ÿWPC‘ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0lH 0D´ 0Jø 0TB – 0^ž 0hü 0rd 0|Ö 0†R 0Ø 1uh 0dÝ BAU>^U*œB)ÆDCï AM2˜ D3(v~[vÓÙ 0@¬ AOìÆ; 0D D/E Bt˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- BCDEeFGDHDIUJKÓ€©U!3|xV((2üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó('Ã$òòÚ  Ú2Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌò òOctober€9,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€$ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó †Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Ô€$ÔÔ€$ôÔ€It€is€the€policy€of€this€Court€to€refrain€from€referring€by€name€to€minor€victims€of€sex€offenses.€Ïà àThe€victim€will€be€referred€to€by€his€initials.Ô€#ÔÔ€#XÔÌ""""'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€$ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€&5XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßL€'(&;+'h|` Å `€€Lß›IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌMAY€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9510„CC„00298Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHAMBLEN€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JAMES€EDWARD€BECKNERó óÌGROVER€LIVESAY,à àà àò ò)à àPRESIDING€JUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(Direct€Appeal)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌR.€RUSSELL€MATTOCKSà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌOffice€of€the€Public€Defenderà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ1609€College€Park€Drive,€Box€11ÌMorristown,€TN€€37813„1618à àà àHUNT€S.€BROWNÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àC.€BERKELEY€BELLÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€DUGGERÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à113€W.€Church€St.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGreeneville,€TN€€37743ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇÓ  Óò òòòœOPINION›ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓó óóóà àA€Hamblen€County€Criminal€Court€jury€found€Appellant€Grover€C.€LivesayÏguilty€of€rape€of€a€child.€€Following€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€imposed€aÏsentence€of€twenty„five€years€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.€€In€thisÏappeal,€Appellant€presents€the€following€issues€for€review:€€(1)€whether€theÏevidence€presented€at€trial€is€legally€sufficient€to€sustain€a€conviction€for€secondÏdegree€murder;€(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€grant€a€mistrialÏfollowing€testimony€regarding€a€request€for€legal€counsel;€(3)€whether€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€allowing€the€State€to€discuss€the€issue€of€flight€during€closing€argument;Ïand€(4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€determining€the€length€of€his€sentence.€ÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÓ  Óò òI.€€FACTUAL€BACKGROUNDÌÓ  Óó óà àAs€accredited€by€the€juryððs€verdict,€the€proof€shows€that€on€July€27,€1993,ÏT.J.,× ƒ) ××  ×€an€eleven„year„old€male,€and€his€seven„year„old€brother€visited€AppellantððsÏapartment.€€Because€Appellant€resided€above€the€apartment€of€the€boysðð€mother,Ïsuch€visits€were€common.€€On€this€occasion,€T.J.€and€his€brother€watched€televisionÍwith€Appellant€until€the€boysðð€father€returned€from€work.€€T.J.€was€then€givenÏpermission€to€remain€at€Appellantððs€apartment€while€his€father€and€brother€went€toÏthe€grocery€store.ÌÌà àSoon€thereafter,€Appellant,€a€fifty„four„year„old€male,€approached€T.J.€andÏplaced€his€hand€on€T.J.ððs€inner€thigh.€€When€T.J.€pushed€the€hand€away,€AppellantÏpinned€the€boyððs€hands€to€the€chair€in€which€he€was€sitting,€threatened€him€if€heÏscreamed,€and€forcibly€performed€fellatio€on€him.€€At€some€point€during€the€attack,ÏMyrtle€Louise€Farmer€Sellars€and€Jerry€Fox€entered€Appellantððs€apartment€to€dropÏoff€some€beer€they€had€purchased€for€him.€€When€Ms.€Sellars€witnessed€the€attack,Ïshe€extricated€T.J.€from€the€situation€and€sent€him€home€with€instructions€to€tell€hisÏparents€what€had€happened.€€After€interacting€briefly€with€Appellant,€Ms.€SellarsÏand€Mr.€Fox€left€the€apartment.ÌÌà àWhen€his€father€returned€from€the€grocery€store,€T.J.€told€him€about€theÏattack.€€T.J.ððs€father€then€reported€the€rape€to€the€police.€€On€the€following€day,ÏDetective€David€Peoples€of€the€Morristown€Police€Department€interviewed€T.J.Ïregarding€the€incident.€€Based€on€this€interview,€Detective€Peoples€contactedÏAppellant€at€his€place€of€employment.€€Appellant€accompanied€the€detective€to€theÏpolice€station,€waived€his€rights,€and€denied€that€he€had€attacked€T.J.€€He€thenÍrequested€an€attorney,€and€the€questioning€ended.€€Appellant€was€released€butÏnever€returned€to€his€place€of€employment.€€Approximately€one€week€after€theÏinterview,€he€left€his€apartment€in€Hamblen€County€and€moved€in€with€his€sister€inÏneighboring€Grainger€County.ÌÌà àOn€October€11,€1993,€the€Hamblen€County€Grand€Jury€indicted€Appellant€forÏrape€of€a€child€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„13„522.€€AuthoritiesÏin€Hamblen€County€attempted€to€locate€Appellant€for€over€a€year€without€success.€ÏEventually,€in€November€of€1994,€Appellant€was€found€and€arrested€in€GraingerÏCounty.€€On€March€23,€1995,€Appellant€was€tried€before€a€jury€in€the€HamblenÏCounty€Criminal€Court.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€trial,€the€jury€found€Appellant€guiltyÏof€rape€of€a€child.€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€sentence€of€twenty„five€years€in€theÏTennessee€Department€of€Correction,€a€term€to€run€consecutive€to€a€JeffersonÏCounty€sentence€for€which€Appellant€was€already€on€probation.ÌÌÓ  Óò òII.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEÌÓ  Óó óà àAppellant€first€alleges€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€is€legallyÏinsufficient€to€sustain€a€conviction€for€rape€of€a€child.€€Appellant€points€to€severalÏinconsistencies€in€the€testimony€of€State€witnesses€to€support€his€claim.€€In€order€toÏconvict€Appellant€of€rape€of€a€child,€the€State€had€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonableÍdoubt€that€Appellant€engaged€in€unlawful€sexual€penetration€with€T.J.€and€that€T.J.Ïwas€less€than€thirteen€years€of€age€at€the€time€of€the€penetration.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„13„522.€€Sexual€penetration€means€ð ðsexual€intercourse,€cunnilingus,Ïfellatio,€anal€intercourse,€or€any€other€intrusion,€however€slight,€of€any€part€of€aÏpersonððs€body€or€of€any€object€into€the€genital€or€anal€openings€of€the€victimððs,€theÏdefendantððs,€or€any€other€personððs€body,€but€emission€of€semen€is€not€required.ðð€€òòId.óóÏ39„13„501(7).€ÌÌà àWhen€an€appeal€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€the€standard€ofÏreview€is€whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏState,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crimeÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€318€(1979);€òòStateÏv.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€190„91€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€510€S.W.2d€1064Ï(1994);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€or€legitimate€inferences€whichÏmay€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€ÏThis€Court€will€not€reweigh€the€evidence,€re„evaluate€the€evidence,€or€substitute€itsÏevidentiary€inferences€for€those€reached€by€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Careyóó,€914€S.W.2dÏ93,€95€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Furthermore,€in€a€criminal€trial,€great€weight€isÍgiven€to€the€result€reached€by€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€910€S.W.2d€897,€899Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).ÌÌà àOnce€approved€by€the€trial€court,€a€jury€verdict€accredits€the€witnessesÏpresented€by€the€State€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòState€v.ÏWilliamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€465€U.S.€1073€(1984).€ÏThe€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€theÏreconciliation€of€conflicts€in€the€proof€are€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€asÏtrier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984).€€A€juryððs€guiltyÏverdict€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€enjoyed€by€the€defendant€at€trialÏand€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.Ï1982).€€The€defendant€then€bears€the€burden€of€overcoming€this€presumption€ofÏguilt€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€175€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àAt€trial,€T.J.€testified€that€Appellant€forcibly€performed€fellatio€on€him.€€Ms.ÏSellars€testified€that€she€witnessed€the€attack€as€she€entered€AppellantððsÏapartment.€€Mr.€Fox€testified€that,€while€he€did€not€witness€the€attack,€he€observedÏAppellant€on€the€ground€in€front€of€T.J.,€whose€pants€were€undone.€€T.J.ððs€fatherÏtestified€that€T.J.€was€eleven€years€old€at€the€time€of€the€attack.ÌÌà àAs€stated€previously,€determining€the€credibility€of€witnesses€and€the€weightÏto€be€given€their€testimony€as€well€as€resolving€conflicts€in€the€proof€are€mattersÏentrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€trier€of€fact.€€òòSheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€at€547.€€ThisÏCourt,€even€if€it€wished€to€do€so,€may€not€substitute€its€evidentiary€inferences€forÏthose€drawn€by€the€jury.€€òòCareyóó,€914€S.W.2d€at€95.€€Here,€it€appears€from€the€verdictÏthat€the€jury€chose€to€believe€the€testimony€of€T.J.,€Ms.€Sellars,€and€Mr.€FoxÏregarding€the€attack€and€to€disbelieve€Appellantððs€denial.€€Under€well„settledÏTennessee€law,€the€jury€was€within€its€province€in€doing€so.€€Thus,€we€find€that,Ïwhen€viewed€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€the€evidence€is€legally€sufficientÏto€support€Appellantððs€conviction€for€rape€of€a€child.ÌÌÓ  Óò òIII.€€òòTESTIMONY€REGARDING€APPELLANTððS€REQUEST€FOR€LEGALÏCOUNSELó óóóÓ  Óà àAppellant€also€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€grant€aÏmistrial€following€testimony€regarding€a€request€for€legal€counsel.€€During€the€directÏexamination€of€Detective€Peoples,€the€following€exchange€took€place:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓTHE€STATE:€€ð ðNow,€did€[Appellant]€give€a€written€statementÏor€an€oral€statement?ððÌÌPEOPLES:€€ð ðHe€gave€an€oral€statement.ððÌÌTHE€STATE:€€ð ðAnd€what€did€he€say€about€this€offense?ððÌÌPEOPLES:€€ð ðHe€says,€ððI€ainððt€never€bothered€no€kids€and€IÏainððt€no€queer.€€The€boys€were€watching€T.V.€and€they€cameÏup€here.€€I€had€drank€a€few€beers€in€the€evening€after€I€gotÍoff€work€every€day.ðð€€That€is€all€he€said€to€me,€and€òòhe€didnððtÏwish€to€say€anymore€without€an€attorney€present.óóððÌÌDEFENSE€COUNSEL:€€ð ðObjection,€your€Honor.ððÌÌTHE€COURT:€€ð ðSustained.€€I€will€ask€the€jury€to€disregardÏthat€statement.ððÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÌFollowing€this€exchange,€the€trial€court€gave€the€following€instruction€to€the€jury:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` Òà àI€know€that€it€was€inadvertent€on€the€officerððs€part,Ïmembers€of€the€jury,€but€do€you€understand€that€you€mustÏnot,€cannot,€hold€it€against€the€accused€in€this€case,€for€anyÏpurpose,€because€he€chose€to€remain€silent.€€DoesÏeveryone€understand€that€at€some€point?ÌÌà àAnd€can€you€promise€me€that€in€this€case€that€will€notÏbe€any€part€of€your€deliberation€or€consideration€at€all,€theÏfact€that€the€officer€made€that€statement?ÌÌà àYou€will€not€consider€it€and€you€will€not€hold€itÏagainst€the€defendant.€€If€you€can€promise€me€that€you€willÏdo€that,€would€you€raise€your€hands,€please?ÌÌà à(All€jurors€so€indicate.)ÌÌà àLet€the€record€show€that€all€jurors€are€present€andÏraised€their€hands.òòò òÌÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓó óóóThe€trial€court€then€overruled€Appellantððs€motion€for€a€mistrial.€€In€support€of€hisÏallegation€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€his€mistrial€motion,€AppellantÏargues€that€the€statement€made€by€Detective€Peoples€implied€that€Appellant€hadÏsomething€to€hide€and€created€an€improper€impression€of€guilt€in€the€minds€of€theÏjury.€€Appellant€further€argues€that€the€trial€courtððs€curative€instruction€wasÍunsatisfactory€because€it€failed€to€explain€the€constitutional€reasons€why€DetectiveÏPeoplesðð€statement€was€improper.ÌÌà àGenerally,€a€mistrial€is€necessary€only€when€there€is€a€ð ðmanifest€necessityððÏrequiring€such€action€by€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Millbrooksóó,€819€S.W.2d€441,€443Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€The€decision€to€grant€a€mistrial€lies€within€the€discretionÏof€the€trial€court€and€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal€unless€the€trial€court€abusesÏthis€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Adkinsóó,€786€S.W.2d€642,€644€(Tenn.€1990).€€Moreover,Ïprompt€curative€action€by€the€trial€court€to€an€unresponsive€answer€presumptivelyÏcures€any€error.€€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€802€S.W.2d€221,€222€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).ÌÌà àHere,€the€trial€court€immediately€instructed€the€jury€not€to€consider€theÏimproper€and€unresponsive€testimony€of€Detective€Peoples.€€The€trial€court€went€onÏto€explain€to€the€jury€that€Appellantððs€request€for€legal€counsel€must€not€be€takenÏinto€consideration€when€determining€his€guilt€or€innocence.€€We€must€assume€thatÏthe€jury€followed€the€instructions€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Greggóó,€874€S.W.2d€643,Ï644€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€In€light€of€this€satisfactory€curative€instruction,€noÏð ðmanifest€necessityðð€requiring€a€mistrial€existed€in€this€case.€€Thus,€we€concludeÏthat€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€overruling€Appellantððs€motion€for€aÏmistrial.€òòò òÌÌÓ  ÓIV.€€CLOSING€ARGUMENT€REGARDING€FLIGHTÌÓ  Óóóó óà àAppellant€next€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€State€toÏdiscuss€the€issue€of€flight€during€closing€argument.€€At€trial,€Appellantððs€trial€counselÏobjected€to€the€following€portion€of€the€Stateððs€closing€argument:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓà àAnd€then€where€is€[Appellant].€€The€big€question,Ïwhere€has€[Appellant]€been€since€August€1993.€€Where€hasÏhe€been?€€He€had€a€good€job€at€Burnett€Produce,€workedÏevery€day,€and€on€August€the€4th€at€3:50€„„€he€worked€thatÏday,€August€the€4th€until€2:21,€I€think.€€And€at€3:50€he€wasÏinterviewed€by€the€detective,€and€he€never€goes€back€toÏwork.€€Heððs€not€seen€in€Hamblen€County€again.€.€.€.€LooksÏlike€he€ran.€€He€ran.€€He€knew,€he€knew€what€he€had€done.ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÌÓÓAppellant€maintains€that€such€an€argument€was€improper€and€unduly€prejudicialÏgiven€the€fact€that€the€trial€court€had€previously€determined€that€flight€had€not€beenÏso€clearly€established€to€warrant€a€jury€charge€on€the€issue.ÌÌà àThe€control€of€closing€argument€rests€largely€within€the€sound€discretion€ofÏthe€trial€court,€and€this€Court€will€not€interfere€with€that€discretion€absent€clearÏabuse.€€€òòState€v.€Coxóó,€655€S.W.2d€903,€912€(Tenn.€1983),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€464€U.S.Ï1063€(1984).€€Any€reasonable€inference€drawn€from€the€evidence€presented€at€trialÏis€suitable€subject€matter€for€closing€argument.€€òòState€v.€Coneóó,€665€S.W.2d€87,€94Ï(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€467€U.S.€1210€(1984).€€Moreover,€flight€is€a€circumstance€fromÍwhich€guilt€may€be€inferred.€€òòState€v.€Paytonóó,€782€S.W.2d€490,€493€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1989).€€ÌÌà àFrom€our€review€of€the€record,€it€appears€that€a€reasonable€inference€to€beÏdrawn€from€the€facts€of€this€case€is€that€Appellant€sought€to€avoid€prosecutionÏfollowing€his€initial€interview€with€police.€€Appellant€stopped€reporting€for€work€and,Ïsoon€thereafter,€abandoned€his€apartment€without€taking€any€of€his€belongings€withÏhim.€€Appellant€took€up€residence€in€Grainger€County€with€his€sister,€whoÏeventually€returned€to€his€apartment€alone€to€retrieve€his€belongings.€€As€a€result€ofÏthese€actions,€Hamblen€County€authorities€were€unable€to€locate€Appellant€for€overÏa€year,€despite€regular€efforts€to€do€so.€€Based€on€these€facts,€we€believe€that€a€juryÏinstruction€on€the€issue€of€flight€was€warranted.€€However,€the€trial€court€chose€notÏto€give€such€an€instruction.€€Inexplicably,€the€trial€court€then€permitted€both€sides€toÏaddress€the€issue€during€closing€argument.€€Given€the€fact€that€the€trial€court€hadÏdetermined€that€flight€had€not€been€so€clearly€established€to€warrant€a€jury€chargeÏon€the€issue,€we€believe€that€it€was€inconsistent€to€then€allow€trial€counsel€toÏaddress€the€issue€in€their€closing€arguments.€€However,€any€error€is€harmless€givenÏthe€evidence€establishing€flight€and€the€overwhelming€evidence€of€AppellantððsÏguilt,€specifically€the€testimony€of€the€victim€and€the€two€unbiased€eyewitnesses.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).Ìò òòòÌÓ  ÓóóV.€€SENTENCINGó óÌÓ  Óà àFinally,€Appellant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€determining€the€lengthÏof€his€sentence.€€Specifically,€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€improperlyÏapplied€to€his€sentence€certain€enhancement€factors€and€failed€to€apply€certainÏmitigating€factors.ÌÌà àWhen€an€appeal€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€aÏsentence,€this€Court€conducts€a€òòde€novoóó€review€with€a€presumption€that€theÏdetermination€of€the€trial€court€was€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)Ï(1990).€€However,€this€presumption€of€correctness€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€theÏaffirmative€showing€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€allÏrelevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.Ï1991).€€In€the€event€that€the€record€fails€to€demonstrate€such€consideration,€reviewÏof€the€sentence€is€purely€òòde€novoóó.€€òòId.óó€€If€appellate€review€reflects€that€the€trial€courtÏproperly€considered€all€relevant€factors€and€its€findings€of€fact€are€adequatelyÏsupported€by€the€record,€this€Court€must€affirm€the€sentence,€ð ðeven€if€we€wouldÏhave€preferred€a€different€result.ðð€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1991).€€In€conducting€a€review,€this€Court€must€consider€the€evidence,Ïthe€presentence€report,€the€sentencing€principles,€the€arguments€of€counsel,€theÍnature€and€character€of€the€offense,€mitigating€and€enhancement€€factors,€anyÏstatements€made€by€the€defendant,€and€the€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€ÏòòState€v.€Hollandóó,€860€S.W.2d€53,€60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€The€defendant€bearsÏthe€burden€of€showing€the€impropriety€of€the€sentence€imposed.€€òòState€v.€Gregoryóó,Ï862€S.W.2d€574,€578€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).ÌÌà àWe€note€initially€that,€because€the€record€demonstrates€that€the€trial€courtÏadequately€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€andÏcircumstances,€our€review€of€Appellantððs€sentence€will€be€òòde€novoóó€with€aÏpresumption€of€correctness.ÌÌà àIn€the€absence€of€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors,€the€presumptiveÏlength€of€sentence€for€a€Class€B,€C,€D,€and€E€felony€is€the€minimum€sentence€in€theÏstatutory€range€while€the€presumptive€length€of€sentence€for€a€Class€A€felony€is€theÏmidpoint€in€the€statutory€range.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c)€(Supp.€1995).€ÏWhere€one€or€more€enhancement€factors€apply€but€no€mitigating€factors€exist,€theÏtrial€court€may€sentence€above€the€minimum€sentence€but€still€within€the€range.€€òòId.óóÏðð€40„35„210(d).€€Where€both€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€apply,€the€trialÏcourt€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence,€enhance€the€sentence€within€the€rangeÏas€appropriate€to€the€enhancement€factors,€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€withinÍthe€range€as€appropriate€to€the€mitigating€factors.€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€The€weightÏafforded€an€enhancement€or€mitigating€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€courtÏso€long€as€the€trial€court€complies€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€theÏTennessee€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€and€its€findings€are€supportedÏby€the€record.€€òòState€v.€Hayesóó,€899€S.W.2d€175,€185€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).ÌÌà àRape€of€a€child€is€a€Class€A€felony.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„210(b).€ÏThe€statutory€sentencing€range€for€a€Class€A€felony€is€fifteen€to€twenty„five€years.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„112(a)(1).€€The€trial€court€found€not€only€that€the€followingÏenhancement€factors€applied€to€Appellantððs€sentence€but€also€that€they€carried€aÏsignificant€amount€of€weight:€(1)€ð ð[t]he€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminalÏconvictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€theÏappropriate€range,ðð€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„114(1);€(2)€ð ð[t]he€defendant€has€a€previous€history€ofÏunwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€in€theÏcommunity,ðð€òòidóó.€ðð€40„35„114(8);€(3)€ð ð[t]he€felony€was€committed€while€on€[probation]Ïif€such€release€is€from€a€prior€felony€conviction,ðð€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„114(13)(C);€and€(4)Ïð ð[t]he€defendant€abused€a€position€of€public€or€private€trust,€or€used€a€special€skill€inÏa€manner€that€significantly€facilitated€the€commission€or€the€fulfillment€of€theÏoffense.ðð€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„114(15).€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€following€mitigatingÏfactors€applied€to€Appellantððs€sentence€but€that€they€only€carried€slight€weight:€(1)ÍAppellantððs€good€work€ethic,€òòseeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„113(13);€and€(2)€the€StateððsÏrecommendation€that€the€length€of€sentence€be€somewhere€in€the€middle€of€theÏrange.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€imposedÏa€sentence€of€twenty„five€years.ÌÌÓ  Óò òA.€€UNWILLINGNESS€TO€COMPLY€WITH€THE€CONDITIONS€OF€AÏPREVIOUS€SENTENCE€ó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€first€argues€that€the€trial€court€improperly€applied€enhancementÏfactor€(8),€concerning€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€theÏconditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€in€the€community.€€He€maintains€that€hisÏprevious€violations€of€probation€do€not€reflect€an€unwillingness€to€comply€with€theÏconditions€of€alternative€sentences.€€We€disagree.€€On€October€7,€1992,€AppellantÏpled€guilty€to€the€felony€offense€of€violating€the€Habitual€Motor€Vehicle€OffenderððsÏAct.€€Following€his€term€of€incarceration,€Appellant€was€placed€on€supervisedÏprobation€for€the€balance€of€his€two„year€sentence.€€The€attack€on€T.J.€occurredÏduring€this€probationary€period.€€Furthermore,€on€three€separate€occasions€over€aÏseventeen„year€period,€Appellant€was€convicted€of€public€intoxication€while€onÏprobation€for€other€alcohol„related€offenses.€€Such€conduct€reveals€anÏunwillingness€to€comply€with€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€into€theÍcommunity.€€Thus,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€enhancementÏfactor€(8)€was€proper.ÌÌÓ  Óò òB.€€ABUSE€OF€A€POSITION€OF€PUBLIC€OR€PRIVATE€TRUSTó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€improperly€applied€enhancementÏfactor€(15),€concerning€an€abuse€of€a€position€of€public€or€private€trust.€€AppellantÏasserts€that€periodic€visitation€does€not€rise€to€the€level€of€a€position€of€private€trust.€ÏIn€applying€this€enhancement€factor,€the€trial€court€reasoned€that,€as€a€result€of€theÏregular€visits€to€Appellantððs€apartment,€T.J.€developed€a€trusting€friendship€withÏAppellant.€€The€trial€court€further€reasoned€that€Appellantððs€abuse€of€this€trustÏsignificantly€facilitated€the€commission€of€the€attack.ÌÌà àTypically,€this€enhancement€factor€is€applied€to€the€sentences€of€offendersÏwho€are€the€parents,€relatives,€or€legal€guardians€of€the€child€victims€of€sexualÏcrimes.€€òòState€v.€Murphyóó,€No€02C01„9503„CC„00032,€1996€WL€368213,€at€*3Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€June€28,€1996).€€However,€our€Supreme€Court€has€recentlyÏmade€the€following€observation:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓThe€determination€of€the€existence€of€a€position€of€trustÏdoes€not€depend€on€the€length€or€formality€of€theÏrelationship,€but€upon€the€nature€of€the€relationship.€€Thus,Ïthe€court€should€look€to€see€whether€the€offender€formally€orÏinformally€stood€in€a€relationship€to€the€victim€that€promotedÏconfidence,€reliability,€or€faith.€€If€the€evidence€supports€thatÍfinding,€then€the€court€must€determine€whether€the€positionÏoccupied€was€abused€by€the€commission€of€the€offense.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒòòState€v.€Kissingeróó,€922€S.W.2d€482,€488€(Tenn.€1996).ÌÌÓÓà àWe€believe€that€the€nature€of€Appellantððs€relationship€with€T.J.€did€promoteÏconfidence€and€trust€not€only€with€respect€to€T.J.€but€also€with€respect€to€T.J.ððsÏparents.€€The€record€reveals€that€a€friendship€of€some€kind€existed,€manifested€byÏT.J.ððs€regular€visits€to€Appellantððs€apartment.€€Without€a€certain€level€of€trust,€T.J.Ïwould€not€have€wished€to€visit€or€to€remain€alone€with€Appellant.€€Appellant€tookÏadvantage€of€this€trust€by€molesting€T.J.€while€alone€in€the€apartment€with€him.€ÏThus,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€enhancement€factor€(15)€wasÏproper.ÌÌÓ  Óò òC.€€CRIMINAL€CONDUCT€NEITHER€CAUSED€NOR€THREATENEDÏSERIOUS€BODILY€INJURYÌÓ  Óó óà àAppellant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€applied€mitigatingÏfactor€(1)€to€his€sentence.€€Mitigating€factor€(1)€states€that€ð ð[t]he€defendantððs€criminalÏconduct€neither€caused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injury.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„113(1).€€The€trial€court€refused€to€consider€this€factor€because€of€the€mentalÏand€emotional€trauma€associated€with€the€attack€and€T.J.ððs€subsequent€need€forÏpsychological€counseling.€€Indeed,€this€Court€has€previously€held€thatÏpsychological€injuries€resulting€from€a€rape€negate€the€applicability€of€thisÍmitigating€factor.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€910€S.W.2d€457,€461€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1995).€€Furthermore,€according€to€T.J.ððs€testimony,€Appellant€threatened€to€hurt€himÏif€he€screamed€during€the€attack.€€Such€a€threat€also€renders€this€mitigating€factorÏinapplicable.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Pewittóó,€No.€01C01„9411„CC„00375,€1996€WL€474443,Ïat€*4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Aug.€22,€1996).€€Thus,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððsÏrefusal€to€apply€mitigating€factor€(1)€was€proper.ò òÌà àÌÓ  ÓD.€€NON„STATUTORY€MITIGATING€FACTORSÌÓ  Óó óà àFinally,€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€considered€otherÏnon„statutory€mitigating€factors€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„113(13).€€Specifically,€Appellant€points€to€his€honest€character,€his€good€work€ethic,Ïand€the€fact€that€his€criminal€conduct€involved€an€isolated€incident.€€The€trial€courtÏrefused€to€consider€Appellantððs€honest€character€because,€in€light€of€the€verdict,€theÏjury€found€his€representations€regarding€the€attack€to€be€dishonest.€€The€trial€courtÏdid,€however,€give€marginal€consideration€to€the€testimony€regarding€AppellantððsÏgood€work€ethic.€€We€believe€that,€even€if€each€of€these€non„statutory€mitigatingÏfactors€were€given€some€consideration,€the€great€weight€attributable€to€the€fourÏapplicable€enhancement€factors€more€than€justifies€a€maximum€sentence€of€twenty„five€years.€€€€ò òÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  Óó óà àUpon€òòde€novoóó€review€and€in€accord€with€the€presumption€of€correctness,€weÏconclude€that€the€sentence€of€the€trial€court€is€reasonable.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ìœ›œÌÓÓ›à àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€K.€BYERS,€SPECIAL€JUDGE