ÿWPC¯ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0lH 0D´ ø 0J 0TJ 0^ž 0hü 0rd 0|Ö 0†R 0Ø 1uh 0dÝ U>AU*B)© D3Ò BDC" 0@e AM¥ òßÿÛÞv~¹vÓ7 AO ÆY 0D D/c B’˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- °E±²D³´µ¶D·¸¹Ó€Ô¡¨ 3|xÂ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d++++'ÿÿdxd d))))7Border 1dd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-,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 ÕÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ôÔ€€The€Defendant€was€charged€with€offenses€enumerated€in€the€criminal€code€under€the€à àà0 àCriminalÏSentencing€Reform€Act€of€1982;€for€second„degree€burglary,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„3„403,€and€forÏassault€with€intent€to€commit€rape,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„608(a).€Ì ÑÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ôÔ€€The€1982€act€provides€for€ten€(10)€enhancement€factors€under€Ô€'ÔððÔ€(Ô€40„35„111.€€The€currentÏà0 àversion€of€the€1989€act€under€€Ô€'ÔððÔ€(Ô€40„35„114€contains€twenty„one€(21)€enhancement€factors.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€-‚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€|¯XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€./,A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€œNASHVILLE›ÌÌœJANUARY›€SESSION,€œ1997›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,›à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€œ01C01„9601„CR„00013›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœSUMNER›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œJANE€WHEATCRAFTó ó›Ìœò òJOHN€L.€GOODWIN,€III,ó ó›à àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àœó ó(Sentencing€&€Habeas€Corpus)ò ò›Ìó óÌÌò òÓ  ÓON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€œJUDGMENTS›€OF€THEÌœCRIMINAL›€COURT€OF€œSUMNER€COUNTY›ó óÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌœJOHN€L.€GOODWIN,€III.›à àà àà àœJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌPro€Se€„€Habeas€Corpusà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌJOHN€R.€PHILLIPS,€JR.à àà àà àKATHY€MORANTEÌAttorney€„€Sentencingà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ117€East€Main€Streetà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌGallatin,€TN€37066à àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àLAWRENCE€RAY€WHITLEYÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDEE€GAYÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à113€West€Main€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àGallatin,€TN€37066Ì›ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœAFFIRMED›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€(°ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€(ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThis€is€an€appeal€as€of€right€pursuant€to€Rule€3,€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏAppellate€Procedure.€€The€Defendant€appeals€both€his€sentence€and€the€trialÏcourtððs€denial€of€his€petition€for€writ€of€habeas€corpus.€€These€separate€appealsÏwere€consolidated€by€the€trial€court€and€filed€with€one€appellate€record.€€TheÏDefendant€raises€the€following€issues€regarding€his€sentence:€(1)€That€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€classifying€the€Defendant€as€a€Range€II€offender;€(2)€that€the€trialÏcourt€improperly€sentenced€him€to€consecutive€terms€for€his€two€convictions;€(3)Ïthat€the€trial€court€misapplied€sentence€enhancement€factors;€and€(4)€that€theÏtrial€court€erred€by€imposing€a€longer€sentence€upon€œremand.€€The›€DefendantÏalso€raises€the€following€issues€pro„se€regarding€his€petition€for€habeas€corpus:Ï(1)€That€the€trial€court€was€biased€against€the€Defendant;€(2)€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€by€refusing€to€correct€perjured€testimony€and€that€his€due€process€rightsÏwere€violated€by€the€Stateððs€failure€to€produce€exculpatory€evidence;€and€(3)Ïthat€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€his€petition€when€the€attorneys€involved€inÏhis€case€had€formed€a€conspiracy€to€deprive€the€Defendant€of€his€liberty.€€WeÏaffirm€the€œjudgments›€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€was€convicted€by€a€Sumner€County€jury€on€DecemberÏ12,€1989,€of€second„degree€burglary€and€assault€with€intent€to€commit€rape.œ× ƒ0 ××  ×›€ÏHe€was€sentenced€to€eight€years€on€each€count,€to€be€served€consecutively.€ÏThe€Defendant€initially€waived€an€appeal,€but€filed€a€post„conviction€petitionÏand€was€granted€a€delayed€appeal€to€this€Court.€€òòState€v.€Goodwinóó,€909ÏS.W.2d€35€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€His€convictions€were€affirmed,€but€the€caseÏwas€remanded€for€resentencing€because€the€record€did€not€reflect€that€the€trialÏcourt€considered€both€the€1982€and€1989€sentencing€acts€in€consideration€of€theÏex€post€facto€provisions€of€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€constitutions.€€òòId.óóÏat€45.€€We€also€remanded€for€the€trial€court€to€place€on€the€record€itsÏconsideration€of€enhancement€factors€as€well€as€its€decision€to€imposeÏconsecutive€sentences.€€òòId.óó€at€45„46.€€On€remand,€the€trial€court€sentenced€theÏDefendant€under€the€1982€act€as€an€especially€aggravated€offender€toÏconsecutive€nine„year€sentences€for€the€burglary€and€the€attempted€rape.€€TheÏDefendant€now€appeals€his€sentences€imposed€upon€resentencing.ÌÌà àPrior€to€the€hearing€for€resentencing,€the€Defendant€submitted€a€petition€forÏhabeas€corpus€relief.€€At€the€resentencing€hearing€on€August€22,€1995,€the€trialÏcourt€denied€the€petition€without€a€hearing.€€The€Defendant€filed€an€appeal€toÍthis€Court.€€Although€represented€by€counsel€on€the€sentencing€issues,€theÏDefendant€presents€this€appeal,€on€his€habeas€corpus€petition,€pro„se.ÌÌà àWe€first€address€the€Defendantððs€petition€for€habeas€corpus€relief.€€HeÏalleges€that€relief€is€proper€based€on€the€following€arguments.€€First,€he€contendsÏthat€the€trial€court€failed€to€grant€a€hearing€on€his€petition€for€habeas€corpusÏbecause€the€trial€judge,€as€well€as€the€Sumner€County€government,€wasÏbiased€against€him€because€he€had€sued€the€government€in€a€civil€matter€andÏbecause€he€sent€letters€to€the€jurors€who€had€presided€at€his€trial.€€Next,€heÏargues€that€the€State€failed€to€provide€him€with€potentially€exculpatory€evidenceÏcontained€in€statements€made€by€the€victim€in€this€case,€therefore€depriving€himÏof€his€constitutional€right€to€cross„examine€the€witnesses€against€him.€€Third,€heÏcontends€that€the€prosecutors,€the€public€defender,€and€his€private€attorneyÏconspired€against€œhim,›€resulting€in€what€appears€to€be€a€claim€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€petition,€finding€that€it€wasÏrendered€moot€after€the€Defendant€was€resentenced.€€We€agree€that€the€petitionÏwas€properly€denied,€but€for€a€different€reason.€€ÌÌà à€Habeas€corpus€relief€is€available€only€when€it€appears€on€the€face€ofÏthe€judgment€that€a€conviction€is€void€or€when€the€petitioner's€term€ofÏimprisonment€has€expired.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„21„101;€€€òòState€v.€Archeróó,€851ÍS.W.2d€157,€164€(Tenn.€1993).€€€It€is€well€settled€that€where€a€judgment€is€notÏvoid,€but€is€merely€voidable,€such€judgment€may€not€be€collaterally€attacked€in€aÏsuit€for€habeas€corpus€relief.€òòPassarella€v.€Stateóó,€891€S.W.2d€619,€627€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1994);òò€Archeróó,€851€S.W.2d€at€163.€€€In€the€present€case,€theÏpetitioner€has€not€alleged€that€he€is€being€held€upon€an€expired€sentence€or€thatÏthe€judgment€against€him€is€void,€and€thus,€the€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððsÏdismissal€of€the€petition.ÌÌà àWe€note€that€the€trial€court€could€have€treated€the€habeas€corpus€petitionÏas€a€post„conviction€relief€petition,€€Tenn.€Code€€Ann.€ðð€40„30„205€(c),€however,Ïany€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€would€be€premature,€considering€that€theÏDefendant€has€not€exhausted€his€appeals.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„202(a).€€Therefore,€the€trial€court's€dismissal€of€the€petition€without€considering€itÏas€one€for€post„conviction€relief€was€entirely€proper.€à à€ÌÌà àWe€now€turn€to€the€issues€regarding€the€Defendantððs€resentencing.€ÏWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€the€manner€of€service€of€aÏsentence,€this€court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€sentenceÏwith€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€theÏaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencingÍprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823ÏS.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àIn€conducting€a€de€novo€review€of€a€sentence,€this€court€must€consider:Ï(a)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€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€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statementÏthat€the€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€ofÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€(XÔððððÔ€(ŠÔ€40„35„102,€„103,Ïand€„210;€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencingÏprocedure,€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€andÏproper€weight€to€the€factors€and€principals€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,Ïand€that€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,Ïthen€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€aÏdifferent€result.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌÌÌà àAs€an€initial€matter,€we€will€briefly€recount€the€facts€in€the€case€òòsub€judiceóóÏas€described€in€the€opinion€on€the€Defendantððs€first€appeal€and€will€discussÏadditional€other€facts€when€relevant€to€the€issues€in€this€appeal.ÌÌÒ ` ÒÒ „ ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓOn€August€3,€1989,€the€victim€returned€from€work€to€her€home,€inÏHendersonville,€Tennessee,€between€3:30€and€4:00€in€the€afternoon.€ÏShe€went€back€to€her€bedroom€to€lie€down.€€While€she€was€lyingÏdown,€she€heard€a€door€slam.€€Thinking€it€was€her€daughter€orÏhusband,€whom€she€was€expecting,€the€victim€got€up€to€see€who€itÏwas.€€Upon€opening€the€door€to€her€bedroom,€she€saw€the€DefendantÏstanding€in€her€hallway.€€She€told€him€to€get€out€of€her€house,€but€heÏgrabbed€her€by€the€arms€and€pushed€her€into€the€adjacent€guestÏbedroom.€€The€victim€stated€at€trial€that€the€Defendant€repeated,€"YouÏknow€you€want€it,"€several€times.€€The€victim€attempted€to€fight€theÏDefendant€off.€€He€pushed€her€onto€the€bed,€ripped€her€blouse,€toreÏher€bra€and€pulled€off€her€pantyhose.ÌÓÓÓÓÌà àAs€the€victim€and€Defendant€were€fighting,€they€heard€herÏhusband's€truck€in€the€driveway.€€The€Defendant€got€up€andÏattempted€to€leave€the€house,€but€the€victim's€husband€grabbed€himÏas€he€was€trying€to€walk€out€the€door.€€The€victim€called€the€police,Ïand€the€victim's€husband€got€the€Defendant's€name€and€license€plateÏnumber€to€"buy€some€time"€until€the€police€could€get€there.€€When€theÏvictim's€husband€thought€the€police€should€almost€be€at€the€house,€heÏlet€the€Defendant€go.€€An€officer€arrived,€radioed€the€license€plateÏnumber€to€a€back„up€officer€and€the€back„up€officer€picked€up€theÏDefendant.ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌòòState€v.€Goodwinóó,€909€S.W.2d€35,€38€(Tenn.Crim.App.€1995).ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ £ Òà àThe€Defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€determining€that€he€wasÏa€Range€II€offender.€€This€issue€is€intertwined€with€the€determination€of€whichÍsentencing€act€to€follow€in€sentencing€the€Defendant.€€We€articulated€this€problemÏin€his€first€appeal:€ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÒ ` ÒÒ „ ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓÌThe€Defendant€committed€the€crime€in€August€of€1989.€€He€wasÏconvicted€in€December€of€1989.€€He€was€sentenced€February€8,€1990,Ïunder€the€1989€Sentencing€Act€as€a€Range€II€offender€to€eight€yearsÏon€both€counts€to€run€consecutively€to€each€other€for€an€effectiveÏsentence€of€sixteen€years.€€The€1989€Sentencing€Act€went€into€effectÏNovember€1,€1989.€€The€trial€court€was€able€to€sentence€theÏDefendant€under€the€new€sentencing€act€because,€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€40„35„117€states,€"Unless€prohibited€by€the€UnitedÏStates€or€Tennessee€constitution,€any€person€sentenced€on€or€afterÏNovember€1,€1989,€for€an€offense€committed€between€July€1,€1982Ïand€November€1,€1989,€shall€be€sentenced€under€the€provisions€ofÏthis€chapter."€€Tenn.Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„117(b).ÌÌà àThe€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€following€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€40„35„117€state€"[b]ecause€of€the€ex€postÏfacto€provisions€of€the€Tennessee€and€United€States€constitutions,€aÏdefendant€sentenced€after€November€1,€1989,€for€an€offenseÏcommitted€between€July€1,€1982,€and€November€1,€1989,€may€notÏreceive€a€greater€punishment€than€he€would€have€received€under€theÏprior€law."ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌòòGoodwinóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€45.ÌÌà àOn€remand,€the€trial€court€considered€both€sentencing€acts,€but€determinedÏthat,€because€the€1989€act€contains€sentence€enhancement€factors€that€are€notÏpresent€in€the€1982€act,€their€use€could€subject€the€Defendant€to€punishment€inÏviolation€of€the€ex€post€facto€provisions.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114;ÍTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„111€(repealed).œ× ƒ1 ××  ×›€€Our€supreme€court€has€held€that€theÏtrial€court€must€compute€the€Defendant's€sentences€under€both€the€1989Ïsentencing€act€and€the€pre„1989€sentencing€act€in€this€situation.€òòState€v.ÏPearsonóó,€858€S.W.2d€879,€884€(Tenn.1993).€€€Rather€than€considering€specificÏelements€used€in€calculating€a€sentence,€the€trial€court€ð ðmust€calculate€theÏappropriate€sentence[s]€under€both€the€1982€statute€and€the€1989€statute,€òòinÏtheir€entiretyóó,€and€then€impose€the€lesser€sentence€of€the€two.ðð€€òòId.óóÌÌÌà àUnder€the€1982€act,€the€sentence€for€assault€with€intent€to€commit€rape€forÏa€Range€I€offender€is€2€to€6€years€and€for€a€Range€II€offender€is€6€to€10€years.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„608(a);€œðððð›€40„35„109(a),€(b)€(repealed).€€€Second„degree€burglary€carries€3€to€9€years€for€a€Range€I€offender€and€9€to€15€years€forÏRange€II.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„3„403(b)(1);€ðð€40„35„109(a),€(b)€(repealed).€ÏUnder€the€1989€act,€assault€with€intent€to€commit€rape€is€a€Class€C€felony€andÏhas€a€sentence€of€3€to€6€years€for€a€range€I€offender€and€6€to€10€years€forÏRange€II.€€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„118;€ðð€40„35„111(b)(3);€œðððð›€40„35„112(a)(3),€(b)(3).€€€Second„degree€burglary€is€a€Class€C€felony,€punishable€withÍ3€to€6€years€for€Range€I€and€6€to€10€years€for€Range€II.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„118;€ðð€œ40„35„11(b)(3);›€œðððð›€40„35„112(a)(3),€(b)(3).ÌÌà àWe€first€consider€the€Defendantððs€sentences€in€accordance€with€the€1982Ïact.€€Under€the€act,€a€defendant€must€be€sentenced€as€a€Range€II€offenderÏupon€proof€of€an€especially€aggravated€offense.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„107;Ïðð€œ40„35„109(c)€(repealed).›€€An€especially€aggravated€offense€is€ð ð€a€felonyÏresulting€in€death€or€bodily€injury€or€involving€the€threat€of€death€or€bodily€injury€toÏanother€person€where€the€defendant€has€previously€been€convicted€of€a€felonyÏthat€resulted€in€death€or€bodily€injury.ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„107€(repealed).›€€ÏIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€Defendant€was€convicted€of€burglary€and€rape€in€1981.€ÏThe€victim€submitted€a€statement€of€the€incident€in€which€the€Defendant€and€twoÏothers€stopped€her€car€and€robbed€her.€€She€stated€that€the€Defendant€hit€herÏabout€the€face€and€pulled€her€hair€to€force€her€to€comply€with€his€demands,€thenÏforcibly€raped€her€in€the€car.€€The€investigating€officer€testified€that€he€observedÏred€marks€on€the€victimððs€face.€€The€trial€court€found€this€to€be€sufficient€proof€ofÏbodily€injury€in€the€€previous€incident.€€Indeed,€bodily€injury€may€include€ð ða€cut,Ïabrasion,€bruise,€burn,€or€disfigurement;€physical€pain;€illness€or€impairment€ofÏthe€function€of€a€bodily€member,€organ€or€mental€faculty.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏœ40„35„107(5)(A)€(repealed).›€€We€believe€the€red€marks€on€the€victimððs€faceÏsuffice€to€show€she€sustained€bodily€injury€when€the€Defendant€hit€her.€€òòSeeóóÍòòState€v.€Walter€R.€Callahanóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9303„CR„00085,€HamiltonÏCounty€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€June€27,€1994).ÌÌà àAs€for€the€current€convictions,€the€victim€testified€that€she€sustainedÏscratches€on€her€back€in€the€form€of€red€marks€where€the€Defendant€had€forciblyÏpulled€off€her€bra.€€Again,€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€this€constitutes€bodilyÏinjury.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Lockeóó,€771€S.W.2d€132,€135€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€ÏTherefore,€this€amply€supports€the€finding€that€the€attempted€rape€was€anÏespecially€aggravated€offense€meriting€the€imposition€of€Range€II€sentencing.€€ÏAccordingly,€Range€II€sentencing€of€6€to€10€years€for€the€assault€with€intent€toÏcommit€rape€and€9€to€15€years€for€the€burglary€conviction€is€appropriate.ÌÌà àWe€now€consider€the€applicable€enhancement€factors.€€The€trial€courtÏfound€no€mitigating€factors€and€the€Defendant€is€not€challenging€this€conclusion.€ÏThe€trial€court€applied€two€enhancement€factors€to€each€offense;€factor€(10),€thatÏthe€defendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€where€the€risk€toÏhuman€life€was€high,€and€factor€(6)€the€personal€injuries€inflicted€upon€or€theÏamount€of€damage€to€property€sustained€by€the€victim€was€particularly€great.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€œðððð›€40„35„111(6),€(10)€(repealed).ÌÌà àRegarding€factor€(6),€there€is€evidence€that€the€victim€underwent€emotionalÏtrauma€and€œengaged›€in€ongoing€counseling€beginning€shortly€after€the€incident.€Ï"Personal€injury"€as€expressed€in€enhancement€factor€(6)€encompassesÏemotional€and€psychological€injuries€as€well€as€physical€injuries€sustained€byÏthe€victim.€€œòòState›€v.€Hoytóó,€928€S.W.2d€935,€948€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€œ1995);›€òòStateÏv.€Melvinóó,€913€S.W.2d€195€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)(citing€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€891ÏS.W.2d€922€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€œ1994)).›€€However,€before€this€factor€may€beÏapplied,€the€State€has€the€burden€of€establishing€that€the€emotional€injuries€andÏpsychological€scarring€are€"particularly€great."€òòId.ó󀀜Here,›€there€is€testimony€in€theÏrecord€that€the€victimððs€life€was€severely€disrupted.€€She€was€unable€to€return€toÏœlive€in€her›€home€œbecause›€of€the€incident€and€later€sold€the€house€because€of€herÏemotional€impairment.€€We€believe€that€such€severe€consequences€for€the€victimÏconstituted€injuries€that€were€ð ðparticularly€great.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€920ÏS.W.2d€247,€259„60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€The€trial€court€properly€appliedÏthis€enhancement€factor€to€both€the€burglary€and€attempted€rape€convictions.ÌÌà àNext,€the€trial€court€applied€enhancement€factor€(10),€that€the€defendant€Ïhad€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€wasÏhigh.€€The€Defendant€followed€the€victim€from€thirty€to€fifty€miles€from€her€place€ofÏbusiness€in€Brentwood€to€her€home€in€Hendersonville.€€He€observed€the€victimÏenter€her€home€and€he€entered€the€house€knowing€she,€and€possibly€others,Íwere€inside.€€This€has€been€sufficient€proof€to€enhance€a€burglary€convictionÏusing€factor€(10).€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Jimmy€Ray€Potteróó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9301„CC„00021,€œFentress€County,€(Tenn.›€Crim.€App,€Nashville,€Mar.€17,€1994);€òòcf.óó€òòStateÏv.€Averyóó,€818€S.W.2d€365,€369€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€In€addition,€we€alsoÏfind€this€factor€applicable€to€the€attempted€rape.€€Even€though€the€victimÏinformed€the€Defendant€that€her€husband€would€arrive,€which€he€did,€theÏDefendant€ignored€this€and€continued€to€pursue€the€assault€upon€the€victim.€ÏThere€was€a€great€risk€that€a€confrontation€and€injuries€could€have€resulted.€ÏTherefore,€factor€(10)€was€appropriately€applied.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€is€subject€to€a€6€to€10€year€sentence€for€the€attemptedÏrape€and€9€to€15€years€for€second„degree€burglary.€€The€trial€court€sentencedÏhim€to€nine€years€for€each€offense€based€on€classifying€the€Defendant€as€aÏRange€II€offender.€€We€agree€that€the€record€supports€the€imposition€of€nineÏyears€for€the€attempted€rape€and€burglary€convictions€as€a€Range€II€offenderÏbecause€the€Defendant€can€be€œclassified›€as€an€especially€aggravatedÏoffender.ÌÌà àYet,€this€does€not€end€our€inquiry.€€We€must€also€consider€the€sentencesÏunder€the€1989€sentencing€act.€€In€order€to€establish€the€Defendant€as€a€RangeÏII€offender,€the€State€must€€prove€him€to€be€a€multiple€offender.€€Tenn.€CodeÍAnn.€ðð€40„35„106.€€This€requires€€that€a€defendant€have€ð ð[a]€minimum€of€two€(2)Ïbut€not€more€than€four€(4)€prior€felony€convictions€within€the€conviction€class,€aÏhigher€class,€or€within€the€next€two€(2)€lower€felony€classes.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€40„35„106(a)(1).€€However,€œð ð[c]onvictions›€for€multiple€felonies€committed€asÏpart€of€a€single€course€of€conduct€within€twenty„four€(24)€hours,€constitute€oneÏ(1)€conviction€for€the€purpose€of€determining€prior€convictions;€€however,€actsÏresulting€in€bodily€injury€or€threatened€bodily€injury€to€the€victim€or€victims€shall€notÏbe€construed€to€be€a€single€course€of€conduct.ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„106.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€was€convicted€in€1981€of€rape,€a€Class€B€felony,€andÏrobbery,€a€Class€C€felony.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„118€(classification€ofÏprior€felony€offenses).€€Both€occurred€during€the€same€course€of€conduct,€but€theÏrape€involved€bodily€injury,€which€would€ordinarily€satisfy€a€finding€that€theÏDefendant€is€a€multiple€offender.€€However,€this€Court€has€held€that€the€twenty„four€hour€merger€rule€exception€requires€ð ðmore€than€one€previous€act€involvingÏbodily€injury€or€threatened€bodily€injury.ðð€€òòState€v.€Hortonóó,€880€S.W.2d€732,€736Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€We€believe€that€in€addition€to€the€bodily€injury€sufferedÏby€the€victim€during€the€rape,€there€was€a€threat€of€bodily€injury€in€perpetration€ofÏthe€robbery.€€The€victim€was€driving€her€car€when€the€Defendant€and€hisÏaccomplices€approached€in€their€vehicle.€€They€bumped€the€victimððs€car€severalÏtimes,€then€blocked€the€road€to€make€her€stop.€€Intentionally€colliding€withÍanother€vehicle€from€behind€and€forcing€a€confrontation€by€blocking€the€roadÏprovides€a€distinct€threat€of€bodily€injury.€€Therefore,€we€agree€that€theÏDefendant€may€properly€be€œclassified›€as€a€Range€II€offender.€€This€subjectsÏhim€to€a€sentence€of€6€to€10€years€each€for€the€burglary€and€attempted€rape.€ÏWe€have€discussed€two€enhancement€factors,€which€also€exist€under€the€1989Ïact,€and€we€conclude€that€they€are€applicable€to€the€offenses€in€question.€€As€aÏresult,€we€find€the€record€supports€sentences€of€nine€years€for€each€conviction.ÌÌà àOur€calculations€of€both€the€1982€and€1989€sentencing€acts€reveal€thatÏthe€trial€court€was€permitted€to€sentence€under€the€1989€act€without€implicatingÏthe€ex€post€facto€provisions.€€We€note€that€the€appropriate€sentence€range€forÏthe€assault€with€intent€to€commit€rape€as€a€Range€II€offender€is€6€to€10€yearsÏunder€both€acts.€€However,€second„degree€burglary€carries€a€9€to€15€yearÏsentence€as€Range€II€under€the€1982€and€6€to€10€years€as€Range€II€under€theÏ1989€act.€€Thus,€because€the€Defendant€is€not€exposed€to€a€greaterÏpunishment€under€the€1989€provisions,€sentencing€under€this€act€is€required.ÏTenn.Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„117(b).€€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that,€although€the€trialÏjudge€erred€by€sentencing€the€Defendant€under€the€1982,€the€error€wasÏharmless.€€The€nine„year€sentences€were€within€the€sentencing€range€under€theÏ1989€act€and€are€supported€by€the€record.€€Therefore,€we€affirm€the€sentenceÏimposed€by€the€trial€court.€€ÌÌà àIn€a€related€issue,€the€Defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÏbasing€its€resentencing€decision€upon€proof€basically€the€same€as€that€offeredÏin€the€previous€sentencing€hearing.€€He€notes€that€this€Court€vacated€thatÏprevious€sentence.€€However,€we€remanded€because€the€trial€court€(1)€did€notÏcompare€the€1982€and€1989€sentencing€acts;€and€(2)€did€not€adequately€placeÏon€the€record€the€basis€for€enhancing€the€Defendantððs€sentence€and€forÏimposing€consecutive€sentences.€€This€does€not€equate€with€the€proof€beingÏinsufficient€to€support€the€trial€courtððs€decisions,€but€that€the€record€wasÏinsufficient€to€œallow€review›€œof€the›€sentence.€€However,€we€do€œacknowledge›€theÏDefendantððs€argument€that€the€trial€judge€on€resentencing€found€fewerÏenhancement€factors€but€sentenced€him€to€an€increased€sentence.€€HeÏcontends€that€a€presumption€of€vindictiveness€may€arise€when€the€sameÏsentencing€authority€imposes€a€higher€sentence€on€remand€from€a€successfulÏappeal,€thus€implicating€due€process€concerns.€€€òòNorth€Carolina€v.€Pearceóó,€395ÏU.S.€711,€89€S.Ct.€2072,€23€L.Ed.2d€656€(1969);€€òòState€v.€Russellóó,€800€S.W.2dÏ169,€174€(Tenn.€1990).€€€Our€supreme€court€has€addressed€the€vindictivenessÏissue,€citing€òòAlabama€v.€Smithóó,€490€U.S.€794,€109€S.Ct.€2201,€104€L.Ed.2d€865Ï(1989):ÌÒ ` ÒÒ „ ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓAs€we€explained€in€òòTexas€v.€McCulloughóó,€ð ðthe€evil€the€[òòPearceóó]€CourtÏsought€to€preventðð€was€not€the€imposition€of€ð ðenlarged€sentences€afterÏa€new€trialðð€but€ð ðvindictiveness€of€a€sentencing€judge.ðð€.€.€.€SuchÍcircumstances€are€those€in€which€there€is€a€ð ðreasonable€likelihood,ððÏthat€the€increase€in€sentence€is€the€product€of€actual€vindictiveness€onÏthe€part€of€the€sentencing€authority.€€€Where€there€is€no€suchÏreasonable€likelihood,€the€burden€remains€upon€the€defendant€to€proveÏactual€vindictiveness.ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌ€òòRussellóó,€800€S.W.2d€at€174.€(citations€omitted).ÌÌà àIn€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,€a€reasonable€likelihood€that€Judge€Wheatcraft,Ïupon€resentencing€this€case,€had€a€vindictive€motive€is€not€evident.€€We€noteÏfirst€that€a€different€judge,€Judge€Kelly,€presided€at€the€original€sentencingÏhearing,€œand€thus,›€any€risk€of€vindictiveness€by€that€trial€judge€being€confrontedÏby€resentencing€is€nonexistent.€€Absent€evidence€that€a€likelihood€ofÏvindictiveness€is€present€by€Judge€Wheatcraft,€the€Defendant€must€demonstrateÏactual€vindictiveness.€€A€trial€judge€is€vested€with€discretion€when€fixing€aÏsentence€for€an€offense€and€when€a€different€judge€presides€in€a€newÏproceeding,€differing€results€may€œreasonably€occur.›€€We€find€nothing€in€the€recordÏthat€suggests€actual€vindictiveness€from€the€trial€judge€presiding€at€theÏresentencing€hearing.€€Thus,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€Defendantððs€dueÏprocess€rights€have€been€violated.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌà àFinally,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€him€toÏconsecutive€terms.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€Defendant€was€a€dangerousÍoffender,€which€requires€that€an€offenderððs€ð ðbehavior€indicates€little€or€no€regardÏfor€human€life,€and€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€toÏhuman€life€is€high.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(4).€€Beyond€this,€it€mustÏbe€shown€that€ð ðan€extended€sentence€is€necessary€to€protect€the€publicÏagainst€further€criminal€conduct€by€the€defendant€and€that€the€consecutiveÏsentences€must€reasonably€relate€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committed.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€939€(Tenn.€1995);€€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€739ÏS.W.2d€227,€230€(Tenn.€1987);€òòGray€v.€Stateóó,€538€S.W.2d€391,€393€(Tenn.Ï1976).ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€Defendant€was€a€dangerous€offender,Ïstating€that€he€had€a€history€of€mental€illness€and€hospitalizations,€a€history€ofÏviolence€such€as€beating€people€up,€and€admits€he€is€full€of€rage.€€The€trialÏjudge€also€noted€that€the€Defendant€lied€to€others€and€lied€to€the€court€about€hisÏeducation.€€He€demonstrated€no€remorse€for€the€offenses€committed€in€1981€andÏ1989€and€€showed€little€chance€of€rehabilitation.€€He€had€a€poor€military€andÏemployment€record,€never€holding€down€a€job€for€long€and€also€being€terminatedÏfrom€his€last€job€for€inappropriate€behavior€œtoward›€a€female€employee.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€also€found€that€the€circumstances€œof€the›€offense€wereÏaggravated€because€the€Defendant€premeditated€the€crime€by€following€theÍvictim€across€the€Nashville€area€to€her€home€in€a€remote€subdivision.€€InÏaddition,€when€he€was€arrested,€he€had€a€œð ðhit›€œlistðð›€of€ten€women,€some€withÏasterisks€by€their€names,€and€he€could€not€substantiate€a€legitimate€purpose€forÏsuch€a€list.€€The€trial€judge€also€found€the€mental€anguish€suffered€by€the€victimÏaggravated€the€offense.€€As€a€result,€she€determined€that€the€sentencesÏimposed€reasonably€related€to€the€seriousness€of€the€offenses€and€that€theÏprevious€factors€demonstrated€that€society€needed€to€be€protected€from€theÏDefendantððs€behavior.ÌÌà àWe€believe€that€the€trial€court€carefully€considered€the€attendant€facts€inÏaddition€to€proof€of€the€dangerousness€of€the€Defendantððs€behavior€and€thatÏthey€justify€a€need€to€protect€society€from€his€future€actions.€€Therefore,€weÏcannot€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€consecutively€sentencing€theÏDefendant.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ìà àà àà àà àà àÓ  ÓÌÓӜ̛à àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGE›ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGE›