ÿWPCÝ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ4Ýñ 0ˆ bˆ  0D Ô w@Ü 0J 0Tf 0^º 0h 0r€ 0|ò 0†n 0ô 1u„ U,ù 0d%U,‰ BµU>ÒU*B):DCc AM¦ D3ó=&v~c 0@ávÓ! AOôÆC 0D  0DM D/‘ BÀ˜IBM Laser Printer 4019IBM4019ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0†(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡o„p @ d3|xê(8(2R$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó à™áEâEãUäåDæç™èé™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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ$$$$'ÿÿdxd 3Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌMarch€22,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€##X„d&ÓÑ#€##Xd#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€&ÔÑ€ ÑÑ7€¶XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÙ€€ÙßL€)+(;+'h|` ç `€€Lßà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  ÓAT€NASHVILLEÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  ÓFEBRUARY€1996€SESSIONó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌà àÓ ` ®DÓò òÌÓ` cÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àó ó)€ÌÓ ` ¸ cÓà àà à)€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9506„CC„00186€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àAppellee,à à)Ìà àà à)€Wilson€CountyÌV.€€€€€€€à à)Ìà àà à)€Hon.€J.€O.€Bond,€JudgeÌò òà àó óà à)ò òÌDEWAYNE€FOSTER,ó óà à)€(Sentencing)€à àà à)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àAppellant.à à)ÌÌÌÌÌÓ` ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌComer€L.€Donnellà àCharles€W.€BursonÌDistrict€Public€Defender€à àAttorney€General€&€Reporter€ÌÌHoward€L.€Chambersà àClinton€J.€MorganÌAsst.€Public€Defenderà àCounsel€for€the€StateÌ213€North€Cumberland€St.à àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌP.O.€Box€888à à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌLebanon,€TN€€€37087à àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àConnie€MasseyÌà àDistrict€Attorney€General,€Pro€TemÌÌà àDoug€HallÌà àAsst.€Dist.€Attorney€GeneralÌà à111€Cherry€St.Ìà àLebanon,€TN€€€37087ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€___________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌó óÌÌò òPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,ó óÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌà àÌà àÌÓ ` °§XÓÓÓà àThe€appellant,€Dewayne€Foster,€pled€guilty€pursuant€to€a€plea€agreementÏto€aggravated€assault.€€Sentenced€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offender,€the€appellantÏreceived€a€ten„year€sentence€running€consecutively€to€two€existing€sentences.€ÏIn€this€appeal,€the€appellant€raises€two€issues€for€review.€€First,€he€claims€thatÏthe€trial€court€imposed€an€excessive€sentence.€€Secondly,€he€alleges€error€inÏthe€trial€court's€decision€to€run€his€sentence€consecutively€to€the€existingÏsentences.€€Following€our€review,€we€affirm€the€sentences.ÌÌà àFirst,€we€address€the€state's€contention€that€the€appellant€does€not€haveÏstanding€to€pursue€this€appeal.€€The€record€indicates€that€the€appellant'sÏstandard€form€petition€to€the€trial€court€was€entitled€"Petition€to€Waive€Trial€byÏJury€and€to€Waive€an€Appeal."€€Within€this€petition,€the€appellant€agreed€toÏplead€guilty€to€aggravated€assault€with€all€pending€charges€to€be€dropped€byÏthe€state.€€No€specific€sentence€was€set€forth€in€the€agreement;€however,€aÍhandwritten€comment€indicated€that€a€sentencing€hearing€would€be€held.€ÌÌà àThe€state€contends€that€because€the€appellant's€petition€containsÏlanguage€indicating€waiver€of€his€right€to€appeal,€he€has€no€standing€to€bringÏthis€appeal.€€In€the€petition,€we€find€boilerplate€language€which€reads,€"I€fullyÏunderstand€my€right€to€have€my€case€reviewed€by€an€Appellate€Court,€butÏhereby€expressly€and€knowingly€waive€my€right€to€file€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€orÏotherwise€appeal€the€decision€made€in€my€case€here€today."€€Citing€òòState€v.ÏMcKissackóó,€No.€02C01„9503„CC„00077€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Nov.€29,€1995),€theÏstate€argues€that€the€appellant€is€precluded€from€bringing€this€appeal€becauseÏhe€bargained€for€the€contents€of€the€plea€agreement.€€However,€we€find€aÏdistinction€between€òòMcKissackóó€and€the€present€case.€€In€òòMcKissackóó€theÏagreement€included€an€agreed€sentence€of€eight€years€confinement.€€Here,€weÏfind€that€thÔ  Ôe€appellant€agreed€only€to€allow€the€trial€judge€to€impose€theÏsentence€following€a€sentencing€hearing.€€ÌÌà àIn€further€support€of€the€appellant's€right€to€appeal,€the€transcriptÏindicates€that€the€trial€judge€stated€at€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearingÏthat€the€appellant€"has€a€right€to€appeal."€€We€conclude€that€the€appellant€hasÏstanding€to€bring€this€appeal.ÌÌà àWe€now€turn€to€the€appellant's€two„fold€attack€on€his€sentence.€€OurÏreview€of€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€with€a€presumptionÍthat€the€determinations€of€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1990);€òòState€v.€Byrdóó,€861€S.W.2d€377,€379€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€ÏThis€presumption€is€conditioned€upon€an€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€thatÏthe€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€andÏcircumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€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€andÏcircumstances€of€the€offense,€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors,€and€theÏdefendant's€amenability€to€rehabilitation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(b)Ï(1990);€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€168.ÌÌà àIn€his€first€issue,€the€appellant€argues€that€his€sentence€is€excessive.€€TheÏpresumptive€sentence€shall€be€the€minimum€in€the€range€if€no€enhancement€orÏmitigating€factors€exist.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c)€(1990).€€However,€ifÏboth€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€exist,€the€court€must€start€at€theÏminimum€sentence€in€the€range€and€enhance€the€sentence€within€the€range€asÏappropriate.€€Then€the€trial€judge€will€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€asÏappropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(d),€(e).€€Ìà àAs€a€Range€II€offender,€the€appellant€faced€a€potential€sentencing€rangeÏof€six€to€ten€years€for€aggravated€assault,€a€Class€C€felony.€€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„112(b)(3)€(1990).€€As€enhancement€factors€the€trial€judge€found€that:€€theÍappellant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior€inÏaddition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range;€the€personalÏinjuries€inflicted€upon€the€victim€were€particularly€great;€the€appellant€has€aÏprevious€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€conditions€of€a€sentenceÏinvolving€release€in€the€community;€the€felony€resulted€in€bodily€injury€toÏanother€person€and€the€appellant€has€previously€been€convicted€of€a€felony€thatÏresulted€in€bodily€injury;€and€the€appellant€was€on€probation€from€a€prior€felonyÏconviction€when€the€instant€felony€was€committed.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(6),€(8),€(11)€&€(13)(C)€(1990).€€The€trial€court€found€no€mitigating€factors.€€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€concedes€that€factors€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(8)Ïand€(13)€apply.€€His€first€claim€is€that€the€trial€judge€erred€in€considering€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1)€which€provides€that€the€appellant€has€a€previousÏhistory€of€criminal€convictions€or€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€toÏestablish€the€appropriate€range.€€We€disagree.€€The€trial€court€used€fourÏprevious€convictions€to€elevate€the€appellant€to€Range€II€status.€€TheÏpresentence€report€contains€almost€eight€pages€of€criminal€convictions€orÏbehavior.€€This€factor€was€appropriately€applied.ÌÌà àNext,€he€claims€that€the€trial€court€should€not€have€applied€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„114(6)€which€states€that€the€injuries€inflicted€upon€the€victim€wereÏparticularly€great.€€Although€not€considered€at€the€hearing,€the€state€argues€thatÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(9)€is€applicable€due€to€the€appellant'sÍpossession€of€a€deadly€weapon.€€This€analysis€directs€us€to€the€indictmentÏwhich€charges€the€appellant€with€causing€serious€bodily€injury€(Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„13„102(a)(1)(A))€by€"cutting€[the€victim's]€throat€with€a€knife"€(Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„102(a)(1)(B))€and€cites€the€general€section€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€39„13„102.ÌDue€to€this€surplusage,€we€are€unable€to€determine€under€what€subsection€theÏappellant€entered€his€plea€agreement.€€However,€we€recognize€that,€regardlessÏof€the€theory€chosen,€one€of€the€enhancement€factors€should€be€given€weightÏwithout€constituting€an€element€of€the€offense.€€€€€€€ÌÌà àThe€appellant's€next€attack€is€on€the€enhancement€factor€that€the€felonyÏresulted€in€bodily€injury€to€another€person€and€the€appellant€has€beenÏpreviously€convicted€of€a€felony€that€resulted€in€bodily€injury.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€›40„35„114(11).€€Although€it€is€not€clear€that€this€factor€was€used€by€the€trialÏœjudge,›€we€believe€it€could€be€applicable€given€the€appellantððs€previousÏconvictions.€€In€any€event,€we€believe€the€sentence€imposed€was€justified€evenÏif€it€is€not€applied.œÌÌà àThe€state€submits€that,€although€not€considered€by€the€trial€judge,Ïenhancement€is€proper€because€the€appellant€exhibited€no€hesitation€aboutÏcommitting€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„114(10).€€We€find€it€unnecessary€to€address€the€applicability€of€this€factor.€ÏThe€strength€of€the€remaining€factors€supports€the€ten„year€sentence.€This€issueÍis€without€merit.Ì€Ìà àThe€appellant's€second€issue€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€ordering€hisÏten„year€sentence€to€run€consecutively€to€his€existing€ten€and€six€yearÏsentences.€€A€trial€court€may€order€sentences€to€run€consecutively€if€it€finds,€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence,€that:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 à(2)€€The€defendant€is€an€offender€whose€record€ofÏcriminal€activity€is€extensive;€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€whoseÏbehavior€indicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life,Ïand€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€whichÏthe€risk€to€human€life€is€high;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(6)€€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€an€offenseÏcommitted€while€on€probation€...ÌÌÓÓÔ  ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(2),€(4)€&€(6)€(1990).€€While€any€one€of€theÏabove€bases€justifies€consecutive€sentences,€we€find€support€in€the€record,€asÏdid€the€trial€court,€for€all€of€them.ÌÌà àOur€review€reveals€that€the€presentence€report€contains€approximatelyÏeight€pages€of€criminal€activity€including€criminal€sexual€conduct,€theft,€robberyÏand€assault.€€We€find€that€this€basis€is€clearly€supported€by€the€record.€€ÌÌà àSecondly,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€current€offense€was€committedÏwhile€the€appellant€was€on€probation.€€This€fact€has€already€been€conceded€byÏthe€appellant€and€is€supported€by€the€record.€€Likewise,€this€basis€is€applicable.ÌÌà àFinally,€we€review€the€trial€court's€finding€that€the€appellant€is€aÏdangerous€offender.€€In€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€937„38€(Tenn.Ï1995),€our€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€proof€must€first€show€that€the€defendantÏis€a€dangerous€offender.€€Once€such€a€determination€is€made,€the€Court€mustÏalso€find€that€the€sentence€imposed€reasonably€relates€to€the€severity€of€theÏoffenses€committed€and€is€necessary€to€protect€the€public€from€further€criminalÏacts€by€the€offender.€€òòIdóó.€at€938„39.ÌÔ  ÔÌà àThe€proof€€in€this€case€is€scant€but€the€presentence€report€indicates€thatÏOfficers€Manlove,€Bare€and€Justice€responded€to€a€report€of€a€fight.€€When€theyÏarrived€on€the€scene,€they€observed€the€appellant€walking€with€the€victim€withÏhis€arm€around€her€neck.€€When€the€officers€stopped€the€appellant,€he€pulled€hisÏhand€across€the€victim's€throat€and€ran€from€the€scene.€€The€victim€was€rushedÏto€the€emergency€room€where€she€required€twenty€stitches€and€twenty€staplesÏto€close€the€wound€on€her€throat€described€as€extending€from€ear€to€ear.€ÏBecause€the€appellant's€conduct€indicated€little€or€no€regard€for€human€Ô  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôlife€andÏno€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€lifeÔ  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  ÔÌwas€high,€we€find€that€he€is€a€dangerous€offender.€€€ÌÌà àAs€to€the€additional€analysis€required€by€òòWilkersonóó,€we€find€that€theÏrecord€supports€these€considerations.€€The€trial€judge€found€that€the€appellant'sÏactions€have€been€those€"of€someone€who€shouldn't€be€out€in€society."€€Further,Íbased€on€the€facts€of€the€offense€detailed€above,€we€find€that€the€consecutiveÏten„year€sentence€is€reasonably€related€to€the€nature€of€the€offense€committed.€ÏThis€basis€is€similarly€supported€by€the€record.ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€appellant's€ten„year€sentence€runningÏconsecutively€to€his€existing€sentences€is€supported€by€the€record.€€Therefore,Ïthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is,€in€all€respects,€affirmed.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JudgeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JudgeÌà à