ÿWPCã" …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 1mH 0cµ 0w 0Š 0l 0D… 0JÉ 0T 0^g 0hÅ 0r- 0|Ÿ 0† 0¡ 1u1 0d¦ B U>'U*eB) D3¸DCë AM. 0@{»öÑAÇv~vÓ† 0 Y 0´ù 0Ç­ 0Ût 0ïO AO>!Æ! 0DS" D/—" BÆ"˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ æçEèéUêEëVìVíÓ€ùúR¦"3|xü vwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;s˜$´´Ô2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(OÞ{$µµà0  àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b²D$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à((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  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""""'ÿÿdxd))))7Border 1dd€-+Cþÿ << Gÿÿ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òMay€19,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ìÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýà àThe€trial€courtððs€denial€of€a€mental€examination€is€not€challenged€on€appeal.Ì 7Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÓ ÓÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àÔ€(ÔA€person€convicted€of€a€crime€is€entitled€to€protection€that€he€mayÏnot€be€put€into€jeopardy€again€for€the€same€offense.€€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919€S.W.2dÏ305,€309€(Tenn.€1996);€òòState€v.€Byrdóó,€820€S.W.2d€739,€741€(Tenn.€1991).€€AÏreviewing€court€must€necessarily€have€the€power€to€take€cognizance€of€the€dateÏof€the€offense.Ô€'ÔÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò(xÓñ$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒÆ‚$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿù…$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³¶4$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Ǫ»$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ7€µ[XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ ` ÑÔ€(ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÙ€€ÙßR€,.+A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌà@ àJANUARY,€1997€SESSIONÌó óÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,€à à)à àNo.€03C01„9604„CC„00146Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àò òAppelleeó ó,à àà à)à àJefferson€Countyà àÌà àà àà àà àà à)Ìò òvsó ó.à àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€William€R.€Holt,€Judge€Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìò òRICHARD€DOUGLAS€LOWERYó ó,€)à à(Aggravated€Assault;€forgery)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àò òAppellantó ó.à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌEDWARD€C.€MILLERà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌPublic€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌFourth€Judicial€DistrictÌP.O.€Box€416à àà àà àà àCLINT€T.€MORGANÌDandridge,€TN€37725à àà àà àCounsel€for€the€StateÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAL€C.€SCHMUTZER,€JR.€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJAMES€L.€GASS€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àFourth€Judicial€DistrictÌà àà àà àà àà àà à301€East€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àà à125€Court€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSevierville,€TN€37862ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€____________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGE€ÌÌÇÌÌò ò›à@ àOPINIONó óÌ̛̜ÓÓà àÔ€(¼Ôà àÔ€(XÔThe€appellant,€Richard€Douglas€Lowery,€appeals€from€theÏsentence€imposed€by€the€Jefferson€County€Circuit€Court.€€A€jury€convicted€himÏof€forgery,€aggravated€assault,€and€two€related€misdemeanors.€€The€trial€courtÏdetermined€the€appellant€to€be€a€Range€III€persistent€offender€and€imposedÏsentences€of€four€years€for€forgery€and€two€sentences€of€eleven€months€andÏtwenty„nine€days€each€for€the€misdemeanors,€set€to€run€concurrently€with€a€tenÏyear€sentence€for€the€aggravated€assault.€€In€this€appeal€he€complains€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€the€following€ways:ÌÓÓà à€€€€€€€€€à à€€(1)€œ€failing›€to€require€the€filing€of€a€presentence€report;Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€œ(2)›€œ€sentencing›€the€appellant€as€a€Range€III€persistent€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à à€€€€€€€€offender;Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€à àÌà àà à€€(3)€€failing€to€place€of€record€the€required€findings€of€fact;Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€andÌ€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà à€€à à€€(4)€œ€failing›€to€give€due€consideration€to€the€relevant€factorsÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€of€sentencing.ÌÌÓÓAfter€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€raises€no€challenge€to€his€convictions.€€On€theÏmorning€of€trial€but€before€it€began,€the€state€filed€a€ð ðNotice€of€Intent€to€SeekÍEnhanced€Punishmentðð€in€order€to€have€the€appellant€declared€a€persistentÏoffender.€€Five€previous€felony€convictions€were€cited€as€the€qualifyingÏconvictions€for€Range€III.€€All€of€€the€convictions€had€been€rendered€in€theÏJefferson€County€Circuit€Court,€the€trial€court€below.€€The€listing€of€theÏconvictions€on€the€Notice€contained€€the€dates€of€conviction,€revealing€that€threeÏof€the€convictions€occurred€on€the€same€date,€œFebruary›€8,€1989.€€The€other€twoÏconvictions€occurred,€respectively,€in€1990€and€œÇ1994.›€€After€the€trial€court€received€the€juryððs€verdicts€and€discharged€the€jury,Ïthe€trial€judge€and€counsel€discussed€on€the€record€the€planning€of€theÏsentencing€hearing.€€The€appellantððs€attorney€asked€for€a€presentence€mentalÏevaluation,€but€the€trial€judge€initially€understood€him€to€request€a€ð ðMoreÏSpecific€Data€Report.ðð€€Once€the€trial€court€understood€that€the€appellant€wasÏseeking€a€mental€evaluation,€the€court€denied€the€request.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€The€court€indicatedÏthe€appellant€could€ask€the€probation€officer€to€address€the€issue€in€theÏpresentence€report,€and€the€appellant€could€also€submit€additional€informationÏfor€the€report.€€Defense€counsel€asked€the€court€to€expedite€the€sentencingÏhearing€because€the€appellant€preferred€to€be€transferred€to€a€state€facility€asÏsoon€as€possible.€€The€hearing€was€held€forty„four€days€later.€€€At€the€beginningÏof€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€court€asked€counsel€if€they€had€ð ðthe€reportsðð.€€TheÏfollowing€exchange€occurred:Ìà àà àGeneral€Gass:à àDo€you€[have€the€presentence€report]?Ìà àà àMr.€Miller:à àà àI€donððt€think€so.Ìà àà àGeneral€Gass:€à àYou€waive€presentence€report?Ìà àà àThe€court:€à àà àYou€waive€the€specific€...?Ìà0 àà0 àMr.€Miller:€à0 àà0 àWell,€Your€Honor,€we€will.€€Weððre€ready€to€goÏforward€with€sentencing.€€He„„heððs€ready€to€getÍhis€time€and€go„„go€on.€€But€we€did€contact€theÏprobation€officer€right€after€the€conviction€andÏdiscuss€the€preparation€of€this.€ThatððsÏrequired.€€But€weððre€not€going€to€demand€that€Ïthat€be€done€before€heððs€sentenced,€becauseÏheððs€ready€to€get€his€time€and„„and€go€on.€€€Ìà àà àThe€court:à0 àà0 àSo,€in€essence,€youððre€waiving€it?̜Ǜà àà àMr.€Milller:€à0 àà0 àI€guess€you€could€say€that,€Your€Honor.Ìà àà àThe€court:€€€à0 àà0 àCanððt€guess€about€it.€€We€do€or€donððt.Ìà àà àMr.€Miller:€à0 àà0 àWe€do,€Your€Honor.Ìà0 àà0 àThe€court:€€à0 àà0 àYou€do€have€your€data€report,€right?€The€two„page€report?€€Do€you?Ìà àà àMr.€Miller:€€à0 àà0 à.€.€.€Thatððs€fine,€Your€Honor.€€I€do.€€Iððve€got€itÏhere,€Your€Honor.€Yes.ÌÌà àà àThe€state€offered€no€additional€proof,€although€a€ð ðCriminal€HistoryÏReportðð€dated€October€20,€1995€appears€in€the€technical€record.€€Although€thisÏCriminal€History€Report,€along€with€the€Notice,€was€one€of€the€documentsÏcertified€by€the€trial€court€clerk€as€part€of€the€ð ðfull€and€complete€copy€of€theÏpleadings€and€recordsðð€on€file€in€the€case,€the€Report€did€not€bear€a€filing€dateÏnor€did€it€bear€any€identification€from€the€trial€judge€certifying€it€as€an€exhibit.€ÏThis€Report€contained€essentially€the€same€information€contained€in€the€Notice,Ïexcept€the€Report€disclosed€that€the€three€convictions€that€occurred€on€FebruaryÏ8,€1989€were€convictions€obtained€upon€multiple€counts€contained€in€the€sameÏindictment.ÌÌà àà àThe€defense€then€challenged€the€Range€III€determination,€arguingÍthat€two€of€the€three€February€8,€1989€convictions€were€disqualified€by€theÏtwenty„four„hour€rule€set€forth€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„107(b)(4)Ï(1990).€€In€response,€the€District€Attorney€General€retrieved€the€courtððs€originalÏ1989€file€from€the€clerkððs€office.€€The€record€reflects€the€file€was€handed€to€theÏtrial€judge,€who€commented€upon€certain€contents€of€the€file,€specifically€that€theÏFebruary€1989€convictions€arose€from€events€that€occurred€on€September€23Ïand€October€10€and€16,€1988,€such€that€the€twenty„four„hour€rule€could€notÏcome€into€play.€€The€court€read€these€dates€into€the€record.€€While€the€source€ofÏthis€information€within€the€œÇ1989›€court€file€is€not€totally€clear,€it€appears€the€information€as€to€the€occurrenceÏdates€came€from€the€allegations€set€forth€in€the€underlying€warrants,€includingÏthe€supporting€affidavits.€€Neither€the€record€of€the€1989€proceedings€nor€aÏcertified€copy€of€any€of€its€contents€was€authenticated€by€the€trial€judge€as€anÏexhibit,€and€neither€appears€in€the€record€of€the€evidence,€except€for€the€trialÏjudgeððs€reading€from€the€1989€file€as€transcribed€by€the€court€reporter.€€ThereÏwere€no€objections€to€this€procedure.€€After€examining€the€1989€file,€the€trialÏcourt€declared€the€appellant€qualified€as€a€persistent€offender,€the€fiveÏqualifying€felony€convictions€being€present.€€After€hearing€arguments€as€to€theÏpropriety€of€both€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors,€the€trial€court€recited€itsÏrecollection€of€the€proof€at€trial€and€noted€the€persuasive€mitigation€argumentsÏof€diminished€judgment€and€mental€condition€due€to€chemical€addiction.€€ThenÏhe€sentenced€the€appellant€to€the€minimum€sentences€in€the€applicable€rangeÏto€run€concurrently.€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€ofÏservice€of€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòde€novoóó€review€onÏthe€record€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€areÏcorrect.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„401(d)€(1990).€€This€presumption€isÏð ðconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÍconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€€ð ðThe€burden€of€showingÏthat€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€the€appellant.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€In€the€event€the€recordÏfails€to€demonstrate€the€required€consideration€by€the€trial€court,€review€of€theÏsentence€is€purely€òòde€novoóó.€€òòIdóó.€If€appellate€review€reflects€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).ÌÌà àà àIn€making€its€sentencing€determination,€the€trial€court,€at€theÏconclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€determines€the€range€of€sentence€andÏthen€determines€the€specific€sentence€and€the€propriety€of€sentencingÏalternatives€by€considering€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€theÏsentencing€hearing;€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€of€sentencingÏand€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€the€nature€and€characteristicsÏof€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(5)€evidence€and€information€offered€by€theÏparties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors;€(6)€any€statement€theÏdefendant€wishes€to€make€in€the€defendantððs€behalf€about€sentencing;€and€(7)Ïthe€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„210(a),Í(b)€and€40„35„103(5)€(1990);€€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,€860€S.W.2d€53,€60€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1993).ÌÌà@ àò òI.€€Absence€of€Presentence€Report.ó óÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€is€correct€in€pointing€out€that€Tennessee€sentencingÏlaw€mandates€that€a€presentence€investigation€and€report€be€made€in€all€felonyÏcases.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€40„35„205(a)€provides:ÌÓÓà0 àà0 àUpon€acceptance€of€a€guilty€plea€or€upon€a€verdict€or€finding€ofÏguilty,€the€court€òòshallóó,€in€the€case€of€a€felony,€and€may,€in€the€caseÏof€a€misdemeanor,€direct€the€presentence€service€officer€to€make€aÏpresentence€investigation€and€report,€except€as€provided€in€ðð40„35„203€and€subsection€(b).€€The€presentence€service€officer€òòshallóóÏconduct€the€investigation€necessary€to€prepare€a€presentenceÏreport,€meeting€the€requirements€of€ðð40„35„207€and€any€otherÏinvestigation€he€deems€appropriate€or€the€court€directs€and€shallÏindependently€determine€the€factual€basis€for€any€enhancement€orÏmitigating€factors€asserted€by€the€parties.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„205(a)€(1990)€(emphasis€added).ÌÌMoreover,€Section€40„35„210€provides:ÌÌà àà0 à(b)€To€determine€the€specific€sentence€and€the€appropriateÏcombination€of€sentencing€alternatives€that€shall€be€imposed€onÏthe€defendant,€the€court€òòshallóó€consider€the€following:Ìà0 àà0 à.€.€.Ìà àà à(2)€òòthe€presentence€reportóó[.]Ìà àœÇ›œà à›à à.€.€.€Ìà àà0 à(g)€A€sentence€òòmustóó€be€based€on€evidence€in€the€record€of€theÏà àtrial,€the€sentencing€hearing,€òòthe€presentence€reportóó,€and,Ïthe€record€of€prior€felony€convictions€filed€by€the€district€attorneyÏgeneral€with€the€court€as€required€by€ðð40„35„202(a).€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð40„35„210(b)(2),€(g)€(Supp.€1996)€(emphasis€added).ÌÌÓÓThe€use€of€the€words€ð ðshallðð€and€ð ðmustðð€have€not€€gone€unnoticed€by€this€court.€ÏWe€have€previously€held€the€preparation€and€filing€of€a€presentence€report€isÏmandatory€in€a€felony€case€in€which€the€parties€have€not€fully€agreed€to€theÏsentence€to€be€imposed.€€òòState€v.€Ronnie€C.€Allenóó,€No.€03C01„9409„CR„00347,Ï1995€WL€102741€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€March€10,€1995);€òòState€v.ÏPatricia€Waltonóó,€No.€03C01„9205„CR„156,€1992€WL€371778€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏKnoxville,€December€17,€1992).€€In€none€of€these€cases,€however,€was€this€courtÏpresented€with€an€affirmative€waiver€of€the€report.€ÌÌà àà àIn€the€case€now€before€us,€the€presentence€report€was€apparentlyÏordered,€but€by€stipulation€of€òòbothóó€parties€and€with€the€approval€of€the€trial€court,Ïthe€parties€proceeded€through€the€sentencing€hearing€without€the€presentenceÏreport.€€No€objection€was€made€to€this€procedure,€but€the€record€is€not€merelyÏsilent€as€to€the€waiver.€€It€evinces€an€affirmative€waiver.€€Indeed,€with€respect€toÏthe€defense,€the€side€now€claiming€to€be€aggrieved€by€the€absence€of€theÏreport,€the€waiver€was€pressed€to€the€point€of€estoppel.€€At€the€hearing,€theÏappellant€urged€the€court€to€proceed€and€to€make€its€decision€without€benefit€ofÍthe€otherwise„mandated€report.€€The€appellant€is€now€asking€this€court€to€violateÏRule€36(a)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€by€taking€action€inÏthis€appeal€ð ðin€contravention€of€the€province€of€the€trier€of€fact.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ï36(a).€€This€rule€further€provides€that€nothing€contained€therein€ð ðshall€beÏconstrued€as€requiring€that€relief€be€granted€to€a€party€responsible€for€an€errorÏor€who€failed€to€take€whatever€action€was€reasonably€available€to€prevent€orÏnullify€the€harmful€effect€of€an€error.ðð€òòIdóó.€€œÇAdditionally,›€we€note€in€passing€that€the€appellant€made€no€showing€of€anyÏfavorable€information€that€a€presentence€report€might€have€contained,€andÏconsequently€there€was€no€claim€of€prejudice.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€32(b);€Tenn.€R.ÏCrim.€P.€52(a).ÌÌà àà àWe€do€not€encourage€trial€counsel€and€trial€courts€to€embark€uponÏsentencing€hearings€in€the€absence€of€presentence€reports.€€We€view€theÏlegislatureððs€mandate€as€expressed€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðððð€40„35„205(a)€and€210€(b),€(g)€to€be€well€reasoned.€€Certainly€the€use€of€theÏpresentence€report€better€enables€the€trial€court€to€carry€out€the€purposes€of€theÏsentencing€law,€and€moreover,€the€presence€of€the€report€in€the€record€isÏnecessary€for€òòde€novoóó€appellate€review.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Charles€Eberhardtóó,€No.Ï03C01„9307„CR„00230,€slip€op.€At€5,€1994€WL€46511€at€*3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏKnoxville,€February€17,€1994);€òòState€v.€James€Patrick€Hill,€Jr.óó,€No.€954,€slip€op.ÏAt€2,€1991€WL€134500€at€*1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€July€23,1991).€ÏHowever,€on€the€unique€facts€of€the€case€before€us,€we€hold€that€the€prehearingÏfiling€and€the€use€of€the€presentence€report€were€waived.ÌÌà@ àò òII.€€Range„of„Sentence€Issues.ÌÌòòó óà àà àa.€€Timeliness€of€filing€noticeóóò ò.ÌÌà àà àó óThe€first€issue€relative€to€the€appellantððs€complaint€about€theÏsentencing€range€is€the€untimely€filing€of€the€enhancement€notice.€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€Section€40„35„202(a)€provides€for€the€filing€of€a€notice€of€intentÏto€seek€enhanced€punishment€and€requires€that€such€a€notice€be€filed€by€theÏdistrict€œattorney›€general€ð ðnot€less€than€ten€(10)€days€before€trial€or€acceptance€ofÏa€guilty€œÇplea.ðð›€The€Notice€in€this€case€was€filed€with€the€court€and€served€upon€defenseÏcounsel€on€the€morning€of€trial.€€In€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€752€S.W.2d€80€(Tenn.Ï1988),€a€notice€had€also€been€filed€on€the€day€of€trial,€and€the€Court€held€theÏnotice€was€effective€ð ðin€the€absence€of€some€showing€of€prejudice€on€the€part€ofÏthe€accused,€particularly€where€defense€counsel€does€not€move€for€aÏcontinuance€or€postponement€of€the€trial€as€he€is€clearly€authorized€to€do.ðð€€òòId.óó€atÏ81.€€The€court€concluded€that€where€there€was€no€defense€motion€forÏcontinuance,€any€objection€to€the€untimely€filing€was€waived.€€òòIdóó.€€A€similar€resultÏwas€reached€in€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€788€S.W.2d€557,€559€(Tenn.€1990),€on€theÏissue€of€sufficiency€of€the€notice.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Gilmoreóó,€823€S.W.2d€566Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€No€motion€for€continuance€was€filed€in€the€case€nowÏbefore€us,€nor€has€any€prejudice€been€shown€by€reason€of€the€late€filing€of€theÏNotice,€and€therefore€we€conclude€the€objection€is€waived.ÌÌà àà àb.€€òòEvidence€supporting€range€determinationóó.€€ÌÌà àà àImposition€of€an€enhanced€sentencing€range€must€be€predicatedÏupon€a€finding€by€the€trial€court€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€requisiteÏprior€felonies€exist.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„106(c),€107(c),€and€œ108(c)›Ï(1990).€€The€appellant€argues€the€record€is€devoid€of€any€evidence€supportingÍthe€decision€to€enhance€the€range€from€I€to€III.€All€five€prior€convictions€wereÏmentioned€in€the€Notice,€but€the€extent€of€the€proof€of€the€five€qualifyingÏconvictions€is€found€only€in€the€ð ðCriminal€History€Reportðð€and€the€transcribedÏcomments€of€the€trial€judge€made€at€the€sentencing€hearing€as€he€read€from€theÏoriginal€court€file.€ÌÌà àà àFirst€we€must€determine€if€the€ð ðCriminal€History€Reportðð€is€ð ðinÏevidence.ðð€€Inclusion€of€a€document€in€the€ð ðtechnical€recordðð€will€not,€ð ðas€aÏmatter€œÇof›€law,ðð€permit€this€court€to€consider€the€document€when€it€has€not€beenÏintroduced€as€evidence€or€authenticated€by€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Cooperóó,€736ÏS.W.2d€125,€131€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€In€òòCooperóó,€the€court€noted:€€ÌÓÓà0 àà0 àBefore€an€exhibit€may€be€considered€by€this€court,€it€must€haveÏbeen€(a)€received€into€evidence,€(b)€marked€by€the€trial€judge,Ïclerk€or€court€reporter€as€having€been€received€into€evidence€asÏan€exhibit,€ðð€authenticated€by€the€trial€judge,€and€(d)€included€inÏthe€transcript€of€the€evidence€transmitted€to€this€court.€€òòIdóó.€131.ÌÌÓ šÓÓÓà àà àUnder€this€rule€the€Criminal€History€Report€found€in€the€technical€Ïrecord€as€certified€by€the€clerk€is€not€properly€before€the€court.€€As€a€result,€theÏlisting€found€in€this€report€is€not€to€be€considered€evidentially.Ìà àà àBefore€considering€the€trial€courtððs€review€of€the€original€1989Ïconviction€file,€we€observe€that€the€1990€and€1994€convictions€were€mentionedÏin€the€Notice€and€were€never€challenged€in€any€way€by€the€appellant.€€TheÏappellant€has€conceded€tacitly€that€these€two€convictions€qualify.€€ThisÏconcession,€or€waiver,€is€really€part€and€parcel€of€the€waiver€of€the€filing€of€theÏpresentence€report€(dealt€with€above€in€Section€I),€where€the€appellant€made€noÏeffort€to€put€the€state€to€its€burden€of€proof€as€to€these€two€convictions€and€whereÏthe€accuracy€of€the€description€of€these€two€convictions€was€not€challenged.€ÏWe€have€previously€held€that€when€allegations€of€qualifying€convictions€are€setÏforth€only€in€the€notice€of€intent€to€enhance,€the€stateððs€burden€to€establish€theÍrange€enhancement€is€not€met.€€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€901€S.W.2d€393,€397€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Charles€Eberhardtóó,€No.€03C01„9307„CR„00230,€slipÏop.€at€2„4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€February€17,€1994).€€However,€in€theseÏcases€the€defendant€either€ð ðput€the€state€to€its€burden€of€proofðð€or€otherwiseÏchallenged€the€accuracy€of€the€conviction€information.€œWhere›€summaryÏinformation€about€the€qualifying€convictions€was€contained€in€the€presentenceÏreport€but€was€not€otherwise€proven€by€certified€œÇcopies›€of€conviction€records€or€otherwise,€we€have€held€that€the€state€hasÏproven€range€enhancement€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€ð ðððabsent€a€showingÏthat€the€report€is€based€on€unreliable€sources€or€is€otherwise€inaccurate.ðððð€òòStateÏv.€Anthony€D.€Hinesóó,€No.€01C01„9406„CC„00189,€slip€op.€at€5„6€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€Nashville,€May€25,€1995),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€Nov.€6,€1995).€€òòSeeÏalso€State€v.€Richard€J.€Crossmanóó,€No.€01C01„9311„CR„00394€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€Nashville,€October€6,€1994),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€January€3,€1995)Ï(where€the€sentencing€issue€was€not€the€range€and€the€stateððs€burden€was€onlyÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence,€summary€listings€of€convictions€were€sufficientÏin€the€absence€of€a€challenge€to€the€accuracy€of€the€information).€€Where€theÏpresentence€report€has€been€effectively€waived,€as€in€the€case€now€before€us,Ïand€where€the€appellant€has€also€not€challenged€the€reliability€or€accuracy€ofÏthe€description€of€the€1990€and€1994€convictions€ð ðpleadedðð€in€the€Notice,€heÏshould€not€be€heard€now€to€claim€that€these€two€convictions€were€not€proven.€ÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€€The€trial€court€was€justified€in€considering€theseÏconvictions€in€support€of€the€enhancement€of€the€range€of€sentence.Ìà àà àWe€now€turn€to€the€trial€courtððs€treatment€of€the€original€1989Ïconviction€record.€€The€cases€cited€above€dealt€with€a€record€that€was€devoid€ofÏproof€of€qualifying€convictions€except€for€summary€listings€or€computer€print„outs€contained€in€the€enhancement€notice€and/or€presentence€report.€€In€noneÍof€the€cases€mentioned€did€the€prosecution€attempt€to€utilize€an€original€recordÏof€a€qualifying€conviction€as€did€the€prosecution€in€the€case€before€us.€ÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€40„35„202(a)€provides€that€the€ð ðoriginal€orÏcertified€copyðð€of€the€prior€conviction€record,€bearing€the€name€of€the€accused,€isÏð ðprima€facie€evidence€of€the€facts€set€out€therein.ðð€€There€is€no€physical€orÏdocumentary€exhibit€of€this€œÇð ðoriginalðð›€evidence,€and€no€witness€testified€as€to€the€facts.€€However,€there€is€aÏrepresentation€of€the€pertinent€facts€in€the€transcript€of€the€trial€judgeððs€recitationÏof€the€dates€of€the€offenses€that€resulted€in€the€1989€convictions,€and€the€trialÏjudge€approved€and€authenticated€the€transcript.€€Ìà àà àThis€material€is€evidence€and€is€òòinóó€evidence.€€There€is€no€need€toÏadduce€evidence€through€a€testifying€witness€when€the€evidence€is€judiciallyÏnoticeable€under€Rule€201,€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.€The€trial€courtððsÏreview€and€commentary€on€its€own€1989€file€was€an€act€of€judicial€notice.€€It€isÏauthorized€by€Rule€201(b)(2),€the€facts€being€ð ðcapable€of€accurate€and€readyÏdetermination€by€resort€to€sources€whose€accuracy€cannot€reasonably€beÏquestioned.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€The€trial€court€may€take€judicial€notice€ð ðwhether€requested€orÏnot,ðð€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€201(c),€and€the€notice€may€be€taken€at€any€stage€of€theÏproceeding.€€òòIdóó.€at€201(f).€€An€opportunity€to€be€heard€on€the€propriety€of€takingÏthe€notice€is€afforded€upon€request,€but€in€the€case€below€no€request€was€made.Ìà àà àWe€hold€the€facts€are€judicially€noticeable€under€the€rule.€€While€itÏhas€been€opined€that€the€trial€court€in€reviewing€its€prior€proceedings€may€notÏtake€judicial€notice€of€a€prior€party€being€identical€to€a€party€òòsub€judiceóó,€2ÏCharles€E.€Torcia,€Whartonððs€Criminal€Evidence€ðð€232€(14th€ed.€Supp.€1996),ÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€40„35„202(a)€resolves€the€question€byÍproviding€that€the€original€or€certified€copy€of€the€conviction€record,€ð ðbearing€theÏsame€name€as€that€by€which€the€defendant€is€charged€in€the€primary€offense,€isÏprima€facie€evidence€that€the€defendant€named€therein€is€the€œsame€as›€theÏdefendant€before€the€court.ðð€œ›œMoreover,›€questions€concerning€the€nature€of€otherÏfacts€noticed€below€are€resolved€by€this€same€Code€section€because€theÏconviction€record€as€offered€below€is€also€ð ðprima€œÇfacie›€evidence€of€the€facts€set€out€therein.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€This€rule€governs€the€noticing€ofÏfacts€gleaned€from€an€arrest€warrant€affidavit€contained€within€the€file€becauseÏ(1)€the€judicial€notice€taken€did€not€exceed€the€scope€of€examination€of€the€fileÏthat€would€have€been€available€to€a€testifying€court€clerk,€and€(2)€the€type€of€factÏextracted,€being€a€date€of€an€offense€which€resulted€in€a€conviction,€is€by€itsÏnature€judicially€noticeable.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€òòSee€State€v.€Woodallóó,€729€S.W.2d€91,€94€(Tenn.Ï1987)€(an€arrest€warrant€contained€in€a€court€record€is€an€official€judicial€recordÏof€proceedings€in€that€case).Ìà àà àBased€upon€the€foregoing,€we€hold€that€the€judicial€notice€of€the€Ïoriginal€1989€conviction€file€provided€sufficient€evidence€of€the€three€1989Ïconvictions.€€The€trial€court€was€justified,€therefore,€in€considering€a€total€of€fiveÏqualifying€convictions€in€enhancing€the€sentencing€range.€€It€follows€that€the€trialÏcourtððs€determination€that€the€appellant€should€be€sentenced€as€a€persistentÏoffender€is€supported€in€the€record€and€should€be€affirmed.Ìò òÓ  ÓIII.€€Sentencing€Considerations;€Findings€of€Record.ó óà@ àÌÓ  Óà àà àAs€to€the€length€of€sentence,€it€is€immaterial€whether€the€trial€courtÏconsidered€all€relevant€factors€and€made€requisite€findings€in€the€record€(orÏwhether€our€òòde€novoóó€review€is€not€€accompanied€with€a€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€of€the€trial€courtððs€determination).€€The€appellant€cannot€„„€and€doesÏnot€„„€claim€to€be€prejudiced€in€any€way€with€the€selection€of€òòminimumóóÏsentences€within€the€applicable€œÇrange,›€established€to€run€òòconcurrentlyóó.€€Any€possible€error€committed€by€the€trialÏjudge€with€respect€to€his€selection€of€a€specific€sentence€is€harmless.€€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€App.€52(a).Ìò òÓ  ÓIV.€Conclusion.ó óÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€conclusion€is€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌòòÓÓÌÓ€Óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àóó_______________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€Curwood€Witt,€JudgeÌòòà àà àÌóóÌCONCUR:ÌÌòòà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àóóÌ________________________ÌGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ________________________ÌJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÓÓÌ