwas€evident€through€the€Defendantððs€drug€sales.€€Also,€it€is€evident€that€theÏDefendant€maintained€at€trial€that€he€was€somehow€set„up€with€the€drugs,Ïabout€which€the€court€commented€during€the€sentencing€hearing:€ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓ[T]he€risk€to€the€safety€of€the€community€I€think€in€this€case€is€enhancedÏby€this€defendantððs€maintaining€one€of€the€most€bald„faced€lies€that€IððveÏever€heard€produced€in€open€court€in€this€county.€.€.€.€For€you€to€get€on€theÏwitness€stand€and€swear€before€what€you€swore€and€stick€by€it€todayÏindicates€to€the€Court€a€willingness€to€commit€perjury€and€indicates€aÏdisregard€for€the€sanctity€of€the€oath,€and€people€who€are€willing€toÏdisregard€the€oath€.€.€.€should€be€considered€with€reference€to€theÏdangerousness€of€this€defendant€to€the€community€and€the€offense€to€thisÏcommunity.€€Iððve€seen€no€evidence€of€any€remorse€on€this€defendantððsÏpart,€but€a€steadfast€maintenance€that€the€police€officers€planted€and€setÏthis€stuff€on€him€.€.€.€.ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÒ  ÒÒ Ï ÒÒ  ÒÒ î ÒÌà àClearly,€the€court€was€concerned€with€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€theÏoffense€and€found€the€potential€for€rehabilitation€to€be€slight.€€Although€weÏrecognize€that€the€Defendant€has€a€myriad€of€health€concerns,€œwe€believe›€heÍœmay›€be€cared€for€adequately€œand€appropriately€within›€the€Department€ofÏCorrection.€€We€find€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€denyingÏcommunity€corrections.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€conviction€is€affirmed,€but€the€sentence€is€modified€to€fifteenÏyears.€€This€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€solely€for€the€entry€of€a€judgmentÏconforming€with€this€opinion.ÌÓ  ÓÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGE›ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGE›