ÿWPC. …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ4Ýñ 0l 0Dt w@¸ 0Jø 0TB 0^– 0hô 0r\ 0|Î 0†J 0Ð 1u` 0dÕ U>9U*wB)¡ BÊDCç AM*w<‰v~Å D3CvÓv 0@I AO‰ÆØ 0Dž D/â B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡Ô¡¨ ppppdp3|x ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó } ~  €  e‚ Eƒ „ E… † Ó€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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d d####7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌSeptember€19,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó 2Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ X ÒThe€State€argues€that€eighteen€(18)€of€the€23€offenses€were€theft€related.€€Ô€!&ÔOur€review€ofÏthe€presentence€report€reveals€that€three€of€the€eighteen€offenses€described€by€the€state€as€theftÏoffenses€are€offenses€which€are€ð ðundefinedðð€in€the€report.€€In€any€event,€€the€least€number€of€theÏappellantððs€prior€theft€convictions€is€fifteen€(15).€Ô€!XÔÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@$$$$'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ € Ñ›Ñ7€¦2XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€"ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ ` °œXӜـ€ÙßL€&'%;+'h|` ç `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ àMAY€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌEDWARD€D.€COKER,à àà àà à)à àNO.€01C01„9507„CC„00240Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àAppellantà àà àà àà à)à àWILLIAMSON€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€DONALD€P.€HARRISÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGE€ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€(Sentencing)Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)à à€€ÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌJ.€Timothy€Streetà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ136€Fourth€Avenue,€Southà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌFranklin,€Tennessee€37064à àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌ(Appeal€only)à àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493ÌÌJames€A.€Vickà àà àà àà àà àKaren€M.€YacuzzoÌ300€James€Robertson€Parkwayà àà àà àAssistant€œAttorney€General€›ÌCourt€Square€Buildingà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌNashville,€Tennessee€37201à àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493Ì(Trial€only)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€D.€Baugh,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDerek€Keith€SmithÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliamson€County€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSuite€G6Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.€O.€Box€937Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFranklin,€Tennessee€37065„0937Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóà àÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÓÓòòÌÌÓ Ð Óà@ àOPINIONóóÌThe€appellant,€Edward€D.€Coker,€was€indicted€on€two€counts€of€theft€ofÏservices€over€$500,€a€class€E€felony,€two€counts€of€theft€of€services€over€$1,000,€aÏclass€D€felony,€and€two€counts€of€criminal€impersonation.€€He€pled€guilty€to€one€countÏof€theft€of€services€over€$500€and€one€count€of€theft€of€services€over€$1,000.€€TheÏother€charges€were€dismissed€by€the€State€in€exchange€for€the€plea.€€€He€wasÏsentenced€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender€to€the€maximum€sentence€for€eachÏconviction,€two€and€four€years,€respectively.€€The€sentences€were€ordered€to€beÏserved€consecutively.€€On€appeal,€the€appellant€complains€that€the€sentences€areÏexcessive€and€that€the€court€erred€when€it€ordered€the€sentences€to€runÏconsecutively.€€After€a€€thorough€review€of€the€record€on€appeal,€we€affirm€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court.€€ÌThe€undisputed€facts€underlying€the€convictions€in€this€case€are€that€theÏappellant€checked€into€the€Studio€Plus€Motel€in€Brentwood,€Tennessee,€under€theÏname€James€Strickland€and€remained€at€the€hotel€for€approximately€six€weeks.€€TheÏtotal€bill€for€the€appellantððs€stay€was€$1,662.40,€which€the€appellant€never€paid.€€OnÏMarch€16,€1994,€the€appellant€checked€into€the€Goose€Creek€Inn€in€WilliamsonÏCounty,€Tennessee.€€The€appellant€left€the€inn€owing€over€$500,€which€he€neverÏpaid.€€ÌAt€the€sentencing€hearing€the€State€did€not€present€any€testimony€fromÏwitnesses,€but€instead€relied€on€the€presentence€report€which€was€introduced€intoÏevidence.€€The€appellant€testified€on€his€own€behalf.€€Much€of€the€appellantððsÏtestimony€centered€on€how€he€found€himself€in€circumstances€where€he€passedÏworthless€checks€to€a€variety€of€individuals€for€services€and€products.€€The€appellantÏclaimed€that€because€of€a€head€injury€sustained€in€1981€he€was€unable€to€recallÏchecking€into€the€Studio€Plus€Motel€under€a€false€name.€€However,€he€did€recall€thatÏhe€spent€approximately€six€weeks€there€and€that€he€never€paid€to€reside€in€thatÏmotel.€€The€appellant€recalled€checking€into€the€Goose€Creek€Inn€and€admitted€thatÏhe€never€paid€to€stay€at€the€inn.€€However,€the€appellant€contended€that€theÏarrangement€he€had€with€either€the€manager€or€the€owner€of€the€Goose€Creek€InnÏwas€that€he€would€live€there€without€paying€until€he€was€able€to€find€employment€andÏthen€he€would€pay€for€his€stay€there.€€The€appellant€spent€the€remaining€portion€of€hisÍtestimony€explaining€his€myriad€arrests,€jailings,€and€convictions€for€variousÏworthless€check€offenses.€€ÌThe€appellant€has€a€lengthy€history€of€criminal€activity.€€The€trial€court€foundÏthat€there€were€some€twenty„seven€convictions€for€check„related€theft€noted€in€theÏpresentence€report.€€On€appeal,€the€State€acknowledges€that€according€to€theÏpresentence€report€the€appellant€has€been€charged€with€twenty„three€offenses€over€aÏthirteen€year€period.× ƒ( ××  ×€€The€appellant€has€been€placed€on€probation€many€times.€€€ÌAt€the€close€of€all€the€proof€in€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€courtÏenhanced€the€sentence€to€the€maximum€allowable€based€upon€his€finding€that€theÏappellant€had€ð ða€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior€inÏaddition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ï40„35„114(1)€(1995€Supp.).€€There€can€be€no€doubt€that€this€factor€was€applicableÏand€deserving€of€great€weight€in€this€case.€€€The€trial€court€did€not€consider€anyÏmitigating€factors.€€ÌIn€support€of€his€contention€that€the€sentences€are€excessive€and€that€theyÏshould€not€have€been€ordered€to€run€consecutively,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€trialÏcourt€erred€when€it€failed€to€apply€or€even€consider€certain€mitigating€factors.€€ÌWhen€a€defendant€complains€of€his€or€her€sentence,€we€must€conduct€a€òòdeóóÏòònovoóó€review€with€the€presumption€of€correctness.€€Tenn€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401€(d)Ï(1990€Repl.).€This€presumption,€however,€is€conditioned€upon€an€affirmative€showingÏin€the€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).€€InÏconducting€a€review€of€a€sentence,€this€Court€is€to€consider:€€(1)€the€evidenceÏreceived€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€theÏprinciples€of€sentencing€and€the€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€theÏnature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(5)€evidence€andÏinformation€offered€by€the€parties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€inÏsections€40„35„113€and€40„35„114;€and€(6)any€statements€the€defendant€wishes€toÏmake€in€his€own€behalf€about€sentencing.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€!ÔððÔ€"Ô€40„35„210€(1995ÏSupp.).€€The€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€show€that€the€sentence€imposed€wasÏimproper.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€!ÔððÔ€"Ô€40„35„401€(d)€Sentencing€Commission€Comments;ÏòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.€2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€ÌWe€agree€that€certain€mitigating€factors€should€have€been€considered€by€theÏtrial€court€in€this€case,€and€the€record€reveals€that€the€court€did€not€consider€them.€ÏAccordingly,€our€review€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€without€the€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòAshbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€€ÌThe€appellant€argues€that€three€(3)€mitigating€factors€applied€in€this€case.ÏFirst€he€asserts€that€because€his€ð ðcriminal€conduct€neither€caused€nor€threatenedÏserious€bodily€injuryðð€mitigating€factor€number€one€was€applicable.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€40„35„113(1)€(1990€Repl.)€€€We€agree€that€this€factor€was€applicable.€€Next,Ïappellant€contends€that€factor€seven€(7)€was€appropriate€because€the€appellantððsÏcrimes€were€motivated€by€his€desire€to€provide€necessities€for€himself.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„113€(7)€(1990€Repl.)€€It€is€true€that€the€appellant€committed€these€crimesÏin€order€to€acquire€food€and€shelter€for€himself.€€Accordingly,€this€factor€should€haveÏbeen€considered€by€the€trial€court.€€Finally,€the€appellant€contends€that€injuriesÏsustained€in€two€separate€accidents€left€him€mentally€impaired€and€that€mitigatingÏfactor€eight€(8)€should€have€been€used€to€reduce€his€sentence.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð40„35„113€(8)€(1990€Repl.).€€We€disagree.€Although€the€record€reveals€that€theÏappellant€has€sustained€two€apparently€significant€blows€to€the€head,€the€record€isÏdevoid€of€any€proof€that€the€injuries€caused€the€appellant€any€lasting€mental€orÏphysical€impairment€which€would€reduce€his€culpability€for€these€offenses.€€WeÏtherefore€decline€to€apply€this€mitigating€factor.€ÌAs€the€appellant€correctly€argues,€the€minimum€sentence€within€the€range€isÏthe€presumptive€sentence.€€Where€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€are€found,€theÏsentence€is€to€be€increased€by€the€appropriate€enhancement€factors€and€thenÏreduced€as€appropriate€by€the€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(e)Í(1995€Supp.).€€The€trial€court€gave€great€weight€to€enhancement€factor€one€(1).€€TheÏlength€of€the€appellantððs€criminal€history€which€overwhelmingly€consists€of€theftÏcrimes€of€a€similar€nature€to€the€instant€convictions€weighs€heavily€in€determining€theÏsentence.€€The€appellantððs€criminal€history€justifies€an€initial€increase€to€the€maximumÏsentence.€€We€decline€to€give€great€weight€to€the€two€mitigating€factors€applicable€inÏthis€case.€€Even€when€we€factor€in€a€degree€of€mitigation€relevant€to€the€factors€weÏdetermine€to€exist,€we€believe€the€weight€of€appellantððs€criminal€history€suffices€forÏmaximum€sentencing.ÌWith€regard€to€the€trial€courtððs€order€that€the€sentences€run€consecutively,€weÏaffirm.€€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„115€(b)€(2),€states€that€a€court€mayÏorder€sentences€to€run€consecutively€if€it€finds€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidenceÏthat€"[t]he€defendant€is€an€offender€whose€record€of€criminal€activity€is€extensive."€€ÏThere€can€be€no€doubt€that€the€appellantððs€record€of€criminal€activity€is€extensive.€€ÏThe€trial€court€made€the€specific€finding€that€the€appellant€was€ð ðan€offender€whoseÏrecord€of€criminal€activity€is€extensiveðð€and€stated€that€the€sentence€in€this€case€wasÏappropriate€and€necessary€in€order€to€protect€society€from€the€appellantððs€criminalÏbehavior.€€The€trial€courtððs€decision€to€order€consecutive€sentences€in€this€case€wasÏentirely€proper.€ÌThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€all€respects.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEÌÌÌÓ  ÓCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGE