ÿWPC¼/ …U:V % 0 Ü–4r † #†• 0  0D; D3 0J² 0Tü 0^P 0h® 0r 0|ˆ 0† 0Š 1uU , 0d»U,U *KB)uDCž AMáÚ.ã=ë¬(àÔ ´vT BÊ!§ç!v~Ž$ 0@ &vÓL& AO,Æn, 0ø4- 0D,/ D/p/ BŸ/, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ño„p3|xd˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0Çog1–7JBÇŒ 4~ÈÏ>(Ð(3Ž˜$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€LçXXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó****'ÿÿdxd2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÐÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌJan…uaryÏ11,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó ÙÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝBeard€testified€at€trial€that,€although€he€knew€Tommy€Burns,€he€did€notÏbuy€the€truck€from€Burns,€nor€did€he€owe€any€money€to€Burns.Ì 3Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAt€the€time€the€appellant€made€this€statement€to€Oliver,€Deputy€PhelanÏwas€standing€approximately€four€feet€away.€€However,€at€trial,€Phelan€testifiedÏthat€the€appellant€never€claimed€to€have€permission€to€enter€the€truck.Ì ¢Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝMs.€Hunter€later€found€an€empty€vodka€bottle€on€the€couch€in€the€livingÏroom.Ì ÖÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€conclude€later€in€this€opinion€that€these€tools€were€properly€admittedÏinto€evidence€at€trial.€€òòSee€òòinfraóóóó€part€IV.Ì –Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝImplicit€in€the€appellant's€argument€is€the€contention€that€theft€andÏattempted€theft€are€lesser€included€offenses€of€burglary.€€However,€the€courts€ofÏthis€state€have€held€otherwise.€€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€613€S.W.2d€218,€221€(Tenn.Ï1981);€€òòJones€v.€Stateóó,€569€S.W.2d€462,€463€(Tenn.€1978);€€òòState€v.€Campbellóó,Ï721€S.W.2d€813,€818€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986);€€òòState€v.€Wrightóó,€650€S.W.2d€57,Ï59€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983);€€òòState€v.€Lindsayóó,€637€S.W.2d€886,€889€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1982);€€òòPetree€v.€Stateóó,€530€S.W.2d€90,€93„94€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1975).€€Ì lÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€appellant€testified€that,€in€the€past,€drugÏand€alcohol€abuse€had€largely€precipitated€his€criminal€activities.€€However,€heÏcontinued€to€maintain€his€innocence€in€the€instant€case,€again€stating€that€heÏentered€Beard's€truck€in€order€to€keep€warm.Ì d Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€terms€of€the€appellant's€probation€included€regular€attendance€atÏAA€meetings.€€When€the€appellant€was€asked€by€the€trial€court€at€the€sentencingÏhearing€if€he€had€complied€with€this€condition,€his€response€was€somewhatÏunclear.€€Nevertheless,€the€trial€court€did€not€find€that€the€appellant€had€violatedÏthis€condition.€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(Ð3š=$¢¢Ý ƒ`!ÝÑÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ7€LçXXdæXXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÙ€€Ùò òßL€"#!;+'h|` õ `€€Lßà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌà@ àMARCH€SESSION,Ï1995Ìó óÌÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9411„CC„00391Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àMARSHALLÏCOUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.ÏCHARLES€LEE,€JudgeÌò òJERRY€LEE€HUNTERó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Burglary)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€theÏAppelleeóó:ÌÌò òGregory€D.€Smithà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€Bursonó óÌBPR#€013420à àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌOne€Public€Sq.,€STE€321à àÌClarksville,€TN€€37040à àà àà àò òCecil€H.€Rossó óÌ(ON€APPEAL)à àà àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneralà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌRobert€L.€Marlowà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àFayette,€TN€37334Ì(AT€TRIAL€AND€ON€APPEAL)à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àò òà àWilliam€MichaelÏMcCownà àà àó óà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àò òà àà àà àà àà àWeakley€E.€Barnardó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMarshall€County€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àà àLewisburg,€TN€€37091ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÇÓÓà@ àòòò òOPINIONóóó óÌÌà àThe€appellant,€Jerry€Lee€Hunter,€appeals€from€a€conviction€and€sentenceÏfor€burglary,€entered€by€the€Circuit€Court€of€Marshall€County.€€Essentially,€fourÏissues€are€presented€for€our€review.€€First,€the€appellant€challenges€theÏsufficiency€of€the€evidence€to€sustain€his€conviction.€€Second,€the€appellantÏcontends€that€his€conviction€for€burglary€is€inconsistent€with€his€acquittal€on€theÏcharges€of€theft€and€attempted€theft.€€Third,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€admitting€into€evidence€tools€found€in€the€rear€pocket€of€theÏappellant's€pants€at€the€time€of€his€arrest.€€Finally,€the€appellant€contends€thatÏthe€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€excessive,€and€that€the€trial€courtÏshould€have€granted€the€appellant€an€alternative€sentence.ÌÌà àAfter€reviewing€the€record,€we€affirm€both€the€conviction€and€the€sentenceÏimposed.ÌÌà@ àòòò òI.€Factual€Backgroundó óóóÌÌà àOn€January€23,€1994,€between€1:00€a.m.€and€1:30€a.m.,€Joe€Lane€"Buck"ÏBeard,€a€former€law€enforcement€officer€in€Marshall€County,€was€in€bed€at€hisÏhome€in€Belfast.€€He€heard€a€noise€outside,€"like€a€motor€was€racing."€€Beard'sÏson,€who€had€been€sleeping€on€the€couch€in€the€living€room,€told€his€father€thatÍsomebody€was€in€Beard's€truck.€€Beard€owns€a€1992€Chevrolet€pickup€truck,Ïequipped€with€a€"straight€shift,€five€speed€in€the€floor."€€That€morning,€the€truckÏwas€parked€in€the€driveway,€in€front€of€Beard's€house.€€At€trial,€Beard€testifiedÏthat€the€doors€of€the€truck€had€been€left€unlocked€and€the€keys€had€been€left€inÏthe€ignition.ÌÌà àBeard€looked€out€the€front€door€and€saw€that€the€truck's€engine€wasÏrunning€and€the€headlights€were€blinking.€€According€to€Beard,€the€truck€wasÏlurching€back€and€forth€as€if€someone€were€trying€to€move€the€truck€withoutÏdisengaging€the€"hand€break."€€Beard€dressed€and€went€outside.€€ÌÌà àA€person,€later€identified€as€the€appellant,€exited€the€truck€and€began€toÏleave.€€Beard,€thinking€that€the€appellant€was€a€friend€of€his€son,€asked€theÏappellant€what€he€was€doing.€€When€the€appellant€turned€around€and€looked€atÏBeard,€Beard€asked€the€appellant€to€approach.€€As€the€appellant€drew€near,ÏBeard€realized€that€he€did€not€know€him.€€He€then€asked€the€appellant€to€comeÏinto€the€house.€€ÌÌà àOnce€in€the€house,€Beard€again€asked€the€appellant€what€he€had€beenÏdoing€in€the€truck.€€The€appellant€told€Beard€that€he€was€repossessing€the€truckÍfor€a€man€named€Tommy€Burns.× ƒ$ ××  ×€€According€to€Beard's€testimony€at€trial,€theÏappellant€did€not€appear€to€be€intoxicated.€€At€this€point,€Beard€called€the€police.€ÏThe€appellant€attempted€to€leave,€and€Beard€grabbed€his€vest€in€an€effort€toÏdetain€him.€€The€appellant€broke€free,€leaving€Beard€with€the€appellant's€vest€inÏhis€hand.€€Beard€got€his€shotgun€and€pursued€the€appellant,€who€had€fledÏtoward€the€highway.€€The€appellant€escaped,€and€Beard€returned€to€the€house.€ÏAt€the€house,€while€awaiting€the€arrival€of€the€police,€Beard€searched€theÏappellant's€vest€and€found€a€wallet.€€The€wallet€contained€a€card€with€theÏappellant's€name€on€it.ÌÌà àRobert€Phelan€and€Jimmy€Oliver,€deputies€with€the€Marshall€CountyÏSheriff's€Department,€were€dispatched€to€the€area€in€response€to€Beard's€call.€ÏThey€found€the€appellant€in€the€parking€lot€of€the€Belfast€Market,€squattingÏbehind€a€cattle€trailer.€€The€market€is€approximately€one€hundred€and€fifty€yardsÏfrom€Beard's€home.€€€€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€told€Deputy€Oliver€that€he€was€homeless€and€had€enteredÏBeard's€truck€in€order€to€keep€warm.€€According€to€Oliver,€the€appellant€furtherÏstated€that€he€and€Beard€were€"real€good€friends,"€and€that€Beard€had€given€theÍappellant€permission€to€sleep€in€the€truck.× ƒ% ××  ×€€Both€deputies€testified€at€trial€thatÏthe€appellant€did€not€appear€to€be€intoxicated.€€The€deputies€searched€theÏappellant€and€found€two€screwdrivers,€a€pair€of€wire€cutters,€and€a€crescentÏwrench.€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€was€arrested€and€indicted€on€numerous€counts€of€burglaryÏand€theft.€€At€the€time€of€his€trial,€the€appellant€was€charged€with€one€count€ofÏburglary€and€one€count€of€theft€of€property€worth€between€$10,000€and€$60,000.ÌÌà àAt€trial,€Melissa€Gale€Hunter,€the€appellant's€ex„wife,€testified€on€behalf€ofÏthe€appellant.€€She€testified€that€at€the€time€of€the€offense,€although€divorced,Ïshe€and€the€appellant€were€still€living€together.€€On€the€date€in€question,€atÏapproximately€6:00€p.m.€or€6:30€p.m.,€the€appellant€went€with€a€neighbor€to€theÏliquor€store€and€bought€a€bottle€of€vodka.€€By€the€time€the€appellant€returnedÏhome,€one€third€of€the€bottle€had€already€been€drunk.€€Ms.€Hunter,€however,€didÏnot€see€the€appellant€drink€the€vodka.× ƒ& ××  ×ÌÌÌà àApproximately€ten€minutes€after€the€appellant€returned€home€from€theÏliquor€store,€he€and€Ms.€Hunter€drove€to€Columbia€to€shop€at€the€mall.€€TheyÏnever€arrived€at€the€mall.€€Instead,€they€began€to€argue€and€decided€to€returnÏhome.€€On€the€way€home,€they€continued€to€argue,€and€finally€Ms.€HunterÏstopped€the€car€at€a€bar,€"Big€Jim's,"€and€told€the€appellant€to€get€out.€€As€sheÏdrove€away,€Ms.€Hunter€saw€the€appellant€enter€the€bar.ÌÌà àDuring€his€case„in„chief,€the€appellant€testified€that,€on€the€night€inÏquestion,€after€his€wife€left€him€at€Big€Jim's,€he€went€into€the€bar.€€He€had€a€drinkÏand€asked€several€people€to€drive€him€home.€€A€man€from€Fayetteville,€whoseÏname€the€appellant€was€unable€to€remember,€finally€offered€the€appellant€a€rideÏhome.€€On€the€way€home,€the€appellant€took€some€medication€and€fell€asleep.€ÏThe€driver€drove€one€half€of€a€mile€past€the€appellant's€home€before€awakeningÏthe€appellant.€€The€appellant€exited€the€vehicle€and€began€walking€home.€€ItÏwas€very€cold€outside,€and€the€appellant€was€not€wearing€heavy€clothing.€ÏAccording€to€the€appellant's€testimony,€he€happened€upon€Beard's€truck€andÏentered€the€truck€in€order€to€keep€warm.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€the€appellant€admitted€that€he€had€been€convictedÏof€four€previous€felonies.€€However,€he€reiterated€that€he€climbed€into€Beard'sÏtruck€because€he€was€cold.€€He€denied€either€revving€the€truck's€engine€orÍrocking€the€truck€back€and€forth.€€Moreover,€he€denied€telling€Beard€that€he€wasÏattempting€to€repossess€the€truck.€€He€claimed€that€Beard€never€gave€him€anÏopportunity€to€explain€his€presence€in€the€truck,€but€immediately€beganÏ"cursing"€at€the€appellant€and€threatening€to€call€the€police.€€The€appellantÏtestified€that€he€ran€from€Beard€because€he€was€afraid€that€Beard€might€have€aÏweapon.€€However,€he€conceded€that€he€later€crouched€behind€the€cattle€trailerÏin€order€to€hide€from€the€police.€€Finally,€the€appellant's€testimony€wasÏambivalent€when€he€was€asked€if€he€had€told€Deputy€Oliver€that€he€had€Beard'sÏpermission€to€enter€the€truck.€€At€trial,€the€appellant€admitted€that€he€did€òònotóóÏhave€Beard's€permission.€€ÌÌà àThe€jury€found€the€appellant€guilty€of€burglary€of€an€automobile,€but€foundÏhim€not€guilty€of€theft€of€the€automobile€or€the€lesser€included€offense€ofÏattempted€theft.€€At€a€subsequent€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€sentencedÏthe€appellant€to€three€years€and€ten€months€confinement€with€the€TennesseeÏDepartment€of€Correction.€€ÌÌà@ àòòò òII.€Sufficiency€of€the€Evidenceó óóóÌÌà àThe€appellant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€to€sustain€aÏconviction€for€burglary.€€A€jury€conviction€removes€the€presumption€of€innocenceÏwith€which€a€defendant€is€initially€cloaked€and€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt,€soÍthat€on€appeal€a€convicted€defendant€has€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€theÏevidence€is€insufficient.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€ÏThe€defendant€must€establish€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€was€soÏdeficient€that€no€"reasonable€trier€of€fact"€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443ÏU.S.€307,€317,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979);€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,Ï259€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€óó,€115€S.Ct.€743€(1995);€€Tenn.€R.€App.ÏP.€13(e).ÌÌà àMoreover,€an€appellate€court€may€neither€reweigh€nor€reevaluate€theÏevidence€when€determining€its€sufficiency.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,Ï835€(Tenn.€1978).€€"A€jury€verdict€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€theÏtestimony€of€the€witnesses€for€the€State€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€theÏState's€theory."€€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983),€òòcert.óóÏòòdeniedóó,€465€U.S.€1073,€104€S.Ct.€1429€(1984).€€The€State€is€entitled€to€theÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€whichÏmay€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòIdóó.€€òòSee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75Ï(Tenn.€1992),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€óó,€113€S.Ct.€1368€(1993).ÌÌà àA€person€commits€burglary€when€such€person,€without€the€effectiveÏconsent€of€the€property€owner,€"enters€any€freight€or€passenger€car,€automobile,Ïtruck,€trailer€or€other€motor€vehicle€with€intent€to€commit€a€felony€or€theft."€€Tenn.ÍCode€Ann.€ðð€39„14„402(4)€(1991).€€The€appellant€admitted€at€trial€that€he€did€notÏhave€permission€to€enter€Beard's€truck.€€However,€the€appellant€contends€thatÏthe€evidence€is€insufficient€to€conclude€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€heÏintended€to€commit€a€felony€or€theft.€€ÌÌà àThis€court€has€often€found€that€intent€may€be€established€byÏcircumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Chrismanóó,€885€S.W.2d€834,€838€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Burkleyóó,€804€S.W.2d€458,Ï460€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Mooreóó,€No.€01C01„9008„CC„00190€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€May€16,€1991).€€Thus,€"[w]hen€one€enters,Ïwithout€authorization,€an€occupied€dwelling€which€contains€valuable€property,€aÏjury€is€entitled€to€infer€that€the€entry€was€made€with€the€intent€to€commit€aÏfelony."€€òòBurkleyóó,€804€S.W.2d€at€460.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Mitchellóó,€No.€3€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€at€Jackson),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1989).€€Logically,€whenÏone€enters€another's€vehicle€without€authorization,€a€similar€inference€may€beÏdrawn.ÌÌà àThe€jury€was€entitled€to€reject€the€appellant's€claim€that€he€entered€theÏvehicle€because€it€was€cold€outside.€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€ofÏwitnesses€and€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€allÏfactual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence,€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€and€notÏthe€appellate€courts.€€òòState€v.€Pruettóó,€788€S.W.2d€559,€561€(Tenn.€1990).€ÍMoreover,€at€various€times€and€to€various€people,€the€appellant€offeredÏcontradictory€explanations€for€his€presence€in€Beard's€vehicle.€€For€example,€heÏtold€Beard€that€he€was€repossessing€the€car€for€Tommy€Burns.€€He€thenÏallegedly€told€Deputy€Oliver€that€he€was€attempting€to€keep€warm,€and€that€heÏhad€obtained€Beard's€permission€to€sleep€in€the€truck.€€Finally,€he€testified€atÏtrial€that€he€was€trying€to€keep€warm,€but€that€he€did€òònotóó€have€Beard'sÏpermission€to€sleep€in€the€truck.ÌÌà àAdditionally,€the€jury€was€entitled€to€credit€the€testimony€of€the€victim,€whoÏstated€that€the€appellant€appeared€to€be€attempting€to€drive€the€truck.€€Also,€theÏappellant€fled€from€the€scene€of€the€incident€and,€subsequently,€attempted€toÏevade€the€police€by€crouching€behind€a€cattle€trailer.€€"[A]ny€òòexóó€òòpostóó€òòfactoóóÏindication€by€an€accused€of€a€desire€to€evade€prosecution€may€be€shown€as€aÏcircumstance€from€which€guilt€may€be€inferred."€€òòMitchellóó,€No.€3.€€Finally,€whenÏthe€police€apprehended€the€appellant,€they€discovered€tools€that€could€be€usedÏin€the€commission€of€a€burglary€in€the€rear€pocket€of€his€pants.× ƒ' ××  ×€€Ì€€ÌÓ` °ƒXz ˜XÓà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€jury€could€have€foundÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€appellant€entered€Beard's€truck€with€theÏintent€to€commit€a€felony€or€theft.ÌÌà@ àò òòòIII.€Inconsistent€Verdictsóóó óÌÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€his€conviction€for€burglary€is€inconsistentÏwith€his€acquittal€on€the€charges€of€theft€and€attempted€theft€of€Beard's€truck.€ÏHowever,€our€supreme€court€has€held€that€consistency€between€verdicts€onÏseparate€counts€of€an€indictment€is€not€necessary.€€òòWiggins€v.€Stateóó,€498ÏS.W.2d€92,€93„94€(Tenn.€1973).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€No.€03C01„9302„CR„00057€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€November€22,€1994),€òòperm.€to€appealÏdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1995);€€òòState€v.€Eatonóó,€No.€03C01„9202„CR„00044€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€at€Knoxville,€December€29,€1992),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1993).€ÏIn€òòWigginsóó,€the€court€stated€that€€ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓ[a]n€acquittal€on€one€count€cannot€be€considered€òòresóóÏòòjudicataóó€to€another€count€even€though€both€counts€stemÏfrom€the€same€criminal€transaction.€€This€Court€will€notÏupset€a€seemingly€inconsistent€verdict€by€speculating€as€toÏthe€jury's€reasoning€if€we€are€satisfied€that€the€evidenceÏestablishes€guilt€of€the€offense€upon€which€the€convictionÏwas€returned.Ì€€ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓ498€S.W.2d€at€94.€€Our€supreme€court€specifically€declined€to€adopt€the€rule€of€aÏminority€of€jurisdictions€that€reversible€inconsistency€results€when€the€verdictÏacquitting€a€defendant€on€one€count€negates€an€element€essential€to€the€crimeÏcharged€in€the€count€for€which€the€defendant€is€convicted.€€òòIdóó.€at€93.ÌÌà àIn€any€event,€the€verdicts€in€the€instant€case€are€not€inconsistent.€€TheÏappellant€argues€that,€when€the€jury€found€him€not€guilty€of€theft€and€attemptedÏtheft€of€Beard's€truck,€it€necessarily€found€that€he€did€not€òòintendóó€to€commit€theftÏwhen€he€entered€Beard's€truck.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àFirst,€Count€Two€of€the€indictment€charged€the€appellant€with€the€theft€ofÏòòBeard'sóó€òòtruckóó.€€The€jury€may€have€concluded€that,€although€the€appellant€did€notÏintend€to€steal€the€truck,€he€entered€the€truck€intending€to€steal€anything€of€valueÏtherein.€€Second,€in€order€to€find€the€appellant€guilty€of€theft€of€the€truck,€the€juryÏwould€have€had€to€find,€not€only€that€the€defendant€intended€to€commit€theft,€butÏalso€that€he€"knowingly€obtain[ed]€or€exercise[d]€control"€over€the€truck.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„103€(1991).€€Similarly,€in€order€to€find€the€appellantÏguilty€of€attempted€theft,€the€jury€would€also€have€had€to€find€that€the€appellant'sÏconduct€constituted€a€"substantial€step"€toward€the€commission€of€the€theft.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„101(a)(3)€(1991).€€In€other€words,€the€offenses€of€theftÏand€attempted€theft€are€not€entirely€congruent€with€the€òòmens€reaóó€element€ofÏburglary.€€Thus,€the€jury's€verdict,€acquitting€the€appellant€of€theft€and€attemptedÏtheft,€did€not€negate€that€essential€element.× ƒ( ××  ×ÌÌà@ àòòò òIV.€The€Admissibility€of€the€Toolsó óóóÌÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€intoÏevidence€the€tools€found€in€the€appellant's€rear€pocket€when€he€was€arrested.€ÏThe€appellant€argues€that,€at€trial,€the€tools€were€irrelevant€to€his€guilt€orÏinnocence,€and,€in€the€alternative,€that€any€probative€value€was€substantiallyÏoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.ÌÌà àThe€determination€of€the€relevance€or€probative€value€of€evidence€isÏwithin€the€trial€court's€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Leathóó,€744€S.W.2d€591,€593€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1987).€€The€decision€of€the€trial€court€will€not€be€overturned€absent€aÏclear€showing€of€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Voadenóó,€No.€01C01„9305„CC„00151€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€December€22,€1994),€òòperm.€to€appealÏdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1995).€€Evidence€is€relevant€if€it€has€"any€tendency€to€make€theÏexistence€of€any€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€actionÏmore€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€be€without€the€evidence."€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.€401.€€The€Advisory€Commission€Comments€to€Rule€401€provide€that€theÏ"test€for€admissibility€is€a€lenient€one."€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Marionóó,€No.€02C01„9406„CR„00126€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€December€14,€1994).ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€tools€obtained€from€the€appellant€were€relevant€inÏdetermining€the€appellant's€intent€when€he€entered€Beard's€truck.€€Even€theÏappellant,€in€his€brief,€refers€to€the€tools€as€"potential€burglar's€tools."€€Clearly,Ïthe€appellant's€possession€of€such€tools€on€the€night€in€question€contradictedÏhis€subsequent€claims€that€he€was€only€looking€for€a€place€to€keep€warm€whenÏhe€happened€upon€Beard's€truck.€€Thus,€the€tools€were€admissible€pursuant€toÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€402.ÌÌà àHowever,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403€provides€that€"[a]lthough€relevant,€evidenceÏmay€be€excluded€if€its€probative€value€is€substantially€outweighed€by€the€dangerÏof€unfair€prejudice€...€"€€We€have€previously€observed€that€any€evidence,Ïwhether€introduced€by€the€prosecution€or€the€defense,€is€prejudicial.€€òòState€v.ÏWelchóó,€No.€02C01„9402„CC„00026€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€DecemberÏ14,€1994);€€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€No.€03C01„9110„CR„330€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÏKnoxville,€July€8,€1992)€(Wade,€J.,€dissenting).€€"The€issue€is€one€of€simpleÏfairness.€€Prejudice€becomes€unfair€when€the€primary€purpose€of€the€evidenceÏat€issue€is€to€elicit€emotions€of€'bias,€sympathy,€hatred,€contempt,€retribution,€orÏhorror.'"€€òòJonesóó,€No.€03C01„9110„CR„330€(Wade,€J.,€dissenting).€€Our€supremeÏcourt€has€stated€that€unfair€prejudice€is€"an€undue€tendency€to€suggest€decisionÏon€an€improper€basis,€commonly€...€an€emotional€one."€€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564ÏS.W.2d€947,€951€(Tenn.€1978).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòWelchóó,€No.€02C01„9402„CC„00026.€ÍMoreover,€by€adopting€the€"substantially€outweighed"€test,€Rule€403€places€aÏheavy€burden€on€the€party€who€wants€the€evidence€excluded.€€òòNeil€P.€Cohen€etÏal.,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€403.3,€at€117€(óó2nd€ed.€1990).€€Here,€theÏappellant€has€failed€to€adequately€explain€why€the€introduction€of€the€tools€wasÏunfairly€prejudicial,€nor€does€the€record€support€a€broad€assertion€of€unfairÏprejudice.€€The€trial€judge€did€not€abuse€his€discretion€in€admitting€the€evidence.€ÏThis€claim€has€no€merit.€ÌÌà@ àòòò òV.€The€Sentenceó óóóÌÌà àBurglary€of€an€automobile€is€a€class€E€felony,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„402€(d)€(1991),€and€carries€a€sentence€ranging€from€one€year€to€six€yearsÏimprisonment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„111(b)(5)€(1991).€€On€April€8,€1994,Ïthe€State€filed€a€notice€of€intention€to€seek€enhanced€punishment€in€this€case.€ÏThe€notice€listed€five€prior€felony€convictions€obtained€against€the€appellant,Ïincluding€two€convictions€for€third€degree€burglary,€one€conviction€for€receivingÏstolen€property,€another€conviction€for€the€improper€disposition€of€a€deadÏhuman€body,€and€a€conviction€for€felony€possession€of€marijuana.€€At€theÏsentencing€hearing,€the€State€presented€to€the€trial€court€copies€of€the€priorÏconvictions.€€However,€the€State€conceded€that€two€of€the€felonies€listedÏoccurred€"as€part€of€a€single€course€of€conduct€within€twenty„four€(24)€hours,"Ïand€would€therefore,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„106(b)(4)€(1990),€beÍconsidered€one€prior€felony.€€Thus,€in€essence,€the€State€presented€four€priorÏfelonies€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€The€appellant€stipulated€that€theÏappropriate€range€of€sentencing€was€Range€II.€€Therefore,€the€appellant€wasÏsubject€to€not€less€than€two€years€nor€more€than€four€years€imprisonment.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(b)(5)€(1991).€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€appellant€toÏthree€years€and€ten€months€with€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€isÏexcessive,€and€that€he€should€have€been€sentenced€under€the€CommunityÏCorrections€Act.€€Review,€by€this€court,€of€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€serviceÏof€a€sentence€is€òòde€novoóó€with€a€presumption€that€the€determination€made€by€theÏtrial€court€is€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1990).€€This€presumptionÏonly€applies,€however,€if€the€record€demonstrates€that€the€trial€court€properlyÏconsidered€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€ÏòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€legislature€has€listedÏfactors€that€the€trial€judge€shall€consider€in€determining€the€specific€sentenceÏand,€if€appropriate,€a€combination€of€sentencing€alternatives.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€40„35„210(b)(1990).€€These€factors€include€the€following:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓ1.€€The€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€theÏsentencing€hearing;Ì2.€€The€presentence€report;Ì3.€€The€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€toÏsentencing€alternatives;Ì4.€€The€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conductÍinvolved;Ì5.€€Evidence€and€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€theÏenhancement€and€mitigating€factors€in€ðððð€40„35„113€andÏ40„35„114;€andÌ6.€€Any€statement€the€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€his€ownÏbehalf€about€sentencing.€€ÓÓÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒòòIdóó.€€General€principles€of€sentencing€are€the€potentialÏor€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation;€the€imposition€of€a€sentence€no€greaterÏthan€that€warranted€by€the€offense;€€the€imposition€of€the€least€severe€measureÏnecessary€to€achieve€the€purposes€for€which€the€sentence€is€imposed;€€and€theÏavailability€of€alternatives€to€incarceration.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„103(2)„(6)(1990).ÌÌà àThe€record€reveals€that€the€trial€court,€in€imposing€sentence,€consideredÏthe€evidence€received€at€trial€and€the€presentence€report.€€Additionally,€the€courtÏconsidered€the€testimony€of€the€appellant€at€the€sentencing€hearing.× ƒ) ××  ×€€The€trialÏcourt€also€considered€mitigating€and€enhancing€factors.€€In€mitigation,€the€courtÏfound€that€the€appellant€neither€caused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injury.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1)€(1990).€€The€court€found€two€enhancementÏfactors.€€First,€the€trial€court€observed€that€the€appellant€"has€a€previous€historyÏof€criminal€convictions€and€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establishÏthe€appropriate€range."€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1)€(1994€Supp.).€ÍSecond,€the€court€noted€that,€at€the€time€of€the€offense,€the€appellant€was€onÏprobation€for€a€misdemeanor€offense.€€On€the€basis€of€this€finding,€the€courtÏconcluded€that€the€appellant€"has€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€complyÏwith€the€conditions€of€release€in€the€community."€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(8).€€Finally,€the€trial€court€considered€alternative€sentencing€options.€ÏThus,€we€conclude€that€the€presumption€of€correctness€applies€to€the€trialÏcourt's€sentencing€determination€in€this€case.ÌÌà àNevertheless,€the€appellant€contends€that€he€is€an€appropriate€candidateÏfor€alternative€sentencing.€€Initially,€we€note€that,€contrary€to€the€trial€court'sÏconclusion€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€appellant€is€not€entitled€to€theÏstatutory€presumption€of€alternative€sentencing€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102(5)€and€(6)(Supp.€1994).€€Under€section€40„35„102€(6),€the€presumptionÏonly€applies€to€especially€mitigated€or€standard€offenders.€€Moreover,€theÏappellant€cannot€have€a€criminal€history€evincing€either€"a€clear€disregard€forÏthe€laws€and€morals€of€society"€or€"failure€of€past€efforts€at€rehabilitation."€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(5)(Supp.€1994).€€òòSee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€No.Ï03C01„9404„CR„00127€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,Ï(Tenn.€1995);€€òòState€v.€Chrismanóó,€885€S.W.2d€834,€840€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),Ïòòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994).€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€appellantÏconceded€that€he€is€a€multiple€offender.€€ÌÌà àFurthermore,€the€1989€Sentencing€Act€provides€that€sentences€involvingÏconfinement€should€be€based€on€the€following€considerations:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓ(A)€€Confinement€is€necessary€€to€protect€society€byÏrestraining€a€defendant€who€has€a€long€history€of€criminalÏconduct;Ì(B)€€Confinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€theÏseriousness€of€the€offense€or€confinement€is€particularlyÏsuited€to€provide€an€effective€deterrence€to€others€likely€toÏcommit€similar€offenses;€orÌ(C)€€Measures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€haveÏfrequently€or€recently€been€applied€unsuccessfully€to€theÏ[appellant]€...€ÓÓÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(1990).€€The€first€consideration€is€applicable€inÏthe€instant€case.€€The€presentence€report€reveals€that€the€appellant€hasÏcommitted€six€prior€felonies€and€numerous€misdemeanor€offenses.€€Thus,€weÏconclude€that€the€appellant€is€ineligible€for€an€alternative€sentencing€option.ÌÌà àFinally,€the€prerequisites€to€alternative€sentencing€articulated€in€theÏCriminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€provide€an€initial€gateway€throughÏwhich€the€appellant€must€pass€in€order€to€arrive€at€the€Community€CorrectionsÏAct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„104(c)(8)(Supp.€1994).€€Therefore,€although€theÏappellant€meets€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106€(1990),€he€isÏineligible€for€community€corrections€under€the€Sentencing€Act.€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€further€contests€the€length€of€his€sentence.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„210(1990)€provides€that€the€minimum€sentence€within€theÍappropriate€range€is€the€presumptive€sentence.€€If€there€are€enhancing€andÏmitigating€factors,€the€court€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range€andÏenhance€the€sentence€as€appropriate€for€the€enhancement€factors€and€thenÏreduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.€ÏòòIdóó.€€If€there€are€no€mitigating€factors,€the€court€may€set€the€sentence€above€theÏminimum€in€that€range,€but€still€within€the€range.€€òòIdóó.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Diesóó,€829ÏS.W.2d€706,€710€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€"[T]here€is€no€particular€valueÏassigned€by€the€1989€Sentencing€Act€to€the€various€factors€and€the€'weightÏafforded€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors€derives€from€balancing€relativeÏdegrees€of€culpability€within€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€of€the€caseÏinvolved.'"€€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€532,€541€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€toÏappeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1993)(citation€omitted).€€The€weight€assigned€to€anyÏexisting€factor€is€generally€left€to€the€trial€judge's€discretion.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€argues,€in€part,€that€the€trial€court€improperly€rejected€theÏappellant's€claim€that€he€was€acting€under€strong€provocation,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€40„35„113(2),€and€substantial€grounds€existed€tending€to€excuse€or€justify€theÏappellant's€criminal€conduct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(3).€€Specifically,Ïthe€trial€court,€like€the€jury,€rejected€the€appellant's€claim€that€he€only€enteredÏthe€victim's€truck€because€he€was€freezing.€€This€court€will€not€set€aside€findingsÏof€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€after€an€evidentiary€hearing€unless€the€evidenceÏcontained€in€the€record€preponderates€against€the€trial€court's€findings.€€òòState€v.ÍDickóó,€872€S.W.2d€938,€943€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.Ï1993);€€òòState€v.€Youngóó,€866€S.W.2d€194,€197€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992),€òòperm.€toÏappeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1993).€€In€the€context€of€sentencing€hearings,€this€courtÏsimilarly€defers€to€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Rainesóó,€882€S.W.2dÏ376,€383€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌà àThe€appellant€also€challenges€the€trial€court's€application€ofÏenhancement€factor€(1).€€Under€section€40„35„114(1),€the€appellant€must€have€aÏhistory€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€that€necessaryÏto€establish€the€appropriate€range.€€In€order€to€qualify€as€a€multiple€offender,€aÏdefendant€must€have€received€"[a]€minimum€of€two€(2)€but€not€more€than€four€(4)Ïprior€felony€convictions."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„106(a)(1)€(1990).€€Again,Ïthe€State€introduced€copies€of€essentially€four€prior€convictions.€€Only€two€priorÏconvictions€were€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range.€€Moreover,€theÏpresentence€report€reveals€an€extensive€history€of€misdemeanor€convictions.€ÏThus,€the€trial€court's€application€of€factor€(1)€was€proper.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€also€applied€enhancement€factor€(8),€noting€"the€ratherÏshort€period€of€time€from€the€time€that€the€defendant€was€placed€on€probation€...Ïuntil€violating€the€terms€and€conditions€of€his€probation€by€committing€thisÏoffense."€€Although€the€appellant€does€not€contest€the€application€ofÏenhancement€factor€(8),€we€note€that€this€court€has€held€that€"the€commission€ofÍthe€offense€for€which€a€defendant€is€being€sentenced€should€not€make€factor€(8)Ïapplicable,€emphasizing€that€there€must€be€a€òòprevious€óóhistory€of€unwillingness"Ïto€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€in€the€community.€ÏòòState€v.€Hayesóó,€899€S.W.2d€175,€186€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appealÏdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1995).× ƒ+ ××  ×€€Thus,€factor€(8)€is€inapplicable€in€the€instant€case.€ÏNevertheless,€the€sentencing€court€attributed€"significant€weight"€to€theÏapplication€of€enhancement€factor€(1).€€Having€reviewed€the€record,€weÏconclude€that€enhancement€factor€(1)€would€alone€support€the€sentenceÏimposed.ÌÌà@ àòòò òVI.€Conclusionó óóóÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€the€sentence€imposed€are€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓÇÌà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ____________________________________ÌJERRY€SCOTT,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€Judge