ÿWPC“" A# žUN© %÷ 0 DýbAw@I4‰¬ 0ˆ´ 0D<Æ€ 0@F 0J† 0TÐ 0^$ 0h‚ D3ê 0r 0| 0† 0‘ 1u! 0d– AQú BK 0Dh 0D¬ D/ð B U>< U*z B)¤ DCÍ AMJ]§h¨ªiº#v~BvÓÀ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ñþ$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°Ò- ù- [\]^_`aVbPcÓ€o äzz!3|xo(8(3I¸$¤¤Ý ƒñþ!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô****'ÿÿdxd2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô"#$% ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ+,-Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ d(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d66667Border 1dd7Cþÿ << Gÿÿ @Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€4ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€5ÔÔ€5ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€5XÔÌÌò òAprilÏ30,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€5ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ÷Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€4ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€5ÔÔ€5ôÔ€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„403(a).Ì ^Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€4ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€5ÔÔ€5ôÔ€The€Defendant€was€initially€represented€by€an€assistant€public€defender.€€The€assistantÏpublic€defender€filed€a€number€of€pretrial€motions,€including€a€typical€motion€in€limine€requesting€aÏhearing€pursuant€to€òòState€v.€Morganóó,€541€S.W.2d€385€(Tenn.€1976),€before€testimony€by€the€StateððsÏwitnesses€about€any€prior€convictions€or€bad€acts€of€the€Defendant.€€The€Defendantððs€presentÏcounsel€was€eventually€substituted€for€the€assistant€public€defender€and€filed€additional€pretrialÏmotions,€including€a€motion€in€limine€seeking€to€restrict€the€potential€testimony€of€police€officersÏregarding€forgery€or€possession€of€a€firearm€by€a€felon.Ì  Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€4ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€5ÔÔ€5ôÔ€A€portion€of€defense€counselððs€statements€to€the€court€were€marked€as€ð ðindiscernibleðð€in€theÏrecord.€€It€is€reasonably€clear,€however,€€that€he€moved€to€dismiss€the€case€at€the€bench€conference.Ì _Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€4ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€5ÔÔ€5ôÔ€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€State€offered€proof€of€seven€Pennsylvania€convictions.€€OneÏof€them,€a€misdemeanor€theft€charge€alleged€to€have€occurred€on€February€18,€1990€to€which€theÏDefendant€pleaded€guilty€on€June€5,€1990€(#601€Criminal€1990(B„1)),€was€not€listed€on€the€StateððsÏnotice€to€seek€enhanced€punishment.€€As€such,€we€will€not€consider€that€conviction€in€reviewing€thisÏissue.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€4ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€5ÔÔ€5ôÔ€We€point€out€that€we€are€not€considering€whether€the€Defendant€was€on€parole€from€thoseÏPennsylvania€burglary€convictions€(numbers€601€Criminal€1990(A„2)€and€1928€Criminal€1989)€at€theÏtime€of€the€offense€involved€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€as€is€alleged€in€the€presentence€report.€€Rather€weÏare€considering€the€fact,€established€by€the€certified€copies€of€the€Pennsylvania€convictionsÏintroduced€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€that€the€Defendant€committed€those€two€PennsylvaniaÏburglaries€while€he€was€on€some€form€of€release€into€the€community€from€prior€convictions.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€4ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€4ŠÔÔ€5ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€6XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò ò›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€œJACKSON›ÌœÙ€ÙßR€897A1-j|èâ` à. `€€@ÿRߛ̜FEBRUARY›€SESSION,€œ1995›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,›à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€œ02C01„9410„CC„00212›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 àœFAYETTE›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œJON€KERRY€BLACKWOODó ó›Ìœò òBRIAN€KEITH€MARTIN,ó ó›à àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àœó ó(Aggravated€Burglary)ò ò›Ìó óÌÌò òÓ  ÓON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌœCIRCUIT›€COURT€OF€œFAYETTE€COUNTY›ó óÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌœRICHARD€G.€ROSSER›à àà àà àœCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌ102€East€Court€Squareà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌSomerville,€TN€38068Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCLINTON€J.€MORGANÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àELIZABETH€RICEÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCHRISTOPHER€MASHBURNÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à302€Market€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSomerville,€TN€38068›ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœAFFIRMED›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€5°ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€5ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant,€Brian€Keith€Martin,€appeals€as€of€right€pursuant€to€Rule€3Ïof€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€He€was€convicted€by€aÏFayette€County€jury€of€aggravated€burglary.× ƒ: ××  ×€€The€trial€court€sentenced€him€as€aÏRange€II€multiple€offender€to€eight€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€In€thisÏappeal,€the€Defendant€presents€five€issues€for€review:ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ(1)€œThat›€the€evidence€supporting€his€conviction€is€legally€insufficient;Ì(2)€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€conduct€a€jury„out€hearingÏregarding€the€admissibility€of€police€testimony€about€potential€criminalÏcharges€other€than€the€one€for€which€he€was€on€trial;Ì(3)€that€the€State€improperly€questioned€a€witness€about€theÏDefendantððs€prior€convictions€or€bad€acts;Ì(4)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€State€to€present€testimonyÏthat€he€refused€to€make€a€statement€to€police;€and,Ì(5)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€him€to€eight€years€as€aÏRange€II€multiple€offender.ÌÌÓÓÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒAfter€carefully€reviewing€the€record,€we€conclude€the€Defendantððs€issues€lack€meritÏand€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àWe€begin€with€a€brief€summary€of€the€relevant€facts.€€On€November€3,€1993,Ïthe€home€of€Smith€and€Eva€Bowling,€located€on€Highway€59€in€Fayette€County,Ïwas€burglarized.€€Smith€Bowling€returned€to€his€home€in€the€middle€of€the€day€toÍfind€that€the€back€door€had€been€pried€open.€€As€he€was€looking€through€his€homeÏto€determine€if€anything€was€missing,€he€received€a€telephone€call€from€anÏemployee€of€the€First€Tennessee€Bank€in€Bartlett,€Tennessee€regarding€a€checkÏpresented€for€payment€at€their€drive„thru€window.€€Bartlett€is€located€in€œShelby›ÏCounty,€just€west€of€Fayette€County.€€Bowling€informed€the€bank€teller€that€hisÏhome€had€recently€been€burglarized€and€his€checkbook€was€missing.€€The€bankÏteller€called€the€police,€who€arrived€minutes€later€and€arrested€œtwo›€individuals€in€theÏcar€at€the€drive„thru€window,€the€Defendant€and€œhis€girlfriend,€Tina›€Carter.€€A€searchÏof€the€car€revealed€many€items€œfrom›€the€Bowlingsðð€home,€including€a€shotgun,€aÏleather€jacket,€a€bottle€of€prescription€medication,€a€jar€of€change,€and€severalÏœpieces›€of€jewelry.€€Police€officers€also€discovered€a€loaded€9mm€Smith€œ&›€WessonÏhandgun€which€was€not€alleged€to€have€been€taken€from€the€Bowlingsðð€residence.ÌÌà àTina€Carter€confessed€to€breaking€into€and€taking€items€from€the€BowlingsððÏhome.€€At€the€Defendantððs€trial,€she€testified€that€the€Defendant€slept€while€sheÏcommitted€the€offense.€€œAccording€to€her€testimony,€the›€couple€was€traveling€fromÏPennsylvania€toward€Memphis.€€The€Defendant€drove€for€seven€or€eight€hours,Ïand€then€Carter€began€driving€to€allow€him€to€sleep.€€Carter€became€lost€andÏstopped€at€the€Bowlingsðð€home€to€ask€for€directions.€€She€parked€on€the€street,Ïexited€the€car,€and€approached€the€house,€all€while€the€Defendant€remainedÏsleeping€in€the€passenger€seat.€€Finding€no€one€home,€Carter€returned€to€the€car,Íretrieved€a€pry€bar,€and€broke€into€the€house€through€the€back€door.€€She€took€aÏnumber€of€items€and€returned€to€the€car,€piling€the€stolen€items€on€the€back€seat.€ÏThe€Defendant€woke€up€as€she€drove€away.€€Upon€discovering€the€stolen€items,Ïhe€chastised€her€and€asked€her€to€return€them.€€She€refused€to€do€so,€fearing€thatÏshe€might€be€caught.€€They€eventually€made€their€way€to€the€First€TennesseeÏBank€in€Bartlett.€€Asserting€her€right€against€self„incrimination,€Carter€declined€toÏanswer€most€questions€concerning€what€had€occurred€at€the€bank.ÌÌà àKelly€Dunn,€the€teller€at€the€drive„thru€window€of€the€First€Tennessee€Bank€inÏBartlett,€testified€that€she€observed€Carter€and€the€Defendant€at€the€window€earlyÏon€the€afternoon€of€November€3,€1993.€€Carter€was€driving€and€the€Defendant€wasÏawake€in€the€passenger€seat.€€Carter€presented€a€check€made€payable€to€herÏfrom€the€account€of€Smith€Bowling.€€She€had€endorsed€the€check€and€included€herÏdriverððs€œlicense€number.›€€Dunn€called€Smith€Bowling,€learned€that€his€checkbookÏwas€missing,€and€called€the€police.€€The€Defendant€never€spoke€to€Dunn€duringÏthe€entire€episode.ÌÌà àIn€his€first€issue€on€appeal,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€evidenceÏsupporting€his€conviction€is€legally€insufficient.€€He€contends€that€there€is€no€directÏevidence€linking€him€to€the€burglary€of€the€Bowlingsðð€home.€€He€asserts€that,€in€fact,Ïthe€uncontradicted€testimony€of€Tina€Carter€established€that€he€neither€participatedÍin€nor€was€aware€of€the€burglary.€€Citing€òòCleveland€Wrecking€Co.€v.€Butleróó,€œ57›ÏTenn.€App.€570,€421€S.W.2d€380€(1967),€the€Defendant€contends€that€whereÏtestimony€is€not€contradicted€by€direct€proof€or€circumstances€inconsistent€with€itsÏtruth,€it€must€be€taken€as€true.€€The€Defendant€does€admit€that€possession€ofÏrecently€stolen€goods€gives€rise€to€an€inference€that€the€possessor€has€stolen€theÏgoods.€€œHowever,€quoting›€from€òòBush€v.€Stateóó,€541€S.W.2d€391,€395€(Tenn.€1976),Ïhe€œargues›€that€the€inference€is€a€ð ðfiction€of€the€lawðð€and€an€ð ðassumption€ofÏconvenienceðð€œthat›€disappears€when€ð ðrefuted€by€positive€testimony.ðð€€Thus,€œthe›Ïinference€arising€from€his€possession€of€the€Bowlingsðð€recently€stolen€itemsÏdisappeared€in€light€of€Carterððs€uncontradicted€testimony€that€he€was€not€involvedÏin€the€burglary,€thereby€leaving€absolutely€no€evidence€to€support€his€conviction.ÌÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€theÏstandard€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏprosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€theÏcrime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979).€ÏQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€beÏgiven€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence,€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,€623Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€Nor€may€this€court€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€ÏòòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€ÌÌà àA€jury€verdict€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€Stateððs€witnesses€andÏresolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476Ï(Tenn.€1973).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€ofÏthe€evidence€and€all€inferences€therefrom.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€ÏBecause€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€itÏwith€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused€has€the€burden€in€this€court€of€illustratingÏwhy€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€by€the€trier€of€fact.€ÏòòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982);€òòGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€at€476.ÌÌà àThe€evidence€established€that€the€Bowlingsðð€residence€had€been€burglarizedÏand€that€several€items€had€been€stolen.€€The€proof€further€established€that€theÏDefendant€was€at€the€scene€at€the€time€of€the€crime.€€He€was€traveling€with€hisÏgirlfriend,€Tina€Carter,€who€admitted€to€committing€the€crimes.€€Within€a€few€hoursÏafter€the€burglary,€the€Defendant€was€arrested€as€he€sat€in€the€car€with€his€girlfriendÏat€a€bankððs€drive„thru€window€after€she€had€attempted€to€pass€a€forged€checkÏtaken€from€the€burglarized€residence.€€Numerous€other€items€taken€during€theÏburglary€were€found€in€the€vehicle€with€the€Defendant€and€Carter.ÌÌà àCarter€was€called€as€a€witness€for€the€Defendant.€€She€testified€that€theÏDefendant€stayed€in€the€car€and€slept€while€she€burglarized€the€house.€€She€saidÍthat€he€knew€nothing€about€her€breaking€into€the€house€and€stealing€the€variousÏitems€until€he€woke€up€after€she€drove€away€from€the€residence.€€While€it€isÏaccurate€to€say€that€her€testimony€that€the€Defendant€was€asleep€and€thusÏunaware€of€the€burglary€was€uncontroverted,€certainly€the€jury€was€not€required€toÏgive€her€testimony€òòanyóó€credibility,€and€obviously€the€jury€chose€not€to€do€so.ÌÌà àIt€is€well€established€in€Tennessee€that€the€possession€of€recently€stolenÏproperty€gives€rise€to€an€inference€that€the€possessor€has€stolen€it€and€may,€in€lightÏof€surrounding€circumstances,€support€a€conviction€for€burglary.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.ÏHamiltonóó,€628€S.W.2d€742,€746€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981)€(citations€omitted);€òòseeÏalsoóó,€òòState€v.€Landóó,€681€S.W.2d€589,€591€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984)€(citationÏomitted).€€The€Defendant€cites€òòBush€v.€Stateóó,€541€S.W.2d€391,€395€(Tenn.€1976),Ïfor€the€proposition€that€the€inference€arising€from€proof€of€possession€of€recentlyÏstolen€property€is€a€ð ðfiction€of€the€lawðð€and€an€ð ðassumption€for€convenienceðð€whichÏdisappears€upon€the€introduction€of€contrary€proof.€€The€Defendant,€however,€isÏquoting€from€a€section€of€òòBushóó€in€which€the€court€was€attempting€to€clarify€the€oftenÏconfused€terms€ð ðpresumptionðð€and€ð ðinference,ðð€as€used€in€cases€involvingÏpossession€of€recently€stolen€property.€€Immediately€after€this€explanation,€theÏòòBushóó€court€clearly€and€succinctly€stated€that€ð ðthe€òòinferenceóó€arising€from€the€provenÏfact€of€possession€of€recently€stolen€property€is€not€destroyed€by€contradictoryÏevidence,€even€the€positive€testimony€of€witnesses....ðð€€òòBushóó,€541€S.W.2d€at€395Í(emphasis€added).€€The€court€went€on€to€hold€that€the€force€of€the€inference€doesÏnot€vanish€upon€the€offering€of€an€explanation€by€the€defendant.€€Rather,€theÏinference€ð ðremains€to€be€weighed€by€the€jury€against€the€evidence€offered€byÏdefendant€in€explanation€of€his€possession€of€the€recently€stolen€property.ðð€€òòId.óó;€òòseeÏœalsoóó›€òòLandóó,€681€S.W.2d€at€591.ÌÌà àApplying€that€sound€reasoning€to€the€case€at€bar,€we€believe€it€was€theÏjuryððs€province€to€weigh€the€evidence€presented€by€the€State,€including€theÏinference€arising€from€the€Defendantððs€possession€of€recently€stolen€property,Ïagainst€the€explanation€offered€by€the€Defendant.€€The€jury€did€so€in€this€case,€œbyÏrejecting›€the€explanation€of€the€Defendantððs€œactions›€and€œfinding›€him€guilty.€€From€aÏreview€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€presented,€along€with€theÏinference€which€may€properly€be€drawn€from€the€possession€of€the€BowlingsððÏrecently€stolen€property,€is€sufficient€to€support€the€Defendantððs€conviction€ofÏaggravated€burglary€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€The€Defendantððs€first€issue€isÏtherefore€without€merit.ÌÌà àIn€his€second€issue,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failingÏto€conduct€a€jury„out€hearing€regarding€the€admissibility€of€police€testimony€aboutÏpotential€criminal€charges€other€than€the€one€for€which€he€was€on€trial.€€In€particular,Ïthe€Defendant€complains€about€the€testimony€of€two€officers,€Howard€Doyle€andÍDavid€Appleberry,€concerning€the€reason€each€came€to€the€bank€and€one€specificÏitem,€a€9mm€handgun,€found€during€the€search€of€the€Defendantððs€car.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€filed€a€host€of€pretrial€motions.€€Among€them€was€a€motion€inÏlimine€requesting€that€the€trial€court€order€the€Stateððs€witnesses€not€to€testifyÏconcerning€evidence€of€other€potential€criminal€charges,€with€specific€reference€toÏforgery€and€possession€of€a€firearm€by€a€felon.œ× ƒ; ××  ×›€€The€trial€court€took€this€motionÏunder€advisement€and€reserved€ruling€on€its€merits€until€faced€with€a€specificÏinstance€of€such€testimony€at€trial.€€At€the€same€time,€however,€the€trial€courtððs€orderÏindicated€that€no€Stateððs€witness€should€testify€concerning€ð ðany€prior€bad€acts€ofÏthe€Defendantðð€until€the€admissibility€of€such€testimony€was€determined€at€a€jury„outÏhearing.ÌÌà àOfficer€Doyle€testified€prior€to€Officer€Appleberry.€€Before€Doyle€testified,€theÏDefendantððs€trial€counsel€asked€to€approach€the€bench.€€At€that€bench€conference,Ïthe€Defendantððs€counsel€voiced€his€concern€that€the€police€officer€would€testifyÏð ðregarding€a€forgery,€or€possession€of€firearms,€especially€by€a€felon.ðð€€€€CounselÍcontended€that€such€statements€were€irrelevant€for€purposes€of€the€chargedÏoffense€and€would€be€unduly€prejudicial.€€The€assistant€district€attorney€respondedÏthat€he€would€not€ask€if€the€Defendant€ð ðwas€charged€with€that€offense,ðð€butÏintended€to€ask€Officer€Doyle€what€items€were€discovered€in€the€car.€€The€trial€courtÏinstructed€the€prosecutor€not€to€elicit€testimony€regarding€the€Defendantððs€priorÏcriminal€record€or€status€as€a€felon.€€The€Defendantððs€counsel€voiced€no€furtherÏconcerns,€and€the€bench€conference€was€concluded.ÌÌà àAfter€the€bench€conference,€the€assistant€district€attorney€questioned€OfficerÏDoyle€as€follows:ÌÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓQ.€€Were€you€called€to€the€First€Tennessee€Bank€Branch€at€the€cornerÏof€Highway€64€and€70€in€Bartlett?ÌA.€€Yes,€sir.ÌQ.€€Okay.€€Could€you€tell€the€jury€the€nature€of€the€call,€and€what€youÏdid€in€response?ÌA.€€The€call€came€out€from€dispatch€as€a€forgery,€with€the€subject€stillÏon€the€scene€in€the€drive„out€lane.ÌÌÓÓÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒAt€this€point,€the€Defendant€moved€for€a€mistrial€based€on€unfair€prejudice€arisingÏfrom€the€mention€of€ð ðforgery.ðð€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion€but€instructed€the€juryÏto€disregard€Officer€Doyleððs€testimony€concerning€the€reason€he€came€to€the€bank.€ÏLater€in€his€testimony,€Officer€Doyle€described€the€items€found€in€the€car€after€theÏarrest€of€the€Defendant€and€Tina€Carter.€€Doyle€testified€that€a€loaded€9mm€Smith€œ&›ÏWesson€handgun€was€discovered€during€the€search€of€the€car.€€The€handgun€wasÏnot€alleged€to€have€been€taken€from€the€Bowlingsðð€residence.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€made€no€contemporaneous€objection€to€Officer€DoyleððsÏtestimony€about€the€œhandgun.›€€After€cross„examining€Doyle,€the€DefendantððsÏcounsel€again€approached€the€bench.€€At€this€point,€he€objected€to€DoyleððsÏtestimony€about€the€9mm€handgun,€contending€that€it€was€irrelevant€for€purposesÏof€the€Defendantððs€aggravated€burglary€trial.€€The€trial€court€overruled€the€objection.ÌÌà àOfficer€David€Appleberry€testified€immediately€after€Officer€Doyle.€€TheÏassistant€district€attorney€questioned€Appleberry€as€follows:ÌÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓQ.€€Did€you€receive€a€call€to€come€to€First€Tennessee€Bank€at€theÏcorner€of€Highway€64€and€70,€on€November€3rd,€1993?ÌA.€€Yes,€I€did.ÌQ.€€And€how€did€you€receive€the€call?ÌA.€€I€received€the€call€to€come€to€the€First€Tennessee€Bank,€in€regardsÏto€a€subject€attempting€to€cash€a€stolen€check,€is€what€I€was€referredÏto€by€the€bank€teller€that€called€the€Bartlett€Dispatcher.ÌÌÓÓÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒThe€Defendant€made€no€contemporaneous€objection€to€this€testimony.€€AppleberryÏtestified€further€that€a€9mm€Smith€œ&›€Wesson€handgun€was€discovered€in€the€car.€ÏAgain,€the€Defendant€made€no€contemporaneous€objection.ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€toÏconduct€a€jury„out€hearing€regarding€the€admissibility€of€police€testimony€about€bothÏthe€9mm€handgun€and€being€called€to€the€scene€of€a€ð ðforgeryðð€or€an€attempt€ð ðtoÏcash€a€stolen€check,ðð€especially€since€the€trial€courtððs€pretrial€motion€order€impliedÍthat€such€a€hearing€would€be€held.€€The€Defendant€is€presumably€relying€onÏTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€404(b)€as€well€as€the€general€relevance€andÏprejudice€principles€contained€in€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€401,€402€and€403.€ÏWe€point€out€that€this€issue€does€not€involve€a€òòMorganóó€hearing€problem€becauseÏwe€are€not€faced€with€impeachment€evidence€offered€pursuant€to€TennesseeÏRules€of€Evidence€607,€608€and€609.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Morganóó,€541€S.W.2d€385Ï(Tenn.€1976).ÌÌà àAfter€careful€consideration,€we€find€no€reversible€error€with€regard€to€the€trialÏcourtððs€manner€of€handling€œthe€police›€testimony€about€potential€criminal€charges€notÏcontained€in€the€indictment.€€Although€the€trial€judgeððs€order€concerning€theÏDefendantððs€pretrial€motions€is€somewhat€confusing,€it€seems€reasonably€clear€thatÏhe€reserved€ruling€on€the€motion€in€limine€to€restrict€police€testimony€about€otherÏpotential€criminal€charges€until€the€Defendantððs€concerns€regarding€unfair€prejudiceÏwere€implicated.€€Prior€to€Officer€Doyleððs€testimony,€the€trial€court€conducted€a€benchÏconference,€at€which€time€the€Defendant€voiced€concerns€about€testimony€regardingÏforgery€or€possession€of€a€firearm,€especially€by€a€felon.€€The€trial€court€instructedÏthe€prosecutor€not€to€elicit€testimony€about€the€Defendantððs€status€as€a€felon.ÌÌà àWe€believe€that€if€the€Defendant€had€any€lingering€concerns€in€the€wake€ofÏthe€trial€courtððs€instructions€at€the€bench€conference,€it€was€his€duty€to€request€aÍjury„out€hearing€to€address€those€concerns,€making€appropriate€references€to€anyÏauthority€that€supported€his€position.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b)(1);€Neil€P.€CohenÏet€al.,€Tennessee€Law€of€Evidence€ðð€404.7€(3rd€ed.€1995);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.ÏœCopenny›óó,€888€S.W.2d€450,€456€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(citations€omitted).€ÏObviously,€the€trial€judge€believed€he€had€addressed€the€Defendantððs€concerns€œatÏthe›€bench€conference.€€Absent€a€request€by€the€Defendant,€we€find€no€error€withÏthe€trial€courtððs€failure€to€conduct€a€jury„out€hearing€after€having€already€consideredÏthe€Defendantððs€issue€at€the€bench€conference.ÌÌà àIn€any€event,€the€trial€court€specifically€instructed€the€jury€to€disregard€OfficerÏDoyleððs€testimony€concerning€the€reason€he€came€to€the€bank,€namely€the€ð ðforgeryððÏcall.€€In€the€absence€of€proof€to€the€contrary,€we€must€presume€that€the€juryÏfollowed€the€trial€courtððs€curative€instruction.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Comptonóó,€642€S.W.2dÏ745,€746€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982);€òòœFrazier›€v.€Stateóó,€566€S.W.2d€545,€551€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1977)€(citations€omitted).€€Thus,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððs€limitingÏinstruction€cured€any€error€regarding€Officer€Doyleððs€testimony€about€forgery.ÌÌà àMoreover,€although€the€Defendant€complains€of€Appleberryððs€reference€to€aÏsubject€ð ðattempting€to€cash€a€stolen€checkðð€on€appeal,€he€did€not€object€to€theÏtestimony€at€trial,€nor€did€he€request€a€jury„out€hearing€at€the€bench€conferenceÏimmediately€prior€to€the€testimony.€€Furthermore,€he€did€not€request€a€limitingÍinstruction€even€though€it€seems€reasonable€to€conclude€that€the€trial€court€wouldÏhave€given€one€similar€to€the€instruction€given€after€Officer€Doyleððs€testimonyÏconcerning€forgery.€€We€conclude€that€the€Defendant€cannot€now€complain€aboutÏOfficer€Appleberryððs€testimony€in€light€of€his€own€failure€to€object€at€the€timeÏAppleberry€testified.€€òòSeeóó€T.R.A.P.€36(a);€òòœTeague›€v.€Stateóó,€772€S.W.2d€915,€926Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988);€òòState€v.€œKillebrew›óó,€760€S.W.2d€228,€235€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1988).ÌÌà àLikewise,€the€Defendant€made€no€contemporaneous€objection€to€theÏtestimony€from€both€officers€concerning€the€9mm€handgun€discovered€during€theÏsearch€of€the€car.€€Both€officers€testified€about€the€handgun€as€they€wereÏdescribing€the€items€retrieved€from€the€car.€€Neither€officer€offered€any€detailedÏtestimony€about€the€firearm.€€On€cross„examination€of€the€Stateððs€witnesses,€theÏDefendant€elicited€testimony€that€the€handgun€was€discovered€under€the€driverððsÏside€seat.€€Furthermore,€Tina€Carter€testified€that€the€handgun€belonged€to€her.€€SheÏstated€that€she€had€borrowed€the€handgun€from€a€friend€in€Pennsylvania€and€wasÏcarrying€it€for€protection€purposes.ÌÌà àAlthough€the€œhandgun›€evidence€may€have€been€irrelevant€and€the€trial€courtÏmay€have€erred€in€admitting€testimony€about€the€firearm,€we€can€only€conclude€thatÏany€error€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€The€œhandgun›€evidence€wasÍcertainly€not€critical€to€the€case.€€In€fact,€the€Defendant€was€effectively€distancedÏfrom€the€weapon€through€the€testimony€of€both€Tina€Carter€and€witnesses€for€theÏState.€€We€are€satisfied€that€the€jury€would€have€convicted€the€Defendant€even€inÏthe€absence€of€the€testimony€about€the€9mm€handgun.€€òòSeeóó€T.R.A.P.€36(b);€Tenn.ÏR.€Crim.€P.€52(a).ÌÌà àFrom€a€review€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€committed€noÏreversible€error€in€failing€to€conduct€a€jury„out€hearing€regarding€the€admissibility€ofÏpolice€testimony€about€other€potential€criminal€charges.€€The€Defendant€had€ampleÏopportunity€to€request€such€a€hearing€when€faced€with€testimony€which€implicatedÏhis€concerns,€but€never€did€so.€€Additionally,€none€of€the€testimony€complained€ofÏaffirmatively€appears€to€have€affected€the€result€of€the€trial.€€The€DefendantððsÏsecond€issue€is€therefore€without€merit.ÌÌà àIn€his€third€issue,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€State€improperly€questionedÏa€witness€about€the€Defendantððs€prior€convictions€or€bad€acts.€€Tina€Carter€testifiedÏfor€the€defense.€€On€direct€examination,€she€testified€as€follows:ÌÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓQ.€€Did€Brian€Martin€go€into€the€Smith€Bowling€house?ÌA.€€No.ÌQ.€€Did€he€help€you€burglarize€that€house?ÌA.€€No.€€As€a€matter€of€fact,€we€got€into€a€fight,€after€he€found€out€whatÏI€did.ÌQ.€€Why€is€that?ÌA.€€Because€he€had€already€been€in€some€trouble,€and€he€wantedÏme€to€take€the€stuff€back€to€the€house,€and€I€was€afraid€if€I€did,€Iððd€beÏcaught.€€You€know,€I€didnððt€get€caught€in€the€house€when€I€left,€so€IÏdidnððt€figure€Iððd€get€in€any€trouble€for€it.ÌÌÓÓÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒThis€testimony€concluded€direct€examination.€€The€assistant€district€attorney€beganÏcross„examination€by€asking,€ð ðMr.€Martin€had€already€been€in€some€trouble?ðð€ÏCarter€replied,€ð ðIn€his€past.€€That€was€before€I€knew€him.ðð€€At€this€point,€theÏDefendantððs€counsel€asked€to€approach€the€bench€and€apparently€moved€toÏdismiss€the€case.× ƒ< ××  ×€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion€but,€stating€that€theÏDefendantððs€character€was€not€at€issue,€instructed€the€assistant€district€attorney€notÏto€go€any€further€into€his€prior€record.€€No€limiting€instruction€was€requested,€nor€wasÏone€given.ÌÌà àAfter€reviewing€the€record,€we€agree€with€the€Defendant€that€the€assistantÏdistrict€attorneyððs€question€was€improper.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).€€We€believe,Ïhowever,€that€the€error€was€harmless€in€the€context€of€the€present€case.€€TinaÏCarterððs€testimony€was€first€elicited€by€the€Defendant€on€direct€examination.€€TheÏassistant€district€attorneyððs€improper€question€merely€repeated€Carterððs€previousÏtestimony.€€The€colloquy€added€no€significant€information€beyond€that€which€hadÏbeen€brought€forth€during€direct€examination.€€As€a€result,€we€are€satisfied€that€theÏDefendant€would€have€been€convicted€even€without€the€improper€question,€andÍthe€error€in€asking€the€question€does€not€affirmatively€appear€to€have€affected€theÏresult€of€the€trial.€€We€therefore€conclude€that€the€error€was€harmless€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€851€S.W.2d€828,€833€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1992);€T.R.A.P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).€€The€Defendantððs€third€issue€lacksÏmerit.ÌÌà àIn€his€fourth€issue,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowingÏthe€State€to€present€testimony€that€he€had€refused€to€make€a€statement€to€œtheÏpolice›€upon€his€arrest.€€He€contends€that€references€by€two€police€officers€to€hisÏrefusal€to€make€a€statement€violated€his€right€against€self„incrimination€secured€byÏthe€Fifth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,ÏSection€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.ÌÌà àThe€testimony€at€issue€came€from€Officers€David€Appleberry€and€Don€Pugh.€ÏOfficer€Appleberry€testified€on€direct€examination€as€follows:ÌÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓQ.€€All€right.€€When€you€arrested€the€subjects,€including€the€defendant,Ïdid€they€make€any€statements€to€you,€or€did€you€engage€them€inÏconversation?ÌA.€€The€conversation€was€limited.€€We€mainly€secured€the€scene.€...ÌQ.€€And€the€defendant€did€not€make€any€statements€to€the€BartlettÏPolice?ÌA.€€To€my€recollection,€I€donððt€recall.ÌÌÓÓÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒThe€Defendant€made€no€objection€to€the€testimony.€€After€conducting€cross„examination€of€Appleberry,€the€Defendant€moved€to€dismiss€the€case€based€onÍthe€assistant€district€attorneyððs€questions€about€whether€he€had€made€a€statementÏto€police€upon€arrest.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion€but€instructed€the€assistantÏdistrict€attorney€not€to€ask€questions€ð ðabout€any€statements.ððÌÌà àOfficer€Pugh€testified€after€Officer€Appleberry.€€Officer€Pugh€gave€theÏfollowing€testimony€on€direct€examination:ÌÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓQ.€€Okay.€€Now,€after€the€Fayette€County€Sheriffððs€Department€tookÏthe€defendant€and€Ms.€Carter€into€custody,€did€you€ascertain€whereÏthey€had€come€from?ÌA.€€I€did.ÌQ.€€Okay.€€Where€was€that?ÌA.€€Carlisle,€Pennsylvania.ÌQ.€€Both€of€them?ÌA.€€I€think€so.€€Iððd€have€to€look€back€on€my€notes.€€I€talked€to€Mr.ÏMartin€first,€and€advised€him€of€his€rights,€and€about€the€extent€of€ourÏconversation,€I€asked€him€how€long€they€had€been€on€the€road,€andÏhe€told€me€approximately€two€weeks.€€I€asked€him,€ð ðWas€that€theÏreason€you€broke€into€the€house?ðð€€And€he€did€not€answer€that,€andÏrefused€to€talk€anymore€on€the€advice€of€his€attorney.ÌÌÓÓÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒAt€this€point,€the€Defendant€objected€and€again€moved€to€dismiss€the€case.€€TheÏtrial€court€denied€the€motion.ÌÌà àIt€is€well„established€that€a€defendant€has€a€constitutional€right€to€remainÏsilent€in€the€face€of€accusation,€not€only€during€trial€but€also€upon€arrest€and€whileÏin€custody.€€The€prosecution€may€not€use€at€trial€the€fact€that€a€defendant€claimedÏthe€privilege.€€òòSeeóó€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436,€86€S.Ct.€1602,€16€L.Ed.2dÏ694€(1966);€òòBraden€v.€Stateóó,€534€S.W.2d€657,€660€(Tenn.€1976);€òòWare€v.€Stateóó,Í565€S.W.2d€906,€908€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€Furthermore,€a€defendantððs€post„arrest€silence€ordinarily€cannot€be€used€to€impeach€his€testimony€at€trial.€€òòSeeóóÏòòDoyle€v.€Ohioóó,€426€U.S.€610,€96€S.Ct.€2240,€49€L.Ed.2d€91€(1976);€òòHoneycutt€v.ÏStateóó,€544€S.W.2d€912,€917„18€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).€€Simply€put,€when€aÏdefendant€exercises€his€constitutional€right€to€remain€silent,€the€fact€that€he€or€sheÏdoes€so€generally€cannot€be€used€against€him€or€her.ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€testimony€about€his€refusal€toÏmake€a€statement€violated€his€right€against€self„incrimination€and€œthat€the›€œthe€trial›Ïcourt€erred€in€admitting€the€testimony.€€We€believe€that€the€assistant€districtÏattorneyððs€questions€to€Officer€Appleberry€were€improper.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòHoneycuttóó,€544ÏS.W.2d€at€917.€€The€Defendant,€however,€did€not€make€a€contemporaneousÏobjection€to€the€testimony€of€Officer€Appleberry.€€Moreover,€Appleberryððs€testimonyÏindicated€only€that€he€did€not€recall€whether€the€Defendant€had€made€a€statement.€ÏIt€appears€to€this€Court€that€Appleberryððs€testimony€was€not€a€reference€to€theÏrefusal€of€the€Defendant€to€make€a€statement,€but€rather€a€comment€on€the€limitedÏnature€of€both€his€duties€at€the€scene€and€his€interaction€with€the€Defendant.ÌÌà àWith€regard€to€Officer€Pugh,€it€is€clear€that€his€comments€specificallyÏconcerning€the€Defendantððs€refusal€to€make€a€statement€were€inappropriate.€€WeÏnote€that€the€assistant€district€attorney€did€not€elicit€that€testimony,€nor€was€theÍquestioning€so€broad€and€suggestive€as€to€risk€eliciting€improper€testimony.€ÏNevertheless,€Pughððs€testimony€infringed€upon€the€Defendantððs€constitutional€right€toÏremain€silent.€€òòId.óóÌÌà àWe€believe,€however,€that€any€error€in€the€admission€of€the€testimony€ofÏOfficers€Appleberry€and€Pugh€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€It€isÏimportant€to€note€that€the€assistant€district€attorney€made€no€comment€whatsoeverÏon€the€Defendantððs€post„arrest€silence€during€argument.€€In€this€way,€the€case€atÏbar€is€distinguishable€from€cases€such€as€òòState€v.€Mabeóó,€655€S.W.2d€203€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1983),€wherein€the€prosecutorððs€closing€argument€focused€heavily€uponÏthe€defendantððs€œfailure€to›€make€a€statement€upon€arrest€and€resulted€in€the€reversalÏof€the€defendantððs€conviction.€€Moreover,€the€trial€court€gave€a€jury€instructionÏregarding€the€Defendantððs€right€to€remain€silent€and€the€fact€that€no€inference€canÏbe€drawn€from€such€silence.€€We€must€presume€that€the€jury€followed€the€trialÏcourtððs€instructions.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Lockeóó,€771€S.W.2d€132,€138„39€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1988)€(citing€òòFord€v.€Stateóó,€101€Tenn.€454,€458,€47€œS.W.›€703,€705€(1898)).€€In€theÏabsence€of€prejudicial€comments€by€the€assistant€district€attorney,€we€conclude€thatÏthe€trial€courtððs€instructions€cured€any€possibility€of€harm€from€the€testimony€ofÏOfficers€Appleberry€and€Pugh€in€the€context€of€the€present€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏœFlanagan›óó,€223€Tenn.€134,€138„39,€443€S.W.2d€25,€27€(Tenn.€1969);€òòsee€alsoóóÍòòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€596€S.W.2d€97,€104€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979).€€The€DefendantððsÏfourth€issue€is€therefore€without€merit.ÌÌà àIn€his€fifth€issue,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencingÏhim€to€eight€years€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offender.€€When€an€accused€challengesÏthe€length,€range,€or€the€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€this€court€has€a€duty€toÏconduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€sentence€with€a€presumption€that€theÏdeterminations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€ÏThis€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€theÏtrial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€andÏcircumstances."€€òòState€v.€œAshby›óó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àIn€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€court€must€consider:€(a)Ïthe€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€theÏpresentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencingÏalternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(e)Ïany€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statement€that€theÏdefendant€made€on€his€own€behalf;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€of€potential€forÏrehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€5XÔððððÔ€5ŠÔ€40„35„102,€„103,€and€„210;€òòseeóóÏòòState€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,€andÏthat€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,€then€weÏmay€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€different€result.€ÏòòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€has€three€specific€complaints€about€his€sentence,€the€first€ofÏwhich€involves€the€Stateððs€notice€of€intent€to€seek€sentencing€as€a€multiple€offender.€ÏThe€Defendant€contends€that€the€Stateððs€notice€was€defective€because€it€did€notÏinclude€properly€certified€copies€of€his€convictions€from€Pennsylvania.€€As€a€result,Ïhe€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€him€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offender.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€was€tried€on€April€8,€1994.€€On€November€24,€1993,€moreÏthan€four€months€prior€to€trial,€the€State€filed€its€notice€to€seek€enhancedÏpunishment.€€In€that€notice,€the€State€listed€six€prior€convictions€from€Pennsylvania.× ƒ= ××  ×€ÏThe€notice€set€forth€the€date€of€conviction,€the€nature€of€the€conviction,€and€the€courtÏof€conviction.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€Stateððs€notice€did€not€comply€with€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€40„35„202(a)€in€that€it€did€not€include€properly€certifiedÏcopies€of€the€Pennsylvania€convictions.€€We€do€not€believe€that€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€40„35„202(a)€requires€the€State€to€include€certified€copies€ofÏconvictions€when€filing€its€notice€to€seek€enhanced€punishment.€€The€onlyÏrequirement€in€terms€of€content€of€the€notice€is€that€it€ð ðmust€set€forth€the€nature€of€theÏprior€felony€convictions,€the€dates€of€the€convictions€and€the€identity€of€the€courts€ofÏthe€convictions.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„202(a)€(1990).€€It€is€clear€that€theÏStateððs€notice€in€the€present€case€complied€with€those€requirements.€€Accordingly,Ïwe€conclude€the€Defendantððs€first€allegation€of€sentencing€error€lacks€merit.ÌÌà àIn€his€second€allegation€of€sentencing€error,€the€Defendant€contends€that€theÏcopies€of€the€Pennsylvania€convictions€introduced€at€his€sentencing€hearing€wereÏnot€properly€certified.€€We€believe€the€Defendantððs€contention€is€clearly€without€merit.€ÏEach€of€the€convictions€introduced€by€the€State€at€the€sentencing€hearing€is€certifiedÏas€a€true€copy€from€the€records€of€the€Clerk€of€the€Courts€of€Cumberland€County,ÏPennsylvania.€€A€Deputy€Clerk€signed€the€copies€and€affixed€the€seal€of€theÏCumberland€County€Courts.€€We€therefore€conclude€that€the€certified€copies€of€theÏDefendantððs€prior€convictions€were€properly€admitted€pursuant€to€Tennessee€œRules›Íof€Evidence€902.€€The€Defendantððs€second€allegation€of€œa€sentencing›€error€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌà àIn€his€third€allegation€of€œa€sentencing›€error,€the€Defendant€contends€that€theÏtrial€court€improperly€applied€and€weighed€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors.€€TheÏsentencing€hearing€took€place€on€April€28,€1994.€€The€Stateððs€proof€established€thatÏthe€Defendant€had€at€least€three€prior€felony€convictions€and€qualified€as€a€RangeÏII€multiple€offender.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„106(a)(1).€€The€appropriateÏsentencing€range€for€aggravated€burglary,€a€class€C€felony,€was€six€to€ten€years.€ÏAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€Defendant€to€eightÏyears€imprisonment.€€The€trial€court€later€entered€an€order€reflecting€what€hadÏoccurred€at€the€sentencing€hearing.ÌÌà àThe€record€is€somewhat€unclear€as€to€which€enhancement€factors€wereÏapplied.€€There€is€no€doubt€that€the€trial€court€applied€the€ð ðprevious€history€ofÏcriminal€behavior€in€addition€to€that€necessary€to€establish€the€sentencing€rangeððÏenhancement€factor.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1).ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€also€applied€as€an€enhancement€factor€that€the€offenseÏinvolved€ð ðmore€than€one€actor.ðð€€This€language€does€not€correspond€to€any€of€theÏstatutory€enhancement€factors€set€forth€at€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„114.€€From€a€review€of€the€argument€prior€to€the€imposition€of€sentence,Ïhowever,€it€appears€that€the€trial€court€was€referring€to€the€ð ðleader€in€the€commissionÏof€an€offense€involving€two€or€more€actorsðð€enhancement€factor.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„114(2).ÌÌà àIn€addition,€in€the€sentencing€order€entered€after€the€imposition€of€sentence€atÏthe€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€judge€stated€that€he€applied€the€enhancementÏfactor€for€a€ð ðfelony€committed€while€on€parole.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(13)(B).€€As€he€imposed€sentence€at€the€hearing,€however,€the€trial€judge€statedÏthat€he€was€not€considering€whether€the€Defendant€was€on€parole€at€the€time€ofÏthe€present€offense.€€This€statement€came€in€response€to€the€Defendantððs€objectionÏto€the€hearsay€in€the€presentence€report€concerning€his€parole€status€from€twoÏburglary€convictions€in€Pennsylvania.€€Given€the€Defendantððs€objection€to€thatÏaspect€of€the€presentence€report€and€the€trial€courtððs€recognition€of€that€objection€atÏthe€sentencing€hearing,€we€will€not€consider€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÏ40„35„114(13)(B)€as€an€enhancement€factor€in€our€review€of€this€issue.ÌÌà àIt€is€clear€from€the€record€that€the€trial€court€applied€only€one€mitigating€factor,Ïnamely€that€the€ð ðconduct€neither€caused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injury.ðð€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1).€€The€Defendant€offered€several€other€mitigatingÍfactors€for€consideration,€all€of€which€the€trial€court€rejected.€€It€is€also€clear€that€theÏtrial€court€found€that€the€enhancement€factors€outweighed€the€mitigating€factor.ÌÌà àWe€find€no€error€with€regard€to€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€the€ð ðpreviousÏhistory€of€criminal€behaviorðð€enhancement€factor.€€The€State€introduced€proof€ofÏmultiple€misdemeanor€convictions€in€addition€to€the€felony€convictions€used€toÏsupport€sentencing€the€Defendant€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offender.€€Likewise,€weÏfind€no€error€with€regard€to€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€only€one€mitigating€factor,Ïthat€the€Defendantððs€conduct€ð ðneither€caused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injury.ððÌÌà àFrom€our€review€of€the€record,€however,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erredÏin€applying€the€ð ðleader€in€the€commission€of€the€offenseðð€enhancement€factorÏpursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„114(2).€€The€DefendantððsÏconviction€rested€on€the€circumstances€discovered€upon€his€arrest€at€the€bank€andÏthe€inference€arising€from€possession€of€recently€stolen€property.€€The€State€offeredÏno€proof€at€trial€or€at€the€sentencing€hearing€from€which€the€trial€court€could€haveÏreasonably€concluded€that€the€Defendant€qualified€as€a€leader€in€the€commission€ofÏthe€offense.€€As€a€result,€it€was€error€for€the€trial€court€to€apply€that€enhancementÏfactor.ÌÌà àYet€we€believe€that€there€was€another€appropriate€enhancement€factor€notÏapplied€by€the€trial€court.€€The€certified€copies€of€convictions€from€PennsylvaniaÏclearly€reveal€that€two€of€the€Defendantððs€prior€felony€convictions€for€burglary,Ïnumbers€601€Criminal€1990(A„2)€and€1928€Criminal€1989,€were€committed€ð ðwhileÏthe€defendant€was€on€parole€or€otherwise€out€of€jail.ðð€€Given€that€evidence,€weÏbelieve€that€trial€court€could€have€properly€found€that€the€Defendant€has€aÏð ðprevious€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentenceÏinvolving€release€into€the€community.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(8).× ƒ> ××  ×ÌÌà àHaving€reviewed€the€applicable€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors,€weÏconclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€sentencing€the€Defendant€to€the€mid„rangeÏsentence€of€eight€years€imprisonment.€€Although€the€trial€judge€incorrectly€appliedÏthe€ð ðleader€in€the€commission€of€the€offenseðð€enhancement€factor,€he€did€not€applyÏthe€appropriate€ð ðprevious€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€release€into€theÏcommunityðð€enhancement€factor.€€Because€we€find€no€other€sentencing€errors,€weÏbelieve€that€the€trial€courtððs€sentence€of€eight€years€is€adequately€supported€by€theÏrecord.€€Thus,€the€Defendantððs€fifth€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€set€forth€in€the€discussion€above,€we€conclude€that€theÏDefendantððs€issues€on€appeal€lack€merit.€€We€therefore€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court.Ìà àà àà àà àà àœÌÌ›ÌÌÓ  Óà àÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àœÇà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________›Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€œTIPTON›,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJERRY€SCOTT,€SPECIAL€JUDGE