ÿWPC< …#†VUNÜ %* 0(0bX4`t 0lƒ 0Dï 0J3 D3} 0T° 0^ <b 0hž 0r 0|x 0†ô 0z 1u U, 0d« U,U>;U*yB)£DCÌ AMI\v~¥vÓ# Bö 0@ AOSÆ¢ 0Dh 0D¬ D/ð B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0HÈo¯9ÊDˆÈŒ ;Äɯ2(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù-3x23|xS((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô****'ÿÿdxd2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿMiddlebrooksÿ ÿWELLESÿ26 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`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ?Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òJanuary€31,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€!!X„d&ÓÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÑ€ÑÑ7€6SXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÔ€#Ôò òÙ€€ÙßL€&'%;+'h| ` Å `€€Lßà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌà@ àNOVEMBER€1995ÏSESSIONÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9505„CR„00143Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Shelby€County€CriminalÌò òV.ó óà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Hon.€Arthur€T.€Bennett,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìò òROBERT€D.€DAVENPORT,ó ó€€€à àà à)€€(Attempted€Aggravated€Robbery,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€Especially€Aggravated€Robbery)Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌÌA€C€Wharton,€Jr.à àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌà àà àà àÌWalker€Gwinnà àà àà àà àà àJohn€P.€CauleyÌAsst.€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAsst.€Attorney€GeneralÌ€€€€€€(On€Appeal)à àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Pkwy.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€€37243„0493ÌTeresa€JonesÌAsst.€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àJohn€W.€PierottiÌ201€Poplar€Avenue,€Second€Floorà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌMemphis,€TN€€€38103à àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌ€€€€€€€(At€Trial)à àà àà àà àà àThomas€Henderson€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€Dist.€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Avenue,€Third€FloorÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€€38103ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌò òCONVICTIONS€AFFIRMED;€SENTENCES€AFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIED€ó óÌÌÌò òPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,ó óÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÑ , ÑÑ   ÑÑ  ÑÑ€$ u` Ñà@ àò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant,€Robert€D.€Davenport,€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€attemptedÏaggravated€robbery€and€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€Sentenced€as€aÏRange€II€multiple€offender€in€the€attempted€robbery€conviction,€the€appellantÏreceived€a€ten„year€sentence.€€Subsequently,€sentenced€as€a€Range€IIIÏpersistent€offender€in€the€especially€aggravated€robbery€conviction,€he€receivedÏa€consecutive€fifty€year€sentence.€€ÌÌà àIn€this€appeal€the€appellant€raises€three€issues€for€review.€€First,€heÏargues€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€his€attempted€aggravatedÏrobbery€conviction.€€Secondly,€he€claims€that€the€trial€court€committed€reversibleÏerror€by€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€as€to€facilitation€of€a€felony.€€Finally,€heÏcontends€that€his€sentences€were€excessive.€€Following€our€review,€we€affirmÍthe€convictions.€€In€addition,€we€affirm€the€sentences€as€modified.ÌÌà àThe€testimony€at€trial€revealed€that€in€the€early€morning€hours€of€OctoberÏ19,€1992,€Ernest€Norman€and€Marcel€Nugent€were€leaving€a€friend's€apartmentÏwhen€they€were€approached€by€some€men€who€had€gathered€in€the€area.€ÏNorman€testified€that€Nugent€had€been€waiting€for€him€at€Norman's€car€whenÏtwo€men€came€up€behind€him€and€asked€him€where€he€was€from€and€whetherÏhe€had€any€"cheese"€(money).€€When€one€of€the€men€hit€him€in€the€back€of€hisÏhead,€Norman€escaped€and€ran€to€a€nearby€Texaco€station€to€call€the€police.€ÏNorman€said€that€while€he€was€running€he€heard€gunshots.€€When€NormanÏreturned€to€the€scene€he€saw€the€ambulance€and€police€car€and€watched€themÏcarry€Nugent€from€the€friend's€apartment€they€had€visited€earlier.€€He€also€foundÏhis€car€with€a€broken€window€on€the€passenger€side.€€Norman€testified€that€heÏcould€not€identify€any€of€the€perpetrators.ÌÌà àNugent€testified€that€when€he€saw€the€men€hit€Norman,€he€got€into€theÏvehicle€and€locked€the€doors.€€The€men€continually€ordered€Nugent€out€of€theÏvehicle€but€he€refused.€€When€the€men€became€temporarily€distracted€by€aÏvehicle€which€had€approached,€Nugent€got€out€of€the€car€and€attempted€to€runÏaway€but€was€cut€off€by€one€of€the€men.€€Nugent€returned€to€the€vehicle€andÏlocked€the€doors.€€The€men€broke€the€window€with€a€beer€bottle€and€a€plankÏand€pulled€Nugent€from€the€car.€€As€Nugent€pulled€away€from€the€men,€he€ranÏout€of€his€jacket.€€Nugent€testified€that€as€the€men€wrestled€him€to€the€ground,Íthe€appellant€went€through€his€pockets€and€took€approximately€eighty€dollars€inÏcash.€€On€cross„examination€Nugent€admitted€that€it€was€dark€on€the€night€of€theÏincident€but€insisted€that€he€could€identify€the€appellant€because€he€saw€hisÏface€when€the€appellant€bent€over€to€take€the€money.€€Soon€after€the€moneyÏwas€taken,€Nugent€was€shot€three€times€in€his€legs;€but€he€did€not€see€whoÏpulled€the€trigger.€€Nugent€later€identified€the€appellant€in€a€photo€lineup€as€theÏman€who€had€taken€the€money€from€his€pocket.€€€€€ÌÌà àThe€defense€presented€the€testimony€of€Charles€Sanders,€who€lived€inÏthe€same€apartment€complex€where€the€incident€occurred.€€Sanders€testifiedÏthat€on€the€night€of€the€incident€he€and€others€had€been€drinking€and€smoking€atÏhis€apartment.€€Sanders€said€that€at€some€point€the€other€men€left€his€apartmentÏand€within€five€minutes€he€heard€shooting.€€According€to€Sanders,€he€and€theÏappellant€had€met€for€the€first€time€that€night.€€He€testified€that€the€appellant€wasÏon€his€porch€when€the€shooting€occurred.€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àTerrence€Pollard,€one€of€the€individuals€present€at€Sanders'€house,Ïtestified€that€Steve€Davis€had€thrown€beer€cans€at€the€two€victims.€€When€theÏvictims€ran€to€the€car,€Davis€and€Darrel€Bailey€attacked€Norman€who€fled.€ÏHowever,€Davis€and€Bailey€broke€the€car€window€and€pulled€Nugent€out€of€theÏcar.€€Pollard€said€he€saw€Andre€Bland€shoot€Nugent€in€the€legs.€€PollardÍÑ  ÑÔ  Ôcorroborated€the€earlier€testimony€that€the€appellant€had€stood€on€Sanders'Ïporch€during€the€entire€incident.€€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€testified€on€his€own€behalf€that€he€was€on€the€porch€whenÏthe€incident€occurred.€€The€appellant€said€that€he€saw€Norman's€confrontationÏand€eventual€flight.€€He€also€watched€as€Davis€broke€the€car€window€and€pulledÏNugent€from€the€vehicle.€€The€appellant€stated€that€as€Nugent€ran€away,€hisÏjacket€was€pulled€off€from€him.€€Davis,€Bailey€and€Little€Larry€were€beatingÏNugent€just€seconds€before€he€heard€gunshots.€€The€appellant€did€not€see€whoÏpulled€the€trigger€but€said€he€later€heard€that€Andre€Bland€had€shot€Nugent.€ÏThe€appellant€left€the€scene€and€returned€to€his€girlfriend's€apartment.€€OnÏcross„examination€the€appellant€suggested€that€Nugent's€identification€of€himÏwas€based€on€Nugent's€recollection€of€the€appellant€as€standing€on€the€porch€ofÏthe€nearby€apartment.ÌÌà àThe€state€presented€the€rebuttal€testimony€of€Sergeant€K.R.€Free€of€theÏMemphis€Police€Department€who€had€initially€questioned€the€appellantÏregarding€his€participation.€€Free's€testimony€was€offered€to€rebut€theÏappellant's€testimony€that€he€had€not€given€a€statement€on€an€earlier€occasion.€ÏFree€testified€that€the€appellant€had€not€given€an€official€statement€but€hadÏanswered€some€initial€questions€at€the€station.€€Contrary€to€his€testimony€at€trial,Ïthe€appellant€had€told€the€officers€that€he€and€Sanders€had€gone€to€the€marketÏwhen€the€shooting€occurred.€€Free€said€that€the€appellant€became€defensiveÍwhen€told€that€a€victim€had€identified€him€as€the€man€who€took€the€money€fromÏhis€pocket.€€However,€Free€admitted€that€the€appellant€continually€denied€anyÏinvolvement€in€the€incident.ÌÌà@ àI.Ìà àIn€his€first€issue,€the€appellant€claims€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€toÏsupport€his€conviction€for€attempted€aggravated€robbery€of€Ernest€Norman.€€InÏTennessee,€great€weight€is€given€to€the€result€reached€by€the€jury€in€a€criminalÏtrial.€€A€jury€verdict€accredits€the€state's€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€inÏfavor€of€the€state.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405€(Tenn.€1983).€€On€appeal,Ïthe€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€allÏreasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571ÏS.W.2d€832€(Tenn.€1978).€€Moreover,€a€guilty€verdict€replaces€the€presumptionÏof€innocence€with€a€presumption€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474Ï(Tenn.€1973).€€The€appellant€has€the€burden€of€overcoming€this€presumption.€ÏòòIdóó.ÌÌà àIn€a€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€challenge,€the€relevant€question€for€thisÏCourt€is€whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏprosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€ofÏthe€crime€or€crimes€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.Ï307€(1979);€òòState€v.€Duncanóó,€698€S.W.2d€63€(Tenn.€1985);€T.R.A.P.€13(e).€€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€asserts€that€no€evidence€exists€to€tie€him€to€the€attemptedÏaggravated€robbery€of€Norman.€€The€testimony€established€that€two€menÏapproached€Norman€and€hit€him€in€the€head€before€he€escaped.€€TheÏappellant's€position€at€trial€was€that€he€was€on€the€porch€during€the€entireÏincident€and€did€not€participate€in€either€infraction.€€However,€we€find€that€theÏjury€made€the€nexus€through€circumstantial€evidence.ÌÌà àThe€jury€heard€evidence€that€the€second€victim,€Nugent,€saw€the€manÏwho€took€the€money€from€his€pockets.€€In€addition,€Nugent€later€identified€thisÏman€at€a€photo€lineup€as€the€appellant.€€Obviously,€the€jury€inferred€from€thisÏproof€that€the€appellant€was€involved€in€the€night's€events€and€was€criminallyÏresponsible€for€the€conduct€of€others€in€the€group€that€had€gathered€that€night.€€ÌÌà àAlthough€the€evidence€of€the€appellant's€guilt€is€circumstantial,€it€is€a€wellÏestablished€principle€of€law€in€Tennessee€that€circumstantial€evidence€aloneÏmay€be€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction.€€òòState€v.€Buttreyóó,€756€S.W.2d€718,€721Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€However,€in€order€for€this€to€occur,€the€circumstantialÏevidence€"must€be€not€only€consistent€with€the€guilt€of€the€accused€but€it€mustÏalso€be€inconsistent€with€his€[or€her]€innocence€and€must€exclude€every€otherÏreasonable€theory€or€hypothesis€except€that€of€guilt."€€òòState€v.€Tharpeóó,€726ÏS.W.2d€896,€900€(Tenn.€1987).€€In€addition,€"it€must€establish€such€a€certainty€ofÏguilt€of€the€accused€as€to€convince€the€mind€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€thatÍ[the€appellant]€is€the€one€who€committed€the€crime."€€òòIdóó.€at€896.€€AbsoluteÏcertainty€as€to€each€element€of€the€offense€is€not€required.€€òòIdóó.€ÌÌà àBecause€the€two€incidents€occurred€just€moments€apart€and€because€theÏappellant€was€identified€as€a€participant€in€the€especially€aggravated€robbery,Ïthe€jury€chose€to€believe€the€state's€argument€that€the€appellant€was€alsoÏinvolved€in€the€attempted€aggravated€robbery€of€Norman€through€criminalÏresponsibility€for€the€conduct€of€another.€€The€weight€and€credibility€of€theÏwitnesses'€testimony€are€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€triers€ofÏfact.€€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542€(Tenn.€1984);€òòByrge€v.€Stateóó,€575ÏS.W.2d€292€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€Because€we€will€not€reweigh€theÏevidence,€we€find€that€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€convict€the€appellant€ofÏattempted€aggravated€robbery.€€This€issue€is€meritless.ÌÌà@ àII.Ìà àThe€appellant's€second€claim€is€that€the€trial€court€committed€plain€andÏprejudicial€error€by€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€as€to€facilitation€of€a€felony.€€HeÏargues€that€basically€every€time€one€is€charged€with€criminal€responsibility€forÏthe€conduct€of€another,€facilitation€of€a€felony€must€be€charged€as€a€lesserÏincluded€offense.€€"A€person€is€criminally€responsible€for€the€facilitation€of€aÏfelony€if,€knowing€that€another€intends€to€commit€a€specific€felony,€but€withoutÏthe€intent€required€for€criminal€responsibility€under€ðð€39„11„402(2),€the€personÏknowingly€furnishes€substantial€assistance€in€the€commission€of€a€felony."€ÍTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„403(a)€(1991).€€The€Sentencing€CommissionÏComments€provide€that€"[this]€section€states€a€theory€of€vicarious€responsibilityÏbecause€it€applies€to€a€person€who€facilitates€criminal€conduct€of€another€byÏknowingly€furnishing€substantial€assistance€to€the€perpetrator€of€the€felony,€butÏwho€lacks€the€intent€to€promote€or€assist€in,€or€benefit€from,€the€felony'sÏcommission."€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àThis€case€provides€an€interesting€twist€to€the€offense€of€facilitation€of€aÏfelony.€€The€evidence€reveals€that€the€appellant€was€identified€as€a€participantÏin€the€especially€aggravated€robbery€of€Nugent€and€at€least€circumstantially€aÏparticipant€in€the€earlier€attempted€aggravated€robbery€of€Norman.€€However,Ïthe€appellant€maintained€throughout€the€trial€and€through€his€proof,€includingÏhis€own€testimony,€that€he€was€standing€on€a€nearby€porch€during€the€entireÏincident.€€He€vehemently€denies€òòanyóó€participation€in€either€offense.€€When€anÏappellant,€by€his€own€proof,€negates€facilitation€of€a€felony€as€being€fairly€raisedÏby€the€evidence,€the€trial€court€commits€no€error€in€refusing€to€so€charge.€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.€Ì€€Ìà@ àIII.Ìà àIn€his€final€issue,€the€appellant€contends€that€his€effective€sentence€isÏexcessive.€€We€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€sentences€imposed€by€the€trialÏcourt€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„401(d)€(1990);€òòState€v.€Byrdóó,€861€S.W.2d€377,€379€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Í1993).€€This€presumption€of€correctness€is€conditioned€upon€an€affirmativeÏshowing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principlesÏand€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169Ï(Tenn.€1991).€€However,€in€the€instant€case€we€do€not€find€that€the€court€madeÏsuch€an€affirmative€showing.€€Therefore,€we€review€these€sentences€without€theÏpresumption€of€correctness.ÌÌà àIn€conducting€our€review,€we€consider€the€evidence€presented€at€theÏsentencing€hearing,€the€presentence€report,€the€sentencing€principles,Ïarguments€of€counsel,€statements€of€the€defendant,€the€nature€andÏcharacteristics€of€the€offense,€mitigating€and€enhancing€factors,€and€theÏdefendant's€amenability€to€rehabilitation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(b)Ï(1990);€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€168;€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1990).Ìà àÌà àThe€appellant€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offender€in€theÏattempted€aggravated€robbery€charge€and€received€a€ten„year€sentence.€€InÏreaching€Range€II€status,€the€trial€judge€found€that€the€appellant€had€prior€Class„A€felony€convictions€for€assault€with€intent€to€commit€first€degree€murder€and€forÏsecond€degree€murder.€€Although€these€offenses€occurred€on€the€same€date,Ïthe€trial€court€properly€found€that€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„106(b)(4)€(1990),€crimes€involving€violence€are€not€construed€to€be€a€singleÏcourse€of€conduct.€€As€a€Range€II€offender,€the€possible€range€of€punishmentÍwas€from€six€to€ten€years€for€a€Class„C€felony.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„101Ï(1990).€€Based€upon€the€"tragic€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case,"€the€trialÏjudge€gave€the€appellant€the€maximum€sentence.ÌÌà àIn€the€especially€aggravated€robbery€conviction,€the€trial€judge€sentencedÏthe€appellant€as€a€Range€III€persistent€offender.€€As€his€basis,€the€trial€judgeÏconcluded€that€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„107,€the€appellant's€twoÏprior€Class„A€felonies€elevated€the€appellant€to€Range€III.€€The€range€ofÏpunishment€for€such€a€Class„A€felony€is€forty€to€sixty€years.€€The€trial€judgeÏsentenced€appellant€to€fifty€years€on€this€count.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€judge€failed€to€set€forth€in€the€record€any€enhancement€factors€toÏsupport€a€sentence€above€the€minimum.€€Further,€the€state€neither€detailed€evenÏone€enhancement€factor€in€its€notice€to€seek€enhanced€punishment€nor€did€itÏpresent€such€factors€at€the€hearing.€€Similarly,€the€appellant€failed€to€establishÏthe€existence€of€any€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c)€(1990)Ïprovides€that€if€there€are€no€mitigating€or€enhancing€factors,€the€minimumÏsentence€within€the€range€is€the€presumptive€sentence.€€In€our€review€of€theÏsentencing€hearing€transcript,€we€do€not€find€that€the€record€supports€aÏsentence€above€the€minimum€presumptive€sentence€in€either€conviction.€€AsÏnoted€by€the€appellant,€many€enhancement€factors€are€removed€fromÏconsideration€due€to€the€double€enhancing€effect.€€That€is,€because€theÏelements€of€the€offenses€and€the€enhancement€of€the€range€of€punishmentÍautomatically€elevate€the€sentence,€many€potential€enhancement€factors€areÏinappropriate€for€consideration.€€For€these€reasons,€we€modify€the€sentences€toÏthe€minimum€with€the€range,€i.e.,€six€years€and€forty€years€respectively.ÌÌà àThe€appellant's€next€challenge€within€this€sentencing€argument€is€thatÏthe€trial€court€improperly€ordered€the€sentences€to€run€consecutively.€€The€stateÏargues€that€because€the€appellant€is€a€dangerous€offender,€the€trial€judgeÏproperly€ordered€the€sentences€to€run€consecutively.€€Again,€we€note€that€theÏtrial€judge€failed€to€make€such€a€finding€on€the€record.€€Instead,€the€trial€judgeÏconcluded€that€the€sentences€would€run€consecutively€because€the€appellant€isÏa€persistent€offender.€€As€stated€above,€the€presumption€of€correctness€isÏremoved€and€we€conduct€our€review€accordingly.€€ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933€(Tenn.€1995),€our€Supreme€CourtÏestablished€the€proper€considerations€for€imposition€of€consecutive€sentencing.€ÏInitially,€a€determination€must€be€made€as€to€whether€the€appellant€is€aÏdangerous€offender.€€Under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(4)€(1990),Ïconsecutive€sentencing€is€appropriate€where€"[t]he€defendant€is€a€dangerousÏoffender€whose€behavior€indicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life,€and€noÏhesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€is€high."€ÏHere,€the€appellant€participated€in€an€especially€aggravated€robbery€of€a€victimÏwho€was€shot€at€least€twice€in€the€legs€as€he€lay€on€the€ground.€€As€recognizedÏby€the€trial€court,€although€the€victim€did€not€die€from€these€wounds,€he€couldÍhave€quite€easily.€€The€photos€contained€in€the€record€depicting€a€significantÏamount€of€blood€lost€on€the€apartment€floor€attest€to€this€possibility.€€We€find€thatÏthe€appellant's€conduct€satisfies€the€conditions€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(4)€and€that€he€is€a€dangerous€offender.€€ÌÌà àHowever,€the€òòWilkersonóó€court€went€further€to€state€that:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 à[p]roof€that€an€offender's€behavior€indicated€little€orÏno€regard€for€human€life€and€no€hesitation€aboutÏcommitting€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€wasÏhigh,€is€proof€that€the€offender€is€a€dangerousÏoffender,€but€it€may€not€be€sufficient€to€sustainÏconsecutive€sentences.€€Every€offender€convicted€ofÏtwo€or€more€dangerous€crimes€is€not€a€dangerousÏoffender€subject€to€consecutive€sentences.€.€.€.€ÌÌÌÓÓòòWilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€938.€€The€Court€emphasized€that€the€trial€court€mustÏnot€only€find€that€the€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€but€must€òòalsoóó€find€thatÏthe€proof€establishes€"that€the€terms€imposed€are€reasonably€related€to€theÏseverity€of€the€offenses€committed€and€are€necessary€in€order€to€protect€theÏpublic€from€further€criminal€acts€by€the€offender."€€òòIdóó.€ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€we€find€that€due€to€the€nature€of€the€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery€as€set€forth€in€the€facts€above,€the€sentences€as€modifiedÏare€reasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses.€€Further,€based€uponÏappellant's€record€of€violence,€these€sentences€are€necessary€to€protect€theÏpublic€from€a€continual€course€of€violent€conduct.ÌÌà àIn€conclusion,€we€affirm€the€convictions€but€modify€the€sentences€to€sixÏyears€for€the€attempted€aggravated€robbery€and€forty€years€for€the€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery.€€In€addition,€we€find€that€the€sentences€are€to€runÏconsecutively.€ÌÌÓÓÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ