ÿWPC£ 6#  % 0(w@=4}‘ U:¨U:â 0l 0Dˆ 0JÌ 0T 0^j 0hÈ 0r0 D3¢ 0|Õ 0†Q 0× 1ug 0dÜ U *@ B)j DC“ AMÖ B# AO@ Æ 0DU 0@™ 0DÙ  D/# BRfoÕîdv~RvÓИHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ X($¡¡ EE.e E!U"Ó€.‹â 3|x., øð AZ‹"Arial RegularÂ"Arial Regular((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(((('ÿÿdxd2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd*,&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d*,-/Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú2Ú  Úó ó üÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌò òSeptember€2,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€$ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó00'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ …Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÔ€$ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€Tennessee€Code€defines€consent€as€ð ðassent€in€fact,€whether€express€or€apparent,Ïincluding€assent€by€one€legally€authorized€to€act€for€another.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„06(9)€(Supp.Ï1996).€€Ô€$XÔÌ äÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÔ€$ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€Appellant€does€not€appeal€his€six€month€sentence€for€theft.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ ÀY XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ќـ*ÙßR€'.&A1-j|ZK` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌAT€NASHVILLEÌ€JUNE€1997€SESSIONÌÓ  Ӝ̛ÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àNO.€01C01„9608„CR„00385à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)à àWHITE€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JOHN€TURNBULL,€JUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌTERRY€LYNN€KIRBYà àà àà à)à à(Burglary,€Theft€and€Sentencing)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà àà à)Ìà à€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTà àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEEóóÌÌRicky€L.€€Jenkinsà àà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌ115€S.€Main€Street€à àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌSparta,€Tennessee€38583à àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493Ìà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPeter€M.ÏCoughlanà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistantÏAttorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€E.€GibsonÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à145€S.€Jefferson€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCookville,€Tennessee€38501„3424ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAnthony€J.€CraigheadÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à145€S.€Jefferson€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCookville,€Tennessee€38501„3424à àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:______ÌÌÑ€1ÑÇAFFIRMEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌòòÓÓÓ  ÓOpinionÌÓ  Óóóà àThe€Appellant,€Terry€Lynn€Kirby,€appeals€as€of€right€his€convictions€for€oneÏcount€of€burglary€and€one€count€of€theft€of€less€than€$500.00.€€He€also€appeals€theÏsentence€for€his€burglary€conviction.€€He€argues€on€appeal€that:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)à àThe€trial€court€erred€by€denying€his€motion€for€judgment€ofÏacquittal€for€burglary€and€theft€because€the€evidence€introduced€at€trialÏwas€insufficient.ÌÌà8 à(2)à àThe€state€prosecutorððs€closing€argument€that€another€personÏinvolved€in€the€burglary,€Charlie€Cecil€Price,€Jr.,€would€be€dealt€withÏlater€was€so€prejudicial€to€the€Appellant€that€a€new€trial€should€beÏgranted.ÌÌà8 à(3)à àThe€trial€court€erred€by€imposing€a€sentence€for€his€burglaryÏconviction€that€was€too€long€and€improper.ÓÓÌWe€have€carefully€reviewed€the€record€on€appeal€and€find€no€merit€to€the€AppellantððsÏcontentions.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.ÌÓ  ÓFactual€BackgroundÌÓ  Óà àOn€April€13,€1995,€at€approximately€6:50€p.m.,€Deputy€Sheriff€œKenny€Dobson›Ïpatrolled€the€area€surrounding€the€Carter€Hickory€Mill€on€Cookeville€Road€in€WhiteÏCounty.€€Driving€past€the€mill,€Deputy€Sheriff€Dobson€noticed€the€Appellant€and€twoÏor€three€other€persons€in€a€maroon€Oldsmobile.€€The€Appellant,€who€was€behind€theÏsteering€wheel,€drove€the€car€slowly€past€the€front€of€the€building.€€Because€theÍAppellant€worked€at€the€mill,€Deputy€Sheriff€Dobson€did€not€consider€the€AppellantððsÏbehavior€suspicious.€€€Ìà àA€few€minutes€later,€however,€Deputy€Sheriff€œDobson›€received€a€call€over€hisÏpolice€radio€from€which€he€learned€that€the€Carter€Hickory€Mill€had€been€burglarized.€ÏHe€notified€the€dispatcher€that€he€had€seen€the€Appellant€at€the€scene€of€the€crimeÏand€then€returned€to€the€mill.€€He€noticed€that€a€window€was€broken,€but€could€notÏfind€the€Appellant.€€He€radioed€Sergeant€Bill€Bumbalough,€a€police€officer€on€his€wayÏto€the€mill€to€investigate€the€burglary,€and€told€him€that€he€was€going€to€try€to€find€theÏAppellant.Ìà àWhen€Sergeant€Bumbalough€arrived€at€Carter€Hickory€Mill,€he€was€met€byÏRonnie€Carter€and€the€two€of€them€entered€the€millððs€office.€€According€to€CarterððsÏtestimony€at€the€trial,€the€office€was€in€its€normal€condition€and€he€could€not€see€thatÏanything€had€been€moved€or€was€missing.€€Suspecting€that€something€must€haveÏbeen€stolen,€Carter€started€going€through€his€drawers€and€soon€realized€that€sixÏblank€payroll€checks€were€missing.Ìà àAt€approximately€7:30€p.m.,€that€same€evening,€Officer€Paul€Sherill€was€calledÏto€an€accident€in€Sparta€that€involved€a€maroon€Oldsmobile.€€When€he€arrived€at€theÏscene€of€the€accident,€the€Appellant,€who€was€the€driver,€and€one€other€man€were€inÏthe€car.€€Apparently€two€other€men,€one€of€them€being€Charlie€Cecil€Price,€had€alsoÏbeen€in€the€car€when€the€accident€occurred,€but€both€those€men€had€escaped.€ÍHaving€heard€over€the€radio€that€Deputy€Sheriff€Dobson€was€looking€for€a€maroonÏOldsmobile€in€connection€with€a€burglary,€Officer€Sherill€searched€the€car€and€foundÏone€blank€Carter€Hickory€Mill€check€in€the€carððs€backseat€right€behind€the€driverððsÏseat.€€Shortly€thereafter,€when€the€car€was€moved,€Officer€Sherill€also€discoveredÏseveral€torn€up€pieces€of€Carter€Hickory€Mill€checks€on€the€ground€under€the€driverððsÏseat.€Ìà à€The€White€County€Grand€Jury€indicted€the€Appellant€for€burglary,€theft,€andÏforgery.€€On€January€23,€1996,€after€one€mistrial,€a€jury€convicted€the€Appellant€ofÏburglary€and€theft€of€less€than€$500.00.€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€courtÏordered€the€Appellant€to€serve€six€months€for€the€theft€and€three€years€and€nineÏmonths€for€the€burglary,€to€be€served€consecutively.€€On€May€21,€1996,€the€trial€courtÏentered€an€order€denying€the€Appellantððs€motion€for€a€new€trial€and€ordering€hisÏsentences€to€be€served€concurrently€instead€of€consecutively.€€The€Appellant€nowÏappeals.ÌÇÓ  ÓArgumentÌÓ  Óà àThe€Appellantððs€first€argument€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€his€motionÏfor€judgment€of€acquittal€for€burglary€and€theft€because€the€evidence€introduced€atÏtrial€was€insufficient.€€The€Appellantððs€argument€has€no€merit.Ìà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€weÏmust€review€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution€inÏdetermining€whether€ð ðòòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€would€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.Ï307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979).€€We€do€not€reweigh€or€reevaluateÏthe€evidence€and€are€required€to€afford€the€State€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏproof€contained€in€the€record,€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferencesÏwhich€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ï1978).€€A€guilty€verdict€rendered€by€the€jury€and€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accreditsÏthe€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€the€State,€and€a€presumption€of€guilt€replaces€theÏpresumption€of€innocence.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).€€Ìà àA€defendant€challenging€the€sufficiency€of€the€proof€has€the€burden€ofÏillustrating€to€this€Court€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returnedÏby€the€trier€of€fact€in€his€or€her€case.€€This€Court€will€not€disturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€forÏlack€of€sufficient€evidence€unless€the€facts€contained€in€the€record€and€anyÏinferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€facts€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€aÍrational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€defendant€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.ÏTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€Ìà àEven€if€the€evidence€of€the€Appellantððs€guilt€is€entirely€circumstantial€in€nature,Ïit€is€a€well„established€principle€of€law€in€this€state€that€circumstantial€evidence€aloneÏmay€be€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction.€€òòState€v.€Buttreyóó,€756€S.W.2d€718,€721Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€However,€the€circumstantial€evidence€ð ðmust€be€not€onlyÏconsistent€with€the€guilt€of€the€accused€but€it€must€also€be€inconsistent€with€hisÏinnocence€and€must€exclude€every€other€reasonable€theory€or€hypothesis€except€thatÏof€guilt.ðð€€òòState€v.€Tharpeóó,€726€S.W.2d€896,€900€(Tenn.€1987).€€In€addition,€ð ðit€mustÏestablish€such€a€certainty€of€guilt€of€the€accused€as€to€convince€the€mind€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€that€the€[Appellant]€is€the€one€who€committed€the€crime.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€896.€Ïà àIn€evaluating€the€sufficiency€of€the€circumstantial€evidence,€this€Court€mustÏremember€that€the€jury€decides€the€weight€to€be€given€to€circumstantial€evidence€andÏthat€ð ð[t]he€inferences€to€be€drawn€from€such€evidence,€and€the€extent€to€which€theÏcircumstances€are€consistent€with€guilt€and€inconsistent€with€innocence€areÏquestions€primarily€for€the€jury.ðð€€òòMarable€v.€Stateóó,€313€S.W.2d€451,€457€(Tenn.Ï1958);€òòPruitt€v.€Stateóó,€460€S.W.2d€385,€391€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1970).Ìà àIn€order€to€convict€the€Appellant€of€theft€of€property,€the€State€had€to€prove€thatÏthe€Appellant€acted€with€an€ð ðintent€to€deprive€the€owner€of€property€[and]€knowinglyÏobtain[ed]€or€exercise[d]€control€over€the€property€without€the€ownerððs€effectiveÍconsent.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„14„103€(1991).€€In€order€to€convict€the€Appellant€ofÏthe€burglary€as€charged,€the€State€had€to€prove€that€the€Appellant,€without€theÏownerððs€consent,€entered€a€building€other€than€a€habitation€not€open€to€the€publicÏwith€the€intent€to€commit€a€felony€or€theft.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„14„402(a)(1)Ï(1991).Ìà àThe€Appellant€specifically€complains€that€the€State€failed€to€prove€that€he€didÏnot€have€the€ownerððs€effective€consent€to€enter€the€building€and€take€the€payrollÏchecks.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€The€Appellant€also€complains€that€the€State€failed€to€prove€that€heÏexercised€control€over€the€payroll€checks,€arguing€that€they€were€not€found€on€hisÏperson.€€The€State€will€have€met€its€burden€if€it€introduced€evidence€at€the€trial€fromÏwhich€a€reasonable€jury€could€have€concluded€that€the€Appellant€did€not€haveÏconsent€to€enter€the€Carter€Hickory€Mill€office€and€that€the€Appellant€exercised€controlÏover€the€payroll€checks.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€856€S.W.2d€155,€156€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1993).Ìà àWe€find€that€the€convicting€evidence€was€sufficient.€€Deputy€Sheriff€DobsonÏobserved€the€Appellant€driving€slowly€in€front€of€the€Carter€Hickory€Mill€only€minutesÏbefore€he€learned€that€it€had€been€burglarized.€€Sergeant€Bumbalough€and€RonnieÏCarter€saw€that€an€office€window€had€been€broken€and€that€somebody€had€forced€hisÍway€through€that€window.€€Inside€the€office,€Carter€noticed€that€nothing€had€beenÏdisturbed€except€that€six€blank€payroll€checks€were€missing.€€Thirty€to€forty„fiveÏminutes€after€the€burglary,€Officer€Sherill€investigated€a€car€accident€involving€theÏAppellant€and€found,€in€and€around€the€car,€five€out€of€the€six€stolen€checks.€€Four€ofÏthose€stolen€checks€had€been€torn€to€pieces.€€Ìà àThe€evidence,€circumstantially,€was€sufficient€to€convict€the€Appellant.€€AÏreasonable€jury€could€have€concluded€that€nobody€had€given€the€Appellant€consentÏto€enter€the€office€because€of€the€broken€window€used€to€gain€entry€into€the€office.€€AÏreasonable€jury€could€also€have€concluded€that€nobody€had€given€the€AppellantÏconsent€to€take€the€checks€because€he€attempted€to€destroy€and€hide€them€whenÏinvestigated€by€a€police€officer€at€the€scene€of€the€car€accident€that€same€evening.Ìà àA€reasonable€jury€could€also€have€found,€circumstantially,€that€the€payrollÏchecks€were€in€the€Appellantððs€possession.€€The€checks€were€found€behind€theÏdriverððs€seat€and€under€the€car€where€the€driverððs€seat€was€located€in€the€car€theÏAppellant€drove.€€Moreover,€the€Appellant€did€not€introduce€any€testimony€at€trialÏexplaining€why€or€how€the€checks€were€in€the€car.€€òòSeeóó€òòNunley€v.€Stateóó,€479€S.W.2dÏ836,€837€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1972).€€The€trial€court€did€not€err€in€denying€theÏAppellantððs€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal.Ìà àThe€Appellant€next€argues€that€the€prosecutorððs€closing€argument€that€anotherÏperson€involved€in€the€burglary,€Charlie€Cecil€Price,€Jr.,€would€be€dealt€with€later€wasÍso€prejudicial€to€the€Appellant€that€a€new€trial€should€be€granted.€€This€issue€is€alsoÏwithout€merit.Ìà àIn€his€closing€argument,€counsel€for€the€Appellant€said:ÌÓÓà8 àà àNow,€the€State€through€its€testimony€on€direct,€they€told€youÏabout€[checks€numbers]€5308,€5307,€5306,€5305,€and€04.€€They€didnððtÏtell€you€about€[check€number]€5303.€€You€see,€I€brought€that€out€in€crossÏexamination€about€this.€€Now,€donððt€you€have€to€ask€yourself,€ð ðWell,€whyÏwouldnððt€the€State€tell€us€the€whole€thing€to€begin€with?€€Why€wouldnððtÏthey€tell€us€about€[check€number]€5303?ððÌà8 àà àWell,€the€reason€they€didnððt€want€to€tell€you€about€that€is€becauseÏthey€donððt€want€you€to€know€that€Charlie€Cecil€Price€is€the€person€whoÏcashed€one€of€these€checks€that€were€missing€from€that€office.€€MaybeÏCharlie€Cecil€Price€is€the€one€who€committed€the€burglary.€€But€thereððsÏno€proof€that€[the€Appellant]€committed€the€burglary.€€And€he€didnððt€run.à àÓÓÌThe€State€responded:ÌÓÓà8 àà àYou€know,€[the€Appellantððs€attorney]€wanted€to€infer€that€the€StateÏdid€things€to€try€to€hide€evidence€from€you.€[Deputy€Sheriff€Dobson]€wasÏthe€first€witness.€€We€hadnððt€got€to€[payroll€check€number]€5303€[that€Mr.ÏPrice€cashed€in€a€grocery€store]€yet.Ìà8 àà àWhen€it€came€in,€it€was€obvious€it€was€one€stolen.€€It€was€obviousÏMr.€Price€was€with€[the€Appellant]€and€Mr.€Price€was€guilty€of€theseÏcrimes,€too,€and€another€jury€will€take€care€of€Mr.€Price€when€his€timeÏcomes€up.ÓÓÌà àAt€the€time€of€the€Appellantððs€trial,€Mr.€Price,€who€had€cashed€one€of€the€sixÏstolen€checks€in€a€grocery€store,€had€already€pled€guilty€to€worthless€checks€and€theftÏfor€less€than€$500.00.€€The€Appellant€now€argues€that€the€State€intentionally€misledÏthe€jury€into€thinking€that€Mr.€Price€would€be€prosecuted€for€burglary.Ìà àThe€Appellant€did€not€contemporaneously€object€to€the€Stateððs€argument€andÏhas,€therefore,€waived€this€issue€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);€òòState€v.ÏKillebrewóó,€760€S.W.2d€228,€235€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€Moreover,€the€AppellantÏhas€failed€to€show€that€the€Stateððs€closing€argument€prejudiced€the€outcome€of€hisÏtrial.€€The€evidence€presented€was€more€than€sufficient€to€convict€the€Appellant.€€IfÏany€prosecutorial€error€occurred,€such€error€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36€(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52€(a).€Ìà àThe€Appellant€finally€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€imposing€a€sentenceÏfor€his€burglary€conviction€that€was€too€long€and€improper.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€This€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.Ìà àBurglary,€a€Class€D€felony,€carries€a€sentence€of€two€to€four€years€for€a€Range€IÏstandard€offender.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(4)€(1990).€€Here,€the€trialÏcourt€applied€four€enhancement€factors€and€sentenced€the€Appellant€to€three€yearsÏand€nine€months€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Corrections.€€The€trial€court€foundÏthat€the€Appellant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€and€criminalÏbehavior,€that€he€was€a€leader€in€the€commission€of€the€offense,€that€he€has€aÏprevious€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€sentencingÏinvolving€release€into€the€community,€and€that€he€committed€the€felony€while€onÍprobation.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114€(Supp.€1996).€€The€record€supportsÏthe€trial€courtððs€findings.Ìà àWhen€an€Appellant€complains€of€his€or€her€sentence,€we€must€conduct€a€òòdeÏnovoóó€review€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)Ï(1991).€€The€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€the€appealingÏparty.€€òòIdóó,€(Sentencing€Commission€Comments).€€This€presumption,€however,€isÏconditioned€upon€an€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€consideredÏthe€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).Ìà àThe€minimum€sentence€within€the€range€is€the€presumptive€sentence.€€If€thereÏare€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors,€the€court€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence€inÏthe€range€and€enhance€the€sentence€as€appropriate€for€the€enhancement€factors€andÏthen€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€IfÏthere€are€no€mitigating€factors,€the€court€may€set€the€sentence€above€the€minimum€inÏthat€range€but€still€within€the€range.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210€(1990).€€The€trialÏjudge€has€full€discretion€to€determine€the€weight€given€to€each€factor,€as€long€as€itÏdoes€not€violate€the€principles€of€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act.€€òòIdóó.€(SentencingÏCommission€Comments).€Ìà à€The€Appellant€argues€that€he€was€not€a€leader€in€the€commission€of€anÏoffense€involving€two€or€more€criminal€actors.€€We€disagree.€€The€evidenceÍintroduced€at€trial€shows€that€Deputy€Sheriff€Dobson€saw€the€Appellant€and€two€orÏthree€men€in€the€maroon€Oldsmobile€outside€the€Carter€Hickory€Mill€only€a€fewÏminutes€before€he€learned€that€there€had€been€a€burglary.€€The€Appellant,€the€carððsÏdriver,€was€the€only€individual€in€the€car€who€worked€at€the€mill€and,€presumably,€theÏonly€person€who€knew€where€the€payroll€checks€were€kept.€€When€the€police€foundÏthe€Appellant,€five€out€of€the€six€checks€were€still€in€the€Appellantððs€possession.Ìà àThe€Appellant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€did€not€place€enough€emphasisÏon€the€mitigating€factor€that€his€conduct€neither€caused€nor€threatened€serious€bodilyÏinjury€to€any€individual.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1)€(1990).€€However,€theÏcourt€stated,€ð ðI€will€find€œthat€that›€mitigating€factor€applies,€but€I€will€give€it€relatively€littleÏweight.ðð€€Considering€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€offense,€the€AppellantððsÏextensive€criminal€record,€and€the€other€enhancement€factors,€we€find€that€the€trialÏjudge€was€well€within€his€discretion€to€give€the€mitigating€factor€little€weight.€ÏAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€Appellantððs€sentence.Ìà àThe€Appellantððs€convictions€and€sentences€are€affirmed.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGE