ÿWPCà2 …U:V %U .– 0CÄ 0J 0TQ 0^¥ 0h 0rk 0|Ý 0†Y 0ß 1uo 0dä B)H DCq AM´ î Ñï èÀ¨n¸ 04»ïw@÷47ªK BõU 0xg3ßÑÑãÒ´Ò†ÒXÒ*ÑüÒÍÝŸÑ|pMÀ½ )}!Á¦"òg#=Y%ã–&5y'É®(v~w)vÓõ* 0@È0 D31 AO;1ÆŠ1 0DP2 D/”2 BÃ2<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTX%ä2¼A`ArialTT(ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€WCþÿ << Gÿÿ äÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òSeptember€25,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ÇÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).Ì ÞÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€Ì3|X«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTTTXXXä2¼P±QXP%ä2¼A`ArialTTTT¼¼gä2¼P±Q¼P( ¤T$¡¡Ó  Ó ïðDñòóôDõöD÷XeøÓ€©U!d€845Ð   Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòState€v.€Butleróó,€900€S.W.2d€305,€311€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,Ï891€S.W.2d€922,€929€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994);€€òòState€v.ÏBonestelóó,€871€S.W.2d€163,€166€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€Ì d KÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„103€and€„210;€€òòState€v.€Scottóó,€735€S.W.2d€825,Ï829€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1987).Ì(((3á)$¤¤Ý ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó )Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóSentencing€Commission€Comments€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401;€€òòAshbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€at€169;€€òòButleróó,€900€S.W.2d€at€311.Ì ÇÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(3).Ì ÇÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(6).Ì ÈÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(10).Ì ÈÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(12).Ì ÈÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(13).Ì ÈÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(12).Ì ÇÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(6).Ì ÈÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(11).Ì ÓÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„113(2)€and€(8).Ì ÇÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(9).Ì fÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòState€v.€Buttreyóó,€756€S.W.2d€718,€722€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóóÏ(Tenn.€1988);€€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Williamsonóó,€919€S.W.2d€69,€83€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ì ¶Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó919€S.W.2d€at€83.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Keelóó,€882€S.W.2d€410,€422„23€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.Ïòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994).Ì ·Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó882€S.W.2d€at€423.Ì èÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6).€€The€only€presumption€created€by€thisÏstatute€is€limited€to€Class€C,€D€and€E€felonies.€€No€presumption€attaches€to€a€Class€BÏfelony.€€If€the€appellant€contends€that€subsection€(5)€creates€a€presumption,€herÏcontention€is€flawed.€€Subsection€(5)€does€not€create€a€presumption.€€€Ì 3Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„303(a).€€This€statute€provides€that€a€sentence€Ïmust€be€eight€years€or€less€to€be€eligible€for€probation.Ì ÙÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„36„106(a)(3)€and€(a)(4).Ì +Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóCoffee€County€No.€01„C„01„9409„CC„00309€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,ÏJune€15,€1995),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1995).Ì ¿Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòSpryóó,€slip€op.€at€7.ÌPtPtHHÚ(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$$$$'ÿÿdxd€W‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€Ô›œßL€;+'h|` Å `€€Lß›IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌJANUARY€1996€SESSIONÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà à€€APPELLEE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€03„C„01„9508„CR„00244Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHamilton€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àStephen€M.€Bevil,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Sentencing)ÌAMY€RENEE€MARCUM,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àAPPELLANT.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌHiram€G.€Hillà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌAttorney€at€Lawà àà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ701€Cherry€Street,€Suite€200à àà àà àà à500€Charlotte€AvenueÌChattanooga,€TN€37402à àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0497ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àElizabeth€T.€RyanÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€D.€GerbitzÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à600€Market€Street,€Suite€310Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€37402ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Cox,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÏGeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à600€Market€Street,€Suite€310Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€37402ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:______________________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌJoe€B.€Jones,€Presiding€JudgeÌÑ7€OVXXdæXXdÖ7ÑÌÓ  Óò òÔ€¼ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÓ  ÓÌÔ€XÔÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant,€Amy€Renee€Marcum,€was€convicted€of€solicitation€to€commitÏmurder€in€€the€first€degree,€a€Class€B€felony,€after€her€plea€of€guilty€to€the€offense.€€TheÏtrial€court€found€that€the€appellant€was€a€standard€offender€and€imposed€a€Range€IÏsentence€consisting€of€confinement€for€ten€(10)€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€ÏIn€this€Court,€the€appellant€challenges€the€length€and€manner€of€service€of€theÏsentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court.€€After€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€the€briefsÏsubmitted€by€the€parties,€and€the€law€that€controls€the€issues€presented€for€review,€it€isÏthe€opinion€of€this€Court€that€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€should€be€affirmed.Ìà àThe€appellant,€seventeen€years€of€age,€went€to€work€at€a€ChattanoogaÏrestaurant€in€June€of€1992,€shortly€after€she€graduated€from€high€school.€€During€theÏcourse€of€her€employment,€she€met€Dr.€Jorge€Ariel€Sanjines.€€€Dr.€Sanjines€owned€theÏrestaurant.€€His€brother€managed€the€restaurant.Ìà àSanjines€expressed€an€interest€in€the€appellant.€€They€discussed€theÏappellantððs€desire€to€major€in€pre„medicine.€€He€indicated€that€he€could€help€her€whenÏshe€graduated.€€After€the€appellantððs€eighteenth€birthday,€Sanjines€charmed€theÏappellant.€€They€began€dating.€€Their€relationship€commenced€in€August€of€1992€andÏcontinued€until€March€5,€1994.€Ìà àInitially,€Sanjines€was€a€gentleman.€€The€appellant€fell€in€love€with€him.€€InÏDecember€of€1992,€Sanjines€became€abusive€and€possessive.€€The€appellant€thoughtÏthat€Sanjines€would€change.€€His€abuse€escalated€as€the€relationship€progressed.Ìà àSanjines€and€his€wife,€Gina€Sanjines,€were€divorced.€€He€was€attempting€to€getÏcustody€of€the€children.€€Like€most€divorced€parents,€the€custody€of€the€children€was€aÏbone€of€contention.€€By€court€order,€the€appellant€could€not€spend€the€night€atÏSanjinesððs€house€when€the€children€were€there.€€Mrs.€Sanjines€and€her€investigatorsÏwatched€Sanjinesððs€residence.€€They€apparently€followed€the€appellant.€€SanjinesÏbecame€angry€with€his€former€wife's€conduct€and€the€fact€he€was€paying€her€a€largeÏamount€of€alimony€each€month.Ìà àIn€May€of€1993,€Sanjines€told€the€appellant€that€he€was€going€to€have€his€wifeÏmurdered€after€his€May€30th€birthday€party.€€He€told€the€appellant€someone€at€the€partyÏhad€Mafia€connections€in€New€York.€€This€person€could€have€Mrs.€Sanjines€killed.€€HeÏthen€asked€the€appellant€to€kill€Mrs.€Sanjines.Ìà àThe€appellant€was€approached€by€Jeremy€M.€Ingram€in€August€of€1993€whileÏshe€was€in€the€parking€lot€of€the€restaurant.€€Ingram€related€that€he€understood€fromÏconversation€in€the€restaurant€Dr.€Sanjines€might€be€interested€in€having€someoneÏkilled.€€He€asked€the€appellant€if€she€remembered€when€Jeff€Wolfe€was€killed.€€SheÍstated€that€she€remembered€the€incident.€€Ingram€told€her€someone€had€been€hired€toÏkill€Wolfe.€€According€to€Ingram,€he€knew€who€killed€Wolfe,€and€he€could€get€the€sameÏindividuals€to€kill€again€for€remuneration.€€The€appellant€related€her€conversation€withÏIngram€to€Sanjines.€€Sanjines€instructed€the€appellant€to€talk€to€Ingram€aboutÏmurdering€Gina€Sanjines.Ìà àThe€appellant€admitted€she€solicited€Ingram€to€murder€Mrs.€Sanjines.€€She€alsoÏadmitted€to€talking€with€Jeremy€Gore,€who€was€helping€Ingram€find€someone€to€killÏMrs.€Sanjines.Ìà àIngram€gave€the€appellant€a€list€of€questions€regarding€Mrs.€Sanjines€andÏwhere€she€worked.€€The€appellant€told€Ingram€he€would€have€to€get€the€informationÏfrom€Sanjines.€€In€November€of€1993,€Ingram€told€the€appellant€Sanjines€had€paid€himÏ$10,000.€€When€the€appellant€asked€him€why€he€was€given€the€money,€he€told€theÏappellant€it€was€payment€for€killing€her,€not€Mrs.€Sanjines.€€Ingram€shot€Mrs.€SanjinesÏthree€times€in€her€head.€€While€Mrs.€Sanjines€survived,€she€sustained€permanentÏinjuries.€€Ingram€killed€Virgil€Schrag,€Mrs.€Sanjinesððs€boyfriend.Ìà àThe€appellant€went€to€court€and€sought€relief€from€being€followed€by€Mrs.ÏSanjines€and€others.€€She€admitted€she€committed€perjury€during€the€court€hearing.€ÏShe€stated€that€she€testified€as€Sanjines€had€instructed€her.€€When€the€policeÏinterviewed€her€about€the€shootings,€she€gave€a€statement€in€excess€of€forty€pages.€ÏShe€accused€an€innocent€person€of€committing€the€acts€in€question.€€Later,€she€went€toÏthe€District€Attorney€General's€Office€and€gave€an€accurate€statement.Ìà àThe€appellant€testified€she€told€Sanjines€in€November€of€1993€she€did€not€wantÏanything€to€do€with€his€desire€to€have€Mrs.€Sanjines€murdered.€€According€to€theÍappellant,€Sanjines€told€her€that€if€she€went€to€the€police€or€told€anyone,€he€would€killÏher.€€She€continued€her€relationship€with€Sanjines,€frequented€his€residence,€andÏspent€the€night€with€him€after€this€conversation.€€Furthermore,€she€admitted€being€withÏSanjines€after€Ingram€had€murdered€Schrag€and€wounded€Mrs.€Sanjines.ÌÌÓ  Óò òI.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length€of€a€sentence€and€the€manner€in€whichÏthe€appellant€is€required€to€serve€the€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€Court€to€conduct€aÏòòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€on€the€record€with€a€presumption€that€"the€determinations€made€by€theÏcourt€from€which€the€appeal€is€taken€are€correct."× ƒ ××  ×€€However,€the€application€of€thisÏpresumption€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trialÏcourt€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."× ƒ ××  ×€ÏThe€presumption€does€not€apply€to€the€legal€conclusions€reached€by€the€trial€court€inÏsentencing€the€accused€or€to€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€which€areÏpredicated€upon€uncontroverted€facts.× ƒ# ××  ×€Nevertheless,€this€Court€is€required€to€giveÏgreat€weight€to€the€trial€court's€determination€of€controverted€facts€as€the€trial€court'sÏdetermination€is€based€upon€the€witnesses'€demeanor,€appearance,€and€inflection€inÍtheir€voices.Ìà àIn€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€Court€must€consider€(a)€anyÏevidence€received€at€the€trial€and/or€sentencing€hearing,€(b)€the€presentence€report,Ï(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing,€(d)€the€arguments€of€counsel€relative€to€sentencingÏalternatives,€(e)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense,€(f)€any€mitigating€orÏenhancing€factors,€(g)€any€statements€made€by€the€accused€in€his€own€behalf,€and€(h)Ïthe€accused's€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.× ƒ% ××  ×€€Ìà àThe€party€challenging€the€sentences€imposed€by€the€trial€court€has€the€burdenÏof€establishing€that€the€sentences€imposed€by€the€trial€court€were€erroneous.× ƒ' ××  ×€€In€thisÏcase,€the€pivotal€question€is€whether€the€length€of€the€sentence€was€excessive.ÌÌÓ  Óò òII.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€evidence€supported€three€enhancement€factors.€ÏThe€factors€used€by€the€trial€court€to€enhance€the€appellant's€sentence€within€theÏappropriate€range€were:€€(a)€the€offense€involved€more€than€one€victim,× ƒ( ××  ×€(b)€theÏpersonal€injuries€inflicted€to€the€victim€were€particularly€great,× ƒ* ××  ×€and€(c)€she€had€noÍhesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€was€high.× ƒ+ ××  ×€€Although€theÏappellant€contended€that€the€evidence€supported€several€mitigating€factors,€the€trialÏcourt€found€no€such€factors€were€supported€by€the€evidence.Ì€€€€€à àThe€appellant€did€not€include€a€transcript€of€the€submission€hearing€in€theÏrecord.€€Consequently,€this€Court€has€no€way€of€knowing€the€facts€stipulated€at€thatÏhearing€or€the€nature€and€extent€of€her€plea€of€guilty.€€This€makes€this€Court's€reviewÏextremely€difficult.Ìà àThe€parties€agree€that€enhancement€factors€(3)€and€(10)€should€not€have€beenÏused€to€enhance€the€appellant's€sentence€within€the€appropriate€range.€€Based€uponÏthe€information€contained€in€the€briefs,€the€appellant€entered€a€plea€of€guilty€toÏsoliciting€Jeremy€Ingram€to€kill€Gina€Sanjines.€€She€was€the€only€victim.€€The€stateÏagrees€that€enhancement€(10)€is€an€element€of€solicitation€to€commit€murder€in€the€firstÏdegree.Ìà àThe€appellant€argues€enhancement€factor€(6)€is€an€element€of€solicitation€toÏcommit€murder€in€the€first€degree.€€The€state€argues€this€enhancement€is€not€anÏelement€of€the€offense.€€This€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€this€enhancement€factor€is€notÏan€element€of€the€offense.€€The€appellant's€reliance€on€the€cases€cited€in€her€brief€isÏmisplaced.€€Those€cases€involved€an€accused€who€committed€an€act€of€homicide.€€InÏthis€case,€enhancement€factor€(6)€was€not€an€element€of€the€offense€of€solicitation.€ÏTherefore,€the€trial€court€properly€applied€this€enhancement€factor.Ìà àThe€state€argues€the€trial€court€should€have€applied€enhancement€factor€(12)€toÍenhance€the€appellant's€sentence.× ƒ, ××  ×€€This€factor€provides:€€"During€the€commission€ofÏthe€felony,€the€defendant€willfully€inflicted€bodily€injury€upon€another€person,€or€theÏactions€of€the€defendant€resulted€in€the€death€or€serious€bodily€injury€to€a€victim€or€aÏperson€other€than€the€intended€victim."€€The€record€establishes€that€the€appellant'sÏsolicitation€of€Ingram€to€kill€Gina€Sanjines€resulted€in€the€death€of€Virgil€Schrag.€€Mrs.ÏSanjines€was€dating€Schrag.€€Sanjines€and€Schrag€happened€to€be€together€whenÏIngram€attempted€to€kill€Mrs.€Sanjines.€€Schrag€was€in€fact€killed€by€Ingram.€€The€trialÏcourt€should€have€applied€this€factor€to€enhance€the€appellant's€sentence€within€theÏappropriate€range.€ÌÌÓ  Óò òIII.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€"there€were€numerous€mitigating€factors€present€inÏthe€instant€case."€€She€argues€that€the€evidence€in€this€case€supports€the€followingÏmitigating€factors:€€remorse,€excellent€work€history,€being€a€model€student,€no€priorÏarrest€history,€acceptance€of€responsibility€for€her€criminal€conduct,€and€adherence€toÏthe€terms€of€the€Pre„Trial€House€Arrest€Program.× ƒ- ××  ×€€She€also€argues€that€her€role€wasÏthe€least€culpable€and€she€was€under€duress€and€dominion€of€Dr.€Sanjines,× ƒ. ××  ×€sheÍlacked€substantial€judgment€due€to€her€age,× ƒ/ ××  ×€she€lacked€a€sustained€intent€to€violateÏthe€law,× ƒ0 ××  ×€she€acted€under€a€strong€provocation€when€she€introduced€Ingram€toÏSanjines€and€failed€to€report€the€crime€because€she€feared€for€her€life,× ƒ1 ××  ×€and€sheÏassisted€the€authorities.× ƒ2 ××  ×Ìà àThis€Court€has€held€that€genuine,€sincere€remorse€is€a€proper€mitigatingÏfactor.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€The€trial€court€saw€the€appellant,€listened€to€her€testimony,€and€observed€herÏdemeanor.€€The€court€obviously€did€not€believe€the€appellant€was€truly€remorseful€thatÏMrs.€Sanjines€had€been€shot€and€Schrag€had€been€killed.€€As€this€Court€said€in€òòStateÏv.€Williamsonóó:€€"[T]he€mere€speaking€of€remorseful€words€or€a€genuflection€in€theÏdirection€of€remorse€will€not€earn€an€accused€a€sentence€reduction."× ƒ4 ××  ×Ìà àThe€appellant's€assertion€that€her€excellent€work€history,€being€a€model€student,Ïand€having€no€prior€arrest€history€qualify€her€for€mitigation€is€misplaced.€€TheseÏattributes€are€expected€of€every€citizen€in€this€state.× ƒ5 ××  ×€€As€this€Court€said€in€òòState€v.ÍKeelóó:€€"Every€citizen€in€this€state€is€expected€to€have€a€stable€work€history€if€theÏeconomy€permits€the€citizens€to€work,€the€citizen€is€not€disabled,€or€the€citizen€is€notÏindependently€wealthy."× ƒ6 ××  ×€€Also,€most€of€the€appellantððs€educational€pursuits€occurredÏafter€she€was€arrested€in€this€case.€€The€trial€court€believed€the€appellantððs€efforts€toÏpursue€her€college€education€were€self„serving.Ìà àThe€appellant€was€not€entitled€to€a€reduction€in€her€sentence€because€sheÏcomplied€with€the€conditions€of€the€Pre„Trial€House€Arrest€Program.€€Again,€citizensÏwho€are€afforded€this€right€are€expected€to€comply€with€the€conditions.€€Besides,€theÏappellant€had€reason€to€abide€by€these€conditions.€€If€she€had€violated€the€conditions,Ïthe€trial€court€would€have€raised€the€appellantððs€bond€and€placed€her€in€jail.€€In€short,Ïcompliance€with€these€conditions€was€the€appellant's€key€in€obtaining€her€releaseÏfrom€custody€and€avoiding€being€returned€to€pre„trial€confinement.Ìà àContrary€to€the€appellant's€assertion,€she€did€not€accept€responsibility€for€herÏcriminal€conduct€or€cooperate€with€law€enforcement€officials€until€she€realizedÏcooperating€with€the€authorities€may€result€in€a€lenient€sentence.€€After€the€shootingÏand€before€her€arrest,€the€appellant€was€interviewed€by€a€police€officer.€€€She€gave€himÏa€statement€in€excess€of€forty€pages.€€She€unequivocally€denied€she€had€any€part€inÏthe€murder€of€Schrag€and€the€attempt€to€murder€Gina€Sanjines.€€She€told€the€policeÏthe€Sanjines€brothers€told€her€that€"Anthony€Catapano€was€going€to€have€Virgil€killed."€ÏThe€appellant€subsequently€went€to€the€District€Attorney€General's€Office€to€tell€theÏtruth.€Ìà àEqually€specious€are€the€assertions€that€the€appellant€played€a€minor€role€in€theÍcommission€of€the€offense,€lacked€substantial€judgment€in€committing€the€offense€dueÏto€her€age,€acted€under€duress€or€the€dominion€of€Dr.€Sanjines,€lacked€a€sustainedÏintent€to€violate€the€law€given€the€unusual€circumstances,€and€acted€under€a€strongÏprovocation€when€she€introduced€Ingram€to€Sanjines.€€The€role€of€soliciting€someoneÏto€kill€a€person€that€she€admitted€she€hated€made€the€appellant€a€major€player€in€theÏconduct€that€led€to€the€death€of€Schrag€and€the€wounding€of€Gina€Sanjines.€€The€trialÏcourt€found€that€the€appellant€assisted€in€procuring€a€"hit€man"€because€she€lovedÏSanjines.€€She€was€with€him€the€day€before€Ingram€took€the€actions€in€question,€andÏshe€was€with€Sanjines€after€Ingram€had€killed€Schrag€and€wounded€Gina€Sanjines.€ÏBased€upon€the€findings€made€by€the€trial€court,€the€appellant€had€a€sustained€intent€toÏcommit€the€crime€in€question.Ìà àAlthough€the€transactions€in€question€were€committed€while€the€appellant€wasÏbetween€eighteen€and€nineteen€years€of€age,€the€trial€court€rejected€her€youth€as€aÏmitigating€factor.€€The€court€found€the€appellant€was€mature€beyond€her€age.€€TheÏaudio€tape€of€her€one€hour€and€fourteen€minute€statement€to€the€police€supports€thisÏfinding.€€She€was€exceptionally€convincing€in€her€false€statements,€and€her€voiceÏnever€wavered.€€Very€few€people€could€have€withstood€such€a€lengthy€questioning.€ÏThis€is€particularly€true€given€the€fact€the€police€had€first€talked€to€several€of€theÏappellant's€close€friends.€€The€police€told€her€what€her€friends€had€said.€€The€appellantÏcontinued€to€deny€her€involvement,€casted€suspicion€on€Catapano,€and€maintainedÏher€composure€throughout€the€statement.Ìà àThis€Court€is€of€the€opinion€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€was€proper.ÏThere€were€two€enhancing€factors€which€are€entitled€to€serious€consideration.€€ThereÍare€no€mitigating€factors€present€in€the€record.€€Ì€ÌÓ  Óò òIV.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€contends€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€her€an€alternativeÏsentence€to€incarceration.€€She€argues€the€state€failed€to€overcome€the€presumptionÏthat€she€was€qualified€for€alternative€sentencing.€€This€reasoning€is€flawed€becauseÏshe€is€not€entitled€to€the€presumption€created€by€statute.× ƒ7 ××  ×Ìà àDue€to€the€length€of€the€sentence,€the€appellant€is€not€eligible€for€probation.× ƒ8 ××  ×€ÏAlso,€the€appellant€is€not€entitled€to€a€community€corrections€sentence€due€to€theÏnature€of€the€offense.× ƒ9 ××  ×€€In€òòState€v.€James€Kenneth€Spryóó,× ƒ: ××  ×€a€panel€of€this€Court€said:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àThe€Defendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€judge€erred€by€notÏsentencing€him€to€community€corrections.€€While€the€trialÏjudge€did€not€specifically€address€this€issue,€we€concludeÏthat€the€Defendant€was€not€eligible€to€be€considered€forÏcommunity€corrections.€.€.€.€€[The]€solicitation€to€commitÏmurder€in€the€first€degree€is€a€crime€against€the€person€andÍmust€be€considered€a€violent€felony€offense.€€Furthermore,Ïthis€felony€offense€involved€the€use€or€possession€of€aÏweapon.€.€.€.× ƒ; ××  ×ÌÌÌÓÓThis€Court€concludes€the€trial€court€properly€denied€the€appellantððs€request€for€anÏalternative€sentence.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________________________€€€€à àà àà àà àà àà àÏJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________________Ìà à€€€€€JOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ______________________________________Ìà à€€€DAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE