ÿWPCE /†râ`%£ŸTvµVöWAª9‚¨Š}œZ#«Ôž¥RÂJ\LPÈ¥Y‡ˆƒ» 2ûâ௫W¬…®‰Ðklvc~Tþ®î¥P»/)}Zi³9íÆ¥4?£‡ Ì —#°¯e¦C.´mãçÛïî‰èÓëLýºÖ6¥¦±\"P$qBÍ0ë:RÅeÜ¥­“òݼÞKP·CÓÁâé}«cűÂJü?¸i^WƒÊ°'\^ˆ?QŒ©séªiê¶Ä/ßw_U¬Õé= ÙìM°O‰‚‹Z»H4ÉiÔç™Áß­¡J æi4¶´ô·¦†ÎÛˆKÉî¿3»#ÉyèQз:e öi/]«=Rå%ð3å~æìƒÓO¯>= 9™3¹ur(ÔHñ†°ÏÞä9>ŽX™kñj[‚<´âƒ‹6ÂëºΨÅßJ×ä:ÒF”{jté’å«4D³Òö‚^ÿ´V9'Q˜”HóiäFÃ΢çI$AÇfbJ’F =—Û„6&€aîê UOb v\Ö“Meý•£Tÿ æ,# hUNs %Á 0(ÇLïU:;buw@}4½Ñ 0Æà 0D¦.ê. PF H– U:ÞU:PRU:¢HÜU:$^&fU:ŒŒŒŒŒŒ BÆÆ 0Dã D3'''' AQZÆ« 0Dq 0Dµ D/ù B(˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLàÏ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- PDQRDSUT eUVEWXYÓ€V&3|xd(v(20$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XyðXXXÔÔ€ôFþôXXyðÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó $Ý ƒ n'$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X@ XXXÔÔ€ôæÿô XX@ Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€Sixth€Amendment€provides€that€ð ð[i]n€all€criminal€prosecutions,€the€accused€shall€enjoy€theÐ `  Ðright€to€.€.€.€be€confronted€with€the€witnesses€against€him.ðð€€U.S.€Const.€amend.€VI.€€Similarly,€Article€I,ÏSection€9€provides€ð ð[t]hat€in€all€criminal€prosecutions,€the€accused€hath€the€right€to€.€.€.€meet€the€witnessesÏface€to€face.ðð€€Tenn.€Const.€art€I,€ðð€9. $Ý ƒ n'$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X@ XXXÔÔ€ôæÿô XX@ Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€Sixth€Amendment€provides€that€ð ð[i]n€all€criminal€prosecutions,€the€accused€shall€enjoy€theÐ `  Ðright€to€.€.€.€be€confronted€with€the€witnesses€against€him.ðð€€U.S.€Const.€amend.€VI.€€Similarly,€Article€I,ÏSection€9€provides€ð ð[t]hat€in€all€criminal€prosecutions,€the€accused€hath€the€right€to€.€.€.€meet€the€witnessesÏface€to€face.ðð€€Tenn.€Const.€art€I,€ðð€9. FÝ ƒ n'$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X@ XXXÔÔ€ôæÿô XX@ Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝArticle€I,€Section€8€provides€ð ð[t]hat€no€man€shall€be€taken€or€imprisoned€.€.€.€but€by€the€judgmentÐ `  Ðof€his€peers.ðð€€Tenn.€Const.€art€I,€ðð€8. >Ý ƒ n'$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X@ XXXÔÔ€ôæÿô XX@ Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€937ð!ð38€(Tenn.€1995),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÐ `  Ðimposed€two€additional€requirements€for€consecutive€sentencingð"ðthe€court€must€find€that€consecutiveÏsentences€are€reasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committed€and€that€consecutiveÏsentences€are€necessary€to€protect€the€public€from€further€criminal€conduct.€€At€this€time,€it€is€unsettledÏwhether€òòWilkersonóó€applies€to€all€seven€of€the€statutory€categories€for€consecutive€sentencing€or€only€theÐ X ø Ðð ðdangerous€offenderðð€category.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€David€Keith€Laneóó,€No.€03C01-9607-CC-00259,€1997€WLÐ  ¶ Ð332061,€at€*6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€June€18,€1997),€òòperm.€app.€grantedóó,€(Tenn.€1998).€€OurÐ Ô t Ðdetermination€that€consecutive€sentences€are€not€appropriate€in€this€case€is€the€same€under€eitherÏinterpretation.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular FÝ ƒ n'$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X@ XXXÔÔ€ôæÿô XX@ Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝArticle€I,€Section€8€provides€ð ð[t]hat€no€man€shall€be€taken€or€imprisoned€.€.€.€but€by€the€judgmentÐ `  Ðof€his€peers.ðð€€Tenn.€Const.€art€I,€ðð€8.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular >Ý ƒ n'$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X@ XXXÔÔ€ôæÿô XX@ Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€937ð!ð38€(Tenn.€1995),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÐ `  Ðimposed€two€additional€requirements€for€consecutive€sentencingð"ðthe€court€must€find€that€consecutiveÏsentences€are€reasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committed€and€that€consecutiveÏsentences€are€necessary€to€protect€the€public€from€further€criminal€conduct.€€At€this€time,€it€is€unsettledÏwhether€òòWilkersonóó€applies€to€all€seven€of€the€statutory€categories€for€consecutive€sentencing€or€only€theÐ X ø Ðð ðdangerous€offenderðð€category.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€David€Keith€Laneóó,€No.€03C01-9607-CC-00259,€1997€WLÐ  ¶ Ð332061,€at€*6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€June€18,€1997),€òòperm.€app.€grantedóó,€(Tenn.€1998).€€OurÐ Ô t Ðdetermination€that€consecutive€sentences€are€not€appropriate€in€this€case€is€the€same€under€eitherÏinterpretation.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ý ƒ(¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XyðXXXÔÔ€‘ XXyðÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XyðX ‘ ÔÐ  ÐÌò òMarch€17,€1999Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôFþôXXyðÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý'ÿÿdxd'(!)*Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó++'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝñYññTñ›ñTññYñÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ŠòˆŠXXÔÔ€Š ŠŠŠòˆÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€VXXdìXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òñYñßr€&"<,(j 8` `€€@Eôf ` ttx$,` ð Úrß›ñYñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌœñXñFEBRUARYñXññXñ›KNOXVILLEñXñ›€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÓ  ÓEDDIE€L.€HOWARD,à h àà À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9604„CC„00167Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó ó)Ð ` Ðà ` àAppellant,à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHAMBLEN€COUNTYÐ Xø  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€JAMES€EDWARD€BECKNERó óÐ Xø  Ðò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà À àò ò)à  àJUDGEó óÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ Xø Ðà ` àAppellee.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  à(Direct€Appeal€„€Sale€of€ñTñ1/2ñTññTñððñTñ€gram€orÐ Xø Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àmore€of€Cocaine)Ð Xø Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð 8Ø ÐÌJOHN€G.€WHETSTONE,€P.C.à À àà  àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ (!È Ð502€North€Jackson€Streetà À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ  "À ÐMorristown,€TN€€37814Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àTIMOTHY€F.€BEHANÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€N.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àC.€BERKELEY€BELLÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOHN€DUGGERÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€œAñVññUñTñUññVññWñtñWñtorney›Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à510€Alliston€St.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àMorristown,€TN€€37814ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED;€SENTENCE€MODIFIEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ  x6-.S ÐÓ  ÓÔ€°9~°ŠŠ Ôò òòòÔ‡„ãÍ „°°9~ÔOPINIONÔ#†°9~° „„ãÍq #Ôóóó óÔ€Š Š°°9~ÔÐ `  ÐÌÓ  ÓÓÓÑ7€VXXdìXXdì7Ñà ` àOn€November€29,€1995,€a€Hamblen€County€jury€convicted€Appellant€EddieÐ ¼ \ ÐL.€Howard,€Jr.,€of€four€counts€of€selling€.5€or€more€grams€of€a€Schedule€IIÏcontrolled€substance.€€After€a€sentencing€hearing€on€the€same€day,€the€trial€courtÏimposed€a€sentence€of€nine€years€for€each€conviction,€with€two€of€the€sentencesÏto€be€served€consecutively.€€Appellant€challenges€both€his€convictions€and€hisÏsentences,€raising€the€following€issues:ÌÓÓà0 ` à1)€whether€the€State€established€a€proper€chain€of€custody€for€the€cocaineÏthat€was€introduced€into€evidence;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€admitted€audio€tapes,€video€tapes,Ïand€transcripts€into€evidence;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€failed€to€include€certain€jurors€inÏAppellantððs€venire;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à4)€whether€the€referral€to€Appellant€as€a€ð ðdealerðð€by€a€witness€for€the€StateÏprejudiced€Appellant€to€the€extent€that€he€did€not€receive€a€fair€trial;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à5)€whether€the€trial€court€imposed€excessive€sentences;€andÐ ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à6)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€ordered€two€of€the€sentences€to€runÏconsecutively.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÌÓÓAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€but€modifyÏthe€sentences€to€run€concurrentlyÌÌà@ÑÑ*®àò òI.€€FACTSó óˆÐ Ì(l  ÐÌà ` àDetective€Wayne€Mize€of€the€Morristown,€Tennessee€Police€DepartmentÏtestified€that€on€April€21,€April€24,€April€26,€and€May€5,€1995,€he€and€some€otherÏpolice€officers€made€audio€and€video€recordings€of€transactions€in€whichÏAppellant€sold€cocaine€base€to€police€informant€Connie€Cervino€during€anÏundercover€operation.€€Mize€testified€that€before€each€of€the€four€transactions,Ïpolice€officers€would€enter€Cervinoððs€apartment,€give€Cervino€$200.00,€and€thenÏset€up€and€turn€on€audio€and€video€recording€devices.€€The€officers€would€thenÐ \8ü.0 Ðposition€themselves€outside€of€Cervinoððs€apartment€in€order€to€photographÏAppellant€as€he€entered€and€exited€the€apartment.€€When€the€officers€left€theÏapartment,€Cervino€would€call€Appellant€and€ask€him€to€deliver€cocaine€to€herÏapartment.€€When€Appellant€arrived,€he€would€put€the€cocaine€on€the€coffee€tableÏand€Cervino€would€pay€him€$200.00.€€After€Appellant€left€the€apartment,€theÏofficers€would€wait€for€five€to€ten€minutes€and€then€would€reenter€the€apartment.€ÏEither€Detective€Mize€or€Officer€Dan€Cox€would€then€take€possession€of€theÏcocaine.€€The€officers€would€then€turn€off€the€recording€devices.€ÌñLñÌñLñà@ãã$®àò òII.€€CHAIN€OF€CUSTODYó óˆÐ Ðp ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€his€motion€forÏjudgment€of€acquittal€because€the€State€failed€to€establish€a€proper€chain€ofÏcustody€for€the€cocaine€that€was€introduced€into€evidence.€€Specifically,€AppellantÏclaims€that€a€proper€chain€of€custody€was€not€established€because€the€proofÏshows€that€Cervino€had€ð ðmultiple€opportunitiesðð€to€ð ðtamper€with€[the]€evidence€inÏany€manner€[that]€she€pleasedðð€before€the€police€officers€took€possession€of€it.€ÏWe€disagree.ÌÌà ` àBefore€tangible€evidence€may€be€introduced,€the€party€offering€theÏevidence€must€either€call€a€witness€who€is€able€to€identify€the€evidence€or€mustÏestablish€an€unbroken€chain€of€custody.€€òòState€v.€Hollomanóó,€835€S.W.2d€42,€46Ð  2À(* Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€However,€ð ð[t]he€identity€of€tangible€evidence€need€notÏbe€proven€beyond€all€possibility€of€doubt,€and€all€possibility€of€tampering€need€notÏbe€excluded.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Rather,€ð ð[i]t€is€sufficient€if€the€facts€establish€a€reasonableÐ ð7.0 Ðassurance€of€the€identity€of€the€evidence.ðð€€òòState€v.€Woodsóó,€806€S.W.2d€205,€212Ð à9€02 Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€ð ðWhether€the€required€chain€of€custody€has€beenÏsufficiently€established€to€justify€the€admission€of€evidence€is€a€matter€committedÏto€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€and€the€courtððs€determination€will€not€beÏoverturned€in€the€absence€of€a€clearly€mistaken€exercise€of€that€discretion.ðð€ÏòòHollomanóó,€835€S.W.2d€at€46.Ð  À ÐÌà ` àAppellant€does€not€challenge€the€chain€of€custody€for€the€cocaine€after€theÏtime€that€Detective€Mize€and€Officer€Cox€took€possession€of€it.€€Instead,€AppellantÏcontends€that€the€chain€of€custody€was€not€established€because€Cervino€did€notÏtestify€at€trial€and€because€the€video€tapes€of€the€four€transactions€show€thatÏCervino€had€multiple€opportunities€to€tamper€with€the€cocaine€before€Mize€andÏCox€took€possession€of€it.€€We€have€reviewed€the€four€video€tapes,€and€we€couldÏsee€no€instance€in€which€Cervino€appeared€to€tamper€with€the€evidence.€ÏAlthough€Cervino€did€not€testify€at€trial,€her€link€in€the€chain€was€sufficientlyÏestablished€by€the€video€and€audio€tapes,€the€testimony€of€Detective€Mize,€andÏthe€testimony€of€Officer€Cox.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€(stating€that€unavailable€witnessðð€link€in€theÐ p& Ðchain€was€sufficiently€established€by€testimony€of€other€witnesses).€€This€issueÏhas€no€merit.ÌÌà@ ®àò òIII.€€ADMISSIBILITY€OF€TAPES€AND€TRANSCRIPTSó óˆÐ 0.Ð$& ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€admitted€the€audioÏtapes,€video€tapes,€and€transcripts€into€evidence.€€Specifically,€Appellant€arguesÏthat€because€the€tapes€and€transcripts€contain€statements€made€by€Cervino€andÏâ âCervino€did€not€testify€at€trial,€admission€of€this€evidence€violated€his€right€toÐ ð7.0 Ðconfrontation€under€the€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€andÏArticle€I,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.ñTñ׃×ñTññTñ׃ ×ñTñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€disagree.Ð P ð Ðâ âÌà ` àIn€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€598€S.W.2d€209,€223€(Tenn.€1980),€òòoverruled€in€part€onÐ 0Ð Ðother€groundsóó,€òòState€v.€Stropshireóó,€874€S.W.2d€634€(Tenn.€1993),€the€TennesseeÐ  À ÐSupreme€Court€held€that€an€accusedððs€constitutional€right€to€confront€theÏwitnesses€against€him€was€not€violated€by€the€introduction€of€audio€tapedÏconversations€between€the€accused€and€an€informant€who€did€not€testify€at€trial.€ÏThe€supreme€court€stated€thatÌñMñÓÓñMñà0 ` àtape€recordings€and€compared€transcripts€are€admissible€and€may€beÏpresented€in€evidence€by€any€witness€who€was€present€during€theirÏrecording€or€who€monitored€the€conversations,€if€he€was€so€situated€andÏcircumstanced€that€he€was€in€a€position€to€identify€the€declarant€withÏcertainty,€and€provided€his€testimony€in€whole,€or€in€part,€comports€withÏother€rules€of€evidence.ñNñÐ ` T$` T$ ÐñNñÌñMñÓï&ÓñMñòòJonesóó,€598€S.W.2d€at€223.€€Ð ˜!8 ÐÌà ` àIn€this€case,€Detective€Mize€testified€that€he€could€identify€Appellant€andÏCervino€in€all€four€video€tapes.€€Mize€also€testified€that€he€had€monitored€theÏaudio€recording€of€the€transactions€on€April€24,€April€26,€and€May€5€while€theyÏwere€occurring€and€he€had€reviewed€the€transcripts€of€those€recordings€andÏdetermined€that€they€were€accurate.€€In€addition,€Officer€Cox€testified€that€he€hadÏmonitored€the€audio€recording€on€April€21€and€he€had€reviewed€the€transcript€andÏdetermined€that€it€was€accurate.€€Further,€Officer€Rick€Harmon€testified€that€heÏphotographed€Appellant€when€he€entered€and€exited€Cervinoððs€apartment€on€allÏfour€occasions€and€he€identified€Appellant€in€the€photographs.€€€Only€after€thisÐ ø4˜+- Ðtestimony€was€given€were€the€jurors€allowed€to€listen€to€portions€of€the€audioÏtapes€while€they€simultaneously€watched€the€soundless€video€tapes€of€the€fourÏtransactions.€€We€conclude€that€this€procedure€satisfied€the€requirements€setÏforth€in€òòJonesóó.€€Moreover,€Cervinoððs€statements€were€not€offered€or€intended€toÐ 0Ð Ðbe€substantive€evidence.€€Indeed,€Cervinoððs€statements€are€completelyÏinsignificant€except€to€the€extent€that€they€put€Appellantððs€recorded€statementsÏin€context.€€In€effect,€Cervino€was€simply€not€a€ð ðwitness€againstðð€Appellant,€andÏthus,€the€right€to€confrontation€is€not€implicated.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€George€Harlessóó,Ð ð  ÐNo.€03C01„9203„CR„00105,€1993€WL€305786,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,ÏDec.€6,€1993).€€Appellantððs€right€to€confrontation€was€fully€satisfied€by€hisÏthorough€cross„examination€of€Detective€Mize,€Officer€Cox,€and€Officer€Harmon.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€This€issue€has€no€merit.Ð °P ÐÌà@FF%®àò òIV.€€JURY€SELECTIONó óˆÐ "0 ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€denied€his€motion€toÏhave€jury€panel€one€included€in€his€venire.€€Specifically,€Appellant€argues€thatÏbecause€he€is€African„American€and€panel€one€was€the€only€panel€that€includedÏAfrican„American€members,€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€purposefully€include€panelÏone€in€Appellantððs€venire€deprived€him€of€his€right€under€Article€I,€Section€8€of€theÏTennessee€ConstitutionñTñ׃×ñTññTñ׃×ñTñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€to€be€tried€by€a€jury€of€his€peers.€€We€disagree.Ð 00Ð&( ÐÌà ` àThe€record€indicates€that€when€Appellant€made€his€rather€unique€motion,Ïthe€trial€court€stated€that€to€purposefully€include€the€panel€containing€African„Ð 6 ,. ÐAmericans€would€be€just€as€bad€as€to€purposefully€exclude€the€panel.€€Thus,€theÏtrial€court€concluded€that€the€better€practice€would€be€to€put€the€numbers€of€allÏperspective€jury€panels€in€a€box€and€then€have€the€clerk€draw€the€numbers€atÏrandom.€€Jury€panel€one€was€not€selected.ÌÌà ` àWe€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððs€procedure€in€selecting€the€jury€in€thisÏcase€did€not€violate€Appellant€right€to€be€tried€by€a€jury€of€his€peers€in€any€wayÏwhatsoever.€€Indeed,€Tennessee€courts€have€repeatedly€held€that€althoughÏð ðjuries€must€be€drawn€from€a€source€fairly€representative€of€the€community[,]€weÏimpose€no€requirement€that€petit€juries€actually€chosen€must€mirror€theÏcommunity€and€reflect€the€various€distinctive€groups€in€the€population.ðð€€òòState€v.Ð À` ÐNelsonóó,€603€S.W.2d€158,€160€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980)€(quoting€òòTaylor€v.Ð °P ÐLouisianaóó,€419€U.S.€522,€538,€95€S.Ct.€692,€702,€42€L.Ed.2d€690€(1975));€òòseeÐ   @ Ðalsoóó€òòHarvey€v.€Stateóó,€749€S.W.2d€478,€481€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€In€short,Ð "0 Ðthere€is€no€constitutional€guarantee€requiring€a€defendant€be€tried€by€a€jury€whollyÏor€partially€composed€of€individuals€of€his€or€her€own€race.€€òòHarveyóó,€749€S.W.2dÐ p& Ðat€481€(citing€òòWheeler€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€812€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976)).€€ThisÐ `(  Ðissue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà@Ù Ù ®àò òV.€€IMPROPER€COMMENT€BY€A€STATE€WITNESSó óˆÐ 0.Ð$& ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€he€was€prejudiced€to€the€point€that€he€did€notÏreceive€a€fair€trial€when€Officer€Harmon€referred€to€Appellant€as€a€ð ðdealerðð€duringÏhis€testimony.€€We€disagree.Ìâ âÐ ð7.0 Ðà ` àThe€record€indicates€that€during€the€direct€examination€of€Officer€Harmon,Ïâ âthe€following€colloquy€occurred:ÌñOñÓÓñOñà0 ` àà ¸ à[MR.€DUGGER]:€Approximately€how€long€did€[Appellant]€stay€in€theÏapartment?€€You€were€outside€watching€him€go€in€and€out;€€how€long€didÏhe€stay?Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà ¸ à[OFFICER€HARMON]:€Just€a€couple€minutes.€€Just€like€the€rest€ofÏthe€dealers€that€we€dealt€withð"ðÐ ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà ¸ àMR.€WHETSTONE:€Objection,€your€Honor.Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà ` àà ¸ àTHE€COURT:€Sustained.€€Be€careful.€ÌñOñÓ§:ÓñOñÌà ` àHarmonððs€statement€was€undoubtably€improper.€€However,€we€concludeÏthat€Appellant€is€not€entitled€to€a€new€trial€because€of€it.€€In€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893Ð èˆ ÐS.W.2d€908,€923€(Tenn.€1994),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€held€that€aÏwitnessðð€improper€reference€to€the€defendantððs€prior€jail€time€did€not€entitle€theÏdefendant€to€a€new€trial€because€the€trial€court€had€given€a€curative€instructionÏand€in€addition,€the€defendant€could€not€have€been€prejudiced€by€the€remarkÏgiven€the€overwhelming€proof€of€guilt.€€Similarly,€in€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€751€S.W.2dÐ ˜!8 Ð154,€164€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987),€this€Court€held€that€a€witnessðð€improperÏreference€to€the€accusedððs€prior€criminal€record€did€not€entitle€the€accused€to€aÏnew€trial€because€the€trial€court€had€given€a€curative€instruction€and€further,€theÏevidence€in€the€record€overwhelmingly€established€the€guilt€of€the€accused.€ÏAlthough€these€decisions€were€based€in€part€on€the€giving€of€curative€instructionsÏby€the€trial€courts,€we€note€that€Appellant€failed€to€ask€for€a€curative€instructionÏin€this€case.€€Further,€we€note€that€Harmonððs€brief€comment€was€not€solicited€byÏthe€State€and€it€was€not€repeated.€€Moreover,€given€the€overwhelming€proof€ofÏAppellantððs€guilt€that€was€presented€at€trial,€any€error€was€clearly€harmless.€€òòSeeóóÐ 3¨)+ ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b)€(stating€that€even€if€appropriate,€relief€shall€not€be€grantedÏð ðunless,€considering€the€whole€record,€error€involving€a€substantial€right€moreÏprobably€than€not€affected€the€judgmentðð).€€This€issue€has€no€merit.Ð Ø8x/1 Їà@ÌÌ"®àò òVI.€€LENGTH€OF€SENTENCESó óˆà  àÐ `  ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€sentenced€him€to€aÏlonger€term€than€he€deserves€for€each€of€his€four€convictions.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà ` àð ðWhen€reviewing€sentencing€issues€.€.€.€including€the€granting€or€denial€ofÏprobation€and€the€length€of€sentence,€the€appellate€court€shall€conduct€a€de€novoÏreview€on€the€record€of€such€issues.€€Such€review€shall€be€conducted€with€aÏpresumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€court€from€which€the€appeal€isÏtaken€are€correct.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1997).€€ð ðHowever,€theÏpresumption€of€correctness€which€accompanies€the€trial€courtððs€action€isÏconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÏconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€conducting€our€review,€weÐ  "@ Ðmust€consider€all€the€evidence,€the€presentence€report,€the€sentencing€principles,Ïthe€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors,€arguments€of€counsel,€the€defendantððsÏstatements,€the€nature€and€character€of€the€offense,€and€the€defendantððs€potentialÏfor€rehabilitation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40-35-103(5),€-210(b)€(1997€&€Supp.Ï1998);€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€ð ðThe€defendant€has€the€burden€ofÐ P,ð"$ Ðdemonstrating€that€the€sentence€is€improper.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Because€the€record€in€thisÐ @.à$& Ðcase€indicates€that€the€trial€court€properly€considered€the€sentencing€principlesÏand€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances,€our€review€is€de€novo€with€aÏpresumption€of€correctness.ÌÌà ` àIn€this€case,€Appellant€was€convicted€of€four€counts€of€selling€.5€or€moreÏgrams€of€a€Schedule€II€controlled€substance,€a€Class€B€felony.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ à9€02 ÐAnn.€ðð€39„17„417(c)(1)€(Supp.€1998).€€The€sentence€for€a€Range€I€offenderÏconvicted€of€a€Class€B€felony€is€between€eight€and€twelve€years.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(2)€(1997).€€When€both€enhancement€and€mitigating€factorsÏare€applicable€to€a€sentence,€the€court€is€directed€to€begin€with€the€minimumÏsentence,€enhance€the€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€for€theÏenhancement€factors,€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€asÏappropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(e)€(1997).€ÏñPñÌñPñÌà ` àIn€sentencing€Appellant€to€a€term€of€nine€years€for€each€conviction,€the€trialÏcourt€determined€that€enhancement€factor€(1)€applied€because€Appellant€had€aÏhistory€of€criminal€convictions€or€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€toÏestablish€the€appropriate€sentencing€range.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„45„Ð °P Ð114(1)€(1997).€The€trial€court€also€determined€that€none€of€the€enumeratedÏmitigating€factors€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„113€applied.€ÌÌà ` àInitially,€Appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€appliedÏenhancement€factor€(1).€€We€disagree.€€The€record€indicates€that€Appellant€hadÏprevious€convictions€for€driving€without€a€driverððs€license€in€Tennessee€and€forÏretail€theft€in€Illinois.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€properly€applied€this€enhancementÏfactor.ÌÌà ` àAppellant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€applied€mitigatingÏfactor€(1)€because€his€criminal€conduct€neither€caused€nor€threatened€seriousÏbodily€injury.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1)€(1997).€€However,€this€CourtÐ ð5,. Ðhas€held€that€this€factor€is€inapplicable€in€cases€involving€the€sale€of€cocaine.€ÏòòState€v.€Keelóó,€882€S.W.2d€410,€422€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Even€if€this€factorÐ Ð9p02 Ðhad€been€applied,€it€would€have€been€entitled€to€little€weight.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€HoytÐ `  ÐEdward€Carrollóó,€No.€03C01„9607„CC„00254,€1997€WL€457490,€at€*4€(Tenn.€CrimÐ P ð ÐApp.,€Knoxville,€Aug.€12,€1997)€(holding€that€in€cases€involving€drugs,€mitigatingÏfactor€(1)€is€entitled€to€little€weight).ÌÌà ` àAppellant€further€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€appliedÏmitigating€factor€(13)€because€he€is€the€father€of€an€infant€son.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ    ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„113(13)€(1997).€€We€are€unpersuaded€that€the€mere€fact€thatÏAppellant€has€fathered€a€child€is€entitled€to€any€mitigating€weight.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð à€ ÐJohn€Allen€Chapmanóó,€No.€01C01„9604„CC„00137,€1997€WL€602944,€at€*21Ð Ðp Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Sept.€30,€1997)€(ð ðWe€find€no€nexus€betweenÏpaternityship€and€mitigation€of€punishment.ðð).ÌÌà ` àIn€our€de€novo€review,€we€hold€that€one€enhancement€factor€and€noÏmitigating€factors€apply€to€Appellantððs€sentences.€€Thus,€we€hold€that€a€sentenceÏof€nine€years€for€each€of€Appellantððs€convictions€is€entirely€appropriate€in€thisÏcase.ÌÌà@ââ ®àò òVII.€€CONSECUTIVE€SENTENCINGó óˆÐ @,à"$ ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€ordered€two€of€hisÏsentences€to€be€served€consecutively.€€On€this€issue€we€must€agree€withÏAppellant.ÌÌà ` àIn€general,€consecutive€sentencing€may€be€imposed€in€the€discretion€of€theÏtrial€court€upon€a€determination€that€one€or€more€of€the€following€criteria€exist:Ð à9€02 ÐñQñÓÓñQñà0 ` à(1)€The€defendant€is€a€professional€criminal€who€has€knowingly€devotedÏhimself€to€criminal€acts€as€a€major€source€of€livelihood;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à(2)€The€defendant€is€an€offender€whose€record€of€criminal€activity€isÏextensive;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à(3)€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€mentally€abnormal€person€so€declaredÏby€a€competent€psychiatrist€who€concludes€as€a€result€of€an€investigationÏprior€to€sentencing€that€the€defendantððs€criminal€conduct€has€beenÏcharacterized€by€a€pattern€of€repetitive€or€compulsive€behavior€withÏheedless€indifference€to€consequences;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à(4)€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€whose€behavior€indicates€littleÏor€no€regard€for€human€life,€and€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€inÏwhich€the€risk€to€human€life€is€high;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à(5)€The€defendant€is€convicted€of€two€(2)€or€more€statutory€offensesÏinvolving€sexual€abuse€of€a€minor€with€consideration€of€the€aggravatingÏcircumstances€arising€from€the€relationship€between€the€defendant€andÏvictim€or€victims,€the€time€span€of€defendantððs€undetected€sexual€activity,Ïthe€nature€and€scope€of€the€sexual€acts€and€the€extent€of€the€residual,Ïphysical€and€mental€damage€to€the€victim€or€victims;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à(6)€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€an€offense€committed€while€onÏprobation;€orÐ ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à(7)€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€criminal€contempt.€€Ð ` T$` T$ ÐñQñÓ5XÓñQñÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-115(b)€(1997).ñTñ׃×ñTññTñ׃×ñTñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р¨H ÐÌà ` à€In€determining€that€two€of€Appellantððs€sentences€should€be€servedÏconsecutively,€the€trial€court€found€that€Appellant€is€ð ða€professional€criminal€whoÏhas€knowingly€devoted€himself€to€criminal€acts€as€a€major€source€of€livelihood.ðð€ÏThe€trial€court€stated€that€it€based€this€finding€on€evidence€that€during€the€timeÏperiod€when€the€four€offenses€at€issue€in€this€case€were€committed,€almost€all€ofÏAppellantððs€income€came€from€these€four€drug€transactions.€Ìâ âÐ (/È%' Ðà ` àWe€conclude€that€the€record€simply€does€not€support€the€trial€courtððsÏâ âfinding€that€Appellant€is€ð ða€professional€criminal€who€has€knowingly€devotedÏhimself€to€criminal€acts€as€a€major€source€of€livelihood.ðð€€As€previously€stated,ÏAppellantððs€prior€criminal€record€consists€only€of€one€prior€conviction€for€retailÏtheft€in€Illinois€and€one€or€possibly€two€convictions€for€driving€without€a€license€inÏTennessee.€€The€record€also€indicates€that€in€committing€these€offenses,ÏAppellant€merely€obtained€possession€of€a€basketball€and€a€batting€glove.€€ItÏgoes€without€saying€that€these€two€items€cannot€be€considered€a€major€sourceÏof€Appellantððs€livelihood€by€any€stretch€of€the€imagination.€€Further,€there€isÏabsolutely€no€evidence€in€the€record€that€Appellant€has€ever€obtained€anythingÏof€value€through€any€other€criminal€offenses€for€which€he€was€not€convicted.€€TheÏtrial€court€apparently€concluded€that€because€Appellant€was€only€earning€$25ð!ð50Ïper€week€at€his€job,€Appellant€must€have€been€obtaining€his€livelihood€almostÏentirely€through€criminal€activity.€€While€this€theory€may€well€have€been€true,€itÏremains€only€a€theory€because€it€was€not€supported€by€any€evidence€in€theÏrecord.€€In€short,€we€hold€that€the€record€does€not€support€a€finding€that€AppellantÏis€a€ð ðprofessional€criminalðð€such€as€to€warrant€consecutive€sentences.ÌÌà ` àAccordingly,€Appellantððs€sentences€are€modified€to€provide€for€concurrentÏsentencing€for€all€four€convictions€in€this€case.€€In€all€other€respects,€the€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌñRñÌà ` àà ` àà ` àà ` àà ` àÌÌÌÌñRñÓ  ÓñRñà ` àÌÌñRñÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌñSñÌÌÐ Ð9p02 ÐñSñ‡CONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGE