ÿWPCk) …U:V % 0Ü–w@r 4² Æ Õ 0 Ý 0Dý 0JA 0T‹ 0^ß 0h= 0r¥ 0| 0†“ 0 1u©U, 0dJ B®U,ËU*÷B)!DCJ AM¾Úܘvtaê·K D3 v~5 vÓ³! 0@†' AOÆ'Æ( 0DÛ( D/) BN), øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ Ë UÌEÍÎEÏÐEÑÒUÓ=eÔÓ€Ô¡¨ èô3|xÝ(Ð(3C˜$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€<¼XXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ´Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌAu…gustÏ9,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„202(a)€(1990)€provides:Ìà8 àà8 àIf€the€district€attorney€general€believes€that€aÏdefendant€should€be€sentenced€as€a€multiple,Ïpersistent€or€career€offender,€he€shall€file€a€statementÏthereof€with€the€court€and€defense€counsel€not€lessÏthan€ten€(10)€days€before€trial€or€acceptance€of€aÏguilty€plea€...€€Such€statement€...€must€set€forth€theÏnature€of€the€prior€felony€convictions,€the€dates€of€theÏconvictions€and€the€identity€of€the€courts€of€theÏconvictions.Ìà àTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12.3€provides:Ìà8 àà8 àWritten€statements€of€the€district€attorney€givingÏnotice€that€the€defendant€should€be€sentenced€to€anÏenhanced€punishment€...€shall€be€filed€not€less€thanÏten€(10)€days€prior€to€trial.€€If€the€notice€is€filed€laterÏthan€this€time,€the€trial€judge€shall€grant€theÏdefendant€upon€his€motion€a€reasonableÏcontinuance€of€the€trial.€€Ì lÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSee€supraóó€note€1.Ì WÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWaiver€may€also€be€found€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€€That€ruleÏprovides€that€ð ð[n]othing›€in€this€rule€shall€be€construed€as€requiring€relief€beÏgranted€to€a€party€...€who€failed€to€take€whatever€action€was€reasonablyÏavailable€to€prevent€or€nullify€the€harmful€effect€of€an€error.ðð€€The€appellant€couldÏhave€submitted€a€motion€to€continue€the€sentencing€hearing€in€order€that€theÏtrial€court€might€determine€whether€the€Stateððs€amendment€of€the€notice€had€soÏprejudiced€the€appellant€as€to€require€an€opportunity€for€the€withdrawal€of€theÏguilty€plea.€€Obviously,€defense€counsel€did€not€make€such€a€motion€in€this€caseÏbecause€such€a€motion€would€have€been€entirely€futile.€€The€lack€of€prejudice€toÏthe€appellant€in€this€case€was€blatantly€obvious.€€Ì ­Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€appellant€does€not€challenge€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€an€alternativeÏsentence.Ì'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€  X„d&ÓÑ#€  Xd#ÑÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ý›ò òœÙ€€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€$%#;+'h|` õ `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌà@ àAPRIL€SESSION,Ï1996Ìó óÌÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9508„CR„00259Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àSUMNERÏCOUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€JaneÏW.€Wheatcraft,€JudgeÌò òPHILLIP€CRAIG€MANGRUMó ó,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(AggravatedÏBurglary)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€theÏAppelleeóó:ÌÌJames€M.€Hunterà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌHunter€&€Hunterà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ182€West€Franklin€Streetà àÌGallatin,€TN€37066à àà àà àà àSarah€M.€BranchÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneralà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àLawrence€Ray€WhitleyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMr.€Dee€GayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à113€East€Main€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àGallatin,€TN€37066ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÇÓÓà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌà àThe€appellant,€Phillip€Mangrum,€pled€guilty€in€the€Criminal€Court€ofÏSumner€County€to€aggravated€burglary,€a€class€C€felony.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„14„403€(1991).€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€appellant€as€a€multipleÏoffender€within€range€II€to€eight€years€incarceration€in€the€Department€ofÏCorrection.€€The€appellant€appeals€from€this€sentence,€contending,€in€essence,Ïthat€(1)€the€appellantððs€status€as€a€multiple€offender€is€not€supported€by€theÏrecord;€(2)€the€Stateððs€notice€of€enhanced€sentencing€was€inadequate€under€theÏSentencing€Act€and€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12.3;€and€(2)€his€sentence€is€excessive.ÌÌà@ àò òFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óÌà àOn€December€7,€1994,€the€Sumner€County€Grand€Jury€returned€anÏindictment€charging€the€appellant€with€one€count€of€theft€of€property€worth€moreÏthan€$1000,€one€count€of€theft€of€property€worth€less€than€$500,€and€one€countÏof€aggravated€burglary.€€On€January€12,€1995,€the€State€filed€its€notice€of€intentÏto€seek€enhanced€punishment€of€the€appellant€as€a€range€II,€multiple€offender.€ÏThe€State€relied€upon€two€prior€convictions,€including€a€1973€conviction€forÏpossession€of€stolen€mail€in€Chicago,€Illinois€and€a€1991€conviction€for€sale€of€aÍschedule€III€controlled€substance€in€the€Sumner€County€Criminal€Court.× ƒ& ××  ×€€On€ÌÌFebruary€17,€1995,€the€appellant€pled€guilty€to€aggravated€burglary€in€exchangeÏfor€the€dismissal€of€the€remaining€two€counts€of€the€indictment.€€In€accordanceÏwith€the€plea€agreement,€the€trial€court€was€to€determine€the€length€and€mannerÏof€service€of€the€sentence.ÌÌà àOn€April€3,€1995,€the€trial€court€conducted€a€sentencing€hearing.€€TheÏState€relied€upon€the€pre„sentence€report€submitted€by€Carol€Martin,€aÏcommunity€corrections€case€officer.€€Martin€testified€at€the€hearing€that€theÏIllinois€conviction€for€stolen€mail,€set€forth€in€the€Stateððs€notice€of€enhancement,Íwas€probably€erroneously€included€in€the€appellant's€criminal€history.€ÏNevertheless,€the€pre„sentence€report€reflects€thirty„one€prior€convictions,Ïcomprising€fourteen€felony€convictions€and€seventeen€misdemeanorÏconvictions.€€At€the€time€of€the€sentencing€hearing€in€the€instant€case,€theÏappellant€was€serving€two€concurrent€sentences€of€one€year€and€three€yearsÏwith€Corrections€Corporation€of€America€in€Davidson€County€pursuant€toÏconvictions€for€theft.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€testified€on€his€own€behalf.€€With€respect€to€the€convictionsÏlisted€in€the€Stateððs€notice€of€enhancement,€he€denied€being€convicted€ofÏpossession€of€stolen€mail€in€Chicago,€Illinois,€claiming€that€he€has€never€beenÏto€Chicago.€€The€appellant€did€not€deny€the€conviction€for€the€sale€of€schedule€IIIÏdrugs.€€He€remarked,€ð ðIn€the€past€I€had€a€problem.€€I€got€caught€with€someÏpeople€with€dope€several€times,€and€I€took€the€blame€for€it€several€times.ðð€€TheÏappellant€testified€that€his€memory€of€past€events€ð ðis€kind€of€foggyðð€due€to€hisÏabuse€of€crack€cocaine.€€Moreover,€the€appellant€admitted€numerousÏconvictions€for€first€degree€burglary,€second€degree€burglary,€and€grandÏlarceny,€explaining€that€he€was€on€heroin€at€the€time.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€is€35€years€old.€€He€is€married.€€His€wife€is€named€as€a€co„defendant€with€respect€to€the€offenses€committed€in€the€instant€case.€€TheÏappellant€has€three€children€who€currently€reside€with€the€appellantððs€mother.€ÍThe€appellantððs€sister,€Linda€Evans,€testified,€ð ðAs€a€father€[the€appellant]€hasÏbeen€almost€not€there.ðð€€However,€Ms.€Evans€also€asserted€a€belief€that€herÏbrother€has€changed€and€is€prepared€to€assume€responsibility€for€his€childrenÏand€his€life.€€The€appellant€has€an€eleventh€grade€education,€and€hisÏemployment€history€is€sporadic.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€testified€that€he€has€been€abusing€drugs€since€he€wasÏsixteen.€€He€attributes€his€criminal€history€to€his€drug€addiction.€€However,€heÏtestified,€ð ðEight€months€ago€I€got€saved.€€Ever€since€I€got€saved,€I€was€trying€toÏhelp€people€around€the€jails€...€.ðð€€The€appellant€has€been€attending€a€substanceÏabuse€program€operated€by€"Lifeline."€€Additionally,€he€is€attending€classes€inÏorder€to€obtain€his€GED.€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€also€submitted€a€letter€from€his€aunt,€Billie€Jean€Owens,€inÏwhich€Ms.€Owens€guaranteed€the€appellant€a€job€renovating€her€home€shouldÏhe€be€released€from€prison.€€Moreover,€the€appellant€introduced€letters€from€theÏSunday€School€Director€and€the€Minister€of€the€church€attended€by€theÏMangrum€family.ÌÌà àPrior€to€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€State€moved€toÏamend€its€notice€of€enhanced€punishment€by€including€the€convictions€set€forthÏin€the€pre„sentence€report.€€Defense€counsel€interposed€no€objection,€and€theÍtrial€court€granted€the€Stateððs€motion.ÌÌà àIn€sentencing€the€appellant€to€eight€years€incarceration€in€theÏDepartment€of€Correction,€the€trial€court€found€applicable€the€followingÏenhancement€factors:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€The€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€orÏcriminal€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€theÏappropriate€range,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1)€(1994€Supp.);ÏandÌÌà8 à(2)€The€defendant€was€a€leader€in€the€commission€of€an€offenseÏinvolving€two€(2)€or€more€criminal€actors,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(2).ÌÓÓÌThe€record€reflects€that€the€trial€court€was€particularly€impressed€by€theÏappellantððs€criminal€history.€€ÌÌà àà@ àò òANALYSISó óÌà àInitially,€we€conclude€that,€contrary€to€the€appellantððs€assertion€in€hisÏbrief,€the€evidence€adduced€at€the€sentencing€hearing€overwhelminglyÏestablishes€the€appellantððs€eligibility€for€sentencing€within€range€II€as€a€multipleÏoffender.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„106€(1990).€€In€the€context€of€establishingÏthe€appropriate€sentencing€range,€this€court€has€held€that,€absent€a€showingÏthat€the€report€is€based€upon€unreliable€sources€or€is€otherwise€inaccurate,Ïinformation€about€convictions€contained€in€a€pre„sentence€report€is€reliable.€ÍòòState€v.€Hinesóó,€No.€01C01„9406„CC„00189€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville),Ïòòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€record€reflects€that€the€officer€whoÏprepared€the€pre„sentence€report€in€this€case€did€not€rely€solely€upon€anÏN.C.I.C.€report€in€compiling€the€appellantððs€criminal€history.€€òòState€v.€Buckóó,€670ÏS.W.2d€600,€607€(Tenn.€1984)€(the€information€contained€in€N.C.I.C.€reports€isÏof€a€dubious€degree€of€accuracy).€€Moreover,€the€appellant€was€provided€moreÏthan€a€month€to€investigate€the€convictions€listed€in€the€Stateððs€notice€ofÏenhancement€and,€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€presented€proof€that€the€appellantÏwas€not€the€subject€of€the€Illinois€conviction.€€In€contrast,€although€the€appellantÏwas€entitled€to€rebut€information€contained€in€the€pre„sentence€reportÏconcerning€other€prior€convictions,€he€failed€to€challenge€the€report€or€file€anyÏstatement€in€response€to€it.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„209(a)€and€(d)(1)Ï(1990).€€In€fact,€the€appellantððs€own€testimony€unequivocally€supports€his€statusÏas€a€multiple€offender.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€also€argues€that€the€Stateððs€notice€of€enhanced€sentencingÏdid€not€comply€with€the€applicable€provisions€of€the€Sentencing€Act€and€Tenn.ÏR.€Crim.€P.€12.3.× ƒ' ××  ×€€With€respect€to€the€Stateððs€amendment€of€the€notice€ofÏenhanced€sentencing€to€include€the€felonies€listed€in€the€pre„sentence€report,Ïwe€note€that€the€appellant€failed€to€object€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Yet,€inÍòòState€v.€Debroóó,€787€S.W.2d€932,€933„934€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989),€this€courtÏhesitated€to€apply€the€waiver€doctrine€set€forth€in€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€752ÏS.W.2d€80,€81€(Tenn.€1988),€to€cases€involving€defects€in€the€content€of€noticeÏrather€than€delay€in€filing.€€The€waiver€doctrine€set€forth€in€òòStephensonóóÏaddressed€defense€counselððs€obligation€under€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12.3€to€seek€aÏcontinuance€of€trial€in€the€event€of€a€late€filing.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€788ÏS.W.2d€557,€559€(Tenn.€1990)(a€continuance€would€not€ordinarily€suffice€toÏcorrect€misinformation).€€Arguably,€the€Stateððs€amendment€constituted€a€lateÏfiling.€€Nevertheless,€in€the€instant€case,€the€appellant€had€already€pled€guiltyÏwhen€the€State€sought€to€amend€notice€to€include€additional€convictions.€ÏClearly,€the€appellant€could€not€request€a€continuance€of€trial.€€Accordingly,€theÏinquiry€is€one€of€prejudice€rather€than€waiver.€€òòIdóó.× ƒ( ××  ×ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€appellant€has€failed€to€show€any€prejudice€arisingÏfrom€the€defective€notice€and€the€Stateððs€amendment€thereto.€€òòIdóó.€€The€StateððsÏinitial€notice€substantially€complied€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„202(a)€andÍTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12.3.€€The€Stateððs€mistaken€reliance€upon€the€IllinoisÏconviction€constituted€an€error€appearing€upon€the€face€of€the€notice,€obligingÏthe€appellant€to€inquire€further.€€òòIdóó.€€Again,€the€State€submitted€the€notice€ofÏenhanced€sentencing€more€than€one€month€prior€to€the€appellantððs€guilty€plea,Ïproviding€sufficient€time€for€the€appellant€to€conduct€such€inquiries.€€Clearly,€theÏappellant€was€aware€of€the€mistake€prior€to€his€guilty€plea,€and€clearly€theÏappellant€was€aware€of€his€own€extensive€criminal€history€prior€to€the€entry€ofÏhis€plea.€€Finally,€we€have€previously€observed€that€the€record€establishes€theÏappellantððs€criminal€history€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€This€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€also€argues€that€his€sentence€is€excessive.× ƒ) ××  ×€€Review,€byÏthis€court,€of€the€length€of€a€sentence€is€òòde€novoóó€with€a€presumption€that€theÏdetermination€made€by€the€trial€court€is€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1990).€€This€presumption€only€applies,€however,€if€the€recordÏdemonstrates€that€the€trial€court€properly€considered€sentencing€principles€andÏall€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169Ï(Tenn.€1991).€€The€legislature€has€listed€factors€that€the€trial€judge€shallÏconsider€in€determining€the€specific€sentence:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓ1.€€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€theÍsentencing€hearing;Ì2.€€the€pre„sentence€report;Ì3.€€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€toÏsentencing€alternatives;Ì4.€€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conductÏinvolved;Ì5.€€evidence€and€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€theÏenhancement€and€mitigating€factors€in€ðððð€40„35„113€andÏ40„35„114;€andÌ6.€€any€statement€the€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€his€ownÏbehalf€about€sentencing.€€ÓÓÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(b)(1990).€€GeneralÏprinciples€of€sentencing€include€the€following:€potential€or€lack€of€potential€forÏrehabilitation;€€the€imposition€of€a€sentence€no€greater€than€that€warranted€byÏthe€offense;€€the€imposition€of€the€least€severe€measure€necessary€to€achieveÏthe€purposes€for€which€the€sentence€is€imposed;€€and€the€availability€ofÏalternatives€to€incarceration.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„103(2)„(6)(1990).ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€the€length€of€a€sentence,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(1990)€provides€that€the€minimum€sentence€within€the€appropriate€range€isÏthe€presumptive€sentence.€€If€there€are€enhancing€and€mitigating€factors,€theÏcourt€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range€and€enhance€theÏsentence€as€appropriate€for€the€enhancement€factors€and€then€reduce€theÏsentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€òòIdóó.€€If€thereÏare€no€mitigating€factors,€the€court€may€set€the€sentence€above€the€minimum€inÏthat€range,€but€still€within€the€range.€€òòIdóó.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Diesóó,€829€S.W.2dÏ706,€710€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€"[T]here€is€no€particular€value€assigned€byÍthe€1989€Sentencing€Act€to€the€various€factors€and€the€'weight€affordedÏmitigating€or€enhancement€factors€derives€from€balancing€relative€degrees€ofÏculpability€within€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€of€the€case€involved.'"€€òòState€v.ÏMarshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€532,€541€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,Ï(Tenn.€1993)(citation€omitted).€€The€weight€assigned€to€any€existing€factor€isÏgenerally€left€to€the€trial€judge's€discretion.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€was€convicted€of€a€class€C€felony€and€sentenced€as€aÏmultiple€offender€within€range€II.€€Thus,€the€applicable€sentencing€range€was€sixÏto€ten€years.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(b)(3)€(1990).€€The€appellantÏreceived€a€mid„range€sentence€of€eight€years.€€As€noted€earlier,€the€trial€courtÏapplied€enhancement€factors€(1)€and€(2).€€We€agree€that€the€record€does€notÏsupport€the€application€of€factor€(2).€€Therefore,€this€court€need€not€defer€to€theÏtrial€courtððs€determination.€€Nevertheless,€the€record€clearly€supports€the€trialÏcourt's€reliance€upon€factor€(1).€€Upon€òòde€novoóó€review€of€the€record,€weÏconclude€that€the€appellant's€criminal€history€is€not€only€extensive,€it€isÏreprehensible.€€In€fact,€the€appellantððs€criminal€history€outweighs€any€mitigatingÏfactors,€including€any€potential€for€rehabilitation,€otherwise€indicated€by€theÏrecord€and€fully€supports€the€sentence€imposed.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_______________________________________ÌJOE€B.€JONES,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_______________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€Judge