ÿWPCO þŒÏ1ã/ìûVœ¼À÷±œÿ…îJœJQ™óˆuŽ82–‘}m“Cê5KÃ?Æ ÇTÚy‘îIÞÊõ‰›/)HÌÆ{@;KYÕ ñ¿³&w·0óæÂÀg€ÂÊifS“(ๆÈáì4Æõ }»Þ“]4œu¨CÀªÉ9CÎ& ‚»n !È«;Ç¥,M+¼Öû ˜Û)‡½ÚÞ—D7NüÏÛHåäñi4­VÅ1„Þ+ŽT,tÀ Æ{'ÖK$Á7î¬`ÝáÛÉçÌ[Îz4ŠÕÁ¼l¤i¡_Ö½vÞJŒ¥°„<°‹b·œÁutEÐ10cÚÿ#o€.¢]*òG “mé„X@&£úA :‘²Uó° ' g£m ²“³D‚jÃòDÒˆMìuD 2Ír?yö.õÌ#Æ PJ<hpT&\ ½©µ±¹ùzÙA.aOEÌáòƒ˜&%hd\Þ õ=TØ@ƹ?¡eÑ7ùIÝ÷‚å&\X.0õqY°ÄWß§aÝÚ'Y¾2»(1 XQ{™ÒÚáÄÔ~„uJÄ«Ca–y^`Tåq®fÅ‹ŸYr,³ž|ìk‡)ž¬ íÍFÖΪÈHï{‹W‡ò„âCSØ„}g Ý`‚EüÀîñNr‚…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ LÍ U: bS w@[ 4› ¯ 0ƾ 0D„ È  æ 3ò}%U:¢U:ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ B D3333 0Dffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff AOªÆùù 0D¿ D/ B2˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLÐ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- *D+,U/t0U1234D5Ó€ýhµ&3|x@(v(2Ìo$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XøXXXÔÔ€ôæŒôXXøÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ô€XøXXXÔÔ€îãô îXXøÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€]Ë  îîãôÔÐ  ÐÌò òJuly€14,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôæŒô ]ËÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó Ý ƒ ¯÷$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XPe XXXÔÔ€ô¶§ô XXPeÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€record€indicates€that€the€State€was€opposed€to€permissive€consolidation€of€this€case€with€theÐ `  Ðmurder€case€under€Rule€8(b)€because€it€intended€to€use€a€conviction€in€this€case€as€a€basis€for€seekingÏthe€death€penalty€in€the€murder€case.€€Regardless€of€the€propriety€of€the€prosecutorððs€motivation€forÏopposing€permissive€consolidation,€that€motivation€is€simply€not€relevant€to€determining€whether€theÏaggravated€robbery€and€the€murder€offenses€were€ð ðbased€upon€the€same€conduct€or€ar[o]se€from€theÏsame€criminal€episodeðð€as€is€required€for€mandatory€consolidation€under€Rule€8(a). )Ý ƒ ¯÷$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XPe XXXÔÔ€ô¶§ô XXPeÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€Appellantððs€record€contains€no€previous€convictions€for€offenses€committed€whileÐ `  ÐAppellant€was€an€adult. sÝ ƒ ¯÷$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XPe XXXÔÔ€ô¶§ô XXPeÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€record€reflects€that€Appellant€has€juvenile€adjudications€of€delinquency€for€approximatelyÐ `  Ðeight€felonies.€€These€include€aggravated€robbery€and€aggravated€assault.€€Appellant€at€the€time€of€theÏsentencing€hearing€was€nineteen€(19)€years€old€and€had€been€a€perennial€defendant€in€juvenile€courtÏsince€the€age€of€thirteen€(13).€€It€is€apparent€that€none€of€the€measures€taken€by€juvenile€court€have€beenÏeffective€in€rehabilitating€this€young€man.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Š²ŠXXÔÔ€Š $ŠŠŠ²ÔÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€yXXdìXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òñ5ñßr€ *<,(j 8 `€€@E<f  tt0"t` ¨Ørßñ5ñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌAPRIL€SESSION,€1999ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9807„CR„00245Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó ó)Ð ` Ðà ` àAppellee,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  àKNOX€COUNTYÐ Xø  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€MARY€BETH€LEIBOWITZó óÐ Xø  Ðò òANTHONY€T.€JONES,ó óà h àà À àò ò)à  àJUDGEó óÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ Xø Ðà ` àAppellant.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  à(Direct€Appeal€„€Aggravated€Robbery)Ð Xø Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð 8Ø ÐÌTHOMAS€SLAUGHTERà h àà À àà  àPAUL€G.€SUMMERSÐ ( È Ð501€Clinch€Avenue,€3rd€Floorà À àà  àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ  !À ÐKnoxville,€TN€€37902à h àà À àÐ "¸ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àERIK€W.€DAABÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€€337243ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àRANDALL€E.€NICHOLSÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àROBERT€JOLLEYÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCity„County€BuildingÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àKnoxville,€TN€€37902ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ  x5,-S ÐÓ  Óò òòòÔ‡„ÓÓ„ŠŠ $ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ#†Š $Š„„ÓÓ” #ÔÐ `  ÐÌÌñ*ñÌñ*ñÓ  ÓÓÓÑ7€yXXdìXXdì7Ñà ` àOn€October€1,€1997,€the€Knox€County€Grand€Jury€indicted€AppellantÐ ´ T ÐAnthony€T.€Jones€for€one€count€of€aggravated€robbery.€€After€a€jury€trial€on€MayÏ11,€1998,€Appellant€was€convicted€of€aggravated€robbery.€€After€a€sentencingÏhearing€on€June€5,€1998,€the€trial€court€sentenced€Appellant€as€a€Range€IÏstandard€offender€to€a€term€of€twelve€years€in€the€Tennessee€Department€ofÏCorrection.€€Appellant€challenges€both€his€conviction€and€his€sentence,€raisingÏthe€following€issues:Ìñ+ñÓÓñ+ñà0 ` à1)€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€Appellantððs€conviction;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€refused€to€consolidate€this€case€withÏanother€case€in€which€Appellant€was€charged€with€first€degree€murder;€andÐ ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à3)€whether€the€trial€court€erroneously€imposed€an€excessive€sentence.ñ,ñÐ ` T$` T$ Ðñ,ñÌñ+ñÓZÓñ+ñAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ÑÑ*®àò òI.€€FACTSó óˆÐ ü"œ ÐÌà ` àOn€August€23,€1997,€at€approximately€11:00€p.m.,€Matthew€Miller€walkedÏto€his€car€after€he€completed€a€shift€at€his€place€of€employment.€€After€Miller€gotÏin€his€car€and€rolled€down€the€window,€James€Mellon€approached€Miller€andÏasked€whether€he€had€a€cigarette€lighter.€When€Miller€began€searching€for€hisÏcigarette€lighter,€Mellon€pulled€out€a€chrome€handgun€and€demanded€MillerððsÏñ/ññ/ñwallet€and€car€keys.€€Miller€gave€Mellon€his€car€keys€and€his€wallet€whichÏcontained€$40.00.€€Mellon€then€got€into€a€vehicle€and€drove€away.€€Miller€couldÏsee€that€the€vehicle€was€occupied€by€additional€individuals.€Ìâ âÐ l6 -. Ðà ` àOn€August€26,€1997,€Appellant€waived€his€right€to€remain€silent€and€hisÏâ âright€to€counsel€and€gave€a€statement€to€the€police.€€In€his€statement€to€theÏpolice,€Appellant€stated€that€he€was€driving€around€in€a€car€with€Mellon€and€someÏother€individuals€when€Mellon€said€that€they€needed€to€get€some€money€so€thatÏthey€could€buy€some€marijuana.€€At€some€point,€there€was€a€discussion€aboutÏð ðripping€off€a€drug€dealer,€or€a€drug€house€or€something.ðð€€When€Appellant€wasÏasked€whether€he€knew€what€ð ðeverybody€was€talking€about€going€and€doing,ððÏAppellant€responded,€ð ðeverybody€knew€what€was€going€on.€€There€canððt€nobodyÏsit€there€and€lie€and€say€they€didnððt,€because,€you€know€what€Iððm€saying.ðð€ÌÌà ` àAppellant€stated€that€the€group€then€did€some€more€driving€around€andÏMellon€eventually€got€out€of€the€car€and€robbed€Miller€with€the€gun€that€AppellantÏhad€brought€with€him€that€night.€€Appellant€stated€that€he€watched€the€robberyÏfrom€approximately€one€parking€space€away€and€believed€at€first€that€Mellon€wasÏbluffing.€ÌÌà ` àAppellant€stated€that€when€Mellon€returned€to€the€car,€Mellon€gave€MillerððsÏwallet€to€ð ðE.ðð€ð ðEðð€then€took€the€money€out€of€the€wallet,€and€the€group€spentÏ$20.00€to€purchase€marijuana€and€$20.00€to€purchase€something€else.ÌÌà ` àAppellant€subsequently€told€the€police€that€the€gun€used€in€the€robberyÏcould€be€located€at€his€girlfriendððs€house,€and€the€police€later€retrieved€the€gunÏfrom€that€location.€Ìñ0ñÌñ0ññ0ñÌñ0ñÐ Ð9p02 Ðà@XX®àò òII.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óˆÐ `  ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€hisÏconviction€for€aggravated€robbery.ÌÌà ` àWhen€an€appellant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€CourtÏis€obliged€to€review€that€challenge€according€to€certain€well-settled€principles.€€AÏverdict€of€guilty€by€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimonyÏof€the€Stateððs€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€in€favor€of€theÏState.€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994).€€Although€an€accusedÐ à€ Ðis€originally€cloaked€with€a€presumption€of€innocence,€a€jury€verdict€removes€thisÏpresumption€and€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,Ð À` Ð914€(Tenn.€1982).€€Hence,€on€appeal,€the€burden€of€proof€rests€with€Appellant€toÏdemonstrate€the€insufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€€òòId.óó€€On€appeal,€ð ðtheÐ  "@ Ð[S]tate€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€as€well€as€allÏreasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€therefrom.ðð€€òòId.óó€€WhereÐ €&  Ðthe€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€contested€on€appeal,€the€relevant€question€forÏthe€reviewing€court€is€whether€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theÏaccused€guilty€of€every€element€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€ÏòòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789,€61€L.€Ed.€2d€560Ð @.à$& Ð(1979).€€In€conducting€our€evaluation€of€the€convicting€evidence,€this€Court€isÏprecluded€from€reweighing€or€reconsidering€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Morganóó,€929Ð  2À(* ÐS.W.2d€380,€383€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Moreover,€this€Court€may€notÏsubstitute€its€own€inferences€ð ðfor€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€fromÏcircumstantial€evidence.ðð€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ð7.0 ÐApp.€1990).€€Finally,€Rule€13(e)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€ProcedureÐ à9€02 Ðprovides,€ð ðfindings€of€guilt€in€criminal€actions€whether€by€the€trial€court€or€juryÏshall€be€set€aside€if€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€findings€by€the€trierÏof€fact€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ððÌÌà ` àUnder€Tennessee€law,€ð ð[r]obbery€is€the€intentional€or€knowing€theft€ofÏproperty€from€the€person€of€another€by€violence€or€putting€the€person€in€fear.ðð€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„401(a)€(1997).€€Further,€aggravated€robbery€is€aÏrobbery€which€is€ð ð[a]ccomplished€with€a€deadly€weapon€or€by€display€of€anyÏarticle€used€or€fashioned€to€lead€the€victim€to€reasonably€believe€it€to€be€a€deadlyÏweapon.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„402(a)(1)€(1997).€€In€addition,€ð ð[a]€person€isÏcriminally€responsible€for€an€offense€committed€by€the€conduct€of€another€if€.€.€.Ï[a]cting€with€intent€to€promote€or€assist€the€commission€of€the€offense,€or€toÏbenefit€in€the€proceeds€or€results€of€the€offense,€the€person€solicits,€directs,€aids,Ïor€attempts€to€aid€another€person€to€commit€the€offense.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„¼11„402(2)€(1997).ÌÌà ` àIn€this€case,€there€is€no€dispute€that€Mellon€committed€the€offense€ofÏaggravated€robbery€by€using€a€deadly€weapon€to€take€property€from€Miller€byÏputting€him€in€fear€for€his€safety.€€Essentially,€the€only€dispute€is€whether€theÏevidence€was€sufficient€to€establish€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€AppellantÏwas€guilty€of€aggravated€robbery€because€he€was€criminally€responsible€for€theÏconduct€of€Mellon.ÌÌà ` àInitially,€Appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€supportÏhis€conviction€because€there€was€no€proof€that€he€ever€put€Miller€in€fear,€that€heÏtook€anything€directly€from€Miller,€or€that€he€exercised€direct€control€over€theÐ Ð9p02 Ðproperty€that€was€taken€from€Miller.€€However,€this€argument€is€completelyÏirrelevant€in€the€situation€presented€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó.€€In€order€to€establish€AppellantððsÐ P ð Ðguilt,€the€State€had€to€prove€that€Appellant€ð ðsolicit[ed],€direct[ed],€aid[ed],€orÏattempt[ed]€to€aidðð€Mellon€in€the€commission€of€the€aggravated€robbery€ð ðwithÏintent€to€promote€or€assist€the€commission€of€the€offense,€or€to€benefit€in€theÏproceeds€or€results€of€the€offense.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„402(2)€(1997).€Ð °  ÐContrary€to€Appellantððs€assertion,€nothing€in€the€criminal€responsibility€statuteÏrequired€the€State€to€prove€that€Appellant€had€committed€the€offense€ofÏaggravated€robbery€himself€by€threatening€Miller€and€taking€property€directly€fromÏMiller.ÌÌà ` àAppellant€also€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€because€thereÏwas€no€proof€about€how€Mellon€obtained€possession€of€Appellantððs€gun.€ÏHowever,€Appellantððs€own€statement€showed€that€when€Appellant€initially€got€intoÏthe€car€with€Mellon€and€the€other€individuals,€Mellon€did€not€know€that€AppellantÏhad€a€gun.€Then,€sometime€after€the€discussion€about€the€need€to€obtain€moneyÏfor€marijuana€and€the€proposal€to€rob€a€drug€dealer,€Mellon€used€Appellantððs€gunÏto€rob€Miller.€€The€police€subsequently€located€the€gun€at€Appellantððs€girlfriendððsÏhouse.€€A€rational€jury€could€infer€from€this€evidence€that€Appellant€gave€his€gunÏto€Mellon€before€the€robbery€and€took€possession€of€the€gun€again€sometimeÏafter€the€robbery.ÌÌà ` àAppellant€further€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€because€thereÏwas€no€proof€that€he€knew€that€Mellon€was€going€to€commit€a€robbery.€€However,Ïwhen€Appellant€was€asked€whether€everyone€knew€what€was€going€to€happenÏafter€the€discussion€about€obtaining€money€for€marijuana€and€the€proposal€to€robÐ Ð9p02 Ða€drug€dealer,€Appellant€expressly€stated€ð ðeverybody€knew€what€was€going€on.€ÏThere€canððt€nobody€sit€there€and€lie€and€say€they€didnððt.ðð€€This€evidence€is€clearlyÏsufficient€for€a€rational€jury€to€conclude€that€Appellant€knew€that€Mellon€was€goingÏto€commit€a€robbery.ÌÌà ` àFinally,€Appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€becauseÏthere€was€no€proof€that€he€directed€or€instructed€Mellon€to€commit€the€aggravatedÏrobbery.€€However,€the€criminal€responsibility€statute€expressly€states€that€aÏperson€is€criminally€responsible€for€the€conduct€of€another€if€that€person€ð ðaids,€orÏattempts€to€aidðð€the€other€in€the€commission€of€an€offense.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„11„402(2)€(1997).€€Thus,€the€State€was€not€required€to€prove€that€AppellantÏdirected€or€instructed€Mellon€to€commit€the€offense.ÌÌà ` àWe€conclude€that€when€the€evidence€in€this€case€is€viewed€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€State,€as€it€must€be,€the€evidence€was€sufficient€for€a€rational€juryÏto€conclude€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€Appellant€was€criminally€responsibleÏfor€the€aggravated€robbery€of€Miller.€The€evidence€shows€that€Appellant€took€hisÏhandgun€with€him€and€got€into€the€car€with€Mellon€and€the€other€individuals.€ÏMellon€subsequently€stated€that€the€group€needed€to€obtain€some€money€in€orderÏto€purchase€marijuana.€€The€group€then€discussed€robbing€a€drug€dealer€or€aÏdrug€house€and€by€Appellantððs€own€admission,€ð ðeverybody€knew€what€was€goingÏon.ðð€€Mellon€subsequently€got€out€of€the€car€and€used€Appellantððs€gun€to€robÏMiller.€€Appellant€and€the€rest€of€the€group€then€used€$20.00€of€the€money€toÏpurchase€marijuana€and€they€then€spent€the€remaining€$20.00€on€somethingÏelse.€€The€police€later€retrieved€the€gun€from€Appellantððs€girlfriendððs€house.€€ThisÏevidence€was€clearly€sufficient€for€a€rational€jury€to€conclude€that€Appellant€gaveÐ Ð9p02 ÐMellon€his€gun€so€that€Mellon€could€commit€the€aggravated€robbery€and€AppellantÏand€the€rest€of€the€group€could€then€use€the€proceeds€to€buy€marijuana.€€Thus,Ïa€rational€jury€could€clearly€find€that€Appellant€was€criminally€responsible€forÏMellonððs€conduct€because€Appellant€aided€the€commission€of€the€aggravatedÏrobbery€with€the€intent€of€sharing€in€the€proceeds.ÌÌà ` àIn€this€case,€Appellant€essentially€asks€us€to€reconsider€the€evidence€andÏsubstitute€a€verdict€of€not€guilty€in€place€of€the€verdict€found€by€the€jury.€€That€isÏnot€our€function.€€Instead,€we€conclude€that€a€rational€jury€could€have€foundÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€Appellant€was€guilty€of€the€offense€of€aggravatedÏrobbery€because€he€was€criminally€responsible€for€the€conduct€of€Mellon.€€ThisÏissue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà@HH ®àò òIII.€€FAILURE€TO€CONSOLIDATEó óˆÐ "0 ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€refused€to€grant€hisÏmotion€to€consolidate€this€case€with€another€case€in€which€he€was€charged€withÏfirst€degree€murder€because€it€prevented€him€from€being€able€to€show€that€hisÏstatement€that€ð ðeverybody€knew€what€was€going€onðð€only€applied€to€the€murderÏcharge.ÌÌà ` àRule€13(a)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provides:Ìñ1ñÓÓñ1ñÌà0 ` àThe€court€may€order€consolidation€of€two€or€more€indictments,Ïpresentments,€or€informations€for€trial€if€the€offenses€and€all€defendantsÏcould€have€been€joined€in€a€single€indictment,€presentment,€or€informationÏpursuant€to€Rule€8.Ð ` T$` T$ Ðâ âÐ è8ˆ/1 Ðñ2ñÓÓñ2ñTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€13(a).€€In€addition,€Rule€8(a)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏâ âCriminal€Procedure€provides:Ìñ2ñÓ=>Óñ2ñÌà0 ` àTwo€or€more€offenses€shall€be€joined€in€the€same€indictment,€presentment,Ïor€information,€with€each€offense€stated€in€a€separate€count,€orÏconsolidated€pursuant€to€Rule€13€if€the€offenses€are€based€upon€the€sameÏconduct€or€arise€from€the€same€criminal€episode€and€if€such€offenses€areÏknown€to€the€appropriate€prosecuting€official€at€the€time€of€the€return€of€theÏindictment(s),€presentment(s),€or€information(s)€and€if€they€are€within€theÏjurisdiction€of€a€single€court.€€A€defendant€shall€not€be€subject€to€separateÏtrials€for€multiple€offenses€falling€within€this€subsection€unless€they€areÏsevered€pursuant€to€Rule€14.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÌñ3ñÓÓñ3ñTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€8(a).€€Essentially,€Appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€wasÏrequired€to€consolidate€the€two€trials€under€13(a)€because€joinder€of€the€twoÏcharged€offenses€in€the€same€indictment€was€mandatory€under€Rule€8(a).ÌÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€consolidation€was€mandatory€under€Rule€8(a)Ïbecause€the€alleged€offenses€were€committed€within€one€hour€of€each€other€andÏoccurred€at€locations€that€were€only€a€few€miles€apart.€€However,€Appellant€hasÏfailed€to€support€this€conclusory€allegation€with€any€further€information.€€Indeed,ÏAppellant€has€failed€to€specify€what€time€the€events€in€the€murder€case€took€placeÏand€has€failed€to€specify€where€they€occurred.€€In€addition,€Appellant€has€failedÏto€provide€any€information€about€the€victim€of€the€murder,€has€failed€to€specifyÏhow€the€murder€occurred,€and€has€failed€to€specify€the€alleged€motive€for€theÏmurder.€€In€addition,€the€indictment€for€the€murder€case€is€not€in€the€record,€andÏthere€is€nothing€else€in€the€record€that€contains€any€specific€information€about€theÏmurder€case.€€In€fact,€the€record€indicates€that€Appellant€failed€to€introduce€anyÏproof€at€the€hearing€on€his€motion€to€consolidate.Ìâ âÐ è6ˆ-/ Ðà ` àIn€short,€Appellant€has€failed€to€provide€us€with€any€information€about€theÏâ âmurder€case€upon€which€we€can€determine€whether€the€two€offenses€wereÏð ðbased€upon€the€same€conduct€or€ar[o]se€from€the€same€criminal€episode.ðð€ÏTherefore,€we€have€no€basis€for€determining€whether€Rule€8(a)€mandatedÏconsolidation€of€this€case€with€the€murder€case.€€The€mere€fact€that€two€offensesÏwere€committed€by€the€same€person€within€a€relatively€short€time€at€two€relativelyÏclose€locations,€without€more,€is€insufficient€to€establish€that€Rule€8(a)€applies.€ÏBecause€Appellant€has€provided€us€with€no€information€upon€which€we€couldÏreach€a€contrary€conclusion,€we€must€presume€that€the€trial€court€was€correctÏwhen€it€determined€that€the€mandatory€joinder€provisions€of€Rule€8(a)€did€notÏrequire€the€consolidation€of€Appellantððs€two€cases.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€issue€has€no€merit.Ð À` ÐÌà@#®àò òIV.€€LENGTH€OF€SENTENCEó óˆÐ   @ ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€sentenced€him€to€aÏlonger€term€than€he€deserves.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€isÐ 4°*, Ðconditioned€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 @ à 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 ð  Ðdemonstrating€that€the€sentence€is€improper.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Because€the€record€in€thisÐ à€ Ðcase€indicates€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€properly€consider€the€sentencingÏprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances,€our€review€is€de€novo€withoutÏa€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€96€(Tenn.€1997).òòÐ °P ÐÌà ` àóóIn€this€case,€Appellant€was€convicted€of€aggravated€robbery,€a€Class€BÐ "0 Ðfelony.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„402€(1997).€€The€sentence€for€a€Range€IÐ €$  Ðoffender€convicted€of€a€Class€B€felony€is€between€eight€and€twelve€years.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(2)€(1997).€€The€presumptive€sentence€for€a€Class€BÏfelony€is€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range€if€there€are€no€enhancement€orÏmitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c)€(1997).€When€there€areÏenhancement€but€no€mitigating€factors€that€apply€to€a€sentence,€the€court€may€setÏthe€sentence€above€the€minimum€in€that€range€but€still€within€the€range.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(d)€(1997).€€When€both€enhancement€and€mitigatingÏfactors€are€applicable€to€a€sentence,€the€court€is€directed€to€begin€with€theÏminimum€sentence,€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).Ð Ð9p02 Їà ` àIn€determining€that€Appellant€should€be€sentenced€to€a€twelve€year€term,Ïthe€trial€court€found€that€the€following€enhancement€factors€applied:€(1)€AppellantÏhad€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€toÏthose€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€sentencing€range,€(2)€Appellant€wasÏa€leader€in€the€commission€of€an€offense€involving€two€or€more€criminal€actors,Ï(7)€the€offense€involved€a€victim€and€was€committed€to€gratify€Appellantððs€desireÏfor€pleasure€or€excitement,€(8)€Appellant€had€a€history€of€unwillingness€to€complyÏwith€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€into€the€community,€(10)ÏAppellant€had€no€hesitation€in€committing€an€offense€where€the€risk€to€human€lifeÏwas€high,€and€(20)€Appellant€had€been€adjudicated€to€have€committed€delinquentÏacts€as€a€juvenile€that€would€be€felonies€if€committed€by€an€adult.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð À` ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(2),€(7),€(8),€(10),€(20)€(1997).€€The€trial€courtÏapparently€found€that€no€mitigating€factors€applied.€ÌÌà ` àAppellant€does€not€challenge€the€application€of€enhancement€factor€(1),Ïhowever,€we€conclude€that€it€was€incorrectly€applied.€€In€1995,€the€TennesseeÏLegislature€amended€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„114€by€addingÏenhancement€factor€(20),€which€allows€for€enhancement€of€a€sentence€if€ð ð[t]heÏdefendant€was€adjudicated€to€have€committed€a€delinquent€act€or€acts€as€aÏjuvenile€that€would€constitute€a€felony€if€committed€by€an€adult.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„114(20)€(1997).€€This€Court€has€previously€stated€that€for€offensesÏcommitted€after€the€effective€date€of€the€amendment€(July€1,€1995),€only€thoseÏdelinquent€acts€by€a€juvenile€that€would€constitute€a€felony€if€committed€by€anÏadult€can€be€considered€to€enhance€a€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Ronald€Shipleyóó,€No.Ð ð5,. Ð02C01„9601„CR„00031,€1997€WL€21190,€at€*7€n.1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,ÏJan.€22,€1997);€òòState€v.€Timothy€Adamsóó,€No.€02C01„9512„CC„00376,€1997€WLÐ Ð9p02 Ð1821,€at€*4€n.4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Jan.€3,€1997).€€Because€the€offenseÏin€this€case€was€committed€after€July€1,€1995,€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€appliedÏenhancement€factor€(1)€based€on€Appellantððs€previous€record€of€juvenileÏadjudications.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð 0Ð ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€applied€enhancementÏfactor€(2)€because€there€was€no€evidence€that€he€had€any€leadership€role€in€theÏcommission€of€the€aggravated€robbery.€€We€agree€that€the€record€simply€doesÏnot€contain€any€evidence€that€Appellant€was€a€leader€in€the€commission€of€theÏoffense.€€While€the€evidence€indicates€that€Appellant€was€present€duringÏconversations€about€obtaining€money€for€marijuana€and€about€committing€aÏrobbery,€there€is€no€evidence€that€Appellant€initiated€those€conversations€orÏotherwise€directed€or€planned€the€robbery.€€While€the€evidence€shows€thatÏAppellant€knew€that€Mellon€intended€to€commit€a€robbery€when€he€gave€MellonÏhis€gun,€there€is€no€evidence€that€Appellant€instructed€Mellon€to€commit€theÏrobbery.€€We€cannot€agree€with€the€State€that€the€mere€fact€that€AppellantÏprovided€Mellon€with€a€gun,€without€more,€establishes€that€Appellant€was€a€leaderÏin€the€commission€of€the€offense.ÌÌà ` àAppellant€does€not€challenge€the€application€of€enhancement€factor€(7),Ïhowever,€we€conclude€that€it€was€incorrectly€applied.€€The€State€has€the€burdenÏof€demonstrating€that€the€crime€was€committed€to€gratify€a€defendantððs€desire€forÏpleasure€or€excitement.€€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€31,€35€(Tenn.€1993).€€In€thisÐ 4 *, Ðcase,€while€there€was€evidence€that€Appellant€and€the€others€committed€theÐ ð5,. Ðaggravated€robbery€in€order€to€use€the€proceeds€to€obtain€pleasure€byÏpurchasing€and€then€consuming€marijuana,€there€was€absolutely€no€evidenceÏthat€Appellant€participated€in€the€aggravated€robbery€in€order€to€obtain€pleasureÏor€excitement€from€the€robbery€itself.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€appliedÏenhancement€factor€(7).ÌÌà ` àAppellant€does€not€challenge€the€application€of€enhancement€factor€(8),Ïand€we€conclude€that€it€was€correctly€applied.€€Indeed,€the€record€indicates€thatÏAppellant€has€been€placed€on€probation€numerous€times€and€has€then€violatedÏthe€terms€of€his€probation€by€committing€new€offenses€and€failing€to€comply€withÏcourt€ordered€regulations.€ÌÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€applied€enhancementÏfactor€(10).€€We€agree€that€this€factor€was€incorrectly€applied.€€This€Court€hasÏpreviously€stated€that€absent€any€proof€establishing€a€risk€to€a€life€other€than€theÏvictimððs,€enhancement€factor€(10)€is€inapplicable€to€sentences€for€aggravatedÏrobbery€because€a€high€risk€to€human€life€is€an€element€of€the€offense.€€òòState€v.Ð `(  ÐHicksóó,€868€S.W.2d€729,€732€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€There€is€no€proof€in€theÐ P*ð " Ðrecord€that€the€life€of€anyone€other€than€the€victim€was€endangered€during€theÏaggravated€robbery€of€Miller.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€applied€thisÏfactor.ÌÌà ` àAppellant€does€not€challenge€the€application€of€enhancement€factor€(20),Ïand€we€conclude€that€it€was€correctly€applied€because€Appellant€was€adjudicatedÏâ âas€having€committed€offenses€as€a€juvenile€that€would€have€been€felonies€ifÐ à7€.0 Ðcommitted€by€an€adult.€€Indeed,€the€record€indicates€that€Appellant€hasÏadjudications€for€aggravated€robbery€and€aggravated€assault.€Ìâ âÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€applied€mitigating€factorÏ(6)€because€Appellant€was€only€eighteen€years€old€when€he€committed€theÏoffense.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(6)€(1997).€€The€Tennessee€SupremeÐ °  ÐCourt€has€stated€that€when€determining€the€applicability€of€this€mitigating€factor,Ïthe€sentencing€court€should€consider€ð ðthe€defendantððs€age,€education,€maturity,Ïexperience,€mental€capacity€or€development,€and€any€other€pertinentÏcircumstance€tending€to€demonstrate€the€defendantððs€ability€or€inability€toÏappreciate€the€nature€of€his€conduct.ðð€€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€at€33.€Ð À` ÐBesides€referring€to€his€age€at€the€time€of€the€offense,€Appellant€has€failed€toÏindicate€any€reason€for€why€this€factor€applied.€€Appellant€has€failed€to€indicateÏhow€his€age€or€anything€else€affected€his€judgment€when€he€participated€in€theÏaggravated€robbery.€€Indeed,€the€record€indicates€that€Appellant€is€well„¼acquainted€with€the€criminal€justice€system€and€with€the€consequences€ofÏviolating€the€law.€€In€fact,€the€record€indicates€that€besides€the€two€adjudicationsÏfor€felonies,€Appellant€has€had€adjudications€for€approximately€thirty„fourÏdelinquent€acts€that€occurred€over€a€six€year€period.€€Thus,€mitigating€factor€(6)Ïwas€not€applicable.ÌÌà ` àEven€though€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€applying€someÏenhancement€factors,€a€finding€that€enhancement€factors€were€erroneouslyÏapplied€does€not€equate€to€a€reduction€in€the€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Keelóó,€882Ð ð5,. ÐS.W.2d€410,€423€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Given€the€number€and€severity€of€theÏfelony€offenses€in€Appellantððs€juvenile€record,€and€the€failure€of€lesser€forms€ofÐ Ð9p02 Ðpunishment€to€curb€Appellantððs€criminal€behavior,€we€conclude€that€the€twoÏenhancement€factors€applicable€in€this€case€warrant€a€sentence€of€twelve€years.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð P ð ÐÌà ` àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.ÌÌñ4ñà ` àà ` àà ` àà ` àà ` àÌÌÌÌñ4ñÓ  Óñ4ñà ` àÌÌÌñ4ñÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌNORMA€MCGEE€OGLE,€JUDGE