ÿWPCy h±Ѻ²“¨Ícž¡Ž—é;S ?D‰…*°KriÄfÛaj© råºÿàŒâT-µàñ¢}dpì;‚%HQV)LVpÖÄ^Ö×­Í…œïV­ Zñ!6Š5¹Èõî”ÄŒæÕ } Ü-rÅÝ–XÞyn¨¨Ö)ñ½;Ø_R ™¶¬•梵f7µxÕ9(«ÙÁ^Ò–-âBì2ÁK~[µ‰Ñ Ï2@xnAv]e ¸)<Û’!ùÿ­M%çm’ñ› Lζáhʸ'"ü/}jr(dCBupʰ˕ÅI8¡y\Ä)¶æÃ{d\B»â ),rÌþõê,ãN^“?yüÍ'#Dá=â?ªÕP~Íz±ôTNá¢lŸ6Ÿa2'Àߺ…Šwß0»º¶<¨ukXÂÖ’bwà4ï‡ÿØq%‡øa*0eö±^Vâv„íÃà5«K´ÖC£¾,Æä®5%aþäà W¶¤‚ s!5ðÖÜ ùuùµ/ðÒÜÏx"·‘LÕc#5ƒ/H)9{S8ON9²c}å6ÀÐUáRm(Èn'g…[Ãú;•ŒB޾³Vü^ò^£ƒ%QA³ ÆM\ÈÊ×_Kƒ÷ꨌàúÑÉu舅# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ U:Í b w@ 4O c 0Ær 0D8 U:| *¶ tàðTU:D}~U:û5ã=æ U: B@@@@@@@@@@@ D3]]] 0D AOÔÆ## 0Dé D/- B\˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- 23U45U9:D;<=Ó€>uM%3|xD(v(2ª$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XHôXXXÔÔ€ô7†ôXXHôÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ý ƒ îO$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XÎjXXXÔÔ€ô!‡ôXXÎjÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellantððs€argument€implies€that€the€State€surreptitiously€conducted€the€polygraph€test€and€post„Ð `  Ðpolygraph€interview€without€notifying€Appellantððs€counsel.€€However,€as€previously€noted,€the€recordÏindicates€that€Appellantððs€attorney€helped€make€the€arrangements€for€the€polygraph€test.€€Further,€the€trialÏcourt€specifically€found€that€Appellantððs€attorney€knew€when€the€polygraph€test€would€take›€place€andÏsimply€chose€not€to€attend.€We€note€that€Appellantððs€counsel€at€the€time€he€submitted€to€the€polygraph€testÏis€not€the€same€attorney€who€represented€Appellant€in€the€trial€and€appeal€of€this€case.œ jÝ ƒ >w$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XC+ XXXÔÔ€ôW“ô XXC+Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAs€part€of€his€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€argument,€Appellant€alleges€that€the€jury€ignored€theÐ `  Ðevidence€and€based€its€verdict€on€passion€and€prejudice.€€However,€Appellant€has€failed€to€support€thisÏconclusory€statement€with€citation€to€anything€in€the€record.€€In€fact,€Appellant€has€failed€to€identify€anyÏreason€in€his€brief€for€why€the€jury€would€have€been€prejudiced€against€him.€€During€the€hearing€onÏAppellantððs€Motion€for€a€New€Trial,€the€trial€court€stated€that€there€was€no€evidence€that€passion€orÏprejudice€had€played€any€part€in€the€juryððs€verdict.€ò òó ó€€There€is€absolutely€nothing€in€the€record€thatÐ  ¶ Ðpreponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding. æÝ ƒ îO$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XÎjXXXÔÔ€ô!‡ôXXÎjÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlthough€it€is€not€clear,€Appellant€apparently€contends€that€his€right€to€counsel€was€also€violatedÐ `  Ðbecause€while€he€was€participating€in€the€post„polygraph€interview,€both€of€his€parents€questioned€TarpleyÏabout€whether€their€son€needed€an€attorney.€€However,€it€is€clear€that€Appellantððs€parents€could€not€invokeÏthe€right€to€counsel€on€behalf€of€their€twenty„nine„year„old€son.€€òòSeeóó€òòTerry€v.€Lefevreóó,€862€F.2d€409,€412Ð ¸ X Ð(2d€Cir.€1988)€(holding€that€a€mother€could€not€invoke€her€twenty„seven„year„old€sonððs€right€to€counsel).,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular sÝ ƒ îO$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XÎjXXXÔÔ€ô!‡ôXXÎjÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellantððs€argument€implies€that€the€State€surreptitiously€conducted€the€polygraph€test€and€post„Ð `  Ðpolygraph€interview€without€notifying€Appellantððs€counsel.€€However,€as€previously€noted,€the€recordÏindicates€that€Appellantððs€attorney€helped€make€the€arrangements€for€the€polygraph€test.€€Further,€the€trialÏcourt€specifically€found€that€Appellantððs€attorney€knew€when€the€polygraph€test€would€take€place€andÏsimply€chose€not€to€attend.€,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÙÔ€ X¤ùXXXÔÔ€ ÔX X¤ùÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ X¤ùX ÔÔÐ  ÐÌMay€5,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó ÜÔ€X¤ùXXXÔÔ€ÔXX¤ùÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X¤ùXÔÔÐ  ÐÌApril€29,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Š¢×ŠXXÔÔ€ŠƒJŠŠŠ¢×ÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€bXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òñ>ññ=ñßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@Eôf ` 8ttxP,` ð  rßñ=ññ>ññ>ñßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@Eôf ` 8ttxP,` ð  rßñ>ñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌJANUARY€SESSION,€1999ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9801„CC„00031Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó ó)Ð ` Ðà ` àAppellee,à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHUMPHREYS€COUNTYÐ Xø  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€ROBERT€E.€BURCHó óÐ Xø  Ðò òDAVID€J.€FORRESTER,ó óà À àò ò)à  àJUDGEó óÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ Xø Ðà ` àAppellant.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  à(Direct€Appeal€„€Aggravated€Sexual€Ð Xø Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àBattery)Ð Xø Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð 8Ø ÐÌTERRY€J.€LEONARDà h àà À àà  àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ (!È Ð9€North€Court€Squareà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ  "À ÐP.€O.€Box€957ÌCamden,€TN€€38320à h àà À àà  àKIM€R.€HELPERÐ $° Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAN€ALSOBROOKSÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGEORGE€SEXTONÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àRoom€206Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWaverly,€TN€€37185ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ  x6-.§ ÐÓ  Óò òòòÔ‡„@ü„ŠŠƒJÔOPINIONóóó óÔ#†ŠƒJŠ„„@üº #ÔÐ `  ÐÌÓ  ÓÓÓÑ7€bXXdìXXdì7Ñà@®®.®àˆÌà ` àIn€December€of€1996,€Appellant€David€J.€Forrester€was€indicted€by€theÏHumphreys€County€Grand€Jury€for€attempted€rape€of€a€child€and€for€aggravatedÏsexual€battery.€€On€July€25,€1997,€Appellant€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€a€pretrialÏstatement€that€he€gave€to€state€investigators.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motionÏafter€a€hearing€on€August€25,€1997.€€On€August€28,€1997,€Appellant€wasÏconvicted€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€After€a€sentencing€hearing€on€DecemberÏ9,€1997,€the€trial€court€sentenced€Appellant€to€a€term€of€ten€years€in€theÏTennessee€Department€of€Correction.€€Appellant€challenges€both€his€convictionÏand€his€sentence,€raising€the€following€issues:Ìñ2ñÓÓñ2ñà0 ` à1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€admitted€his€pretrial€statement€intoÏevidence;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à2)€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€his€conviction;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à3)€whether€the€trial€court€should€have€instructed€the€jury€on€lesser€includedÏoffenses,€including€child€abuse;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à4)€whether€the€trial€courtððs€response€to€a€question€from€the€jury€about€theÏseverity€of€the€charged€offenses€prejudiced€Appellant;€andÐ ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à5)€whether€the€trial€court€imposed€an€excessive€sentence.ñ3ñÐ ` T$` T$ Ðñ3ñÌñ2ñÓ1Óñ2ñAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ÑÑ*®àò òI.€€FACTSó óˆÐ ´+T"# ÐÌà ` àSharon€Stump€testified€that€on€September€14,€1996,€her€car€tire€went€flatÏin€front€of€the€home€of€Appellant€and€his€wife,€Julie€Forrester.€€As€StumpÏapproached€the€back€door€of€Appellantððs€home€in€order€to€use€the€telephone,€sheÏlooked€through€some€glass€patio€doors€and€saw€Appellant€rubbing€his€penis€onÏâ âthe€buttocks€of€Appellantððs€naked€four„year„old€daughter.€€Stump€subsequentlyÐ d7./ Ðreported€the€incident€to€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Human€Services€and€toÏJulie€Forrester.Ìâ âÌà ` àOn€November€20,€1996,€Appellant€voluntarily€took€a€polygraph€test€thatÏhad€been€arranged€by€his€attorney.€€After€the€polygraph€test€had€beenÏadministered,€Appellant€participated€in€a€post„polygraph€interview€conducted€byÏAgent€Mike€Smith€of€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation,€Investigator€TedÏTarpley€of€the€district€attorney€generalððs€office,€and€Norma€Williams€of€theÏTennessee€Department€of€Childrenððs€Services.€€During€this€interview,€AppellantÏgave€a€signed€statement€in€which€he€admitted€that€after€he€took€his€daughter€outÏof€the€bathtub€on€September€14,€1996,€she€touched€his€penis€and€he€had€anÏerection.€€Appellant€then€admitted€that€when€his€naked€daughter€lay€down€on€theÏfloor,€he€took€his€penis€out€and€rubbed€it€on€her€buttocks€for€approximately€twoÏto€five€minutes€in€order€to€obtain€sexual€gratification.€ÌÌà ` àAt€trial,€Appellant€testified€that€his€pretrial€statement€was€untrue€and€thatÏthe€only€reason€he€gave€the€statement€was€because€his€interviewers€told€him€thatÏif€he€told€them€what€they€wanted€to€hear,€he€would€get€custody€of€his€childrenÏback€and€he€would€receive€counseling€instead€of€having€to€appear€in€court.€ÌÌà@  ®àò òII.€€ADMISSION€OF€APPELLANTððS€PRETRIAL€STATEMENTó óˆÐ 2 (( ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€admitted€his€pretrialÏstatement€into€evidence.€€Specifically,€Appellant€contends€that€the€statement€wasÏinadmissible€because€he€was€not€properly€òòMirandizedóó,€the€statement€was€givenÐ  :À00 Ðinvoluntarily,€and€the€statement€was€obtained€in€violation€of€Appellantððs€right€toÏcounsel.ÌÌà@hh)®àò òA.€€òòMirandaóóó óˆÐ x ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€his€pretrial€statement€was€inadmissible€becauseÏthe€police€did€not€properly€administer€the€òòMirandaóó€warnings.€€Appellant€concedesÐ 0  Ðthat€he€was€given€òòMirandaóó€warnings€before€he€took€the€polygraph€test,€however,Ð ˜8 Ðhe€claims€that€the€police€should€have€given€the€òòMirandaóó€warnings€again€beforeÐ  @ Ðhe€participated€in€the€post„polygraph€interview.ÌÌà ` àIn€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436,€479,€86€S.Ct.€1602,€1630,€16€L.Ed.2dÐ ¸X Ð694€(1966),€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€ruled€that€the€Fifth€and€FourteenthÏAmendmentsðð€prohibition€against€compelled€self-incrimination€requires€policeÏofficers,€before€initiating€questioning,€to€advise€the€putative€defendant€of€his€rightÏto€remain€silent€and€his€right€to€counsel.€€Specifically,€òòMirandaóó€requires€police€toÐ Ø'x Ðinform€the€person€being€questioned€that€(a)€he€has€the€right€to€remain€silent;€€(b)Ïany€statement€made€may€be€used€as€evidence€against€him;€€(c)€he€has€the€rightÏto€the€presence€of€an€attorney;€€and€(d)€if€he€can€not€afford€an€attorney,€one€willÏbe€appointed€for€him€prior€to€questioning,€if€he€so€desires.€€òòId.óó,€384€U.S.€at€444,Ð ø/˜&& Ð86€S.Ct.€at€1612.ÌÌà ` àHowever,€police€officers€are€only€required€to€give€òòMirandaóó€warnings€priorÐ 6°,, Ðto€ð ðcustodial€interrogationðð€which€has€been€defined€as€a€ð ðformal€arrest€or€restraintÏon€freedom€of€movement€of€the€degree€associated€with€a€formal€arrest.ðð€Ð  :À00 ÐòòStansbury€v.€Californiaóó,€511€U.S.€318,€322ð!ð23,€114€S.Ct.€1526,€1528ð!ð29,€128Ð `  ÐL.Ed.2d€293€(1994);€òòState€v.€Bushóó,€942€S.W.2d€489,€499€(Tenn.€1997).€€TheÐ h  ÐUnited€States€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€it€is€appropriate€to€apply€an€objectiveÏtest€to€determine€whether€a€person€is€in€custody€and€therefore€entitled€to€receiveÐ x ÐòòMirandaóó€warnings.€€Courts€must€consider€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€of€theÐ €  Ðinterrogation€and€inquire€ð ðhow€a€reasonable€man€in€the€suspectððs€position€wouldÏhave€understood€his€situation.ðð€€òòBerkemer€v.€McCartyóó,€468€U.S.€420,€422,€104Ð 0  ÐS.Ct.€3138,€3151,€82€L.Ed.2d€317€(1984);€€òòsee€alsoóó€òòStansburyóó,€511€U.S.€atÐ ˜8 Ð323ð!ð24,€114€S.Ct.€at€1529.€€In€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€937€S.W.2d€851,€855Ð  @ Ð(Tenn.1996),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€expressly€adopted€the€objectiveÏanalysis€employed€by€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€and€adopted€severalÏnonexclusive€factors€to€aid€in€the€objective€assessment€of€whether€a€reasonableÏperson€would€consider€himself€or€herself€deprived€of€freedom€of€movement€to€aÏdegree€associated€with€a€formal€arrest.€€Relevant€factors€include€(1)€the€time€andÏlocation€of€the€interrogation;€€(2)€the€duration€and€character€of€the€questioning;€Ï(3)€the€officerððs€tone€of€voice€and€general€demeanor;€€(4)€the€method€ofÏtransportation€to€the€place€of€questioning;€€(5)€the€number€of€police€officersÏpresent;€€(6)€limitations€on€movement€or€other€forms€of€restraint€imposed€duringÏthe€interrogation;€€(7)€interactions€between€the€officer€and€the€person€beingÏquestioned,€including€the€words€spoken€by€the€officer€and€the€verbal€or€nonverbalÏresponses€of€the€person€being€questioned;€€(8)€the€extent€to€which€the€personÏbeing€questioned€is€confronted€with€the€officerððs€suspicions€of€guilt€or€evidenceÏof€guilt;€€and€finally€(9)€the€extent€to€which€the€person€being€questioned€is€awareÏthat€he€or€she€is€free€to€refrain€from€answering€questions€or€to€end€the€interviewÏat€will.€€òòId.óó€€The€determination€of€whether€an€individual€is€in€custody€is€factÐ  :À00 Ðspecific,€and€the€trial€court€should€assess€the€applicability€of€the€relevant€factorsÏin€making€its€findings.€€òòId.óó€€The€trial€courtððs€decision€will€not€be€overturned€by€thisÐ h  ÐCourt€unless€it€appears€there€has€been€an€abuse€of€the€trial€courtððs€discretion€andÏa€violation€of€the€appellantððs€rights.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561,€570€(Tenn.Ð x Ð1993).ÌÌà ` àConsidering€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€we€conclude€that€the€trialÏcourt€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€determining€that€Appellant€was€not€in€custodyÏwhen€he€gave€his€signed€statement.€€There€is€no€real€dispute€in€this€case€thatÏAppellant€was€the€one€who€first€suggested€that€he€take€a€polygraph€test€and€thatÏhe€voluntarily€took€the€test€after€it€was€arranged€by€his€attorney.€€Further,€theÏrecord€indicates€that€it€was€Appellantððs€parents,€and€not€the€police,€whoÏtransported€Appellant€to€the€assistant€district€attorney€generalððs€office€where€heÏtook€the€polygraph€test.€€Agent€Smith€testified€at€the€suppression€hearing€thatÏbefore€he€administered€the€polygraph€test,€he€advised€Appellant€of€his€òòMirandaóóÐ Ð%p Ðrights€and€told€Appellant€that€he€was€free€to€leave€at€any€time.€€Indeed,€the€recordÏcontains€two€forms€signed€by€Appellant€in€which€he€acknowledged€that€he€hadÏbeen€advised€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€and€had€been€advised€that€he€was€free€toÐ è+ˆ"" Ðleave€whenever€he€desired.€€Agent€Smith€also€testified€that€Appellant€neverÏasked€to€leave€at€any€time.€€The€record€also€indicates€that€the€polygraph€test€andÏthe€post„polygraph€interview€took€place€from€approximately€1:00€p.m.€to€4:30Ïp.m.€and€that€during€this€time,€Appellant€took€at€least€one€break€in€which€he€wentÏoutside€with€his€parents€to€smoke€cigarettes.€€Agent€Smith€also€testified€that€noÏâ âone€ever€threatened€Appellant€during€the€polygraph€and€post„polygraphÐ 8¸.. Ðinterview.€€Finally,€once€the€interview€had€been€concluded,€Appellant€was€allowedÏto€leave€the€courthouse€with€his€parents.€Ìâ âÌà ` àIn€short,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€whenÏit€determined€that€Appellant€was€not€ð ðin€custodyðð€during€the€post„polygraphÏinterview€in€which€he€gave€his€signed€statement.€€Because€Appellant€was€not€inÏcustody,€the€police€were€not€required€to€readminister€the€òòMirandaóó€warningsÐ 0  Ðbefore€conducting€the€post„polygraph€interview.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà@, , ®àò òB.€€Voluntariness€of€Appellantððs€Statementó óˆÐ ¨H ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€his€pretrial€statement€was€inadmissible€becauseÏit€was€given€involuntarily.€€Specifically,€Appellant€claims€that€the€statement€wasÏinvoluntary€because€he€was€suffering€from€a€headache€and€back€pain,€he€wasÏthreatened€by€the€police,€and€he€was€promised€that€he€would€not€go€to€jail€if€heÏcooperated.ÌÌà ` àEven€though€a€statement€was€not€given€as€a€result€of€custodialÏinterrogation,€the€statement€must€still€be€voluntary€in€order€to€be€admissible.€€òòSeeóóÐ ð-$$ ÐòòArizona€v.€Fulminanteóó,€499€U.S.€279,€286ð!ð88,€111€S.Ct.€1246,€1252ð!ð53,€113Ð ø/˜&& ÐL.Ed.2d€302€(1991).€€In€order€to€be€considered€voluntary,€the€statement€must€notÏbe€extracted€by€ð ðany€sort€of€threats€or€violence,€nor€obtained€by€any€direct€orÏimplied€promises,€however€slight,€nor€by€the€exertion€of€any€improper€influence.ðð€ÏòòBram€v.€United€Statesóó,€168€U.S.€532,€542ð!ð43,€18€S.Ct.€183,€187,€42€L.Ed.€568Ð 8¸.. Ð(1897);€òòState€v.€Kellyóó,€603€S.W.2d€726,€727€(Tenn.€1980).€€However,€ð ð[a]Ð  :À00 Ðdefendantððs€subjective€perception€alone€is€not€sufficient€to€justify€a€conclusion€ofÏinvoluntariness€in€the€constitutional€sense.ðð€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€933€S.W.2d€450,€455Ð h  Ð(Tenn.€1996).€€Instead,€ð ðcoercive€police€activity€is€a€necessary€predicate€to€findingÏthat€a€confession€is€not€voluntary.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ x ÐÌà ` à€Whether€or€not€a€statement€was€voluntarily€given€is€determined€byÏexamining€the€totality€of€the€circumstances.€€òòKellyóó,€603€S.W.2d€at€728ð!ð29€(Tenn.Ð 0  Ð1980).€€ð ðA€trial€courtððs€determination€that€a€confession€was€given€knowingly€andÏvoluntarily€is€binding€on€the€appellate€courts€unless€the€defendant€can€show€thatÏthe€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€ruling.ðð€€òòState€v.€Keenóó,€926Ð ¨H ÐS.W.2d€727,€741€(Tenn.€1994).€€In€addition,€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trialÏcourt€at€a€hearing€on€a€motion€to€suppress€will€also€be€upheld€unless€theÏevidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.Ð À!` Ð1996).€€Questions€about€witness€credibility€and€ð ðresolution€of€conflicts€in€theÏevidence€are€matters€entrusted€to€the€trial€judge.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ Ð%p ÐÌà ` àFirst,€Appellant€claims€that€his€statement€was€involuntary€because€it€wasÏa€result€of€threats€from€Smith€and€Tarpley.€€Specifically,€Appellant€testified€at€theÏsuppression€hearing€that€Smith€threatened€that€if€Appellant€did€not€confess,ÏAppellant€would€receive€the€maximum€jail€sentence.€€Appellant€also€testified€thatÏTarpley€threatened€that€if€Appellant€did€not€confess,€Tarpley€would€contactÏChannel€5€News.€€However,€Smith€testified€that€no€one€had€threatened€AppellantÏat€any€time.€€At€the€close€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€stated€that€it€found€thatÏAppellant€had€been€untruthful€in€his€testimony€and€that€Appellant€had€never€beenÏthreatened.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding.Ð  :À00 Їà ` àSecond,€Appellant€claims€that€his€statement€was€involuntary€because€itÏwas€a€result€of€police€promises€of€leniency.€€Specifically,€Appellant€testified€at€theÏsuppression€hearing€that€he€was€promised€that€if€he€confessed,€he€would€receiveÏcounseling€and€would€not€have€to€go€to€jail.€€However,€Smith€denied€thatÏAppellant€was€promised€counseling€and€testified€that€instead,€Appellant€wasÏadvised€that€Smith€would€recommend€counseling€if€Appellant€cooperated.€€SmithÏdid€admit€that€he€told€Appellant€that€if€he€did€not€cooperate,€Smith€would€just€turnÏthe€matter€over€to€the€district€attorney€and€it€might€be€possible€that€things€wouldÏgo€harder€on€Appellant.€€The€trial€court€believed€Smithððs€version€of€the€facts€andÏfound€that€although€counseling€was€mentioned,€it€was€not€conditioned€onÏcooperation.€€We€conclude€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€theÏtrial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€on€this€issue.€€In€addition,€we€conclude€that€SmithððsÏstatements€about€counseling€and€the€possibility€of€turning€the€matter€over€to€theÏdistrict€attorney€did€not€render€Appellantððs€statement€involuntary.€€Indeed,€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court€has€stated€thatÌñ4ñÓÓñ4ñà0 ` àPromises€of€leniency€by€state€officers€do€not€render€subsequentÏconfessions€involuntary€per€se:€€The€Fifth€Amendment€does€not€condemnÏall€promise-induced€admissions€and€confessions;€€it€condemns€only€thoseÏwhich€are€compelled€by€promises€of€leniency.€€The€critical€question€isÏwhether€the€behavior€of€the€stateððs€law€enforcement€officials€was€such€asÏto€overbear€petitionerððs€will€to€resist€and€bring€about€confessions€not€freelyÏself-determined.ñ5ñÐ ` T$` T$ Ðñ5ñÌñ4ñÓ³EÓñ4ñòòSmithóó,€933€S.W.2d€at€455ð!ð56€(citations€and€internal€quotations€omitted).€€In€fact,Ð ø/˜&& Ðthe€supreme€court€found€that€statements€to€the€defendant€that€he€might€not€beÏprosecuted€if€he€told€the€truth€and€that€he€definitely€would€be€prosecuted€if€heÏrefused€to€admit€guilt€were€not€enough€to€render€the€defendantððs€confessionÏinvoluntary€because€the€promises€were€equivocal€and€further,€ð ð[a]dvice€to€anÏindividual€concerning€the€consequences€of€a€refusal€to€cooperate€is€notÐ  :À00 Ðobjectionable.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€456.€€Similarly,€we€conclude€that€Smithððs€statements€thatÐ `  Ðthere€was€a€possibility€that€Appellant€could€receive€counseling€and€that€the€matterÏwould€be€turned€over€to€the€district€attorney€if€Appellant€did€not€cooperate€wereÏnot€ð ðso€coercive€as€to€overbear€[Appellantððs]€will.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€Ð x ÐÌà ` àThird,€Appellant€claims€that€his€statement€was€involuntary€because€he€wasÏsuffering€from€stress€and€from€a€severñ;ñeñ;ñ€headache€and€back€pain€that€was€causedÏby€Tarpleyððs€instruction€that€Appellant€was€not€to€take€any€medication€before€theÏpolygraph€test.€€Although€Tarpley€admitted€that€he€advised€Appellant€not€to€takeÏany€medication,€there€is€no€evidence€that€Tarpley€did€so€in€order€to€makeÏAppellant€more€susceptible€to€police€coercion.€€In€any€case,€we€conclude€thatÏwhile€Appellantððs€physical€and€mental€condition€was€certainly€relevant€to€theÏdetermination€of€whether€his€statement€was€given€voluntarily,€the€totality€of€theÏcircumstances€indicates€that€the€statement€was€voluntary.€€Most€importantly,€itÏis€undisputed€that€Appellant€was€advised€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€before€theÐ Ð%p Ðpolygraph€test€began€and€Appellant€signed€a€form€in€which€he€acknowledged€thatÏhe€had€been€given€these€rights€and€that€he€was€voluntarily€waiving€his€rights.€€InÏaddition,€Appellant€also€signed€a€form€in€which€he€acknowledged€that€he€hadÏbeen€advised€that€he€was€free€to€leave€whenever€he€desired.€€Further,€AppellantÏwas€allowed€to€roam€about€at€will€and€talk€to€his€parents€during€the€breakÏbetween€the€polygraph€test€and€the€post„polygraph€interview.€€Under€the€totalityÏof€the€circumstances,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderateÏagainst€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Appellantððs€statement€was€given€voluntarily.€ÏThis€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÐ  :À00 Ðà@¦¦$®àò òC.€€Right€to€Counseló óˆÐ `  ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€his€pretrial€statement€was€inadmissible€becauseÏit€was€obtained€in€violation€of€his€right€to€counsel.ÌÌà ` àInitially,€Appellant€claims€that€his€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€counsel€wasÏviolated€because€his€attorney€was€not€present€when€he€was€questioned€by€theÏstate€investigators.€€The€law€is€clear€that€the€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€counselÏattaches€to€all€critical€stages€of€a€prosecution€and€that€ð ðonce€adversaryÏproceedings€have€commenced€against€an€individual,€he€has€a€right€to€legalÏrepresentation€when€the€government€interrogates€him.ðð€€òòBrewer€v.€Williamsóó,€430Ð °P ÐU.S.€387,€401,€97€S.Ct.€1232,€1240,€51€L.Ed.2d€424€(1977).€€In€Tennessee,Ïð ð[j]udicial€proceedings€are€considered€initiated,€and€thus€Sixth€Amendment€rightsÏattach,€at€the€time€an€arrest€warrant€issues,€a€preliminary€hearing€is€held€(if€noÏarrest€warrant€is€issued),€or€an€indictment€or€presentment€is€returned.ðð€€òòState€v.Ð Ð%p ÐJacksonóó,€889€S.W.2d€219,€222€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€In€this€case,€there€is€noÐ Ø'x Ðindication€in€the€record€that€any€of€these€events€had€occurred€before€theÏpolygraph€test€and€post„polygraph€interview€on€November€20,€1996.€€BecauseÏno€judicial€proceedings€had€been€initiated€against€Appellant€in€this€case€at€theÏtime€he€gave€his€statement,€his€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€counsel€had€notÏattached€and€thus,€was€not€violated.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óóñ<ñ׃ ×ñ<ññ<ñ׃×ñ<ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð 2 (( Їà ` àAppellant€also€claims€that€his€Fifth€Amendment€right€to€counsel€underÏòòMirandaóó€was€violated€because€the€State€investigators€continued€to€question€himÐ h  Ðafter€he€had€invoked€his€right€to€counsel.€€Specifically,€Appellant€testified€at€theÏsuppression€hearing€that€he€asked€for€his€attorney€as€soon€as€the€post„polygraphÏtest€began.€€However,€Tarpley€testified€that€Appellant€never€asked€for€an€attorneyÏuntil€after€he€had€already€given€the€statement.€€Further,€Williams€also€testifiedÏthat€Appellant€did€not€ask€for€an€attorney€until€after€he€had€already€given€theÏstatement.€€The€trial€court€believed€the€Stateððs€witnesses€and€found€thatÏAppellant€did€not€request€an€attorney€until€after€he€had€given€his€statement€andÏthat€as€soon€as€Appellant€did€ask€for€an€attorney,€the€interview€was€concluded.€ÏThe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€this€finding.€€Therefore,€weÏconclude€that€Appellantððs€Fifth€Amendment€right€to€counsel€under€òòMirandaóó€wasÐ ¸X Ðnot€violated.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€issue€has€no€merit.Ð À!` ÐÌà@::®àò òIII.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óˆÐ Ð%p ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€hisÏconviction.€€When€an€appellant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€thisÏCourt€is€obliged€to€review€that€challenge€according€to€certain€well-settledÏprinciples.€€A€verdict€of€guilty€by€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accreditsÏthe€testimony€of€the€Stateððs€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€the€testimonyÏin€favor€of€the€State.€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994).€Ð 4¨** ÐAlthough€an€accused€is€originally€cloaked€with€a€presumption€of€innocence,€a€juryÏverdict€removes€this€presumption€and€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.Ð h  ÐTuggleóó,€639Ð `*!" ÐS.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€Hence,€on€appeal,€the€burden€of€proof€rests€withÏAppellant€to€demonstrate€the€insufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€€òòId.óó€€OnÐ @.à$& Ðappeal,€ð ðthe€[S]tate€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€asÏwell€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€therefrom.ðð€ÏòòId.óó€€Where€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€contested€on€appeal,€the€relevantÐ 4°*, Ðquestion€for€the€reviewing€court€is€whether€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€haveÏfound€the€accused€guilty€of€every€element€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789,€61€L.€Ed.Ð @ à Ð2d€560€(1979).€€In€conducting€our€evaluation€of€the€convicting€evidence,€thisÏCourt€is€precluded€from€reweighing€or€reconsidering€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.Ð  À ÐMorganóó,€929€S.W.2d€380,€383€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Moreover,€this€CourtÐ °  Ðmay€not€substitute€its€own€inferences€ð ðfor€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€fromÏcircumstantial€evidence.ðð€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ð  ÐApp.€1990).€€Finally,€Rule€13(e)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€ProcedureÏprovides,€ð ðfindings€of€guilt€in€criminal€actions€whether€by€the€trial€court€or€juryÏshall€be€set€aside€if€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€findings€by€the€trierÏof€fact€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ððÌÌà ` àIn€this€case,€Appellant€was€convicted€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€UnderÏTennessee€law,€a€person€commits€aggravated€sexual€battery€when€the€personÏhas€unlawful€sexual€contact€with€a€victim€who€is€less€that€thirteen€years€old.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„504(a)(4)€(1997).€€ð ðSexual€contactðð€includes€theÏintentional€touching€of€the€victimððs€buttocks€if€the€touching€can€be€reasonablyÏconstrued€as€being€for€the€purpose€of€sexual€arousal€or€gratification.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„13„501(2),€(6)€(1997).€€When€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏState,€the€evidence€in€this€case€was€clearly€sufficient€for€a€rational€jury€toÏconclude€that€Appellant€had€committed€this€offense.€€Stump€testified€that€she€sawÏAppellant€rub€his€penis€on€the€buttocks€of€the€naked€four„year„old€female€victim.€ÏIn€addition,€the€State€introduced€Appellantððs€signed€statement€in€which€heÏadmitted€that€he€had€rubbed€his€penis€on€the€buttocks€of€the€naked€victim€in€orderÏto€obtain€sexual€gratification.€€Ð Ð9p02 Їà ` àAppellant€essentially€argues€that€Stumpððs€testimony€should€be€disregardedÏbecause€she€had€a€motive€to€lie€and€because€her€testimony€containedÏstatements€that€were€either€contradicted€by€other€parts€of€her€testimony€or€by€theÏtestimony€of€Appellant€and€other€witnesses.€€Further,€Appellant€essentially€arguesÏthat€his€signed€statement€should€be€disregarded€because€he€testified€at€trial€thatÏthe€statement€was€given€under€stress€and€he€only€made€the€statement€in€orderÏto€obtain€custody€of€his€children.€€However,€ð ð[t]he€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€theÏweight€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€the€reconciliation€of€conflicts€in€theÏevidence€are€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€the€triers€of€fact.ðð€€òòStateÐ à€ Ðv.€Cribbsóó,€967€S.W.2d€773,€793€(Tenn.€1998).€€It€is€obvious€that€the€jury€choseÐ Ðp Ðto€believe€Stumpððs€testimony€and€chose€to€reject€Appellantððs€testimony.€€In€short,Ïit€is€clear€that€when€the€evidence€is€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏState,€a€rational€jury€could€find€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€Appellant€hadÏcommitted€the€offense€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€issue€has€no€merit.Ð "0 ÐÌà@7 7 ®àò òIV.€€FAILURE€TO€INSTRUCT€ON€LESSER€OFFENSESó óˆÐ p& ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€failed€to€instruct€theÏjury€on€the€lesser€included€offenses,€particularly€the€offense€of€child€abuse.ÌÌà ` àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40-18-110(a)€provides€that€a€trialÏjudge€must€charge€the€jury€with€all€lesser€grades€or€classes€of€an€offenseÐ  2À(* Ðsupported€by€the€evidence,€without€any€request€on€the€part€of€the€defendant€toÏdo€so.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„110(a)€(1997).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919Ð P ð ÐS.W.2d€305,€311€(Tenn.€1996).€€However,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€hasÏheld€that€error€cannot€be€predicated€on€a€trial€courtððs€failure€to€charge€a€lesserÏincluded€offense€when€the€evidence€clearly€demonstrates€that€the€defendant€isÏguilty€of€a€greater€offense.€€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€550€(Tenn.Ð °  Ð1994).€€Further,€this€Court€has€specifically€held€that€a€trial€courtððs€failure€toÏinstruct€the€jury€on€the€lesser€included€offense€of€child€abuse€was€not€error€whenÏthe€evidence€clearly€showed€that€the€defendant€had€committed€aggravatedÏsexual€battery.€€òòState€v.€Blantonóó,€926€S.W.2d€953,€960€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€Ð Ðp ÐIn€order€to€prove€that€Appellant€had€committed€aggravated€sexual€battery,€theÏState€had€to€establish€that€Appellant€intentionally€touched€the€buttocks€of€theÏfour„year„old€victim€for€the€purpose€of€sexual€arousal€or€gratification.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðððð€39„13„501(2),€(6),€„504(a)(4)€(1997).€€The€evidence€in€this€case,€includingÏAppellantððs€own€statement,€clearly€established€that€Appellant€committed€thisÏoffense€and€nothing€less.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€when€it€failed€to€instructÏthe€jury€on€any€lesser€included€offenses.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà@aa®àò òV.€€THE€TRIAL€COURTððS€RESPONSE€TO€A€QUESTION€FROM€THE€JURYó óˆÐ @,à"$ Ðà ` àÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€courtððs€response€to€a€question€from€theÏjury€resulted€in€undue€prejudice.€€The€record€indicates€that€during€deliberations,Ïthe€jury€returned€with€a€question€about€whether€attempted€rape€of€a€child€was€aÏmore€serious€offense€than€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€In€response,€the€trial€courtÏâ âstated:Ð ð7.0 Ðñ.ññ9ñÓÓñ9ññ.ñà0 ` àDonððt€concern€yourselves€with€which€case€is€the€more€severe.€€Do€notÏâ âconcern€yourselves€with€that.€€Concern€yourselves€with€which€of€theÏcharges€fit€the€facts€and€then€let€the€chips€fall€where€they€may.€€Is€thatÏsufficient€explanation?€Ð ` T$` T$ Ðñ.ññ9ñÓ1xÓñ9ññ.ñÌà ` àAppellant€cites€òòVeal€v.€Stateóó,€196€Tenn.€443,€268€S.W.2d€345€(1954),€forÐ 0Ð Ðthe€proposition€that€the€trial€judge€should€not,€through€action€or€word,€indicate€anyÏconclusion€as€to€the€guilt€or€innocence€of€the€accused.€€However,€Appellant€hasÏfailed€to€explain€how€this€comment€from€the€trial€court€could€be€construed€as€aÏcomment€on€the€strength€of€the€Stateððs€evidence.€€Indeed,€it€is€evident€that€theÏtrial€court€was€not€commenting€on€the€evidence.€€Rather,€the€trial€court€merelyÏencouraged€the€jury€to€consider€the€facts€and€apply€the€facts€to€each€of€theÏcharges€to€see€whether€the€proof€established€guilt€for€either€charge,€regardlessÏof€which€charge€was€the€more€serious.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà@#®àò òVI.€€LENGTH€OF€SENTENCEó óˆÐ "0 ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€imposed€a€longerÏsentence€than€he€deserves.ÌÌà ` àð ðWhen€reviewing€sentencing€issues€.€.€.€including€the€granting€or€denial€ofÏprobation€and€the€length€of€sentence,€the€appellate€court€shall€conduct€a€de€novoÏreview€on€the€record€of€such€issues.€€Such€review€shall€be€conducted€with€aÏpresumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€court€from€which€the€appeal€isÏtaken€are€correct.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1997).€€ð ðHowever,€theÏpresumption€of€correctness€which€accompanies€the€trial€courtððs€action€isÏconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÏconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€Ð à9€02 ÐòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€conducting€our€review,€weÐ `  Ðmust€consider€all€the€evidence,€the€presentence€report,€the€sentencing€principles,Ïthe€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors,€arguments€of€counsel,€the€appellantððsÏstatements,€the€nature€and€character€of€the€offense,€and€the€appellantððs€potentialÏfor€rehabilitation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40-35-103(5),€-210(b)€(1997€&€Supp.Ï1998);€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€ð ðThe€defendant€has€the€burden€ofÐ °  Ðdemonstrating€that€the€sentence€is€improper.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Because€the€record€in€thisÐ    Ðcase€indicates€that€the€trial€court€properly€considered€the€sentencing€principlesÏand€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances,€our€review€is€de€novo€with€aÏpresumption€of€correctness.ÌÌà ` àIn€this€case,€Appellant€was€convicted€of€aggravated€sexual€battery,€a€ClassÏB€felony.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„504(b)€(1997).€€The€sentence€for€aÐ   @ ÐRange€I€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€B€felony€is€between€eight€and€twelve€years.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(2)€(1997).€€When€both€enhancement€andÏmitigating€factors€are€applicable€to€a€sentence,€the€court€is€directed€to€begin€withÏthe€minimum€sentence,€enhance€the€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€forÏthe€enhancement€factors,€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€asÏappropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(e)€(1997).ÌÌà ` àIn€sentencing€Appellant€to€a€term€of€ten€years,€the€trial€court€found€thatÏenhancement€factor€(1)€applied€because€Appellant€had€a€history€of€criminalÏconvictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€theÏappropriate€sentencing€range.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1)€(1997).€€TheÐ ð5,. Ðtrial€court€concluded€that€this€factor€was€entitled€to€little€weight.€€The€trial€courtÏalso€found€that€enhancement€factor€(15)€applied€because€Appellant€had€abusedÐ Ð9p02 Ða€position€of€private€trust€in€a€way€that€significantly€facilitated€the€commission€ofÏthe€offense.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(15)€(1997).€€The€trial€courtÐ P ð Ðconcluded€that€this€factor€was€entitled€to€significant€weight.€€The€trial€court€thenÏconsidered€several€mitigating€factors€proposed€by€Appellant,€but€found€that€theÏonly€mitigating€factor€that€applied€was€that€Appellant€had€some€mental€problems.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(13)€(1997).€€The€trial€court€concluded€that€thisÐ °  Ðmitigating€factor€was€entitled€to€little€weight.€ÌÌà ` àAppellant€does€not€challenge€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€the€twoÏenhancement€factors,€and€we€conclude€that€they€were€correctly€applied.€€Indeed,Ïthe€record€indicates€that€enhancement€factor€(1)€applied€because€Appellant€hasÏprevious€convictions€for€marijuana€possession€and€for€driving€under€the€influenceÏof€an€intoxicant.€€We€also€conclude€that€enhancement€factor€(15)€appliedÏbecause€as€the€victimððs€father€charged€with€her€care€and€control,€AppellantÏabused€his€position€of€private€trust€in€a€manner€that€significantly€facilitated€hisÏcommission€of€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hayesóó,€899€S.W.2d€175,€187€(Tenn.Ð p& ÐCrim.€App.€1995).€€Appellant€does€not€contend€that€the€trial€court€should€haveÏapplied€any€additional€mitigating€factors,€and€we€conclude€that€no€additionalÏmitigating€factors€applied€in€this€case.ÌÌà ` àEssentially,€Appellantððs€sole€argument€in€regard€to€his€sentence€is€that€theÏtrial€court€failed€to€give€adequate€weight€to€the€mitigating€factor€as€balancedÏagainst€the€enhancement€factors.€€Not€only€is€this€conclusory€allegationÏcompletely€insufficient€to€satisfy€Appellantððs€burden€of€demonstrating€that€hisÏsentence€is€improper,€it€is€well„established€that€the€weight€to€be€given€to€eachÏenhancement€and€mitigating€factor€is€left€to€the€trial€courtððs€discretion€so€long€asÐ Ð9p02 Ðit€complies€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€1989€Sentencing€Act€and€itsÏfindings€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record.€€òòState€v.€Zongeóó,€973€S.W.2dÐ P ð Ð250,€259€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);€òòState€v.€Baxteróó,€938€S.W.2d€697,€705€(Tenn.Ð @ à ÐCrim.€App.€1996);€òòHayesóó,€899€S.W.2d€at€185.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€a€tenÐ 0Ð Ðyear€sentence€is€entirely€appropriate€in€this€case.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà ` àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.ñ.ññ0ññ.ñÔ#†XC+ XX Xv¡#Ôñ.ññ0ññ1ññ.ñÔ#†ŠâŠ XXC+~ #Ôñ.ññ1ñÌñ:ñÌà ` àà ` àà ` àà ` àà ` àÌÌÌÌñ:ñÓ  Óñ:ñà ` àÌÌñ:ñÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGE