ÿWPC> …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝ4åù w@ 0BP 0J’ 0TÜ 0^0 0hŽ 0rö 0|h 0†ä 0j 1uú U,o 0d› U,ÿ U>+U *i 0B“ BÕB)òDC AM^*« D3Õv~vÓ† 0@Y AO™Æè 0D® D/ò B!˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù-»{s 3|xâ ÎUÏEÐÑÒDÓÔÕ[eÖÓ€â4 ÿÿ$Diamondððà0 à2 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< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial4@c$`Diamondð`ðà0 à d% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òMay€1,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó%%%%'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€!!X„d&ÓÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€#ÔÑ\R AØ'\ћрÑÑ7€6YXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óœò òÔ€#ŠÔIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÙ€€ÙœßL€()';+'h| ` Å `€€Lß›AT€JACKSONÌÌDECEMBER€SESSION,€1995ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.Ï02C01„9501„CC„00023Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àMADISON€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JOHN€FRANKLINÏMURCHISONó óÌò òROGER€GRISSOM,ó óà àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)ó óà à(Aggravated€Sexual€Battery)ÌÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌCIRCUIT€COURT€OF€MADISON€COUNTYó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌGEORGE€MORTON€GOOGEà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌDANIEL€J.€TAYLORà àà àà àELLEN€H.€POLLACKÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ26th€Judicial€Districtà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌ227€West€Baltimore€Streetà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0485ÌJackson,€TN€38301Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€WOODALLÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDONALD€H.€ALLENÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à225€Martin€Luther€King€DriveÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJackson,€TN€38301ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€#°Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€#XÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÔ€#ŠÔà àThe€Defendant€appeals€his€conviction€pursuant€to€Rule€3€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€He€was€indicted€for€two€counts€ofÏrape€of€a€child€and€two€counts€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€He€wasÏconvicted€of€two€counts€of€aggravated€sexual€battery€after€a€jury€trial.€€The€trialÏcourt€sentenced€him€to€two€concurrent€twelve„year€sentences€to€be€served€as€aÏRange€I€standard€offender.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€argues€three€issues€in€his€appeal.€€The€first€issue€isÏwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€the€Defendant's€motion€to€suppressÏstatements€he€made€to€investigators.€€The€second€issue€is€whether€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€refusing€to€grant€the€Defendant's€motion€for€a€mistrial.€€The€third€issue€isÏwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial€because€(a)€theÏtrial€court€considered€an€improper€enhancement€factor,€and€(b)€the€trial€court€didÏnot€properly€weigh€the€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors.ÌÌà àThe€victim€in€this€case€was€a€ten„year„old€girl.€€The€Defendant€had€beenÏthe€boyfriend€of€the€victim's€mother€for€about€seven€years.€€Although€theÏDefendant€did€not€live€with€the€victim€and€her€mother,€the€Defendant€and€theÍvictim's€mother€often€spent€the€night€with€each€other€while€the€victim€wasÏpresent.€€The€Defendant€often€picked€the€victim€up€at€day€care€and€took€care€ofÏher€while€her€mother€was€at€work.€€One€night€the€victim's€mother€walked€into€theÏbathroom€to€find€the€victim€examining€her€vaginal€area.€€When€asked€why€sheÏwas€doing€this,€the€victim€replied€that€she€had€a€"bump."€€The€victim's€motherÏtook€the€victim€to€a€doctor€and€after€examination€it€was€discovered€that€theÏbump€was€a€venereal€wart.€€At€this€time,€the€victim's€mother€brought€charges.ÌÌà àThe€victim€testified€at€trial.€€She€testified€to€an€incident€that€occurred€whenÏthe€Defendant€picked€her€up€at€day€care€to€go€buy€a€pair€of€tennis€shoes.€€SheÏstated€that€after€he€picked€her€up€they€went€to€the€mall€and€got€the€shoes.€€TheÏDefendant€then€took€the€victim€to€his€house.€€She€testified€that€when€they€got€toÏhis€house€she€sat€on€the€couch€watching€television,€and€the€Defendant€wentÏback€to€his€room.€€When€the€Defendant€came€back€into€the€room€he€was€notÏwearing€any€clothes.€€The€victim€stated€that€the€Defendant€picked€her€up€andÏcarried€her€into€the€bedroom.€€When€he€took€her€back€to€the€bedroom€he€took€allÏof€her€clothes€off€and€ð ðrubbed€his€privateðð€against€her€private€part.€€The€victimÏalso€described€the€Defendant€as€having€an€erection€and€ejaculating.€€SheÏtestified€that€he€tried€to€put€his€private€part€inside€of€her€and€it€hurt.€€à àÌÌà àShe€also€testified€that€this€happened€on€another€occasion€while€herÏmother€was€attending€classes€at€night.€€The€victim€stated€that€she€and€theÏDefendant€were€at€her€house€one€night.€€She€testified€that€the€Defendant€did€theÏsame€thing€every€time.€€He€carried€her€back€to€the€bedroom€and€took€her€clothesÏoff.€Then,€he€put€his€private€part€between€her€legs€and€pushed€against€herÏprivate€part.€€She€stated€that€she€did€not€know€if€his€private€part€was€in€herÏprivate€part.€€This€testimony€lead€to€the€Defendantððs€conviction€for€two€counts€ofÏaggravated€sexual€battery.ÌÌÇÓ  ÓI.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Defendant's€first€argument€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€theÏDefendant's€motion€to€suppress€his€statements€to€the€investigators.€€TheÏDefendant€argues€his€motion€to€suppress€should€not€have€been€deniedÏbecause€the€Defendant€was€under€the€influence€of€medication,€had€beenÏwakened€from€a€sound€sleep€before€the€interview,€and€was€not€advised€of€hisÏòòMirandaóó€rights.€€ÌÌà àAfter€the€victim's€mother€confronted€the€Defendant€with€her€suspicions,€theÏDefendant€checked€himself€into€the€West€Tennessee€Behavioral€Center.€€TheÏDefendant€stated€that€he€checked€himself€into€this€facility€because€he€wasÏcontemplating€suicide.€€He€was€placed€on€medications€while€he€was€in€theÏfacility.€€While€there,€a€Jackson€Police€Department€investigator€and€aÏDepartment€of€Human€Services€worker€came€to€question€the€DefendantÏregarding€the€accusations.€The€Defendant€gave€permission€to€the€staff€for€theÏinvestigator€and€the€Department€of€Human€Services€worker€to€speak€with€him.ÌÌà àWe€will€first€address€the€issue€concerning€the€lack€of€òòMirandaóó€rights.€ÏWhen€he€overruled€the€motion€to€suppress,€the€trial€judge€stated:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌThe€Miranda€Warning€was€not€required€because€the€defendant,ÏMr.€Grissom,€was€not€in€custody.€€He€was€not€under€arrest.€ÏNor€were€circumstances€such€that€would€have€led€him€toÏbelieve€that€he€was€under€arrest.€€The€officer€went€in€and€askedÏfor€permission€to€talk€to€him.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓà àThe€factual€findings€of€a€trial€court€at€a€hearing€on€a€motion€to€suppressÏare€conclusive€unless€the€appellate€court€finds€that€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€the€findings€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€717€S.W.2d€298,€304Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.€(Tenn.€1986).€€The€evidenceÏpresented€at€the€hearing€on€the€motion€to€suppress€does€not€preponderateÏagainst€this€finding.ÌÌà àIn€determining€whether€an€accused€should€have€been€advised€of€hisÏòòMirandaóó€rights,€the€initial€inquiry€is€whether€the€suspect€was€subjected€toÏcustodial€interrogation.€€It€is€only€"when€an€individual€is€taken€into€custody€orÏotherwise€deprived€of€his€freedom€by€the€authorities€in€any€significant€way€andÏis€subjected€to€questioning€[that]€the€privilege€against€self„incrimination€isÏjeopardized."€€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436,€478€(1966);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòCaliforniaÏv.€Beheleróó,€463€U.S.€1121,€1125€(1983);€òòOregon€v.€Mathiasonóó,€429€U.S.€492,Ï494€(1977).€€A€person€is€said€to€be€"in€custody"€within€the€meaning€of€òòMirandaóó€ifÏthere€has€been€"a€'formal€arrest€or€restraint€on€freedom€of€movement'€of€theÏdegree€associated€with€a€formal€arrest."€€òòBeheleróó,€463€U.S.€at€1125.€€InÍòòBerkemer€v.€McCartyóó,€468€U.S.€420€(1984),€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏapplied€the€"objective€reasonable„man€test,"€holding€the€only€relevant€inquiry€inÏdetermining€custody€is€"how€a€reasonable€man€in€the€suspect's€position€wouldÏhave€understood€his€position."€€468€U.S.€at€442.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€was€clearly€not€in€custody€when€he€was€questioned€atÏthe€hospital.€€The€Defendant€voluntarily€checked€himself€into€the€WestÏTennessee€Behavioral€Center.€€The€Defendant€gave€permission€for€theÏinvestigator€and€the€Human€Services€worker€to€speak€with€him.€€There€was€notÏa€formal€arrest,€and€law€enforcement€personnel€did€not€restrain€the€Defendant'sÏfreedom€of€movement€in€any€way.€€A€reasonable€man€in€the€Defendant'sÏposition€undoubtedly€would€have€felt€capable€of€stopping€the€inquiry€at€anyÏtime€due€to€the€fact€that€he€gave€permission€for€the€interaction€in€the€first€place.ÌÌà àWe€now€turn€to€the€issue€concerning€the€medication.€€A€nurse€whoÏworked€at€the€West€Tennessee€Behavioral€Center€testified€at€the€hearing€on€theÏmotion€to€suppress.€€She€testified€about€the€medications€taken€by€theÏDefendant€both€the€day€before€he€was€questioned€and€the€day€he€wasÏquestioned.€€She€said€that€the€Defendant€was€admitted€at€about€11:00€a.m.€theÏday€before€he€was€questioned.€€Upon€his€admittance€the€Defendant€was€givenÏan€injection€of€Toradol,€which€is€a€mild€pain€reliever.€€At€12:15€p.m.,€he€wasÍgiven€Ativan,€which€is€a€medication€to€relieve€anxiety.€€He€was€given€furtherÏdoses€of€Ativan€at€4:50€p.m.€and€9:00€p.m.€€The€Defendant€was€given€a€doseÏof€Halcion€at€11:30€p.m.€€Halcion€is€a€minor€tranquilizer€that€is€utilized€as€aÏsleeping€agent.€€The€next€day,€prior€to€the€Defendant€being€questioned€at€1:00Ïp.m.,€he€was€given€a€dose€of€Ativan,€the€anxiety„relieving€medication,€at€9:00Ïa.m.€and€1:00€p.m.€€The€nurse€stated€that€when€she€administered€the€1:00€p.m.Ïmedication€on€the€day€of€the€questioning,€the€Defendant€appeared€coherent€andÏthey€talked.ÌÌà àThe€investigator€also€testified€at€the€hearing€on€the€motion€to€suppress.€ÏShe€testified€that€the€Defendant€was€very€coherent€at€the€time€of€questioningÏand€that€he€was€conscious€of€what€they€were€talking€about.€€The€DefendantÏtestified€at€the€hearing€that€he€was€woken€up€from€a€deep€sleep,€and€he€hadÏbeen€given€some€medication.€€He€testified€that€he€remembered€speaking€withÏthe€investigator€and€the€Human€Services€worker€for€about€thirty€minutes.ÌÌà àThe€trial€judge€made€a€ruling€at€the€end€of€the€hearing.€€In€regard€to€theÏmedication€and€alertness€question€he€stated:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓThereððs€no€indication€that€any€of€these€drugs€would€obscure€aÏpersonððs€ability€to€think.€€Although,€it€may€have.€€Iððm€not€sayingÏit€didnððt.€€[The€investigator]€testified€that€he€appeared€to€beÏperfectly€normal,€lucid,€knew€what€he€was€doing.€€Her€wordsÏwere€ð ðvery€coherent.ðð€€Thatððs€what€appeared€to€her.Ìà àThe€situation€there€is€something€that€the€jury€shouldÏconsider€in€determining€the€weight€and€credibility€to€be€given€toÏthe€statement,€if€it€is€introduced€by€the€State.€€But€it€would€go€toÏthe€weight€and€not€the€admissibility€of€the€statement.Ò  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓThe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€The€trialÏcourt€did€not€err€in€not€denying€the€Defendantððs€motion€to€suppress.ÌÌà àTherefore,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓII.ÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€Defendantððs€second€argument€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denyingÏthe€Defendantððs€motion€for€a€mistrial.€€The€jury€began€their€deliberations€at€9:30Ïa.m.€the€morning€after€the€trial€was€completed.€€At€about€5:30€that€afternoon,€theÏjury€still€had€not€reached€a€verdict.€€Defendant€asked€the€trial€court€to€ask€theÏjury€if€they€thought€returning€the€next€day€would€help€and,€if€not,€the€DefendantÏasked€that€a€mistrial€be€declared.€€The€judge€asked€the€jury€if€they€would€goÏhome€and€return€the€next€day€to€try€again.€€At€about€12:30€p.m.€the€next€day,Ïthe€jury€returned€to€the€courtroom€with€their€verdict.€€Because€the€jury€wasÏunable€to€reach€a€verdict€on€counts€one€and€three,€rape€of€a€child,€the€trial€courtÏdeclared€a€mistrial€on€those€counts.€€The€jury€then€announced€their€verdict€thatÍthe€Defendant€was€guilty€of€counts€two€and€four,€both€aggravated€sexualÏbattery.ÌÌà àThe€impossibility€of€a€jury€to€reach€a€verdict€is€a€sufficient€reason€for€a€trialÏcourt€to€declare€a€mistrial.€€òòState€v.€Freemanóó,€669€S.W.2d€688,€692€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1983).€€The€granting€of€a€mistrial€is€in€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€ÏòòIdóó.€€This€discretion€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal€unless€there€is€a€finding€ofÏabuse€of€discretion.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àWe€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€court€abused€his€discretion€in€failing€toÏdeclare€a€mistrial.€€The€jury€deliberated€for€only€one€and€a€half€days.€€They€wereÏunable€to€reach€a€verdict€as€to€two€of€the€counts,€and€the€trial€court€correctlyÏdeclared€a€mistrial€as€to€those€counts.€€We€do€not€consider€the€trial€courtððs€actionÏin€asking€the€jury€to€return€the€next€morning€to€deliberate€as€an€abuse€ofÏdiscretion.€€The€trial€court€did€not€err€in€refusing€to€grant€a€mistrial.ÌÌà àTherefore,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÇÓ  ÓIII.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Defendantððs€third€argument€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€theÏsentencing€phase€of€the€trial€because€(1)€the€trial€court€considered€an€improperÏenhancement€factor,€and€(2)€the€trial€court€did€not€properly€weigh€theÏenhancement€and€mitigating€factors.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€Defendant€toÏtwelve€years,€the€maximum€in€his€range,€for€each€of€the€two€convictions,€to€beÏserved€concurrently€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender.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€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€areÏcorrect.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€"ÔððÔ€#Ô€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditionedÏupon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€theÏsentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€ÌÌÓ ` °œXÓà àIn€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€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€conductÍinvolved;€(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€"Ôðððð€Ô€#Ô40„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).ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€several€aggravating€factors.€€The€aggravating€factorsÏare:€(1)€That€the€victim€was€ten€years€old,€from€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏsection€40„35„114(4),€ð ðA€victim€of€the€offense€was€particularly€vulnerableÏbecause€of€age€of€physical€or€mental€disability,ðð€(2)€that€the€victim€contracted€aÏdisease€from€the€Defendant;€(3)€that€the€Defendant€abused€a€position€of€trust,ÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„114(15),€and€(4)€that€the€trial€courtÏwas€ð ðof€the€opinion€that€the€Defendant€gave€false€testimony€at€trial.ðð€€TheÏsecond€and€fourth€enhancement€factors€applied€by€the€trial€court€are€notÍenhancement€factors€recognized€in€the€statute,€and€therefore,€cannot€be€used€toÏenhance€the€Defendantððs€sentence.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€also€found€several€mitigating€factors.€€The€mitigating€factorsÏare:€(1)€The€Defendant€does€not€have€a€criminal€record;€(2)€the€Defendant€hasÏð ðobviously€been€a€hard„working,€honest€man,€who€has€taken€care€of€himself;Ïand€(3)€the€Defendant€has€felt€remorse.€€These€mitigating€factors€fall€underÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„113(13),€which€is€a€ð ðcatch„allÏprovision,ðð€and€are€not€necessarily€given€much€weight€in€sentencing.ÌÌÓ  ÓA.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€the€age€of€theÏvictim€as€an€enhancing€factor€is€error€because€the€age€of€the€victim€is€anÏelement€of€the€offense.€€This€enhancement€factor€has€previously€been€heldÏapplicable€by€this€court€when€it€would€be€considered€an€element€of€the€offense.€ÏòòState€v.€Williamsóó,€768€S.W.2d€714€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóóÏòòdeniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.€1989).€€Our€supreme€court€considered€the€application€of€thisÏenhancement€factor€to€the€sentence€of€a€Defendant€convicted€of€the€aggravatedÏrape€of€a€child€in€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€31€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€supremeÏcourt€held€that€the€main€focus€of€this€enhancement€factor€is€not€whether€theÍvictim€was€under€thirteen,€but€whether€the€victim€was€particularly€vulnerableÏbecause€of€age.€€òòId.óó€at€35.€€The€supreme€court€states€that€if€this€factor€is€to€beÏapplied€in€such€a€case€that€ð ð[t]he€State€bears€the€burden€of€proving€the€victimððsÏlimitations€rendering€him€or€her€particularly€vulnerable.ðð€€òòId.óóÌÌà àAlthough€we€agree€that€a€ten„year„old€girl€would€ordinarily€be€vulnerableÏto€the€will€of€a€grown€man€because€of€both€age€and€physical€size,€our€supremeÏcourt€has€held€that€because€the€State€in€òòAdamsóó€did€not€prove€that€the€four„year„old€and€five„year„old€victims€were€particularly€vulnerable,€the€enhancementÏfactor€did€not€apply.€€Therefore,€we€cannot€conclude€that€a€ten„year„old€girl€isÏparticularly€vulnerable€simply€because€of€her€age€and€size.€€Because€the€StateÏdid€not€bear€its€burden€of€proving€that€the€victim€was€particularly€vulnerable,€thisÏenhancement€factor€is€not€applicable.ÌÌà àWe€also€believe€that€this€record€clearly€supports€the€finding€of€twoÏadditional€enhancement€factors€not€relied€upon€by€the€trial€court.€€TheÏDefendantððs€statement€readily€supports€a€finding€that€the€offense€wasÏcommitted€to€gratify€the€Defendantððs€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(7).€€The€fact€that€the€Defendant€infected€the€victim€withÏvenereal€disease€qualifies€the€personal€injuries€to€the€victim€as€being€particularlyÏgreat.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(6).€ÌÌÓ  ÓB.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Defendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€did€not€properly€weigh€theÏenhancement€and€mitigating€factors.€€ð ðShould€there€be€enhancement€andÏmitigating€factors,€then€the€court€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range,Ïenhance€the€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€for€the€enhancementÏfactors,€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€for€theÏmitigating€factors.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€ð ðSubsection€(e)€requires€aÏweighing€process€based€on€the€merits€of€the€various€enhancement€andÏmitigating€factors.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210,€Sentencing€CommissionÏComments.ÌÌà àAlthough€three€of€the€enhancement€factors€found€by€the€trial€court€wereÏinapplicable,€we€have€noted€the€presence€of€two€additional€enhancementÏfactors€not€relied€upon€by€the€trial€court.€€We€therefore€cannot€conclude€that€theÏtrial€judge€erred€or€abused€his€discretion€in€sentencing€this€Defendant€to€twoÏconcurrent€twelve„year€sentences€to€be€served€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGE