ÿWPCE …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 H 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ 0d- U>‘ U*Ï B)ù DC" AMe ² B¿v~ÜvÓZ D3- 0@` AO Æï 0Dµ D/ù B(˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- ¶·E¸¹º»¼D½D¾H¿Ó€Ô¡¨ 3|xÈ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌJuly€23,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  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€õ XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€#$"A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌMARCH€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ` °†XDp”XÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9606„CC„00246Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)à àBEDFORD€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌV.à àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€WILLIAM€CHARLES€LEE,Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌSTEPHON€MATTHEW€FEARN,à à)à àó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)à à(AGGRAVATED€BURGLARY€à àó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àAND€THEFT)ÌÓ ` °œXÓó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌò òJOHN€HARWELL€DICKEYà à€à àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ìó óDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌÌò òCURTIS€H.€GANNà àà àà àJANIS€L.€TURNERÌó óAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ105€South€Main€à àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€ÌP.O.€Box€1119€à àà àà àà à2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌFayetteville,€TN€37334à àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òWILLIAM€EDWARD€GIBSONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òWILLIAM€MICHAEL€McCOWNó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òROBERT€G.€CRIGLER€ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àOne€Public€Square,€Suite€300Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àShelbyville,€TN€€37160„3953ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌCONVICTION€AND€SENTENCES€AFFIRMED;€ÌREMANDED€FOR€ENTRY€OF€AMENDED€JUDGMENTSÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€ °ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€ ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant,€Stephon€M.€Fearn,€appeals€as€of€right€according€to€RuleÏ3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€He€was€convicted€ofÏaggravated€burglary€and€misdemeanor€theft€following€a€jury€trial€in€the€CircuitÏCourt€for€Bedford€County.€€The€jury€imposed€fines€in€the€amount€of€five€thousandÏdollars€($5,000.00)€and€one€thousand€dollars€($1,000.00)€for€his€convictions,Ïrespectively.€€At€his€sentencing€hearing,€Defendant€was€sentenced€by€the€trialÏjudge€to€nine€(9)€years€and€six€(6)€months€incarceration€as€a€Range€II,€MultipleÏOffender€for€the€aggravated€burglary€conviction€and€eleven€(11)€months,€twenty„nine€(29)€days€for€the€theft€conviction.€€These€sentences€were€ordered€to€beÏserved€consecutively€to€each€other€and€to€Defendantððs€prior€sentences€for€whichÏhe€was€on€parole€at€the€time€of€the€aggravated€burglary€and€theft.€€DefendantÏargues€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€both€the€aggravated€burglaryÏand€the€theft€convictions,€and€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€imposing€an€excessiveÏsentence.ÌÌÌà@ àI.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEÌÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,Ïthe€standard€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorableÏto€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443ÏU.S.€307,€319€(1979).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€the€evidence€and€all€inferences€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571ÏS.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Because€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€theÏpresumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt,€theÏaccused€has€the€burden€in€this€court€of€illustrating€why€the€evidence€isÏinsufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639ÏS.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982);€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.Ï1973).€€ÌÌà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€andÏvalue€to€be€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€theÏevidence,€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754ÏS.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.€(Tenn.€1987).€ÏNor€may€this€court€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2dÏat€835.€€A€jury€verdict€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€StateððsÏwitnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€atÏ476.ÌÌà àSam€Bragg,€the€victim,€testified€that€he€is€the€owner€of€the€propertyÏlocated€at€711€East€Depot€Street€in€Shelbyville.€€While€it€is€not€his€primaryÏresidence,€he€and€his€wife€stay€there€a€couple€of€nights€each€month.€€He€wasÏat€the€premises€on€June€12,€1995.€€When€he€left,€everything€was€secure.€ÏBragg€had€given€no€one€permission€to€enter€the€home€prior€to€the€discovery€ofÏthe€aggravated€burglary.€€When€he€returned€on€June€16,€1995,€Bragg€found€anÏaluminum€panel€forced€out€of€the€storm€door€on€the€back€porch,€and€the€woodenÏframe€door€to€the€house€had€been€forced€open.€€When€he€called€the€police,€heÏnoticed€that€his€answering€machine€was€not€by€the€phone.€€While€waiting€forÏthe€police,€he€walked€through€his€home€and€noticed€other€items€missing.€€AfterÏthe€police€arrived,€they€took€his€statement€regarding€the€missing€items.€€TheÏpolice€officer€then€went€next€door€to€talk€to€his€neighbor,€the€Defendant.€€BraggÏstated€that€his€house€and€the€Defendantððs€were€approximately€thirty€(30)€feetÏapart,€with€no€hedge€in€between.€€When€Bragg€accompanied€the€police€on€aÏwalk„thru€of€Defendantððs€home,€he€thought€he€saw€a€kerosene€heater€that€wasÏhis.€€ÌÌà àThe€following€Monday,€June€19,€the€police€asked€Bragg€to€come€to€theÏpolice€station€to€identify€some€property.€€He€identified€a€VCR€by€its€serialÏnumber,€a€Black€&€Decker€commercial€router€and€skill€saw,€and€a€propaneÍtorch.€€He€also€saw€a€heater€at€a€pawn€shop€that€he€was€ð ðninety„nine€percentÏ(99%)€sureðð€was€his€due€to€its€wick€replacement.€In€a€later€search€by€the€policeÏof€Defendantððs€home,€Bragg€saw€a€Windsor€cassette€recorder,€tapes€withÏhandwritten€labels,€and€spark€plug€sockets€which€were€also€his.€€On€his€nextÏvisit€to€the€police€station,€he€identified€his€fishing€poles€and€a€tackle€boxÏrecovered€by€the€police.€€Bragg€estimated€the€value€of€the€goods€stolen€from€hisÏhome€to€be€around€five€hundred€($500.00)€dollars.ÌÌà àBobby€Peacock,€a€police€officer€with€the€Shelbyville€Police€Department,Ïwas€working€on€June€16,€1995,€and€answered€the€burglary€call€at€711€DepotÏStreet.€He€testified€that€he€saw€where€the€storm€door€was€caved€in€and€entryÏwas€gained€through€the€back€door€into€Braggððs€home.€€Officer€Peacock€took€aÏstatement€from€the€victim€in€which€he€reported€the€VCR,€fishing€rods,€tackle€box,Ïskill€saw€and€router€were€missing€from€his€home.€€ÌÌà àVirgil€Casteel€testified€that€Defendant€called€him€and€then€met€him€afterÏwork€asking€him€to€buy€a€VCR€and€fishing€equipment.€€The€VCR€was€to€serveÏas€collateral€so€that€Defendant€could€have€money€to€go€to€Alabama.€€CasteelÏtook€the€VCR,€but€not€the€fishing€equipment.€€The€following€morning,€DefendantÏcalled€Casteel€and€asked€him€to€come€by€his€house€to€look€at€some€otherÏitems.€€When€he€dropped€by€his€house,€Defendant€showed€him€a€skill€saw,Írouter€and€propane€torch.€€As€Defendant€stated€he€needed€money€to€pay€hisÏelectric€bill,€Casteel€agreed€to€purchase€the€items.€€Subsequently,€he€read€in€theÏlocal€paper€that€Braggððs€residence€was€burglarized€and€that€his€VCR€andÏfishing€poles€were€missing.€€ÌÌà àFor€the€defense,€Tony€Collins€and€Pat€Mathis,€investigators€with€theÏShelbyville€Police€Department,€testified€that€they€responded€to€a€call€on€June€16,Ï1995€at€Depot€Street.€€They€talked€with€the€Defendant€who€acted€like€he€wasÏnervous,€but€was€polite.€€The€officers€obtained€consent€to€search€DefendantððsÏhome.€€The€Defendant€did€not€testify.€€ÌÌà àDefendant€contends€that€there€is€no€evidence€of€his€entering€the€residenceÏand€all€the€evidence€of€his€guilt€is€circumstantial,€therefore,€the€evidence€isÏinsufficient€to€support€his€convictions€of€aggravated€burglary€and€theft.€€A€crimeÏmay€be€established€by€circumstantial€evidence€alone.€€òòState€v.€Tharpeóó,€726ÏS.W.2d€896,€899„900€(Tenn.€1987).€€However,€before€an€accused€may€beÏconvicted€of€a€criminal€offense€based€only€upon€circumstantial€€evidence,€theÏfacts€and€circumstances€ð ðmust€be€so€strong€and€cogent€as€to€exclude€everyÏother€reasonable€hypothesis€save€the€guilt€of€the€defendant.ðð€€òòState€v.ÏCrawfordóó,€225€Tenn.€478,€482,€470€S.W.2d€610,€612€(1971).€€In€other€words,€aÏð ðweb€of€guilt€must€be€woven€around€the€defendant€from€which€he€cannotÍescape€and€from€which€facts€and€circumstances€the€jury€could€draw€no€otherÏreasonable€inference€save€the€guilt€of€the€defendant€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€484,€613.€€ÌÌà àIn€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€theÏevidence€was€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction€for€aggravated€burglary€andÏtheft.€€Both€the€outside€storm€door€and€the€wooden€frame€door€to€the€inside€ofÏBraggððs€home€were€forcibly€opened.€€€Upon€examination€of€his€home,€BraggÏfound€that€several€items€were€missing.€€The€evidence€established€that€some€ofÏthe€items€missing€from€Braggððs€home€after€the€aggravated€burglary€were€foundÏin€Defendantððs€home,€and€the€remainder€of€the€items,€including€the€tools,€fishingÏequipment,€and€VCR,€were€seen€in€the€Defendantððs€possession€œby€Mr.ÏCasteel.€ÌÌà àWhen€a€burglary€has€been€committed,€personal€property€was€takenÏduring€the€burglary,€the€personal€property€is€found€in€the€exclusive€possessionÏof€the€accused€shortly€after€the€burglary,€and€there€is€no€satisfactory€explanationÏof€how€the€accused€obtained€the€stolen€property,€a€trier€of€fact€may€infer€that€theÏaccused€committed€the€burglary€and€took€the€personal€property€from€the€situs€ofÏthe€burglary.€€òòWyatt€v.€Stateóó,€4€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1,€11„14,€467€S.W.2d€811,Ï814„15(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1971)€(citations€omitted).€€WhileÍDefendant€argues€that€there€was€no€evidence€presented€by€the€State€regardingÏhis€entering€Braggððs€property,€the€State€was€not€required€to€present€a€witnessÏwho€actually€observed€defendant€enter€the€premises€in€order€to€meet€its€burdenÏof€presenting€evidence€sufficient€to€convict€him.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Averyóó,€818€S.W.2dÏ365,€367€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€There€was€no€satisfactory€and€reasonableÏexplanation€for€Defendantððs€possession€of€recently€stolen€property€taken€duringÏthe€course€of€an€aggravated€burglary.€€There€was€overwhelming€proof€toÏsupport€Defendantððs€convictions€of€aggravated€burglary€and€theft.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌà@ àII.€€SENTENCINGÌÌà àDefendant€argues€that€the€sentence€given€to€him€by€the€trial€court€wasÏexcessive.€€Defendant€was€ordered€to€serve€nine€(9)€years€and€six€(6)€monthsÏand€to€pay€five€thousand€dollars€($5,000.00)€in€fines€for€the€aggravated€burglaryÏconviction.€€He€was€also€ordered€to€serve€eleven€(11)€months€and€twenty„nineÏ(29)€days€and€to€pay€one€thousand€dollars€($1,000.00)€in€fines€for€the€theftÏconviction.€€The€sentences€were€to€be€served€consecutively€to€each€other€andÏto€other€convictions€Defendant€had€in€Franklin€County€for€which€he€was€onÏparole€at€the€time€of€the€above€offenses.ÌÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€the€manner€of€serviceÏof€a€sentence,€this€court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€theÏsentence€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€areÏcorrect.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€ð ðconditionedÏupon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€theÏsentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€If€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€courtÏfollowed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€afterÏhaving€given€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€the€factors€and€principalsÏset€out€under€the€sentencing€law,€and€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€areÏadequately€supported€by€the€record,€then€we€may€not€modify€the€sentenceÏeven€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€different€result.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2dÏ785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àIn€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€court€must€consider:€Ï(a)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€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€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors;€(f)€any€statementÏthe€defendant€made€on€his€or€her€own€behalf;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€ofÍpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103,Ïand€„210;€€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€ÌThe€trial€court€stated€its€reasons€and€findings€on€the€record.€€First,€the€trial€courtÏfound€the€Defendant€to€be€a€Range€II,€Multiple€Offender€due€to€his€previousÏfelony€convictions.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„106.€€The€evidence€adduced€atÏthe€sentencing€hearing€clearly€establishes€Defendantððs€eligibility€for€sentencingÏwithin€Range€II€as€a€Multiple€Offender,€and€Defendant€does€not€contest€thisÏfinding€by€the€trial€court.€€Thus,€the€applicable€sentencing€range€for€theÏaggravated€burglary€conviction€was€six€(6)€to€ten€(10)€years.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€40„35„112(b)(3).€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€received€a€sentence€of€nine€(9)€years€and€six€(6)€monthsÏfor€the€aggravated€burglary.€€The€trial€court€applied€enhancement€factor€1,€thatÏthe€Defendant€had€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€in€addition€to€thoseÏnecessary€to€establish€him€as€a€Range€II€Offender,€enhancement€factor€8,€thatÏDefendant€had€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditionsÏof€a€sentence€involving€release€into€the€community,€and€enhancement€factor€13,Ïthat€Defendant€committed€the€felony€while€he€was€on€parole.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€40„35„114.€€The€trial€court€found€one€mitigating€factor,€that€Defendantððs€conductÏneither€caused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injury.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113.€€The€weight€to€be€attributed€to€each€factor€is€determined€based€on€theÍdegree€of€culpability€and€totality€of€the€circumstances€of€each€case.€€òòState€v.ÏMossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€238€(Tenn.€1986).€€The€trial€court€properly€determinedÏthe€application€of€the€enhancement€factors€and€one€mitigating€factor.€ÏDefendantððs€criminal€history€was€rather€extensive,€and€that€factor€was€entitled€toÏsubstantial€weight.€€Included€in€his€criminal€history€were€three€(3)€felonyÏconvictions€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€a€Range€II€sentence.€ÏDefendantððs€unwillingness€to€comply€with€conditions€of€a€prior€sentenceÏinvolving€release€in€the€community€was€also€heavily€weighed€by€the€trial€court.€ÏDefendant€was€on€parole€at€the€time€of€the€aggravated€burglary.€€He€also€hadÏbeen€on€probation€at€the€time€he€committed€prior€offenses.€€If€the€trial€judgeÏcomplies€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€sentencing€and€his€findings€areÏadequately€supported€by€the€record,€then€the€weight€assigned€to€the€existingÏenhancing€and€mitigating€factors€is€generally€left€to€his€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏMarshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€532,€541€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóóÏ(Tenn.€1993).€€The€trial€court€also€found€that€Defendant€lied€during€the€sentencingÏhearing,€and€thus€found€that€Defendantððs€potential€for€rehabilitation€was,€atÏbest,€remote.€€Upon€viewing€Defendantððs€demeanor,€the€trial€court€was€in€aÏbetter€position€to€assess€Defendantððs€rehabilitative€potential.€€Upon€òòdeóó€òònovoóóÏreview,€we€find€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€based€upon€the€record.ÌÌà àDefendant€was€sentenced€to€serve€eleven€(11)€months€and€twenty„nineÏ(29)€days€for€the€theft€conviction.€€While€Defendant€does€not€challenge€theÏlength€of€this€sentence,€he€argues€that€this€sentence€should€not€be€servedÏconsecutively€to€his€sentence€for€aggravated€burglary.€€Consecutive€sentencingÏwas€properly€applied€by€the€trial€court€based€upon€Defendantððs€extensiveÏrecord€of€criminal€activity.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(2).€€While€the€trialÏjudge€also€used€Defendantððs€criminal€history€as€an€enhancement€factor€in€theÏlength€of€his€sentence,€there€is€no€prohibition€against€using€the€same€facts€andÏcircumstances€both€to€enhance€sentences€under€applicable€enhancementÏfactors€and€to€require€those€sentences€to€be€served€consecutively.€€òòState€v.ÏMelvinóó,€913€S.W.2d€195,€205€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.Ï1995).€€In€fact,€this€Court€has€previously€upheld€consideration€of€prior€criminalÏconvictions€and€conduct€for€both€enhancement€and€consecutive€sentencingÏpurposes.€€òòIdóó.;€òòState€v.€Meeksóó,€867€S.W.2d€361,€377€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),Ïòòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€114€S.Ct.€1200€(1994).€€We€also€find€that€consecutive€sentencing€isÏnecessary€to€protect€the€public€against€further€criminal€conduct€by€the€DefendantÏand€that€the€consecutive€sentences€in€this€case€reasonably€relate€to€theÏseverity€of€the€offenses€committed.€€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€939Ï(Tenn.€1995).€€ÌÌà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àWhile€not€raised€by€the€State€on€appeal,€we€note€that€the€judgments€inÏthis€case€do€not€specifically€set€forth€the€trial€courtððs€order€that€the€sentences€beÏserved€consecutively€with€each€other€and€consecutively€to€prior€felonyÏconvictions€of€the€Defendant€in€Franklin€County€Circuit€Court.€€ÌÌà àWe€affirm€the€judgments€of€conviction,€the€sentences€imposed€by€the€trialÏcourt,€and€the€manner€of€service€of€those€sentences.€€This€case€is€remanded€toÏthe€trial€court€for€entry€of€corrected€judgments€which€reflect€consecutiveÏsentencing€ordered€by€the€trial€court.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€Judge