WPC :n@ƍaó:xEW16K! v~"!9*F8H`4I#RmEq}q[BtYT7?,(uc<ICU]?֕hѻ ,EõDZL]6Xu?,ag J,{Ȩ"%Ⱥ6`AuʘC=,Rs%)tApi.qb`<˹}1.Glp],UnHP7}H߬d-VTHu%uӪ:C8IU{1͉Wq6'>k^Gf4En<;Ht. -^YA'31r˩%H%?q`ҏX3o3|/NӠ#`;?eW "mL7(% Y<[۝Jtax4<[]gy'hB $,# hU>s % 0UB4n U:fV"^w@ 01 0D -5 %b U: % U: B 0D= D3 AQ  0D 0D D/S BHP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nL<( 9Z &Courier RegularX($  7'CXXdXXd7    iUX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXi<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiV&3|x <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@,rAZ"Arial Regular \\RA' Legal\    D E E  E  E D Ӏ ((3K$ !  7XXdd7    iUX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXi   `   0  (#$  0   ##Xd#  ("  XXXX{XX   Ad FILEDXX{   April9,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr.UXXAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular  ("  XXXX{XX   Ad FILEDXX{   April8,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr.UXXAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular d(3$ !  'dxd'(!)*C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ($$   1  ++' dxdP Pd !  7XXdd7    iUX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXi  ݛXTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T † : XXXX7  XXdXXd7 r&"<,(j 8` `@E  ` ttx$X r  r&"<,(j 8` `@E  ` ttx$X r     8 @ D x xINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @~~%DATKNOXVILLE@@66-R   AUGUST1998SESSIONSTATEOFTENNESSEE, h   )   80 Ѐ    h   )    Appellee, h   )  No.03C019710CR00441       h   )       h   )  WashingtonCounty   v.    h   )       h   )  HonorableArdenL.Hill,Judge       h   )JUANALFONZOHILL, h   )  (Rapeofachild) h`     h   ) Appellant. h   ) 4, FortheAppellant:   h     FortheAppellee:  FredLance   h     JohnKnoxWalkup   x   804WestMarketStreet h     AttorneyGeneralofTennessee ~v JohnsonCity,TN37601 h      p and     x   d\     h     SandyC.Patrick    h     AssistantAttorneyGeneralofTennessee    h     425FifthAvenueNorth x   !     h     Nashville,TN372430493    h     DavidE.Crockett    h     DistrictAttorneyGeneral    h     Route19,Box99    h     JohnsonCity,TN37601    h      p and    h     JoeCrumley    h     AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral    h     P.O.Box38    h     Jonesborough,TN37659    h     OPINIONFILED:____________________AFFIRMEDJosephM.TiptonJudge >:639F Ї @)DOPINION    Thedefendant,JuanAlfonzoHill,appealsasofrightfollowinghis   convictionbyajuryintheWashingtonCountyCriminalCourtforrapeofachild,aClassAfelony.ThedefendantwassentencedtothirtyfiveyearsconfinementtobeservedinthecustodyoftheDepartmentofCorrectionasaRangeII,multipleoffenderandwasfinedtwentyfivethousanddollars.Inthisappeal,thedefendantpresentsthefollowingissuesforourreview:  8 (1)whetherthetrialcourterredbyallowingextensivequestioningofthedefendantoncrossexaminationabouthispreviousconvictions;  x x 8 (2)whetherthetrialcourterredbyadmittingaprejudicialtaperecordedconversationbetweenthedefendantandtheofficerinvestigatinghiscase;and  x x 8 (3)whetherthetrialcourtimposedanexcessivesentence.  x x Weaffirmthejudgmentofconviction.   Therecordinthiscaserevealsthatthedefendantlivedwiththevictim,thensevenyearsold,andthevictimsmother.ItreflectsthatonthenightofMay16,1994,whenthedefendantandvictimwerehomeandthevictimsmotherwasgone,thedefendanthadsexualintercoursewiththevictim.Beforetrial,thedefendantmadeastatementtoSergeantDebbieBarroninwhichheclaimedthatashewasfallingasleeponthenightoftheoffense,thevictimclimbedontopofhimandbeganmovingonhispeniswithhervagina.Heclaimedthathedidnotknowwhyhehadanerectionbutthatwhenhewokeup,hepushedoffthevictimandtoldhertogotobed.Attrial,however,thedefendanttestifiedthathewaswiththevictimsmotheronthenightofMay16andwasneveralonewiththevictimthatnight.Hedeniedrapingthevictim.   6/5 М:ћ @ I.IMPEACHMENTEVIDENCE      Thedefendantcontendsthatthetrialcourterredbyallowingthestateto  crossexaminehimextensivelyabouthispriorconvictionsforwitnesscoercionandassaultwithintenttocommitfirstdegreemurder.HearguesthattheevidenceshouldhavebeenexcludedasprejudicialunderRule403,Tenn.R.Evid.ThestatecontendsthattheconvictionswereadmissiblepursuanttoRule609(a),Tenn.R.Evid.Thestatefurtherarguesthatthedefendantopenedthedoortotheextensivequestioningwhenhetestifiedabouttheconvictionsondirectexaminationandgaveselfservingexplanations. Thetrialcourthasdiscretionindeterminingwhethertheprobativevalueofadefendantspriorconvictionisoutweighedbytheprejudicialeffectofintroducingtheconviction.Onlyanabuseofthatdiscretionmayavailthedefendantanyrelief.Statev.  DuBose,953S.W.2d649,652(Tenn.1997). ph  TherecordreflectsthatpursuanttoRule609,Tenn.R.Evid.,thestatefilednoticebeforetrialofitsintenttouseevidenceofthedefendantspriorconvictionstoimpeachthedefendantifhetestified.Thetrialcourtheldahearingontheissueandconcludedthatifthedefendanttestified,theconvictionswouldbeadmissibletoimpeachhistestimony.Thetrialcourtfurtherfoundthattheprobativevalueoftheconvictionsoutweighedanyprejudicialeffect. Thedefendanttestifiedattrialandadmittedondirectexaminationthathehadbeenconvictedforwitnesscoercionandassaultwithintenttocommitfirstdegreemurder.Heexplainedindetailthefactssurroundingtheincidentthatformedthebasisfortheconvictions.Oncrossexamination,thestatewentintomoredetailaboutthefactssurroundingthepreviousconvictions,andthedefendantobjected.Thetrialcourtagreedthatthestatewasgoingintomoredetailthanwasnecessaryforimpeachment 706  :  butconcludedthatthedefendantopenedthedoorforthequestionsbytestifyingaboutthepriorconvictionsindetailondirectexamination. First,wenotethatthetrialcourtproperlyruledthatthedefendantsconvictionswereadmissiblepursuanttoRule609,Tenn.R.Evid.Weseenoabuseofdiscretioninthisregard.Second,weholdthatthetrialcourtdidnoterrbyallowingthestatetogointodetailedquestionsaboutthefactssurroundingtheconvictions,inlightofthedefendantstestimonyondirectexamination. IrrespectiveofadmissibilityunderRule609...,aconvictionmaybeusedtocontradictawitnesswhoopensthedoorandtestifiesondirectexaminationthatheorshehasneverbeenconvictedofacrime,ortocountersomeotherfacetofdirecttestimony.Statev.Kendricks,947S.W.2d  875,883(Tenn.Crim.App.1996)(quotingCohen,Sheppeard&Paine,Tennessee  LawofEvidence,609.1(3ded.1995)).    II.ADMISSIONOFTAPERECORDEDCONVERSATION 0 (     Thedefendantcontendsthatthetrialcourterredbyadmittinginto " evidenceataperecordedconversationbetweenhimandSergeantDebbieBarron.Hearguesthatintherecording,herevealedirrelevantandprejudicialinformationabouthisbeingmolestedasachild,hisdruguse,andhispriorconvictionfordrivingundertheinfluence(DUI).Thestatecontendsthattheconversationwasprobativebecausethedefendantrecantedportionsofhispreviousstatementtopoliceanddiscussedthefactsoftheoffense. Attrial,SergeantDebbieBarrontestifiedthatonJune21,1994,thedefendantmadeanunsolicitedtelephonecalltoheratthepolicestation.SergeantBarronexplainedthatatthetimeofthecall,thetelephoneswereautomaticallyconnectedtoarecorder.Shetestifiedthatallbutthefirstfewwordsoftheconversationwererecorded. 706 Ї Thetapewasplayedforthejury.Duringthetapedconversation,thedefendanttoldSergeantBarronthathewasundertheinfluenceofsleepingpillswhenhepreviouslytoldherthatthevictimgotontopofhimandmovedupanddownonhim.Hesaidthatthestatementwasnottrueandthathemusthavebeendreamingorthinkingaboutsomethingelse.HealsotoldSergeantBarronthathehadtomakeupsomethingtosoundgoodbecausehewasmolestedasachildandknewhowthevictimfelt.ThedefendantalsomadeareferencetothefactthathehadpreviouslyuseddrugsandhadapriorDUIcharge. ThetrialcourthasdiscretionindeterminingwhetherevidencemeetsthetestforrelevancysetforthinRule402,Tenn.R.Evid.Statev.Forbes,918S.W.2d  431,449(Tenn.Crim.App.1995).Itisalsowithinthetrialcourtsdiscretiontodeterminetheprobativevalueanddangerofunfairprejudiceregardingtheevidence.Statev.Burlison,868S.W.2d713,72021(Tenn.Crim.App.1993).Thiscourtwillonly d\ reverseatrialcourtsdecisionifthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretion.Statev. 0 ( Williamson,919S.W.2d69,78(Tenn.Crim.App.1995). !  First,weconcludethatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionbyallowingintoevidencetheportionofthetapeinwhichthedefendantreferredtohisbeingmolestedasachild.Thedefendantsstatementrelatedtohisrecantationofhisearlierconfession,andthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionbydeterminingthattheprobativevaluewasnotoutweighedbythedangerofunfairprejudice.WithrespecttothedefendantsreferencestohispreviousdruguseandDUIcharge,wequestiontheirrelevance.Thebetterpracticewouldhavebeentoredacttheirrelevantportionsofthetapepriortotrial,althoughwenotethatthereisnoevidenceintherecordtoshowthatthedefendantattemptedtodothis.Regardless,theadmissionofthesestatementswasharmlessinlightoftheevidenceagainstthedefendant.T.R.A.P.36(b);Tenn.R.Crim.P.52(a). 706 Ї  III.SENTENCING      Thedefendantcontendsthatthetrialcourterredbyimposingan  excessivesentenceandbyorderingthatheservehissentenceinthepresentcaseandaprevioussentenceconsecutively.Thestatecontendsthatthedefendantwasproperlysentenced. Atthesentencinghearing,thestateproducedevidencethatthedefendantwasonparolefromhisconvictionforassaultwithintenttocommitfirstdegreemurderatthetimeofthepresentoffense.Thestatealsoproducedevidenceofthedefendantspreviousconvictionsforcoercionofawitness,DUIanddrivingonarevokedlicense.ThedefendantwassentencedasaRangeI I ,multipleoffendersubjecttoarangeofpunishmentfromt hir  wen  t  tyfivetoforty five years.Thetrialcourtfoundthefollowingenhancementfactorsapplicable,aslistedinT.C.A.4035114:  8 (1)Thedefendanthasaprevioushistoryofcriminalconvictionsorcriminalbehaviorinadditiontothosenecessarytoestablishtheappropriaterange;  x x 8 (8)Thedefendanthasaprevioushistoryofunwillingnesstocomplywiththeconditionsofasentenceinvolvingreleaseintothecommunity;  x x 8 (13)Thefelonywascommittedwhileon....[parole]; [and]   x x  8    (B)Parole;[and]   x x Л  x x  8 x x (15)Thedefendantabusedapositionofpublicorprivatetrust....  x x @DD/D  ItsentencedthedefendanttothirtyfiveyearsconfinementintheDepartmentofCorrection,tobeservedconsecutivelytohisprevioussentenceforassaultwithintenttocommitfirstdegreemurder. Appellatereviewofsentencingisdenovoontherecordwitha 42,+0 presumptionthatthetrialcourt'sdeterminationsarecorrect.T.C.A.4035401(d).AstheSentencingCommissionCommentstothissectionnote,theburdenisnowonthe  †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT    †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT    †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   defendanttoshowthatthesentenceisimproper.Thismeansthatifthetrialcourt 706  †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT    †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT    †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT    †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT    †\RA' Legal\   followedthestatutorysentencingprocedure,madefindingsoffactthatareadequately  supportedintherecord,andgavedueconsiderationandproperweighttothefactorsandprinciplesthatarerelevanttosentencingunderthe1989SentencingAct,wemaynotdisturbthesentenceevenifadifferentresultwerepreferred.Statev.Fletcher,805 l d S.W.2d785,789(Tenn.Crim.App.1991). However, thepresumptionofcorrectnesswhichaccompaniesthetrialcourt'sactionisconditionedupontheaffirmativeshowingintherecordthatthetrialcourtconsideredthesentencingprinciplesandallrelevantfactsandcircumstances.Statev.Ashby,823S.W.2d166,169(Tenn.1991).Inthisrespect,forthepurposeof 4, meaningfulappellatereview,  8 thetrialcourtmustplaceontherecorditsreasonsforarrivingatthefinalsentencingdecision,identifythemitigatingandenhancementfactorsfound,statethespecificfactssupportingeachenhancementfactorfound,andarticulatehowthemitigatingandenhancementfactorshavebeenevaluatedandbalancedindeterminingthesentence.T.C.A.4035210(f)(1990).  x x f  Statev.Jones,883S.W.2d597,599(Tenn.1994). "   Also,inconductingadenovoreview,wemustconsider(1)theevidence, %" ifany,receivedatthetrialandsentencinghearing,(2)thepresentencereport,(3)theprinciplesofsentencingandargumentsastosentencingalternatives,(4)thenatureandcharacteristicsofthecriminalconduct,(5)anymitigatingorstatutoryenhancementfactors,(6)anystatementthatthedefendantmadeonhisownbehalfand(7)thepotentialforrehabilitationortreatment.T.C.A.4035102,103,210;seeAshby, .', 823S.W.2dat168;Statev.Moss,727S.W.2d229,23637(Tenn.1986). \0T).  Underthesentencingstatuteineffectatthetimeoftheoffenseinthepresentcase,thesentencetobeimposedbythetrialcourtispresumptivelytheminimumintherangeunlessthereareenhancementfactorspresent.SeeT.C.A.40 706 35210(c)(1989).Procedurally,thetrialcourtistoincreasethesentencewithintherangebasedupontheexistenceofenhancementfactorsandthenreducethesentenceasappropriateforanymitigatingfactors.T.C.A.4035210(d)and(e).Theweighttobeaffordedanexistingfactorislefttothetrialcourt'sdiscretionsolongasitcomplieswiththepurposesandprinciplesofthe1989SentencingActanditsfindingsareadequatelysupportedbytherecord.T.C.A.4035210,SentencingCommissionComments;Moss,727S.W.2dat237;seeAshby,823S.W.2dat169.    Initially,wenotethatthedefendanthashamperedourdenovoreviewin h` thiscasebyfailingtoincludethepresentencereportintherecordonappeal.Itisincumbentupontheappellanttopreparearecordthatconveysafair,accurateandcompleteaccountofwhattranspiredrelativetotheissuesonappeal.T.R.A.P.24(b).Intheabsenceofanappropriaterecord,wemustpresumethatthetrialcourtsdeterminationsarecorrect.See,e.g.,Statev.Meeks,779S.W.2d394,397(Tenn. d\ Crim.App.1988);Statev.Beech,744S.W.2d585,588(Tenn.Crim.App.1987). 0 (  Thedefendantfirstcontendsthathereceivedanexcessivesentence.Specifically,hearguesthatthetrialcourterredinapplyingenhancementfactor(1)andbyfailingtoapplyinmitigationthefactthathisconductneithercausednorthreatenedseriousbodilyinjury.T.C.A.4035113(1).Withrespecttotheapplicationofenhancementfactor(1),thedefendantcontendsthatthestateusedhisconvictionforassaultwithintenttocommitfirstdegreemurder,aClassAfelony,toestablishahighersentencingrangeandseparatelyreliedonhisconvictionforcoercionofawitnessforapplicationofenhancementfactor(1).Hearguesthatthiswasimproperbecausethetwoconvictionswerelinkedtogetherasasinglecourseofconduct.Thisissueiswithoutmerit.Thedefendanthastwoseparateconvictionsfortwoseparatecrimes,andtheuseofoneconvictiontoestablishahigherrangeandtheotherconvictiontoenhancewithinthatrangeisproper.Furthermore,thedefendanthadotherconvictions 706 : 7+XXd XXd7  forDUIanddrivingonarevokedlicensethatwouldtriggertheapplicationof  enhancementfactor(1). Thedefendantarguesthatthetrialcourterredbyfailingtoapplymitigatingfactor(1),thattheoffenseneithercausednorthreatenedseriousbodilyinjury.T.C.A.4035113(1).Thestateconcedesthatthevictimdidnotsufferseriousbodilyinjurybutarguesthatthefactorshouldnotapplybecausethedefendantsconductthreatenedseriousbodilyinjuryandcausedpsychologicaltrauma.Wequestionwhetherthetrialcourtactuallyrejectedapplicationofmitigatingfactor(1),giventhefactthatthetrialcourtstatedthatitweighedthemitigatingfactorsraisedbydefensecounsel.Inanyevent,evenwithitsapplication,wedonotbelieveitaltersthesentenceimposedbythetrialcourt. Thevictimindicatedthatthesexualpenetrationwasverypainful.Hergrandmothertestifiedthattheincidentandtheeventssurroundingthetrialmadethevictimnervous,upset,tenseandscared.Shesaidthatthevictimhadheadachesandvomitingbecauseofherfearandnervousness.Evenifmitigatingfactor(1)isapplicable,webelievethatitisentitledtoverylittleweight,andthethirtyfiveyearsentenceissupportedbytherecord. Finally,thedefendantcontendsthatthetrialcourterredbyorderinghimtoservehisthirtyfiveyearsentenceconsecutivelytohisprevioussentenceforassaultwithintenttocommitfirstdegreemurder.Webelievethattheevidencesupportsthetrialcourtsimpositionofaconsecutivesentence.Theevidencereflectsthatthedefendantwasonparolefortheassaultconvictionwhenhecommittedthepresentoffense.PursuanttoT.C.A.4028123,thedefendantmustcompletethesentence fortheoffenseforwhichhewasparoledbeforeservingthesubsequentsentencefor 5.4 thelaterfelonycommittedwhileonparole.Thedefendantsconsecutivesentencingis + mandatedbylaw.  Inconsiderationoftheforegoingandtherecordasawhole,thejudgmentofconvictionisaffirmed.    h      p   __________________________    h      p   JosephM.Tipton,JudgeCONCUR:_________________________JoeG.Riley,Judge_________________________ThomasT.Woodall,Judge