ÿWPCF …#†VUNÜ %* 0(0bX4`t 0Jƒ 0TÍ 0^! 0h 0rç 0|Y 0†Õ 0[ 1uë U,` 0dŒ U,ð U> U*Z B)„ DC­ AMð ?=v~| BúvÓ D3ê 0@ AO]Ƭ 0Dr 0D¶ D/ú B)˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0ÒP 4®ÿN*h žP(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù-o„p3|x2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ 5Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌJanuary€17,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@ dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””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'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€¦aXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßL€"#!;+'h|` ç `€€LßIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌOCTOBER€SESSION,€1995ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9504„CC„00118Ìà 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 àMARSHALL€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€CHARLES€LEEó óÌò òFARRIS€JOHN€HUNTER,€III,ó óà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)ó óà à(DUI,€Fourth€Offense)ÌÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€AS€OF€RIGHT€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌCIRCUIT€COURT€OF€MARSHALL€COUNTYó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌWILLIAM€C.€BARNES,€JR.à àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌ13„14€Public€Squareà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€552ÌColumbia,€TN€€38402„0552à àà àWILLIAM€DAVID€BRIDGERSÌà 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 àMIKE€MCCOWENÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWEAKLEY€E.€BARNARDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMarshall€County€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àà àLewisburg,€TN€€37091ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€°Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€XÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€Defendant€appeals€as€of€right€pursuant€to€Rule€3€of€the€TennesseeÏRules€of€Appellate€Procedure€from€his€conviction€of€fourth€offense€of€driving€underÏthe€influence.€€He€argues€six€issues€in€his€appeal.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€argues€these€six€issues€in€this€appeal:€(1)€Whether€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€overruling€his€motion€to€continue€the€case;€(2)€whether€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€allowing€the€State€to€introduce€into€evidence€a€judgment€from€the€CityÏCourt€of€Columbia,€Tennessee;€(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€allowing€theÏdefense€to€ask€the€clerk€of€court€for€the€City€of€Columbia,€Tennessee€whether€theÏjudge€for€said€court€was€an€elected€official;€(4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€byÏallowing€the€intoximeter€testimony€of€the€testing€officer€when€he€could€not€positivelyÏtestify€that€he€observed€the€Defendant€for€the€requisite€twenty€(20)€minutes;€(5)Ïwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€State€to€amend€the€indictment€on€theÏday€of€trial;€and€(6)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€the€Defendant€to€nineÏ(9)€months€of€incarceration.ÌÌà àOn€June€12,€1994€the€Lewisburg€Police€Department€received€a€callÏconcerning€a€pick„up€truck€driving€erratically€in€a€liquor€store€parking€lot€that€wasÏlocated€in€an€area€frequented€by€the€public.€€An€officer€was€dispatched€to€theÏlocation.€€When€the€officer€arrived,€he€saw€the€truck€moving€very€slowly.€€The€truckÏimmediately€stopped€when€the€officer€asked€the€Defendant€to€stop.€€When€theÏDefendant€stepped€out€of€the€vehicle,€the€officer€smelled€the€strong€odor€of€anÏintoxicant.€€The€Defendant€could€not€stand€and€had€to€support€himself€on€the€truck.€ÏThe€officer€requested€the€Defendant's€license€and€the€Defendant€produced€aÏlicense€which€was€for€identification€only.€€The€officer€administered€some€fieldÏsobriety€tests€and€the€Defendant€did€not€pass€them.€€The€officer€transported€theÏDefendant€to€the€Marshall€County€jail,€where€an€intoximeter€test€was€administered.€ÏThe€Defendant€registered€.33€percent.ÌÌÓ  ÓI.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Defendant's€first€issue€is€whether€the€court€erred€in€overruling€theÏDefendant's€motion€to€continue€the€case.€€We€combine€this€issue€with€Defendant'sÏfifth€issue,€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€State€to€amend€theÏindictment€on€the€day€of€trial.€€ÌÌà àOn€October€6,€the€State€moved€to€amend€the€indictment€so€that€it€read€thatÏthe€Defendant€had€a€previous€conviction€for€DUI€in€the€Circuit€Court€in€Franklin,ÏWilliamson€County€instead€of€the€Circuit€Court€in€Columbia,€Maury€County.€€TheÏtrial€court€granted€the€motion.€€On€October€7,€the€Defendant€filed€a€motion€for€aÏcontinuance.€€The€trial€court€denied€this€motion.€€The€trial€took€place€as€scheduledÏon€October€10.€€The€Defendant€argues€that€he€was€not€given€enough€time€to€attackÏthe€conviction€with€the€amended€court€name,€because€he€did€not€get€aÏcontinuance.€€ÌÌà àRule€7(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€states,€"If€noÏadditional€or€different€offense€is€thereby€charged€and€no€substantial€rights€of€theÏdefendant€are€thereby€prejudiced,€the€court€may€permit€an€amendment€without€theÏdefendant's€consent€before€jeopardy€attaches."€€In€òòState€v.€Beechóó,€744€S.W.2d€585Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.€(Tenn.€1987),€this€court€faced€aÏsimilar€situation.€€In€òòBeechóó,€the€indictment€for€a€DUI€read€that€a€prior€DUI€convictionÏoccurred€in€Williamson€County€General€Sessions€Court€when€it€should€have€readÏthat€it€occurred€in€the€Franklin€City€Court,€Williamson€County.€€òòIdóó.€at€587.€€The€trialÏcourt€allowed€the€State€to€amend€the€indictment€to€include€this€change€the€dayÏbefore€the€trial€began.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àThis€court€held€that€the€changing€of€the€court's€name€did€not€constitute€anÏadditional€or€different€offense.€€òòIdóó.€€This€court€stated€that€the€amended€count€"was€inÏa€supplementary€count€to€give€the€notice€of€a€prior€DUI€conviction€(for€penaltyÏenhancement€purpose)"€and€the€charge€before€the€court€remained€the€same€afterÏthe€amendment€was€made.€€òòIdóó.€€We€also€held€that€the€defendant€in€òòBeechóó€was€notÏprejudiced€because€the€identity€of€the€court€was€corrected€and€there€was€sufficientÏnotice€about€the€prior€conviction.€€òòIdóó.€at€588.ÌÌà àTherefore,€the€trial€court€properly€allowed€the€amendment€to€the€indictment.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€moved€for€a€continuance€so€that€he€could€collaterally€attackÏhis€prior€DUI€convictions€at€this€trial.€€The€granting€or€denial€of€a€continuance€is€aÏmatter€left€to€the€sole€discretion€of€the€trial€judge,€whose€decision€will€not€beÏdisturbed€absent€"a€clear€showing€of€gross€abuse€of€this€discretion€to€the€prejudiceÏof€the€defendant."€€òòBaxter€v.€Stateóó,€503€S.W.2d€226,€230€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcertóó.Ïòòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.€(Tenn.€1973).€€This€court€has€previously€stated€that€"[t]he€only€test€isÏwhether€the€defendant€has€been€deprived€of€his€rights€and€an€injustice€done."€ÏòòState€v.€Goodmanóó,€643€S.W.2d€375,€378€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóóÏòòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.€(Tenn.€1982).€€In€order€to€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€judge,€weÏmust€be€convinced€that€the€defendant€"did€not€have€a€fair€trial€and€that€a€differentÍresult€would€or€might€reasonably€have€been€reached€had€there€been€a€differentÏdisposition€of€the€application€for€a€continuance."€€òòBaxteróó,€503€S.W.2d€at€230;€òòaccordóóÏòòGoodmanóó,€643€S.W.2d€at€378.ÌÌà àDefendant's€counsel€cannot€argue€in€this€case€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€theÏamendment€of€the€indictment€immediately€before€the€trial€because€he€knew€aboutÏthe€Williamson€County€conviction.€€In€an€affidavit€filed€October€7,€Defendant'sÏcounsel€stated€that€he€had€contacted€the€Circuit€Court€of€Williamson€County.€ÏCounsel€had€obviously€located€the€judgment€for€that€conviction€when€he€moved€forÏthe€continuance.ÌÌà àFurthermore,€his€attacks€of€his€prior€DUI€convictions€would€not€have€beenÏsuccessful€because€a€Defendant€cannot€at€trial€collaterally€attack€a€prior€convictionÏused€to€enhance€punishment.€€òòState€v.€McClintockóó,€732€S.W.2d€268,€272€(Tenn.Ï1987).€€Such€an€attack€must€be€pursued€through€a€post„conviction€relief€petition.€ÏòòIdóó.ÌÌà àThe€result€would€not€likely€have€been€different€if€the€Defendant's€motion€for€aÏcontinuance€had€been€granted.€€Therefore,€the€trial€court's€denial€of€the€motion€forÏa€continuance€was€proper.ÌÌà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓII.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àFor€the€next€issue€we€combine€the€Defendant's€second€and€third€issues.€ÏThe€second€issue€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€State€to€introduceÏa€certified€copy€of€a€judgment€of€the€Columbia€City€Court€and€in€not€permitting€theÏDefendant€to€question€the€Clerk€of€the€Columbia€Municipal€Court€about€whetherÏColumbia's€Municipal€Court€Judges€are€elected.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€he€should€have€been€allowed€to€attack€prior€DUIÏconvictions€entered€in€the€Columbia€City€Court€on€the€basis€that€the€judge€for€theÏMunicipal€Court€of€Columbia€is€not€elected€as€required€by€the€Tennessee€StateÏConstitution.€€He€argues€that€these€convictions€should€not€be€used€to€enhance€theÏpunishment€of€the€Defendant,€relying€on€òòTown€of€South€Carthage€v.€Barrettóó,€840ÏS.W.2d€895€(Tenn.€1992).€€These€issues€were€recently€resolved€by€our€supremeÏcourt.ÌÌà àIn€òòBankston€v.€Stateóó,€908€S.W.2d€194€(Tenn.€1995),€the€court€held€that€if€aÏDefendant€did€not€challenge€the€jurisdiction€of€the€municipal€court€either€in€thatÏcourt€or€on€direct€appeal,€òòTown€of€South€Carthageóó€"does€not€apply."€€In€òòBankstonóó,Ïthe€court€reasoned€that€"'disastrous€consequences€would€follow€if€we€were€toÏòòautomaticallyóó€invalidate€all€acts€of€municipal€judges€not€elected€in€accordance€withÏthe€Tennessee€Constitution:€€hundreds€of€otherwise€valid€convictions€couldÏpotentially€be€nullified,€and€those€defendants€would€have€to€be€retried.€€This€wouldÏput€at€risk€settled€rights,€entail€a€substantial€expense€to€the€taxpayers€of€this€stateÏand€place€an€additional€load€on€our€already€overburdened€judicial€system."€€TheÏcourt€concluded€that€under€the€circumstances€presented,€the€municipal€court€wasÏacting€as€a€òòdeóó€òòfactoóó€court€at€the€time€the€convictions€were€entered.ÌÌà àTherefore,€these€issues€are€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓIII.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€third€issue€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€intoximeterÏtestimony€of€the€officers€in€question€who€could€not€positively€testify€as€to€observingÏthe€Defendant€the€requisite€twenty€minutes€before€administering€the€test.€€ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Sensingóó,€843€S.W.2d€412€(Tenn.€1992),€our€supreme€court€heldÏthat€an€officer€testifying€concerning€the€results€of€a€breath€alcohol€testing€instrumentÏmust€be€able€to€testify€to€six€requirements€for€the€results€of€the€test€to€be€admissible.€ÏòòIdóó.€at€416.€€One€of€these€requirements€is€that€the€testing€officer€must€be€able€toÏtestify€"that€the€motorist€was€observed€for€the€requisite€20€minutes€prior€to€the€test,Ïand€during€this€period,€he€did€not€have€foreign€matter€in€his€mouth,€did€notÏconsume€any€alcoholic€beverage,€smoke,€or€regurgitate."€€òòIdóó.€€In€òòState€v.€McCaslinóó,Ï894€S.W.2d€310€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€this€court€held€that€where€an€officerÏtransported€the€defendant€to€the€police€station€and€then€observed€the€defendant€forÏsixteen€minutes,the€requisite€twenty€minutes€was€not€met€because€the€officer€couldÏnot€conclusively€testify€that€the€defendant€did€not€regurgitate€in€the€back€seat€of€theÏpolice€car.€€òòIdóó.€at€311.ÌÌà àThere€is€only€a€summary€of€the€evidence€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€becauseÏthere€is€no€transcript€of€the€trial.€€The€arresting€officer€did€not€administer€the€breathÏalcohol€test.€€Another€officer€was€called€as€backup€at€the€scene€and€administeredÏthe€test€at€the€station.€€The€testing€officer€testified€that€he€observed€the€DefendantÏfor€fifteen€minutes€at€the€station€before€he€administered€the€test.€€He€stated€that€heÏtypically€waits€twenty€minutes,€but€he€was€taught€that€ten€minutes€is€a€sufficientÏamount€of€time.€€The€arresting€officer€testified€that€after€arresting€the€Defendant€atÍthe€scene€and€transporting€him€to€the€station,€he€observed€the€Defendant€for€twentyÏminutes€in€the€booking€room€and€ten€additional€minutes€in€the€intoximeter€room.€ÏThe€arresting€officer€then€testified€that€"he€observed€the€Defendant€for€thirty€(30)Ïminutes€before€the€breath€test€to€insure€that€the€Defendant€had€not€regurgitated,Ïbelched,€etc."€€ÌÌà àThe€summary€of€the€evidence€demonstrates€that€the€arresting€officerÏobserved€the€Defendant€for€thirty€minutes€prior€to€the€breath€alcohol€test€beingÏadministered.€€We€conclude€that€this€testimony€provided€a€sufficient€basis€to€allowÏthe€results€of€the€breath€alcohol€test€€to€be€admitted.€€Even€though€the€òòtestingóó€officerÏcould€not€testify€that€the€motorist€was€observed€for€the€requisite€twenty€minutes,€weÏbelieve€that€this€requirement€of€òòSensingóó€was€satisfied€by€the€testimony€of€theÏòòarrestingóó€officer.ÌÌà àTherefore,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓIV.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€last€issue€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€the€Defendant€toÏserve€nine€months.€€When€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€the€mannerÍof€service€of€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€are€correct.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€ÔððÔ€Ô€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€theÏaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencingÏprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2dÏ166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€ÌÌÓ ` °œXÓà àIn€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€court€must€consider:€€(a)€Ïthe€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€statement€thatÏthe€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€of€potential€forÏrehabilitation€or€treatment.€€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€Ôðððð€Ô€Ô40„35„102,€„103,€and€„210;€òòseeóóÏòòState€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,€andÏthat€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,€then€weÍmay€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€different€result.€ÏòòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€785€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌÑ  Ñà àIn€misdemeanor€sentencing,€a€separate€sentencing€hearing€is€notÏmandatory€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).€€The€sentence€must€be€specific€and€consistent€with€theÏpurposes€and€principles€of€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302(b).€€The€trial€court€retains€the€authority€to€place€theÏDefendant€on€probation€either€immediately€or€after€a€period€of€continuousÏconfinement.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302(e).€€Misdemeanor€sentencing€isÏdesigned€to€provide€the€trial€court€with€continuing€jurisdiction€and€a€great€deal€ofÏflexibility.€€One€convicted€of€a€misdemeanor,€unlike€one€convicted€of€a€felony,€is€notÏentitled€to€a€presumption€of€a€minimum€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Creasyóó,€885€S.W.2dÏ829,€832€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.€(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌà àThe€range€of€punishment€for€a€third€or€subsequent€DUI€conviction€is€fromÏ120€days€to€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€in€the€county€jail€or€workhouse.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„403(a)(1).€€The€Defendant€was€sentenced€to€elevenÍmonths€and€twenty„nine€days,€nine€months€of€which€was€to€be€served€inÏconfinement.€€The€trial€court€found€that€there€were€two€enhancement€factors€and€noÏmitigating€factors.€€The€two€enhancing€factors€were€that€the€Defendant€had€aÏprevious€history€of€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€that€necessary€to€establish€theÏappropriate€range€and€that€the€Defendant€had€no€hesitation€of€committing€a€crimeÏwhere€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high.ÌÌà àWe€agree€with€the€trial€judge€that€the€first€enhancement€factor€applies.€ÏThere€was€a€history€of€criminal€behavior€in€that€the€Defendant€had€three€prior€DUIÏconvictions.€€This€is€one€conviction€in€addition€to€the€two€needed€to€enhance€theÏminimum€punishment€to€120€days.€€He€was€also€charged€with€driving€on€a€revokedÏlicense€at€the€time€of€his€Williamson€County€DUI€conviction.€€However,€we€concludeÏthat€the€record€does€not€support€the€second€enhancement€factor.€€The€DefendantÏwas€discovered€driving€in€a€parking€lot.€€There€is€no€proof€summarized€in€theÏstatement€of€the€evidence€to€establish€a€higher€risk€to€human€life€than€exists€inÏevery€DUI.ÌÌà àEven€though€the€second€enhancement€factor€is€not€supported€by€the€record,Ïwe€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€judge€erred€or€abused€his€discretion€in€sentencingÏthe€Defendant€to€serve€nine€months€for€a€fourth€offense€DUI.ÌÌà àTherefore,this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌROBERT€E.€CORLEW,€III,€SPECIAL€JUDGE