ÿWPCé …UBV %˜U.žÌnXÜ 044 4h 0J| 0TÆ 0^ 0hx 0rà 0|R 0†Î 0T 1uä U,Y 0d… U,é U6B)KDCt AM·v~vÓ‘ Bd D3 0@´ AOôÆC 0P  0DY D/ BÌ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|X«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP( ¤T$¡¡Ó  Óo„p2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌMarch€22,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò d%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5((3í¸$¢¢Ý ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ÔßL€!" ;+'h|` ç `€€LßIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌDECEMBER€1995€SESSIONÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà à€€APPELLEE,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€01„C„01„9501„CC„00015Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àLincoln€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àW.€Charles€Lee,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Rape€of€a€Child)ÌDANNY€LEE€HOLDER,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àAPPELLANT.à à)ÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌAndrew€Jackson€Dearing,€IIIà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌAttorney€at€Lawà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ117€Main€Street,€South,€Suite€101à àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌShelbyville,€TN€37160à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0485ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMichael€J.€Fahey,€IIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0485ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àW.€Michael€McCownÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€904Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFayetteville,€TN€37334ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWeakley€E.€BarnardÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€904Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFayetteville,€TN€37334ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:_____________________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌJoe€B.€Jones,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÑ7€RXXdæXXdÈ7ÑÓ  Óò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant,€Danny€Lee€Holder,€was€convicted€of€raping€a€child,€a€Class€AÏfelony,€by€a€jury€of€his€peers.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€appellant€to€confinement€forÏtwenty„three€(23)€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€Three€basic€issues€areÏpresented€for€review.€The€appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€toÏsustain€his€conviction;€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€excessive;€and€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„523,€which€requires€a€person€convicted€of€child€rape€to€serve€theÏentire€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court,€is€unconstitutional.€€This€Court€finds€that€theÏissues€raised€by€the€appellant€are€without€merit,€and,€therefore,€affirms€the€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court.Ìà àThe€appellant€is€the€natural€father€of€the€victim,€D.H.€€The€victim's€mother€andÏthe€appellant€separated€when€the€victim€was€five„months„old.€€The€appellant€had€veryÏlittle€contact€with€the€victim€until€he€visited€her€in€the€hospital.€€The€victim,€who€wasÏhaving€trouble€getting€along€with€her€mother,€asked€the€appellant€if€she€could€live€withÏhim€and€her€step„mother.€€The€appellant€applied€for€and€obtained€temporary€custodyÍof€the€victim.€€On€August€6,€1993,€the€victim€moved€into€the€appellant's€home.€€DuringÏthe€time€in€question,€the€victim€was€twelve€years€of€age€and€the€appellant€was€thirty„eight€years€of€age.Ìà àIn€October€of€1993,€the€appellant€and€the€victim€engaged€in€sexual€activity.€€TheÏvictim€testified€that€they€engaged€in€vaginal€intercourse,€fellatio,€and€cunnilingus.€ÏThese€sexual€encounters€occurred€approximately€once€a€week€from€October€toÏDecember€8,€1993,€when€the€victim€was€returned€to€her€mother.€€The€appellant€gave€aÏstatement€to€the€investigating€officer€in€which€he€admitted€that€he€engaged€in€sexualÏintercourse€and€cunnilingus€with€the€victim.€€The€appellant€also€made€a€courtroomÏadmission€of€these€acts€when€he€testified€in€support€of€his€defense.Ìà àThe€victim€testified€that€she€engaged€in€the€sexual€acts€with€the€appellant€byÏmutual€agreement.€€The€appellant€testified€that€the€victim€consented€to€the€sexual€acts,Ïhe€did€not€threaten€her,€and€he€made€no€promises€to€her.€€€He€did€tell€the€victim€that€ifÏshe€told€someone,€he€could€go€to€jail.€€The€victim€told€a€close€friend€what€wasÏoccurring.Ìà àOn€December€8,€1993,€the€appellant's€wife,€Sandra,€entered€the€residence,Ïwent€to€the€shower,€and€found€the€appellant€and€the€victim,€both€nude,€in€the€shower.€ÏMrs.€Holder€went€to€the€home€of€the€victim's€mother,€told€her€what€she€had€witnessed,Ïand€the€victim's€mother€notified€the€Lincoln€County€Sheriff's€Department.ÌÌÓ  Óò òI.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€toÍsupport€a€finding€by€a€rational€trier€of€fact€that€he€was€guilty€of€the€rape€of€a€childÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€He€argues€that€the€word€"unlawful,"€as€used€in€theÏapplicable€statute,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„522,€equates€to€a€non„consensualÏpenetration.€€Therefore,€if€the€sexual€penetration€was€consensual€in€this€case,€theÏaccused€could€not€be€convicted€of€the€crime€proscribed€by€statute.€€€The€state€contendsÏthat€consent€is€never€a€defense€when€the€victim€is€less€than€thirteen€years€of€age.ÌÌÓ  Óò òA.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€thisÏCourt€must€review€the€record€to€determine€if€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial€is€sufficientÏ"to€support€the€finding€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€13(e).€€This€rule€is€applicable€to€findings€of€guilt€based€upon€direct€evidence,Ïcircumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòStateÏv.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€253€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990).Ìà àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€this€Court€does€notÏreweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€€(Tenn.€1990).€€Nor€may€this€Court€substitute€itsÏinferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.ÏStateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859,€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€352€U.S.€845,€77€S.Ct.Ï39,€1€L.Ed.2d€49€(1956).€€To€the€contrary,€this€Court€is€required€to€afford€the€State€ofÏTennessee€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€asÏwell€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€theÍevidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).Ìà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€toÏbe€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€Court.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€In€òòState€v.ÏGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973),€our€Supreme€Court€said:€€"A€guilty€verdictÏby€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€theÏState€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€theory€of€the€State."Ìà àSince€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€itÏwith€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused,€as€the€appellant,€has€the€burden€in€this€CourtÏof€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdicts€returned€by€theÏtrier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€This€Court€will€notÏdisturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€due€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€unless€the€factsÏcontained€in€the€record€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€toÏfind€that€the€accused€is€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914.ÌÌÓ  Óò òB.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€889€S.W.2d€225€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.Ï1994),€the€accused€was€convicted€of€aggravated€rape.€€The€age€of€the€victim€was€theÏaggravating€factor€that€elevated€the€offense€from€rape€to€aggravated€rape.€€TheÏaccused,€like€the€appellant€in€this€case,€contended€that€the€term€"unlawful,"€as€used€inÏthe€aggravated€rape€statute,€was€synonymous€with€"non„consensual€sex."€€In€holdingÏthat€"consent"€was€not€a€defense,€this€Court€said:ÌÓÓÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒEven€though€the€term€"unlawful"€may€generally€refer€to€non„consensual€acts,€the€defense€of€consent€is€still€not€availableÏwhen€the€factor€elevating€the€crime€from€simple€rape€toÏaggravated€rape€is€the€age€of€the€victim.€€There€is€plainÏmeaning€in€the€statute.€This€interpretation€is€in€accord€withÏseveral€unreported€opinions€rendered€by€this€court.€Ï(citations€omitted).ÌÌThese€holdings€are€consistent€with€the€legislative€aim€toÏprovide€special€protection€for€children.€.€.€.ÌÌIn€summary,€our€view,€simply€stated,€is€that€consent€is€neverÏa€defense€to€a€sex€offense€when€the€victim€is€less€thanÏthirteen€years€of€age.€€The€term€"unlawful,"€as€used€in€theÏstatute,€does€not€afford€the€defendant€any€relief.ÌÓÓÌÒ  ÒÒ X Ò889€S.W.2d€at€227.Ìà àThis€Court€holds€that€the€decision€in€òòJonesóó€is€equally€applicable€to€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„13„522.€€This€statute€also€gives€special€protection€to€children€under€the€ageÏof€thirteen€years.€€It€also€enhances€the€punishment€when€a€child€is€raped.€€ÏConsequently,€the€appellant€was€not€entitled€to€the€defense€of€consent€in€this€case.ÌÌÓ  Óò òC.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThis€Court€finds€that€the€evidence€of€the€appellant's€guilt€is€overwhelming.€€TheÏvictim€testified€as€to€what€occurred.€€€The€appellant€confessed€his€guilt€after€his€arrest.€ÏWhen€this€case€was€tried,€the€appellant€took€the€stand€and€admitted€what€occurred.€€InÏshort,€the€evidence€is€more€than€sufficient€to€support€a€finding€by€a€rational€trier€of€factÏthat€the€appellant€was€guilty€of€the€rape€of€a€child€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.ÏR.€App.€P.€13(e);€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2789,€61ÍL.Ed.2d€560,€673€(1979).Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  Óò òII.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€"the€Trial€Judge€improperly€applied€the€mitigatingÏand€enhancing€factors"€and€"the€Sentence€imposed€is€excessive."€€He€argues€that€theÏtrial€court€should€have€imposed€the€minimum€sentence.€€However,€the€appellant€hasÏfailed€to€establish€what€mitigating€factors€should€have€been€found€and€what€enhancingÏfactors€were€improperly€applied.Ìà àIt€is€the€duty€of€this€Court€to€review€sentences€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€with€a€presumption€thatÏthe€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€However,€€the€appellant€has€the€burden€of€establishing€that€the€sentenceÏimposed€by€the€trial€court€was€erroneous.€€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€toÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401;€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€891€S.W.2d€922,€929€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994);€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€786€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1991).€€In€this€case,€the€appellant€has€failed€to€overcome€the€presumptionÏof€correctness.€€As€previously€stated,€he€does€not€state€what€factors€were€erroneouslyÏapplied€or€not€applied.€€Furthermore,€he€does€not€establish€why€the€sentence€wasÏexcessive.Ìà àThe€trial€court€found€three€enhancing€factors€and€one€mitigating€factor.€€TheÏrecord€reveals€that€the€trial€court€gave€great€weight€to€the€enhancing€factors€and€littleÏweight€to€the€mitigating€factor.€€This€Court€has€reviewed€these€factors€and€finds€thatÍthey€are€supported€by€the€record.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  Óò òIII.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„523€is€unconstitutionalÏbecause€it€is€disproportionate.€€He€argues€that€the€statute€violates€the€EighthÏAmendment€and€Article€1,€ðð€16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€This€statute€providesÏthat€a€person€convicted€of€the€rape€of€a€child€must€"serve€the€entire€sentence€imposedÏby€the€[trial]€court€undiminished€by€any€sentence€reduction€credits€such€person€may€beÏeligible€for€or€earn."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„523(b).€€Moreover,€a€person€convictedÏof€this€offense€is€not€eligible€for€parole,€and€neither€the€governor€nor€the€parole€boardÏmay€release€such€person.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€€39„13„523(c)€and€(d).€€Ìà àAlthough€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€proportionalityÏanalysis€applies€only€in€capital€cases,€òòHarmelin€v.€Michiganóó,€501€U.S.€957,€994,€111ÏS.Ct.€2680,€2701,€115€L.Ed.2d€836,€864€(1991),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÏevaluates€a€proportionality€challenge€under€the€Tennessee€Constitution€by€using€theÏmethod€set€forth€in€Justice€Kennedy's€concurrence€in€òòHarmelinóó.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€844ÏS.W.2d€601,€603€(Tenn.€1992).€€Under€this€approach,€the€sentence€is€first€comparedÏwith€the€crime€committed.€€"Unless€this€threshold€comparison€leads€to€an€inference€ofÏgross€disproportionality,€the€inquiry€ends€„„€the€sentence€is€constitutional.€€In€those€rareÏcases€where€this€inference€does€arise,€the€analysis€proceeds€by€comparing€(1)€theÏsentences€imposed€on€other€criminals€in€the€same€jurisdiction,€and€(2)€the€sentencesÍimposed€for€€commission€of€the€same€crime€in€other€jurisdictions."€€òòHarrisóó,€844€S.W.2dÏat€603.Ìà àIn€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€€an€eight„year„old€child€spent€the€night€at€the€accused'sÏresidence€following€a€birthday€party.€€The€child€"awoke€to€find€[the€accused]€fondlingÏher€chest€under€her€nightgown€and€touching€her€in€the€genital€area€over€her€shorts."€Ï844€S.W.2d€at€602.€€The€accused€was€convicted€of€aggravated€sexual€battery€basedÏupon€the€age€of€the€victim.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€accused€to€serve€twenty€(20)Ïyears€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€The€accused€argued€that€the€sentenceÏimposed€was€unconstitutionally€disproportionate€to€the€crime€that€he€had€committed.€ÏAfter€comparing€the€20„year€sentence€with€the€gravity€of€the€offense,€the€Court€foundÏthat€the€sentence€was€not€unconstitutionally€disproportionate€in€the€context€of€theÏEighth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€ðð€16€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution.Ìà àIn€òòHarmelin€v.€Michiganóó,€the€accused€was€"convicted€of€possessing€672€gramsÏof€cocaine€and€sentenced€to€a€mandatory€term€of€life€in€prison€without€possibility€ofÏparole."€€The€appellant€contended€that€the€sentence€imposed€was€"significantlyÏdisproportionate"€to€the€crime€he€committed;€€and€it€was€"cruel€and€unusual"Ïpunishment€because€it€was€the€only€punishment€the€court€could€impose€for€theÏoffense.€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€sentence€imposed€was€notÏunconstitutional.€€òòHarmelinóó,€501€U.S.€at€994,€111€S.Ct.€at€2701,€115€L.Ed.2d€at€864„65.€ÏThe€Court€further€held€that€Michigan€was€not€required,€as€the€accused€argued,€toÏcreate€a€sentencing€scheme€where€life€without€parole€was€the€highest€penalty.€ÏòòHarmelinóó,€501€U.S.€at€994„96,€111€S.Ct.€at€2701„02,€115€L.Ed.2d€at€864„65.Ìà àThe€courts€generally€agree€that€substantial€deference€should€be€given€to€theÏbroad€authority€of€the€legislature€to€determine€the€type€and€limits€of€punishment€for€aÏparticular€crime.€€It€is€also€recognized€that€the€punishment€for€a€particular€crime€mayÏdiffer€from€jurisdiction€to€jurisdiction€as€there€is€not€one€method€or€system€for€theÏpunishment€of€crimes.Ìà àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„523€is€constitutional.€€This€Court€is€aware€of€theÏnumerous€cases€of€child€rape€that€have€been€resolved€by€this€Court€in€the€past.€€EachÏyear€the€number€of€these€crimes€has€increased.€€Obviously,€the€prescribed€punishmentÏfor€the€offense€did€not€deter€the€citizens€of€this€state€from€committing€this€crime.€€InÏ1992€the€Tennessee€General€Assembly,€realizing€that€the€number€of€these€casesÏcontinued€to€grow,€enacted€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„523€in€order€to€deter€thisÏoffense.Ìà àThis€state€has€a€legitimate€interest€in€trying€to€protect€children€under€the€age€ofÏthirteen€from€the€sexual€misconduct€of€others.€€These€children€are€generally€vulnerableÏto€adults€due€to€the€differences€in€size.€€Also,€a€relative€of€the€victim€is€generally€theÏperpetrator.€€The€relative,€as€a€general€rule,€has€control€of€the€victim.Ìà àAfter€comparing€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€with€the€23„year€sentenceÏimposed,€no€inference€of€gross€disproportionality€arises.€€Here,€the€appellant,€as€theÏfather€of€the€victim,€took€advantage€of€a€vulnerable€twelve„year„old€child.€€During€theÏtrial,€both€the€victim€and€the€appellant€testified€that€they€had€engaged€in€a€sexual€actÏinvolving€penetration€approximately€once€a€week€or€about€twelve€times.€€During€theÏsentencing€hearing,€the€appellant€testified€that€the€actual€number€was€closer€to€twenty„four€times,€or€double€the€trial€testimony.€€Yet€the€appellant€was€tried€and€convicted€of€aÍsingle€act.€€Certainly,€the€sentence€fits€the€crime€in€this€case;€and€given€the€facts€of€thisÏcase,€the€fact€the€appellant€will€have€to€serve€every€day€of€the€twenty„three€yearÏsentence€does€not€make€the€punishment€unconstitutionally€disproportionate.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_____________________________________Ìà àPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌ____________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€JOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGE€€€€€ÓÓ