ÿWPCŸ …UNV %¤ 0(ª4Òæõw@ý 0J= 0T‡ 0^Û 0h9 0r¡ 0| 0† 0 1u¥ U, 0dF U,ª U>Ö U* B)> DCg AMª "÷ Bv~6vÓ´ D3‡ 0@º AOúÆI 0D D/S B‚(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡DÒ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÔ3|xÒ ÀeÁr‚ÂeÃDÄUÅDÆVÇDÈUÉÓ€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌJune€20,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££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 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ ` ÑÑ Ü Ñòò›Ñ7€ögXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ Ԝـ€ÙßL€#$";+'h|` ç `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóà@ àòòÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEóóÌÌà@ àOCTOBER€1995€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à àC.C.A.#€01C01„9502„CC„00033Ì€€Ìà àà àAPPELLEE,à àà à*à àCOFFEE€COUNTY€ÌÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€Gerald€L.€Ewell,€Sr.,€JudgeÌÌWAYNE€L.€HUGHES,à à€€€€à à*à à(Felony€Reckless€Endangerment€à àà àà àà àà àà àà àÏand€Evading€Arrest)€Ìà àà àAPPELLANT.à à*ÌÌÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appellee:óóÌÌJeffrey€S.€Pulley€€€€€à àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌAttorneyà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌSuite€602€à àà à€€€€€€€€€€à àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌ176€Second€Avenue,€Northà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌNashville,€TN€€37201€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àHunt€S.€BrownÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àC.€Michael€LayneÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSteve€WeitzmanÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àManchester,€TN€€37355€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌAFFIRMED€€ÌÌÌGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÇÓÓ€à@ àòòò òOPINIONÌó óóóà àà àThe€defendant,€Wayne€L.€Hughes,€appeals€from€his€Coffee€CountyÏconvictions€for€felony€reckless€endangerment€and€evading€arrest.€€The€trial€courtÏimposed€a€Range€I€sentence€of€two€years€for€felony€reckless€endangerment€to€beÏserved€concurrently€with€the€eleven€month,€twenty„nine€day€sentence€imposed€forÏevading€arrest.€€The€sentences€were€to€be€suspended€after€the€service€of€sevenÏmonths€in€jail.€€€€òòò òà àÌÌà àà àó óóóIn€this€appeal€of€right,€the€defendant€presents€the€following€issues€forÏour€review:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€theÏdefendant's€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€as€to€theÏcharge€of€evading€arrest;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€theÏdefendant's€motion€to€dismiss€the€indictment€on€doubleÏjeopardy€grounds;€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€theÏdefendant's€motion€to€exclude€the€testimony€of€TrooperÏRick€Smith;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€whether€the€sentences€were€excessive.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àThe€defendant's€convictions€and€sentences€are€affirmed.ÌÌà àà àOn€July€2,€1993,€the€defendant,€Wayne€L.€Hughes,€led€officers€on€aÏhigh€speed€chase€through€three€counties.€€€Trooper€Ricky€D.€Smith,€of€theÏTennessee€Highway€Patrol,€noticed€a€1976€Pontiac€LeMans€which€appeared€toÏhave€been€abandoned€in€a€large€ditch€near€the€interstate€in€Rutherford€County.€ÏSuspecting€that€the€vehicle€might€have€been€involved€in€an€accident,€TrooperÏSmith€focused€his€spotlight€on€the€car€and€saw€the€defendant€inside.€€TheÏdefendant€then€started€his€vehicle,€ignoring€Trooper€Smith's€demand€to€stop,€andÏdrove€onto€the€interstate.€€Trooper€Smith,€who€followed€the€defendant€at€speeds€upÏto€115€miles€per€hour,€described€the€pursuit€as€especially€dangerous€because€ofÏthe€heavy€Fourth€of€July€weekend€traffic.€€Several€cars€had€to€be€driven€off€the€roadÏin€order€to€avoid€the€defendant's€vehicle.€€At€one€point,€the€defendant€slammed€onÏhis€brakes€and€Trooper€Smith€narrowly€avoided€a€rear„end€collision.€€At€anotherÏpoint,€the€defendant€forced€Trooper€Smith€into€the€median.€€ÌÌà àà àTrooper€Robert€Beard€joined€the€pursuit.€€He€drove€his€vehicle€into€theÏemergency€lane€next€to€two€tractor€trailers€which€were€traveling€side€by€side€in€theÏtwo€lanes€of€traffic„„an€attempt€to€form€a€"rolling€roadblock."€€The€defendant€was€stillÏable€to€pass€the€three€vehicles,€coming€within€inches€of€colliding€with€TrooperÏBeard's€vehicle.€€The€chase€continued€into€Grundy€County,€where€the€defendantÍwrecked€his€vehicle.€€When€Trooper€Smith€got€to€the€defendant's€car,€the€defendantÏclaimed€that€he€wanted€to€die€and€asked€the€trooper€to€kill€him.€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àOfficer€Charles€Taylor€of€the€Manchester€Police€Department€joined€inÏthe€pursuit€shortly€before€the€arrest.€€He€estimated€that€the€defendant€ran€more€thanÏtwenty„five€vehicles€off€of€the€roadway€during€that€limited€amount€of€time.€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àWhen€Trooper€Smith€arrested€the€defendant€at€Vanderbilt€Hospital€aÏcouple€of€weeks€later,€the€defendant€declared€that€the€trooper€had€saved€his€life€theÏnight€of€this€incident€because€he€had€been€trying€to€commit€suicide.€€The€defendantÏhad€received€intensive€psychiatric€care€during€his€hospital€stay.ÌÌà àà àA€twenty„two„year„old€father€of€three,€the€defendant€testified€that€heÏwas€employed€by€the€Trinity€Lane€Exxon€as€an€auto€mechanic.€€He€did€not€denyÏthat€he€had€engaged€officers€in€a€high€speed€chase.€€The€defendant€explained€thatÏhe€was€despondent€because€he€had€been€fired€from€his€construction€job€thatÏmorning€and€was€already€behind€on€his€bills.€€He€stated€that€he€and€his€wife,€whoÏdid€not€work,€had€argued€on€the€day€of€the€wreck€and€that€he€had€attempted€to€killÏhimself€earlier€in€the€day€by€inhaling€carbon€monoxide.€€Unsuccessful€in€that€effort,Ïhe€then€ingested€half€a€bottle€of€Tylenol,€wrote€a€suicide€note,€and€drove€away€withÍthe€intent€of€driving€off€a€cliff.€€When€he€began€to€feel€dizzy€and€sick€at€his€stomach,Ïhowever,€he€parked€in€a€large€ditch€near€the€interstate,€hoping€that€no€one€wouldÏnotice€his€car.€€The€defendant€testified€that€he€was€writing€a€second€suicide€noteÏwhen€he€passed€out.€€He€awoke€when€a€light€was€turned€onto€his€vehicle€andÏclaimed€that€he€fled€only€when€someone€approaching€his€car€refused€to€leave€himÏalone.€€The€defendant€contended€that€he€did€not€realize€that€he€was€being€pursuedÏby€officers€and€asserted€that€his€ultimate€goal€was€to€drive€off€Monteagle€Mountain.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant's€wife,€Tina€Jo€Hughes,€confirmed€that€he€was€notÏ"acting€like€himself"€on€the€night€of€this€incident.€€While€acknowledging€that€she€hadÏsaid€"some€pretty€mean€things"€to€the€defendant,€she€noted€that€the€defendant€wasÏespecially€distraught€when€his€parents€refused€to€discuss€his€discharge€fromÏemployment.€€Ms.€Hughes€found€both€of€the€suicide€notes€the€defendant€hadÏwritten€and€confirmed€that€the€defendant€had€left€the€car€running€in€their€enclosedÏgarage€for€a€substantial€period€of€time.€€ÌÌà àà àProbation€Officer€Joyce€Day,€who€had€prepared€the€defendant'sÏpresentence€report,€testified€that€the€defendant€admitted€that€he€"ran"€from€theÏpolice.€€€ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€à@ àò òIó óÌà àà àThe€defendant€claims€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€theÏevading€arrest€conviction€because€the€state€had€failed€to€prove€that€he€knew€theÏpolice€were€attempting€to€arrest€him.€€We€disagree.€€ÌÌà àà àOn€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏevidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€might€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.ÏCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€The€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€theÏweight€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€the€reconciliation€of€conflicts€in€the€proof€areÏmatters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€triers€of€fact.€€òòByrge€v.€Stateóó,€575€S.W.2dÏ292,€295€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€When€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€isÏchallenged,€the€relevant€question€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€theÏlight€most€favorable€to€the€state,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theÏessential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657ÏS.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€465€U.S.€1073€(1984);€Tenn.€R.€App.ÏP.€13(e).€€ÌÌà àà àEvading€arrest€is€defined€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(a)€It€is€unlawful€for€any€person€to€intentionally€flee€fromÏanyone€the€person€knows€to€be€a€law€enforcementÍofficer€and€the€person:Ìà8 àà8 à€€(1)€Knows€the€officer€is€attempting€to€arrest€the€person;ÏorÌà8 àà8 à€€(2)€Has€been€arrested.Ìà8 àà8 à(b)€It€is€a€defense€to€prosecution€under€this€section€thatÏthe€attempted€arrest€was€unlawful.ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„603(a)€&€(b).€€ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€defendant€claims€that€he€was€so€emotionally€distraught€that€heÏwas€never€cognizant€of€the€fact€that€law€enforcement€officers€were€attempting€toÏmake€an€arrest.€€He€reasons€that€the€state€was€unable€to€prove€that€he€hadÏ"intentionally"€fled€and€contends€that€he€only€remembered€seeing€"lots€of€brightÏlights."€€He€also€claims€that€because€the€officer€had€no€basis€for€arrest€prior€to€theÏpursuit,€there€was€no€way€that€the€defendant€could€have€known€that€the€officersÏwere€attempting€to€arrest€him.ÌÌà àà àThe€facts€surrounding€the€pursuit€belie€these€assertions.€€TrooperÏSmith€was€in€uniform€when€he€first€approached€the€defendant,€his€blue€lights€wereÏflashing,€and€his€spotlight€was€aimed€at€the€defendant's€car.€€While€the€defendantÏwas€still€within€earshot,€the€trooper€shouted€for€him€to€stop.€€The€defendant€refusedÏto€stop€and€identify€himself.€€When€the€defendant€sped€off,€the€officer€followed.€ÏMany,€if€not€all€of€several€law€enforcement€vehicles€which€were€in€pursuit,€usedÍblue€lights€and€sirens€as€they€traversed€three€counties,€a€distance€of€approximatelyÏ60€miles.€€Trooper€Beard€testified€that€his€marked€car€was€actually€in€front€of€theÏdefendant€during€portions€of€the€chase.€€Finally,€the€presentence€investigatorÏtestified€that€the€defendant€acknowledged€that€he€had€attempted€to€evade€theÏpolice.€€All€of€this€evidence€supports€the€jury's€conclusion€that€the€defendant€hadÏintentionally€fled€from€the€officers€and€that€they€were€attempting€to€make€an€arrest.€€ÌÌà@ àò òII€ó óÌà àà àNext,€the€defendant€contends€that€his€prior€conviction€forÏmisdemeanor€reckless€endangerment€in€Rutherford€County€barred€the€sameÏcharge€in€Coffee€County.€€We€disagree.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€double€jeopardy€guarantees€of€the€fifth€amendment€to€the€UnitedÏStates€Constitution€and€article€I,€section€10€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€protectÏindividuals€against€a€second€prosecution€for€the€same€offense€after€either€acquittalÏor€conviction.€€òòOhio€v.€Johnsonóó,€467€U.S.€493,€498€(1984).€€Moreover,€theÏsafeguards€noted€also€protect€against€the€imposition€of€multiple€punishments€forÏthe€same€offense.€€òòNorth€Carolina€v.€Pearceóó,€395€U.S.€711,€717€(1969);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.ÏBlackóó,€524€S.W.2d€913€(Tenn.€1975).ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€asserts€that,€because€he€had€previously€pled€guilty€toÏthe€reckless€endangerment€of€"Trooper€Rick€Smith€and€others"€on€I„24€inÏRutherford€County,€he€cannot€now€be€convicted€of€the€reckless€endangerment€ofÏTrooper€Robert€Beard€in€Coffee€County.€€The€defendant€contends€that€TrooperÏBeard€qualified€as€one€of€the€"others"€on€I„24€and€thus,€there€can€be€no€secondÏconviction.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àà àThe€actions€which€give€rise€to€a€conviction€for€any€offense€must€have,Ïat€least€in€part,€occurred€in€the€county€in€which€the€defendant€is€convicted.€€InÏconsequence,€the€defendant's€guilty€plea€to€endangering€"others€on€I„24"€includedÏonly€those€in€Rutherford€County.€€The€endangerment€of€Trooper€Beard€was€inÏCoffee€County.€€There€was€testimony€that€the€defendant€pulled€behind€TrooperÏBeard's€vehicle€and€accelerated,€even€though€Trooper€Beard€was€traveling€in€theÏemergency€lane€and€both€of€the€other€lanes€were€occupied€by€tractor€trailers.€€HadÏTrooper€Beard€not€accelerated€quickly€enough,€the€defendant's€car€would€haveÏstruck€his€vehicle.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àÌÌà àà àIn€resolving€double€jeopardy€cases,€Tennessee€courts€have€focusedÏin€large€part€on€whether€the€crime€involves€a€specific€victim.€€In€order€to€sustain€aÏconviction€in€a€reckless€endangerment€case€and€cases€involving€similar€charges,Íour€courts€have€shown€a€tendency€to€uphold€separate€convictions€for€differentÏvictims.€€In€òòState€v.€Irvinóó,€603€S.W.2d€121€(Tenn.€1980),€for€example,€our€supremeÏcourt€upheld€multiple€homicide€convictions€which€resulted€from€a€single€automobileÏaccident.€€Similarly,€in€òòState€v.€Clarence€Ray€Gober€and€Clarence€Goberóó,€No.€89„130„III€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€November€14,€1989),€òòperm.óó€òòtoóó€òòappealóóÏòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990),€this€court€upheld€four€separate€assault€convictions€whenÏguns€were€pointed€in€the€direction€of€four€police€officers.€€Most€recently,€in€òòState€v.ÏArnold€V.€Porteróó,€No.€01C01„9410„CC„00353€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,ÏJanuary€5,€1996),€this€court€held€that€in€a€single€high€speed€chase,€the€evidenceÏwas€sufficient€to€support€two€convictions€for€reckless€endangerment€where€thereÏwere€specific€facts€to€support€offenses€as€to€different€victims.€€ÌÌà àà àReckless€endangerment€requires€that€a€specific€individual€be€placedÏin€imminent€danger€by€the€defendant's€reckless€acts.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„103(a).€€Here,€both€Trooper€Smith€and€Trooper€Beard€were,€by€distinguishableÏacts€of€the€defendant,€placed€in€such€danger.€€Separate€convictions€for€each€victimÏwere,€therefore,€appropriate.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Arnold€V.€Porteróó,€òòsupraóó.Ì€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àThe€defendant€contends€that€his€evading€arrest€conviction€shouldÏhave€also€been€barred€because€it€qualified€as€a€lesser€included€offense€of€recklessÍendangerment.€€Again,€we€disagree.€€€€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòWright€v.€Stateóó,€549€S.W.2d€682€(Tenn.€1977),€our€supreme€courtÏconfirmed€the€test€to€determine€whether€an€offense€is€lesser€and€included€in€theÏgreater€offense.€€Quoting€the€late€Justice€Weldon€White€in€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€217ÏTenn.€234,€243,€397€S.W.2d€170,€174€(1965),€the€court€ruled€as€follows:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€true€test€of€which€is€a€lesser€and€which€is€a€greaterÏcrime€is€whether€the€elements€of€the€former€areÏcompletely€contained€within€the€latter,€so€that€to€proveÏthe€greater€the€State€must€first€prove€the€elements€of€theÏlesser.€€ÌÌòòWright€v.€Stateóó,€549€S.W.2d€at€685„86.€€ÌÌÌÌà àà àTwo€years€later,€our€supreme€court€again€addressedÌÌthe€subject:€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àWe€believe€that€the€better€rule,€and€the€one€to€beÏfollowed€henceforth€in€this€State,€is€the€rule€adoptedÏimplicitly€by€this€court€in€òòWright€v.€Stateóó,€òòsupraóó,€that,€inÏthis€context,€an€offense€is€necessarily€included€inÏanother€if€the€elements€of€the€greater€offense,€as€thoseÏelements€are€set€forth€in€the€indictment,€include,€but€areÏnot€congruent€with,€all€the€elements€of€the€lesser.€€IfÏthere€is€evidence€to€support€a€conviction€for€such€aÏlesser€offense,€it€must€be€charged€by€the€trial€judge.€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€40„2519€[now€T.C.A.€ðð€40„18„118(a)];€òòWhitwellÏv.€Stateóó,€520€S.W.2d€338€(Tenn.€1972).€€ÌÌÓÓòòHoward€v.€Stateóó,€578€S.W.2d€83,€85€(Tenn.€1979).€ÌÌà àà àThese€principles€were€recently€reaffirmed€in€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€______ÏS.W.2d€______,€slip€op.€at€10€(Tenn.€1996),€wherein€our€supreme€court€clarifiedÏthe€distinction€between€lesser€grades/classes€of€offenses€and€lesser€includedÏoffenses:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[A]n€offense€qualifies€as€a€lesser€included€offense€only€ifÏthe€elements€of€the€included€offense€are€a€subset€of€theÏelements€of€the€charged€offense€and€only€if€the€greaterÏoffense€cannot€be€committed€without€also€committing€theÏlesser€offense.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àOur€statute€defines€the€crime€of€reckless€endangerment€as€follows:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà à(a)€A€person€commits€an€offense€who€recklesslyÏengages€in€conduct€which€places€or€may€place€anotherÏperson€in€imminent€danger€of€death€or€serious€bodilyÏinjury.ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„103(a).€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àHere,€in€order€for€the€defendant€to€be€convicted€of€evading€arrest,ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„603(a),€the€state€had€to€prove€not€only€that€the€defendantÏintentionally€fled€from€a€law€enforcement€officer€by€driving€in€a€reckless€manner,€butÏalso€that€he€knew€Trooper€Beard€and€other€law€enforcement€officers€wereÏattempting€to€make€an€arrest.€€Proof€of€specific€intent€or€knowledge€of€the€attempt€toÍarrest€was€not€necessary€for€a€reckless€endangerment€conviction„„only€that€theÏdefendant€operated€his€vehicle€recklessly€and€placed€€Trooper€Beard€in€danger€ofÏdeath€or€injury€as€he€did€so.€€Because€the€state€had€to€prove€an€element€in€additionÏto€those€essential€to€a€reckless€endangerment€conviction,€the€evading€arrestÏconviction€would€not€have€qualified€as€a€lesser€included€offense€in€theseÏcircumstances.€€òòHoward€v.€Stateóó,€578€S.W.2d€at€85.€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà@ àò òIIIó óÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€submits€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€hisÏmotion€in€limine€to€exclude€the€testimony€of€Trooper€Smith.€€Because€he€previouslyÏpled€guilty€to€evading€arrest€and€recklessly€endangering€Trooper€Smith€inÏRutherford€County,€he€claims€that€the€trooper's€testimony€in€this€case€permitted€theÏjury€to€retry€the€defendant€on€his€prior€conviction.€€While€the€trial€court€denied€theÏdefendant's€motion€to€exclude€Trooper€Smith's€testimony,€it€was€agreed€that€hisÏtestimony€would€be€limited€to€those€events€which€occurred€in€Coffee€County.€€ÌÌà àà àRelevant€evidence€is€"evidence€having€any€tendency€to€make€theÏexistence€of€any€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€moreÏprobable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€be€without€the€evidence."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï401.€€Relevant€evidence€may€only€be€"excluded€if€its€probative€value€isÍsubstantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,Ïor€misleading€the€jury,€or€by€considerations€of€undue€delay,€waste€of€time,€orÏneedless€presentation€of€cumulative€evidence."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€ÌÌà àà àOn€direct€examination,€the€state€elicited€from€Trooper€Smith€onlyÏinformation€about€the€defendant's€conduct€in€Coffee€County.€€His€testimony€wasÏhighly€relevant€because€he€saw€the€defendant's€vehicle€narrowly€miss€the€carÏdriven€by€€Trooper€Beard.€€He€could€more€accurately€describe€the€event€thanÏTrooper€Beard.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€offers€no€reason€why€Trooper€Smith's€testimony€wasÏunfairly€prejudicial.€€Had€the€state€attempted€to€introduce€evidence€of€whatÏhappened€outside€Coffee€County,€specifically€how€the€defendant€had€collided€withÏthe€trooper's€€vehicle,€the€argument€of€substantial€prejudice€may€have€been€moreÏpersuasive.€€Moreover,€during€cross„examination€defense€counsel€asked€TrooperÏSmith€to€testify€to€those€events€which€occurred€outside€Coffee€County,€he€waivedÏhis€right€to€complain€of€any€possible€error€by€the€admission€of€the€response.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Estesóó,€655€S.W.2d€179€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€€€€€€€ÌÌò òà@ àIVó óÌà àà àThe€defendant€contends€both€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€properlyÏweigh€mitigating€and€enhancing€factors€and€that€he€should€have€been€grantedÏimmediate€probation€on€his€sentences.€€ÌÌà àà àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€serviceÏof€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€with€aÏpresumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmativeÏshowing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€andÏall€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.Ï1991).€€The€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€provide€that€the€burden€is€on€theÏdefendant€to€show€the€impropriety€of€the€sentence.ÌÌà àà àOur€review€requires€an€analysis€of€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€atÏthe€trial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€ofÏsentencing€and€the€arguments€of€counsel€relative€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€theÏnature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense;€(5)€any€mitigating€or€enhancing€factors;Ï(6)€any€statements€made€by€the€defendant€in€his€own€behalf;€and€(7)€theÏdefendant's€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103,€and€„210;€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€862€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€ÍAmong€the€factors€determinative€on€the€issue€of€probation€are€the€circumstances€ofÏthe€offense,€the€defendant's€criminal€record,€social€history,€present€condition,€hisÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment,€and€the€deterrent€effect€upon€and€bestÏinterest€of€the€defendant€and€the€public.€€òòState€v.€Grearóó,€568€S.W.2d€285,€287Ï(Tenn.€1978),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€439€U.S.€1077€(1979);€òòStiller€v.€Stateóó,€516€S.W.2d€617,Ï619„20€(Tenn.€1974).€€Especially€mitigated€or€standard€offenders€convicted€ofÏClass€C,€D,€or€E€felonies€are€presumed€to€be€favorable€candidates€"for€alternativeÏsentencing€options€in€the€absence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„102(6).€€With€certain€statutory€exceptions,€none€of€which€apply€here,Ïprobation€must€be€automatically€considered€by€the€trial€court€if€the€sentenceÏimposed€is€eight€years€or€less.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(a)€&€(b).€€TheÏultimate€burden€of€establishing€suitability€for€probation,€however,€is€still€upon€theÏdefendant.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(b).ÌÌà àà àAlternative€sentencing€issues€must€be€determined€by€the€facts€andÏcircumstances€of€the€individual€case.€€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€234„35Ï(Tenn.€1986).€€"[E]ach€case€must€be€bottomed€upon€its€own€facts."€€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,Ï744€S.W.2d€919,€922€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àà àIn€misdemeanor€sentencing,€a€separate€sentencing€hearing€is€notÍmandatory€but€the€court€is€required€to€provide€the€defendant€with€a€reasonableÏopportunity€to€be€heard€as€to€the€length€and€manner€of€the€sentence.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„302(a).€€Misdemeanor€sentences€must€be€specific€and€in€accordanceÏwith€the€principles,€purposes,€and€goals€of€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€ofÏ1989.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„104,€„117,€and€„302;€òòState€v.€Palmeróó,€902ÏS.W.2d€391,€393€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€misdemeanor€offender€must€be€sentenced€toÏan€authorized€determinant€sentence€with€a€percentage€of€that€sentence€designatedÏfor€eligibility€for€rehabilitative€programs.€€Generally,€a€percentage€of€not€greaterÏthan€75%€of€the€sentence€should€be€fixed€for€a€misdemeanor€offender.€€òòPalmeróó,Ï902€S.W.2d€at€393„94€(but€DUI€offenders€may€serve€100%)€.€€In€determining€theÏpercentage€of€the€sentence,€the€court€must€consider€enhancement€and€mitigatingÏfactors€as€well€as€the€legislative€purposes€and€principles€related€to€sentencing.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àà àUpon€service€of€that€percentage,€the€administrative€agency€governingÏthe€rehabilitative€programs€determines€which€among€the€lawful€programs€availableÏis€appropriate.€€The€trial€court€retains€the€authority€to€place€the€defendant€onÏprobation€either€immediately€or€after€a€period€of€periodic€or€continuousÏconfinement.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302(e).€€The€legislature€has€encouragedÏcourts€to€consider€public€or€private€agencies€for€probation€supervision€prior€toÏdirecting€€supervision€by€the€Department€of€Correction.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302(f).€€The€governing€statute€is€designed€to€provide€the€trial€court€with€continuingÏjurisdiction€in€misdemeanor€cases€and€a€wide€latitude€of€flexibility.€€TheÏmisdemeanant,€unlike€the€felon,€is€not€entitled€to€the€presumption€of€a€minimumÏsentence.€€òòState€v.€Creasyóó,€885€S.W.2d€829€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€found€the€following€enhancement€factors€applicableÏwithout€reference€to€which€offense€they€would€apply€to:€(1)€that€the€defendant€had€aÏprevious€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€behavior;€(2)€that€the€offense€involvedÏmore€than€one€victim;€(3)€that€the€defendant€had€a€previous€history€of€unwillingnessÏto€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€into€the€community;Ï(4)€that€the€defendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€toÏhuman€life€was€high;€and€(5)€that€the€crime€was€committed€under€circumstances€inÏwhich€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€was€great.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(3),€(8),€(10),€&€(16).ÌÌà àà àThe€presumption€of€correctness€given€to€the€trial€court€in€itsÏsentencing€determinations€is€conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€theÏrecord€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€factsÏand€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166€(Tenn.€1991).€€Where€the€trialÏcourt€applies€inappropriate€factors€or€fails€to€follow€the€provisions€of€the€sentencingÍact,€the€presumption€fails.€€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€854€S.W.2d€116€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1992).€€Here,€the€trial€judge€found€numerous€enhancement€factors€generallyÏapplicable€to€the€offenses.€€It€failed,€however,€to€state€whether€each€of€the€factorsÏapplied€to€each€of€the€convictions.€€Because€this€failed€to€comport€with€theÏrequirements€of€òòAshbyóó,€the€sentences€are€not€entitled€to€the€statutory€presumptionÏof€correctness.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€argues€that€because€he€had€only€one€prior€offense,Ïpassing€a€worthless€check,€he€should€not€be€considered€as€having€a€prior€history€ofÏcriminal€behavior€or€convictions.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1).€€We€disagree.€ÏInitially,€a€lengthy€criminal€history€is€not€necessary€for€this€factor€to€apply.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Mike€Wayne€Tateóó,€03C01„9204„CR„127€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,ÏMarch€4,€1993),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1993).€€Moreover,€the€defendantÏhad€also€been€required€to€make€restitution€on€two€other€worthless€check€charges;Ïin€addition,€he€performed€community€service€and€paid€a€fine€for€shoplifting.€€UnderÏall€of€these€circumstances,€application€of€the€factor€to€both€offenses€was€warranted.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€finding€that€theÏoffense€involved€more€than€one€victim.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(3).€ÏAgain,€we€disagree.€€The€chase€took€place€on€an€interstate€crowded€with€holidayÍtraffic.€€The€defendant€narrowly€avoided€collisions€with€several€other€vehicles.€ÏOfficer€Taylor€testified€that€the€defendant€ran€at€least€twenty„five€cars€off€the€road€inÏCoffee€County€alone.€€That€is€sufficient€to€warrant€application€of€the€factor€to€eachÏconviction.€€ÌÌà àà àNext,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€finding€that€heÏhad€a€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€conditions€involving€release€into€theÏcommunity.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(8).€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,Ïhowever,€the€defendant€acknowledged€that€he€had€failed€on€occasion€to€meet€withÏhis€probation€officer€during€the€last€third€of€a€prior€probationary€period.€€In€addition,Ïhe€failed€to€pay€his€court€costs€as€ordered.€€While€these€may€qualify€as€relativelyÏminor€infractions,€the€trial€court€was€nonetheless€entitled€to€give€limitedÏconsideration€to€this€factor€on€each€offense.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€the€enhancement€factor€of€"noÏhesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high"€isÏinapplicable€because€it€qualified€as€a€necessary€element€of€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(10).€€We€agree€on€the€reckless€endangerment€conviction.€ÏòòState€v.€Arnold€V.€Porteróó,€slip€op.€at€10.€€This€factor,€however,€would€apply€to€theÏevading€arrest€conviction.€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€further€asserts€that€the€risk€of€great€bodily€injury€isÏinherent€in€a€conviction€for€reckless€endangerment.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(16).€€The€state€concedes€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€applying€this€factor€to€theÏreckless€endangerment€conviction.€€Again,€we€agree.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Arnold€V.ÏPorteróó,€slip€op.€at€10.€€This€factor,€however,€would€apply€to€the€evading€arrestÏconviction.ÌÌà àà àThere€was€one€mitigating€factor€applicable€to€both€offenses,€that€theÏdefendant€was€suffering€from€a€mental€condition€that€substantially€reduced€hisÏculpability€for€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(8).€€The€trial€courtÏconsidered€the€factor€to€have€little€weight.€€The€defendant€argues€that€threeÏadditional€mitigating€factors€were€also€applicable:€€(1)€that€the€defendant€actedÏunder€strong€provocation;€(2)€that€substantial€grounds€existed€tending€to€justify€theÏdefendant's€conduct;€and€(3)€that€the€defendant,€although€guilty€of€the€crime,Ïcommitted€it€under€such€unusual€circumstances€that€it€is€unlikely€that€he€had€aÏsustained€intent€to€violate€the€law.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(2),€(3),€&Ï(11).€€€€€òòÌÌà àà àóóThe€trial€court€did€not€specify€its€reasons€for€refusing€to€apply€the€otherÍthree€mitigating€factors.€€The€defendant€argues€very€generally€that€they€should€beÏapplied€because€he€was€mentally€ill€at€the€time€of€the€offense,€he€had€taken€a€largeÏamount€of€Tylenol,€and€he€had€inhaled€large€amounts€of€carbon€monoxide€in€aÏsuicide€attempt€earlier€that€evening.€€ÌÌà àà àWithout€further€recitation€of€the€testimony€at€trial,€we€reject€outright€theÏcontention€that€the€defendant€acted€under€strong€provocation.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„113(2).€€Equally€apparent€is€that€there€were€no€substantial€grounds€toÏjustify€the€defendant's€endangerment€of€the€various€individuals€involved€or€hisÏattempt€to€evade€arrest.€€òòIdóó.€at€(3).€€It€may€have€been,€however,€that€the€defendant,Ïwhile€guilty€of€the€crimes,€did€in€fact€lack€a€sustained€intent€to€violate€the€law.€ÏCertainly,€the€circumstances€which€triggered€this€offense€were€"unusual."€€òòIdóó.€atÏ(11).ÌÌà àà àIn€sum,€the€trial€court€improperly€applied€two€enhancement€factors,Ïbut€properly€applied€three€enhancement€factors€and€one€mitigating€factor€to€theÏfelony€offense.€€Numerous€enhancement€factors€were€applicable€to€the€evadingÏarrest€conviction.€€The€mitigating€factor€was€given€only€slight€weight.€€One€moreÏmitigating€factor€could€have€applied€to€both€offenses.€€The€range€of€sentence€on€theÏmisdemeanor€was€up€to€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€and€on€the€felonyÍwas€one€year€at€a€minimum€and€two€years€maximum.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112.€€Because€the€enhancement€factors€clearly€outweigh€the€mitigators,€we€concurÏin€the€maximum€sentence€on€each€offense.€€€€ÌÌà àà àFinally,€the€defendant€argues€that€he€should€have€been€granted€fullÏand€immediate€probation.€€To€the€defendant's€credit,€he€had€been€gainfullyÏemployed€for€approximately€five€months€by€the€time€of€the€sentencing€hearing.€€HisÏemployer€testified€that€he€was€doing€well€in€his€position€and€was€underÏconsideration€for€promotion€to€management.€€The€defendant€and€his€wife,€who€hadÏone€child,€both€related€that€their€relationship€had€improved€significantly€since€hisÏpsychiatric€treatment.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court,€however,€was€troubled€by€the€defendant's€priorÏcriminal€record€and€his€inability€to€accept€full€responsibility€for€his€actions.€€TheÏdefendant€had€not€fully€complied€with€the€conditions€of€a€prior€probation.€€Each€ofÏthese€concerns€reflected€upon€his€potential€for€rehabilitation.€€Also€weighingÏagainst€probation€was€the€fact€that€the€defendant€had€a€sporadic€employmentÏhistory.€€Finally,€the€trial€court€emphasized€the€seriousness€of€the€offenseÏcommitted€by€the€defendant.€€Of€greatest€concern€was€the€defendant's€disregard€forÏthe€lives€of€others€traveling€on€the€roadway€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€Under€all€ofÍthese€circumstances,€a€jail€sentence€of€some€duration€is€warranted.€€TheÏrequirement€that€the€defendant€serve€seven€months€before€being€grantedÏprobation€is€supported€by€the€record.€€ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à à€€€€ÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÇCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ____________________________________ÌDavid€H.€Welles,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________________ÌRobert€E.€Corlew,€III,€Special€Judgeà à