ÿWPC± …# VUNa %¯ 0(µBÝb w@' 4g { Š 0l’ 0Dþ 0JB 0TŒ 0^à 0h> 0r¦ 0| 0†” 0 1uª 0dU>ƒU*ÁB)ëDC AMW ¤½± D3n B¡½¾ 0@{v~»vÓ9 AO Æ[ 0D! D/e B”˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLLÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡C:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT- ù- O [P Q DR S ET EU [V W X Ó€Ô¡¨ 3|xa ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌJuly€30,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ³Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„402.Ì++++'ÿÿdxd d ³Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„102.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(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€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€#ŠÔÔ€$ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€¬±XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€'(&A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€œNASHVILLE›ÌÌœJANUARY›€SESSION,€œ1997›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,›à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€œ01C01„9602„CR„00076›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœDAVIDSON›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œJ.€RANDALL€WYATT,€JR.ó ó›Ìœò òCURTIS€LEE€MAJORS,ó ó›à àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àœó ó(Aggravated€Robbery€and€AggravatedÏà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àAssault)ò ò›Ìó óÌÌò òÓ  ÓON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌœCRIMINAL›€COURT€OF€œDAVIDSON€COUNTY›ó óÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌœJEFFREY€A.€DEVASHER›à àà àœCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌSenior€Assistant€Public€Defenderà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌSTEPHEN€G.€YOUNGà àà àà àMICHAEL€J.€FAHEY€IIÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ1202€Stahlman€Buildingà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌNashville,€TN€37201à àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àVICTOR€S.€JOHNSONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àKATRIN€N.€MILLERÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWashington€Square,€Suite€500Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à222€Second€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37201„1649à àà àà àà àà àà à›ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIED›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€$°ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€$ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThis€is€an€appeal€as€of€right€pursuant€to€Rule€œ3€of€the›€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Appellate€Procedure.€€The€Defendant,€Curtis€Lee€Majors,€was€convicted€by€aÏDavidson€County€jury€of€one€count€œof€aggravated›€robbery€and€two€œcounts€of›Ïaggravated€assault.€€He€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€II,€multiple€offender€toÏseventeen€years€(17)€for€the€aggravated€robbery€conviction€and€nine€(9)€yearsÏfor€each€conviction€for€aggravated€assault,€all€to€be€served€concurrently.€€In€thisÏappeal,€the€Defendant€raises€several€issues€for€review:€(1)€That€the€trial€courtÏerred€by€failing€to€suppress€the€testimony€of€eyewitnesses€because€of€anÏimpermissibly€suggestive€showup;€(2)€that€the€admission€of€an€audiotape€of€anÏunavailable€witness€was€error;€(3)€that€the€special€jury€instruction€requiring€theÏtrial€court€to€charge€the€length€of€time€the€Defendant€would€serve€before€beingÏparoled€is€unconstitutional;€and€(4)€that€the€sentences€imposed€were€excessive.€ÏWe€affirm€œthe€Defendantððs€convictions,€but€modify€the€sentences.›ÌÌà àWe€begin€with€a€summary€of€the€facts.€€At€approximately€9:00€p.m.€onÏAugust€21,€1994,€at€the€Mrs.€Winnerððs€œrestaurant€on›€Nolensville€Road€inÏNashville,€three€employees,€Marla€Kay€Cox,€Wemi€Andeleru,€and€James€BurtÏwere€preparing€to€close€the€restaurant.€€Business€was€slow€and€no€customersÍwere€in€the€restaurant€at€that€time.€€Ms.€Cox€and€Mr.€Burt€were€cleaning€in€theÏdining€room.€€A€œman€entered›€the€restaurant€and€immediately€went€into€theÏbathroom.€€Both€Ms.€Cox€and€Mr.€Burt€recognized€the€man€as€the€Defendant,ÏCurtis€Lee€Majors.€€However,€the€employees€knew€the€Defendant€œas€a€formerÏcoworker€and€by›€an€alias,€Curtis€Patterson.€€€They€described€the€robber€as€aÏlarge€man€who€was€approximately€5'11'ðð€in€height€and€who€weighedÏapproximately€225€pounds€and€€had€a€ð ðpot€belly.ðð€€These€descriptions€wereÏvery€similar€to€the€œDefendantððs€physical›€features.ÌÌà àMs.€Cox€and€Mr.€Burt€went€behind€the€serving€counter€and€joined€Ms.ÏAndeleru.€€Another€employee,€the€district€manager,€was€in€a€rear€office€and€didÏnot€witness€the€robbery.€€€Ms.€Cox€testified€that€she€knew€no€other€customersÏcame€in€and€that€the€man€in€the€bathroom€did€not€leave€because€a€chimeÏwould€go€off€when€anyone€opened€the€front€door€to€the€restaurant.€€All€othersÏexits€were€locked.€€After€approximately€twenty€minutes,€the€Defendant€burstÏthrough€the€door€leading€to€the€employee€area€behind€the€serving€counter.€€HeÏhad€a€black€revolver€in€one€hand€and€a€length€of€pipe€in€the€other.€€He€wasÏwearing€black€pants,€a€black€shirt€or€sweatshirt,€pantyhose€over€his€face€and€aÏblack€White€Sox€baseball€cap,€worn€backwards.€€He€demanded€that€theÏemployees€lie€on€the€floor.€€He€used€the€pipe€to€break€open€the€ð ðdrop€boxesððÏunder€the€cash€registers€and€took€the€cash.€€The€œrobber€then›€fled€the€restaurant.ÌÌà àMs.€Cox€testified€that€the€man€who€robbed€the€store€was€the€Defendant,Ïwhom€she€knew€as€Curtis.€€She€recalled€that€a€week€œor›€two€before€theÏrobbery,€someone€had€stolen€her€paycheck€from€her€purse€œwhile€at€work€and›€aÏmeeting€was€held€regarding€this.€€The€Defendant€was€present,€but€no€one€wasÏdirectly€accused€of€the€theft.€€Later,€the€Defendant€confronted€Ms.€Cox€andÏthreatened€to€harm€her€if€anyone€said€he€had€taken€the€check.€€Ms.€CoxÏreported€this€to€the€manager€and€the€Defendant€soon€thereafter€œdiscontinuedÏworking€at›€Mrs.€œWinnerððs.€€It€is€not€clear€whether€he€was€terminated€orÏvoluntarily€resigned.›ÌÌà àMs.€Andeleru€did€not€see€the€Defendant€enter€the€restaurant,€but€testifiedÏthat€the€robber€looked€like€œhim€even€though€his€face€was€obscured.›€€SheÏreported€that€the€robberððs€physique€was€like€the€Defendantððs€and€that€he€wasÏð ðhugeðð€and€that€she€recognized€his€voice.€€Mr.€Burt€recognized€the€DefendantÏwhen€he€first€entered€the€restaurant€and€œidentified€the›€robber€œas›€the€same€manÏwho€went€into€the€restaurant€bathroom.ÌÌà àAfter€the€œrobber€left,›€Mr.€œBurt€went€next€door,€called›€911€and€a€policeÏofficer€arrived€at€the€œscene€within€a€few€minutes.›€€A€description€of€the€assailantÏwas€broadcast.€€Another€officer€searched€the€area€near€the€restaurant.€€WhileÍon€œa€nearby€street,›€œthat›€officer€saw€a€œblack€male›€œwalking›€on€the€roadside.€€TheÏman€was€wearing€a€red€T„shirt,€blue€shorts€and€a€White€Sox€cap.€€€€The€officerÏradioed€œthe€officer€on€the€scene€and›€asked€whether€the€robber€was€heavyset.€ÏThe€œofficer€on€the€scene›€œconfirmed›€this€description€and€also€stated€that€theÏDefendantððs€name€was€Curtis.€€The€officer€drove€along€side€the€man€and€askedÏwhether€his€name€was€Curtis€and€the€Defendant€answered€ð ðyes.ðð€€He€arrestedÏthe€Defendant€and€took€him€back€to€Mrs.€Winnerððs€for€a€showup.€€The€threeÏwitnesses€identified€the€Defendant€as€the€robber.€€The€witnesses€also€notedÏthat€the€Defendant€was€yelling€from€the€police€cruiser€ð ðWhat€was€the€robberÏwearing?ðð€€The€police€officer€testified€that€the€Defendant€yelled€ð ðWhat€was€IÏwearing?€What€was€I€supposed€to€be€wearing?ðð€€The€Defendant€later€claimedÏthat€he€had€been€in€the€restaurant€at€approximately€8:30€to€buy€a€drink.€ÏHowever,€none€of€the€employees€recalled€seeing€him€in€the€restaurant€earlierÏthat€night.ÌÌà àThe€pipe€was€left€in€the€restaurant.€€€Other€police€officers€recovered€a€pairÏof€black€sweatpants€and€a€bank€bag€containing€$770€in€cash,€which€wereÏhidden€in€a€nearby€field.€€Pantyhose€with€the€legs€cut€out€were€found€in€theÏparking€lot.€€No€gun€was€recovered.€€No€fingerprints€were€obtained€from€the€pipeÏor€the€restaurant€because€of€a€greasy€film€on€the€counter€and€glass€surfaces.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€was€charged€with€three€counts€aggravated€robbery.× ƒ) ××  ×€ÏAfter€the€State€presented€its€case„in„chief€at€trial,€defense€counsel€moved€for€aÏjudgment€of€acquittal€as€to€all€counts.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€motion€exceptÏfor€the€first€count€against€Ms.€Cox€because€she€was€the€assistant€manager€ofÏthe€restaurant€from€whom€the€money€was€taken.€€As€for€the€remaining€counts,Ïthe€trial€court€charged€the€jury€with€aggravated€assault× ƒ, ××  ×€as€a€lesser€includedÏoffense€of€aggravated€robbery.€€The€Defendant€was€convicted€of€one€count€œofÏaggravated›€robbery€and€two€counts€œof€aggravated›€assault.ÌÌÓ  ÓI.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àAs€his€first€issue,€the€Defendant€charges€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÏdenying€his€pretrial€motion€to€suppress€any€in„court€identification€œby›€the€victimsÏas€tainted€by€a€prior€showup€that€was€unduly€suggestive.€€An€identificationÏprocedure€that€is€so€impermissibly€suggestive€ð ðas€to€give€rise€to€a€veryÏsubstantial€likelihood€of€irreparable€misidentificationðð€violates€due€process.€ÏòòSimmons€v.€United€Statesóó,€390€U.S.€377,€384,€88€S.Ct.€967,€971,€19€L.Ed.2dÏ1247€(1968).€€€Although€it€may€be€suggestive,€an€identification€may€satisfy€dueÍprocess€as€reliable€and€admissible€œif€the›€totality€of€the€œcircumstances€soÏwarrants.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€795€S.W.2d€689,€694€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€ÏFive€factors€are€to€be€considered€when€evaluating€the€propriety€of€theÏidentification€process.€€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó,€409€U.S.€188,€199,€93€S.Ct.€375,€382,€34ÏL.Ed.2d€401€(1972);€òòBennett€v.€Stateóó,€530€S.W.2d€511,€514€(Tenn.),€òòrehððg.Ïdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1975).€€These€are:€(1)€The€opportunity€the€witness€had€to€viewÏthe€criminal€at€the€time€of€the€crime;€(2)€the€witnessðð€degree€of€attention;€(3)€theÏaccuracy€of€the€witnessðð€prior€description€of€the€criminal;€(4)€the€level€of€certaintyÏof€the€witness€at€the€confrontation;€and€(5)€the€time€between€the€crime€and€theÏconfrontation.€€òòBrownóó,€795€S.W.2d€at€694.ÌÌà àA›€showup€is€a€form€of€identification€of€a€defendant€that€is€inherentlyÏsuggestive.€€The€use€of€showups€to€establish€the€identification€of€a€personÏsuspected€of€committing€a€criminal€offense€has€been€repeatedly€œcondemned,›ÏòòStovall€v.€Dennoóó,€388€U.S.€293,€87€S.Ct.€1967,€18€L.Ed.2d€1199€(1967);€€ÏòòWadley€v.€Stateóó,€634€S.W.2d€658€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982);€òòState€v.€Bealóó,€614ÏS.W.2d€77€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981);unless€(a)€there€are€imperativeÏcircumstances€which€necessitate€a€showup,€òòStovall€v.€Dennoóó,€388€U.S.€293,€87ÏS.Ct.€1967;€òòForbes€v.€Stateóó,€559€S.W.2d€318€(Tenn.€1977);€€òòState€v.€Mooreóó,€596ÏS.W.2d€841€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980)€or€(b)€the€showup€occurs€as€anÏon„the„scene€investigatory€procedure€shortly€after€the€commission€of€the€crime.ÍòòState€v.€Thomasóó,€780€S.W.2d€379,€381€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989);€òòJohnson€v.ÏStateóó,€596€S.W.2d€97€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979);€òòRussell€v.€Stateóó,€489€S.W.2dÏ535€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1972);€òòBracken€v.€Stateóó,€489€S.W.2d€261€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.1972).ÌÌà àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€Defendant€was€known€to€and€had€workedÏtogether€with€all€three€victims.€€Two€of€them€clearly€saw€the€Defendant€enter€theÏbathroom€of€the€restaurant€and€did€not€see€him€leave€the€restaurant€until€heÏemerged€in€the€employee€area.€€All€were€familiar€with€his€body€type€and€hisÏvoice.€€Although€the€Defendantððs€face€was€œcovered€by›€pantyhose,€his€otherÏfeatures€were€identifying.€€In€addition,€the€Defendant€was€apprehended€notÏmore€than€a€few€minutes€after€the€robbery€and€on€a€street€just€behind€theÏrestaurant.€€The€witnesses€told€the€police€that€the€perpetratorððs€name€wasÏCurtis€and€an€officer€arrested€the€Defendant€after€he€acknowledged€that€hisÏname€was€indeed€Curtis.€The€Defendant€was€asking€the€victims€from€the€policeÏcruiser€in€which€he€was€seated€about€the€clothes€the€robber€was€wearing.€ÏFinally,€all€three€victims€identified€the€Defendant€accurately€and€with€certainty.ÌÌà àAlthough€we€acknowledge€that€showup€identifications€are€inherentlyÏsuggestive,€we€œbelieve€that›€these€on„the„scene€investigatory€confrontations€thatÏoccurred€within€a€reasonable€time€after€the€commission€of€the€offense€areÍpermissible.€€Therefore,€the€œtrial€court€did€not€err€in€denying›€the€motion.€€This€issueÏis€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓII.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àAs€his€next€issue,€the€Defendant€œargues€that›€trial€court€erred€by€failing€toÏexclude€the€preliminary€hearing€testimony€of€an€unavailable€witness.€€JamesÏBurt,€one€of€the€witnesses€present€during€the€robbery,€œcould€not›€be€located€atÏthe€time€of€the€trial.€€However,€Burt€testified€at€the€preliminary€hearing.€HisÏtestimony€was€audio€taped.€€The€State€moved€to€introduce€Burtððs€testimony€asÏa€former€testimony€hearsay€exception€pursuant€to€Rule€804,€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Evidence.€The€pertinent€portion€of€that€rule€states:ÌÌÌÓÓÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° Ò(b)ò ò€Hearsay€exceptions.ó ó€The€following€are€not€excluded€by€theÏhearsay€rule€if€the€declarant€is€unavailable€as€a€witness:ÌÌà à(1)€Former€testimony.€€Testimony€given€as€a€witness€at€anotherÏhearing€of€the€same€or€a€different€proceeding€.€.€.€if€the€party€againstÏwhom€the€testimony€is€now€offered€had€both€an€opportunity€and€similarÏmotive€to€develop€the€testimony€by€direct,€cross,€or€redirect€examination.€Ò  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓTenn€R.ÏEvid.€804(b)(1).€€The€Advisory€Commission€Comment€notes€that€ð ð[t]he€ruleÏcovers€.€.€.€preliminary€hearing€transcripts.ððÌÌà àThe€Defendant€first€alleges€that€the€State€failed€to€œprove›€the€unavailabilityÏof€the€witness,€James€Burt,€by€admitting€the€affidavit€of€the€Stateððs€investigatorÏwithout€allowing€the€Defendant€to€cross„examine€him.€€Also,€he€asserts€thatÏdefense€counsel€did€not€have€a€ð ðsimilar€motiveðð€at€the€preliminary€hearing.€€This,Ïhe€claims,€amounts€to€a€violation€of€the€Sixth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€toÏthe€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€section€9€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution.Ìà à€Ì€à àOur€supreme€court€has€addressed€this€issue€as€follows:ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓThe€same€standards€and€criteria€apply€to€both€of€the€constitutionalÏprovisions.€€òòState€v.€Armesóó,€607€S.W.2d€234,€236€(Tenn.1980).€€TheÏconfrontation€clause€of€the€Sixth€Amendment€restricts€the€range€ofÏadmissible€hearsay€in€two€ways.€€First,€the€admission€of€the€hearsayÏtestimony€must€be€necessary,€i.e.,€the€declarant€must€be€unavailable.€ÏSecond,€once€the€declarant€is€shown€to€be€unavailable,€some€indiciaÏof€reliability€must€be€shown.€€€òòOhio€v.€Robertsóó,€448€U.S.€56,€65,€100ÏS.Ct.€2531,€2538„39,€65€L.Ed.2d€597€(1980).€The€indicia€of€reliabilityÏrequirement€is€met€by€those€hearsay€exceptions€resting€upon€suchÏsolid€foundations€that€admission€of€virtually€any€evidence€within€themÏcomports€with€the€right€of€confrontation.€€òòId.óó€at€66,€100€S.Ct.€at€2539.€€ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌòòState€v.€Causbyóó,€706€S.W.2d€628,€631€(Tenn.€1986).€€The€determination€that€aÏwitness€is€unavailable€requires€a€good€faith€effort€by€the€State€to€locate€theÏwitness.€€òòArmesóó,€607€S.W.2d€at€237;€òòState€v.€Arnoldóó,€719€S.W.2d€543,€548Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).ÌÌà àAlthough€it€would€have€been€preferable€for€the€investigator€to€testifyÏregarding€his€efforts€to€find€the€witness,€we€feel€the€proof€submitted€establishedÏa€reasonable€good€faith€effort.€€€€The€State€first€attempted€to€serve€a€subpoena.ÏAfter€this€failed,€the€State€œdirected€its›€investigator,€Bob€Chaudoin,€to€locate€theÏwitness.€The€investigatorððs€affidavit€admitted€by€the€State€chronicled€hisÏinvestigation.€€€The€affidavit€reads€as€follows:ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓI,€Bob€Chaudoin,€being€first€duly€sworn,€do€hereby€state€that€I€am€anÏInvestigator€for€the€Office€of€the€District€Attorney€General€for€theÏTwentieth€Judicial€District.€€As€part€of€my€duties,€I€am€assigned€to€helpÏlocate€witnesses.€€During€the€last€few€months€I€have€tried€to€locate€aÏJames€David€Burt,€male,€white,€DOB€4/15/64.€€I€spoke€to€Rhonda€A.ÏBurt,€the€ex„wife€of€James,€who€related€to€me€that€she€had€not€seenÏor€heard€from€James€in€at€least€two€months,€nor€has€James€sent€herÏany€money€or€called€about€his€child.€€A€computer€check€shows€hisÏlast€arrest€as€January€12,€1995,€at€which€time€he€gave€his€addressÏas€656€West€Iris€Drive€which€is€a€halfway€house.€€His€TennesseeÏDriverððs€License€is€suspended.€€The€address€in€the€computer€showsÏan€address€of€123€Vickie€Court,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€37211.€€AÏcheck€with€the€owner€of€the€duplex,€who€related€that€James€wasÏnever€on€the€lease€of€the€duplex,€had€moved€out€in€September€1994Ïowing€over€a€thousand€dollars,€and€his€location€was€unknown.€€AÏcredit€check€shows€his€last€address€as€123€Vickie€Court€(this€was€inÏJune€1994).€€His€last€known€employer€was€the€Sylvan€ParkÏRestaurant€located€at€5207€Nolensville€Road.€€He€left€there€inÏSeptember€of€last€year€with€no€forwarding€address.€€His€last€knownÏaddress€at€the€restaurant€was€123€Vickie€Court.€€His€mother€in€PalmÏHarbor,€Florida,€has€not€heard€from€him€in€months€and€is€not€sure€œi›œf›€heÏis€alive€or€dead€and€is€very€concerned€for€him.ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌÌà àThe€Defendant€contends€that€because€the€investigator€œwas€out€of€townÏand€did›€not€œtestify€about€the€contents€of€the€affidavit,›€œthe€Defendant›€was€unableÏto€cross„examine€him.€€He€complains€that€the€investigator€did€not€properly€checkÏthe€halfway€house€address€as€his€last€known€address€and€that€with€cross„examination,€the€Defendant€may€have€proved€that€there€was€an€insufficientÏshowing€of€unavailability.€€Although€we€agree€that€it€would€have€beenÏpreferable€for€the€investigator€to€testify,€the€confrontation€clause€does€not€requireÏthat€the€source€of€proof€of€unavailability€be€cross„examined.€€The€trial€courtÏreviewed€the€affidavit€and€determined€that€the€witness€was€unavailable.€€€ThisÏcase€is€distinguishable€from€òòArmesóó,€in€which€our€supreme€court€found€a€lack€ofÏgood€faith.€€607€S.W.2d€at€237.€€There,€œthe›€State€was€on€notice€after€a€witnessÏdid€not€appear€at€a€first€trial.€€òòId.óó€€The€State€œmerely›€issued€another€subpoenaÏand€presented€no€admissible€proof€of€its€investigatorððs€efforts€to€locate€theÏwitness.€€òòId.óó€€€€Here,€the€State€submitted€an€affidavit€detailing€the€investigatorððsÏefforts.€€We€believe€that€from€the€proof€presented,€there€was€a€sufficientÏshowing€of€a€good€œfaith€effort›€to€locate€the€witness€to€validly€establish€hisÏunavailability.Ìà àÌà àThe€Defendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€the€formerÏtestimony€under€Rule€804(b)(1)€because€the€motivation€for€cross„examining€theÏwitness€at€the€preliminary€hearing€œwas›€different€from€that€at€trial.€€€€He€contendsÍthat€the€focus€of€cross„examination€at€the€preliminary€hearing€was€to€learn€whatÏthe€witness€had€seen€and€done€at€the€time€of€the€robbery.€€Conversely,€heÏclaims€that€the€cross„examination€at€trial€would€have€focused€on€the€propriety€ofÏthe€witnessðð€identification€of€the€Defendant.€€He€concludes€that€becauseÏdefense€counsel€could€not€cross„examine€the€witness€on€this€issue,€he€wasÏdeprived€of€his€constitutional€right€to€confront€the€witnesses€against€him.ÌÌà àThe€issues€in€the€two€proceedings€are€not€required€to€be€identical,€but€ifÏthey€are€ð ðsufficiently€similar,ðð€a€similar€motive€may€be€concluded.€€òòState€v.ÏHowellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€251€(Tenn.€1993).€€It€is€clear€that€the€Defendant€hadÏan€opportunity€œat›€the€preliminary€hearing€to€confront€Mr.€Burt.€€The€DefendantÏasserts,€however,€that€the€purpose€of€the€cross„examination€was€to€ð ðlearnÏeverything€that€Burt€had€seen€and€done€during€and€immediately€after€theÏrobbery.ðð€€Yet,€the€ultimate€issues€in€question€were€whether€the€Defendant€wasÏthe€person€who€committed€the€robbery.€€We€believe€the€motives€œat›€theÏpreliminary€hearing€and€at€trial€were€sufficiently€similar€to€support€the€introductionÏof€the€former€testimony.€€There€is€no€unfairness€if€a€similar€motive€is€present€andÏdefense€counsel€chose€not€to€develop€such€testimony€on€œcross„examination›€inÏthe€former€proceeding€for€€tactical€or€other€reasons.€€òòHowellóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€252.ÌœÌà àThis›€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓIII.ÌÌÓ  Óà àAs€his€third€issue,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÏdenying€his€motion€to€œcharge€a›€special€jury€instruction€regarding€the€range€ofÏpunishments€concerning€his€eventual€eligibility€for€parole.€€He€contends€that€thisÏportion€of€the€jury€instruction€is€unconstitutional€œfor€vagueness,€that›€€itÏcontravenes€the€separation€of€powers€doctrine€and€that€it€denied€him€dueÏprocess.€€He€cites€Article€I,€sections€8,€9,€17,€19,€and€Article€II,€sections€1€and€2Ïof€the€Tennessee€Constitution€and€the€Fifth,€Sixth€and€Fourteenth€AmendmentsÏto€the€United€States€Constitution.€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant's€counsel€filed€a€motion€to€charge€the€jury€on€the€range€ofÏpunishment€and€a€motion€to€exclude€an€instruction€on€parole€eligibility€asÏrequired€œby›€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€œsection›€40„35„201.€€The€trial€courtÏoverruled€the€Defendant's€motion€to€exclude€the€parole€eligibility€informationÏbecause€it€is€required€by€the€statute.€€The€statute€reads:ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓ(b)(1)€In€all€contested€criminal€cases,€except€for€capital€crimes€whichÏare€governed€by€the€procedures€contained€in€ðððð€39„13„204€andÏ39„13„205,€upon€the€motion€of€either€party,€filed€with€the€court€prior€toÏthe€selection€of€the€jury,€the€court€shall€charge€the€possible€penalties€forÏthe€offense€charged€and€all€lesser€included€offenses.€€ÌÌ(2)(A)(i)€When€a€charge€as€to€possible€penalties€has€been€requestedÏpursuant€to€subdivision€(b)(1),€the€judge€shall€also€include€in€theÏinstructions€for€the€jury€to€weigh€and€consider€the€meaning€of€aÏsentence€of€imprisonment€for€the€offense€charged€and€any€lesserÏincluded€offenses.€€Such€instruction€shall€include€an€approximateÏcalculation€of€the€minimum€number€of€years€a€person€sentenced€toÏimprisonment€for€the€offense€charged€and€lesser€included€offenses€mustÏserve€before€reaching€such€person's€earliest€release€eligibility€date.€ÏSuch€calculation€shall€include€such€factors€as€the€release€eligibilityÏpercentage€established€by€ðð€40„35„501,€maximum€and€minimumÏsentence€reduction€credits€authorized€by€ðð€41„21„236€and€theÏgovernor's€power€to€reduce€prison€overcrowding€pursuant€to€title€41,Ïchapter€1,€part€5,€if€applicable.€€ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌTenn.Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„201(b)(1)€&€(2)(A)(i).€€The€Defendant€now€argues€thatÏhe€was€prejudiced€by€this€instruction€which€he€requested.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€ð ðthe€minimum€number€of€years€aÏperson€sentenced€to€imprisonment€for€this€offense€must€serve€before€reachingÏthe€earliest€possible€release€eligibility€date€is€1.65€years.€€This€calculation€isÏbased€on€the€minimum€sentence€possible€(for€aggravated€robbery)€which€is€12Ïyears.ðð€€€€This€was€based€on€the€1994€amendment€to€the€statute€requiring€thatÏparole€eligibility€be€charged.€€Acts€1994,€ch.€847,€ðð€1,2.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€cites€òòFarris€v.€Stateóó,€535€S.W.2d€608€(Tenn.€1976),€inÏwhich€our€supreme€court€determined€that€a€jury€instruction€under€former€law€wasÏunconstitutional.€€This€Court€œrecently›€addressed€this€issue€in€òòState€v.€Howard€E.ÍKingóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9601„CR„00032,€Shelby€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App,ÏJackson,€Oct.€22,€1996),€òòperm.€to€appeal€grantedóó€(March€10,€1997).€€In€thatÏcase€we€held€that€because€òòFarrisóó€involved€former€law€in€which€juries€sentencedÏdefendants,€it€did€not€apply€to€the€case€involving€judge€sentencing€and€notedÏthat€òòFarrisóó€held€the€statute€unconstitutional€regarding€the€juryððs€determination€ofÏpunishment.€€Slip€op.€at€œ7.›€€œEven€if€we€apply€òòFarrisóó,›€we€œconclude€that›€theÏprovision€regarding€parole€eligibility€in€effect€when€òòFarrisóó€was€decided€isÏdistinguishable€from€the€current€form€of€the€statute€when€considering€whether€œit€is›Ïunconstitutionally€vague.ÌÌà àThe€former€provision,€enacted€in€1973,€provided€that€ð ðIt€shall€be€the€furtherÏduty€of€the€trial€judge€charging€jurors€in€cases€of€criminal€prosecutions€for€felonyÏoffenses€to€charge€the€said€jury€as€to€the€provisions€of€this€section€and€as€toÏthe€provisions€of€ðððð€40„3612,€40„3613,€41„332€and€41„334,€whereverÏapplicable.ðð€œ€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„2707€(repealed),€amendment€Acts€1973,Ïch.€163,€ðð€2.›€Juries€were€provided€with€information€that€invited€them€to€speculateÏabout€sentences€because€no€approximation€was€provided.€€The€òòFarrisóó€courtÏconcluded€that€ð ð[j]urors€should€not€be€permitted€to€speculate€on€the€length€ofÏsentences,€discretionary€parole,€the€accumulation€of€good€and€honor€time€and€œaÏwhole›€conglomeration€of€contingent€events€which,€if€they€come€to€pass€at€all,Ïwill€come€to€pass€in€the€future.ðð€œ›œ€òòFarrisóó,€535›€S.W.2d€at€614.ÌÌà àSubsequently,€the€legislature€has€attempted€to€remedy€this€by€supplyingÏthe€estimated€figures€to€juries€rather€than€leaving€them€œon€their€own€to›€calculateÏœparole›€œeligibility›€by€enacting€sections€(b)(2)(A)(ii)€and€(b)(2)(B).€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„201.€€They€read:ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓ(2)(A)(ii)€Such€instructions€to€the€jury€shall€also€include€a€statement€thatÏwhether€a€defendant€is€actually€released€from€incarceration€on€theÏdate€when€such€defendant€is€first€eligible€for€release€is€a€discretionaryÏdecision€made€by€the€board€of€paroles€based€upon€many€factors,Ïand€that€such€board€has€the€authority€to€require€the€defendant€toÏserve€the€entire€sentence€imposed€by€the€court.Ìà àÌ(B)€On€an€annual€basis,€the€department€of€correction€shall€provideÏeach€judge€exercising€criminal€trial€court€jurisdiction€with€theÏapproximate€calculation€required€in€subdivision€(2)(a).€€SuchÏcalculation€shall€be€broken€down€to€show€the€effect€of€each€factorÏused€in€making€such€calculation.€€If€the€calculation€provided€by€theÏdepartment€to€the€judges€changes€because€of€a€change€in€the€law€orÏcorrectional€policy,€court€intervention,€the€governor's€prisonÏovercrowding€policy€or€any€other€such€circumstance,€the€departmentÏshall€send€a€revised€calculation€to€the€judges€as€such€changes€occur.ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌà àAs€a€result,€juries€are€provided€with€a€figure€with€the€caveat€that€theÏactual€time€served€may€vary.€€Although€an€ð ðapproximateðð,€we€feel€that€thisÏfigure€provides€sufficient€definition€and€is€not€unconstitutionally€vague.€ÏFurthermore,€jurors€are€protected€from€the€wide€open€speculation€that€wasÏapparent€with€the€statutory€section€considered€in€òòFarrisóó.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€next€asserts€that€the€relevant€portions€of€the€statute€are€aÏconstitutionally€impermissible€encroachment€on€the€judicial€function€by€theÏlegislature.à à€We€disagree.€€Some€functions€of€the€three€departments€of€stateÏgovernment€are€necessarily€overlapping€and€interdependent.€€We€believe€this€isÏparticularly€true€in€our€criminal€justice€system.€€œòòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòLavon›€v.€œStateóó,›€586ÏS.W.2d€112,€115€(Tenn.€1979);€òòUnderwood€v.€Stateóó,€529€S.W.2d€45,€47€(Tenn.Ï1975);€òòWoods€v.€Stateóó,€130€Tenn.€100,€169€S.W.€558€(1914).€€We€find€thisÏissue€to€be€without€merit.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€also€charges€that€the€calculation€of€the€minimum€numberÏof€years€to€be€served€unfairly€misleads€the€jury€because€the€œactual€time€served›Ïmay€be€longer.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„201(b)(2)(A)(i).€€Therefore,€œhe€arguesÏthat€he€has›€been€deprived€of€due€process€and€the€right€to€a€fair€and€impartialÏjury.€€We€œdisagree.›€€He€claims€that€the€suggestion€that€parole€eligibility€datesÏmay€vary€due€to€the€decision€by€the€Board€of€Paroles€ð ðbased€on€many€factorsððÏinvites€the€jury€to€speculate.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„201(b)(2)(A)(ii).€ÏHowever,€we€do€not€œbelieve€this›€differs€substantially€from€the€charge€of€theÏð ðpossible€penalties€for€the€offense€charged€and€all€lesser€included€offenses.ðð€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„25„201(b)(1).ÌÌà àIn€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,€the€trial€judge€charged€the€jury€that€ð ð[t]heÏpunishment€for€the€offense€of€Aggravated€Robbery€in€this€case€will€beÏimprisonment€for€a€period€of€not€less€than€Twelve€(12)€years€nor€more€thanÏTwenty€(20)€years.€.€.€.€the€Court€will€set€the€punishment€after€a€separateÏsentencing€hearing,€and€that€punishment€will€be€set€within€the€applicable€rangeÏof€12€to€20€years€after€review€of€all€relevant€factors.ðð€€The€range€of€punishmentÏinstruction,€which€the€Defendant€requested,€provided€an€approximate€numberÏthat€had€a€potentially€wide€range€for€possible€speculation,€œbut€no›€broader€thanÏthat€involved€in€the€eligibility€instruction.Ìà àÌà àThe€legislature€has€seen€fit€to€provide€juries€with€comprehensiveÏinformation€about€the€sentencing€scheme€when€either€party€requests€such€anÏinstruction.€€The€Defendant€complains€that€the€jury€œwas€unfairly›€informed€of€theÏearliest€release€date,€but€the€latest€release€date€has€also€been€provided.€€It€isÏpossible€that€the€Defendant€could€be€sentenced€to€twenty€years,€of€which€theÏjury€was€informed,€and€serve€the€entire€term€while€incarcerated.€€Thus,€theÏmaximum€sentence€was€œcharged€as€well.›€€We€cannot€conclude€that€theÏDefendant€has€been€deprived€of€due€process€in€this€case.ÌÌà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ì€à àÌÓ  ÓIV.ÌÓ  Óà àÌÓ  Óà àAs€his€last€issue,€the€Defendant€asserts€that€the€sentences€imposedÏwere€excessive€because€the€trial€court€misapplied€three€statutory€enhancementÏfactors.€€Furthermore,€œhe€notes›€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€specify€whichÏenhancement€factors€applied€to€which€convictions.€€ÌÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€the€manner€of€serviceÏof€a€sentence,€this€court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€theÏsentence€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€areÏcorrect.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditionedÏupon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€theÏsentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àIn€conducting€a€de€novo€review€of€a€sentence,€this€court€must€consider:Ï(a)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€theÏpresentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€toÏsentencing€alternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conductÏinvolved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statementÏthat€the€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€ofÍpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€$XÔððððÔ€$ŠÔ€40„35„102,€„103,Ïand€„210;€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencingÏprocedure,€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€andÏproper€weight€to€the€factors€and€principals€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,Ïand€that€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,Ïthen€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€aÏdifferent€result.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€œfive›€statutory€enhancement€factors:€(1)€That€theÏDefendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior€inÏaddition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range;€(3)€œthat›€theÏoffense€involved€more€than€one€person;€(10)€that€the€Defendant€had€noÏhesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high;Ï(13)(B)€that€the€felony€was€committed€while€the€Defendant€was€on€probation;Ïand€(16)€that€the€crime€was€committed€under€circumstances€under€which€theÏpotential€for€bodily€injury€to€a€victim€was€great.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1),(3),(10),(13)(B)€and€(16).€€The€trial€court€found€no€mitigating€factors.ÌÌà àAs€an€initial€matter,€we€agree€that€the€trial€court€misapplied€enhancementÏfactors€and€did€not€individually€specify€how€each€enhancement€factor€applied€toÏeach€conviction.€€As€a€result,€we€review€the€Defendantððs€sentence€de€novoÏwithout€the€presumption€of€correctness.ÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  Óœà àDuring›€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€enhanced€œthe€Defendantððs›Ïsentences€based€upon€a€number€of€factors.€€€First,€the€court€found€that€œtheÏDefendant›€had€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€and€criminal€behaviorÏas€reflected€in€the€presentence€report€that€were€beyond€those€necessary€toÏestablish€him€as€a€Range€II€œoffender.›€€We€find€that€the€court€properly€consideredÏœthe€Defendant's›€prior€convictions€in€enhancing€his€sentences€for€aggravatedÏrobbery€and€for€both€counts€of€aggravated€assault.€€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„114(1).€€Also,€the€trial€court€applied€enhancement€factor€(13)(B),€that€theÏoffense€was€committed€while€the€Defendant€was€on€probation.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„114(13)(B).€€The€Defendant€does€not€contest€the€use€of€this€factorÏand€we€agree€that€it€is€applicable€to€all€three€convictions.Ìà à€Ì€à àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€offenses€involved€more€than€one€victim.€€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(3).€€€The€robbery€at€Mrs.€Winnerððs€involved€threeÏpersons.€€Here,€the€Defendant€was€convicted€separately€for€an€offense€for€eachÏvictim.€This€Court€has€held€that€this€factor€may€not€be€applied€to€enhance€aÍsentence€when€the€œdefendant›€is€separately€convicted€of€the€offenses€committedÏagainst€each€victim.€€òòState€v.€Williamsonóó,€919€S.W.2d€69,€82€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1995);€òòState€v.€McKnightóó,€900€S.W.2d€36,€54€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.ÏMakokaóó,€885€S.W.2d€366,€373€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.€Lambertóó,€741ÏS.W.2d€127€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€œIndeed,€the›€State€concedes€that€thisÏfactor€may€have€been€misapplied.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€this€enhancementÏfactor€was€not€applicable.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€also€applied€enhancement€factors€(10),€that€the€DefendantÏhad€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€wasÏhigh,€and€(16)€that€the€crime€was€committed€under€circumstances€under€whichÏthe€potential€for€bodily€injury€to€a€victim€was€great.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(10),€(16).€€€The€Defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€misapplied€bothÏfactors€as€double€enhancement€because€they€duplicate€the€elements€inherent€inÏthe€offenses€of€aggravated€robbery€and€aggravated€assault.€€The€StateÏcounters€that€these€crimes€have€additional€factual€circumstances€that€justify€theÏapplication€of€factors€(10)€and€(16);€namely,€that€the€Defendant€yelled€:ððGetÏdown€or€Iððll€blow€your€heads€offðð€while€waving€the€gun,€and€that€he€alsoÏpossessed€a€pipe.€€However,€we€œbelieve€that€›€these€circumstances€œareÏassociated›€with€the€element€of€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€upon€which€theÏDefendant€was€convicted.ÌÌà àWe€agree€with€the€Defendant€that€the€trial€court€should€not€have€appliedÏthese€factors€because€they€are€inherent€in€the€offenses€of€aggravated€robbery,ÏœòòSee,›€œe.g.óó,›€òòState€v.€Claybrooksóó,€910€S.W.2d€868,€872€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)Ï(factors€(10)€and€(16)€inapplicable);€òòState€v.€Stricklandóó,€885€S.W.2d€85,€89Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)(factor€(10)€inapplicable),€and€aggravated€assault.€ÏòòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€885€S.W.2d€357,€363€(Tenn.€Crim.€App€1994)(factors€(10)Ïand€(16)€inapplicable).€€€All€three€offenses€for€which€the€Defendant€wasÏconvicted€were€based€on€the€same€set€of€facts€and€were€dependent€upon€œthe›Ïuse€of€a€deadly€weapon.€€Such€use€carries€with€it€inherent€risks€to€human€lifeÏand€for€bodily€injury.€€œNo›€persons€other€than€the€victims€were€present€who€wereÏat€risk,€thus,€€these€enhancement€factors€œconstitute›€elements€of€the€offenses.€ÏThe€Defendantððs€yelling€at€the€victims€and€possession€of€the€pipe€are€notÏsufficient€œadditional€facts€to›€justify€such€enhancement.€€€Therefore,€enhancementÏfactors€(10)€and€(16)€should€not€œhave€been€applied›€to€the€aggravated€robberyÏconviction€nor€œto€the›€two€convictions€for€aggravated€assault.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€sentenced€the€Defendant€to€seventeen€(17)€years€for€theÏaggravated€robbery€conviction€and€nine€(9)€years€for€each€conviction€forÏaggravated€assault,€to€be€served€concurrently.€€The€appropriate€sentence€rangeÏfor€a€multiple€offender€for€aggravated€robbery,€a€Class€B€felony,€is€twelve€(12)Íto€twenty€(20)€years.€€The€sentence€range€for€aggravated€assault,€a€Class€CÏfelony,€is€six€(6)€to€ten€(10)€years.€€Because€we€have€found€three€enhancementÏfactors€to€be€inapplicable€for€each€conviction,€we€are€compelled€to€modify€theÏDefendantððs€sentences.€€Accordingly,€we€reduce€the€sentence€for€aggravatedÏrobbery€to€œfifteen›€œ(15)›€years€and€each€aggravated€assault€conviction€to€sevenÏ(7)€years,€to€run€concurrently€for€an€effective€sentence€of€œfifteen›€œ(15)›€years.ÌÌà àAfter€carefully€reviewing€the€issues€and€the€record€in€this€case,€we€affirmÏthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€but€modify€the€sentences.€€We€remand€to€the€trialÏcourt€œsolely€for›€entry€of€œa€judgment›€consistent€with€this€opinion.ÌÌà àÓ  ÓÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌœÇCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌœ__________________________________›ÌœJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGE›ÌœÌÌ___________________________________›ÌœJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGE›