ÿWPCý …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0DH 0vŒ 0J 0TL 0^  0hþ 0rf 0|Ø 0†T 0Ú 1uj 0dß U>CU*B)«DCÔ B AM4 v~”vÓ D3å 0@ AOXƧ 0Dm D/± Bà˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- DUEGHEIJEKLEMNÓ€Ô¡¨ „l„l„l3|xW(%Ã$òòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó(-!2Vf$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓÓ€€€€€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 d€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÔ€!ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌMay€16,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ýÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÔ€!ôÔà à€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóDuring€this€argument,€Appellant€makes€reference€to€the€resentencing›€principle€set€out€in€òòNorth€œà8 àCarolina›€v.€œPearce›óó,€305€U.S.€711€(1969).€€In€òòœPearce›óó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€a€harsherÏsentence€after€a€new€trial€raises€a€presumption€of€"judicial€vindictiveness,"€which€may€be€overcome€by€anÏaffirmative€showing€on€the€record€of€the€reasons€for€the€harsher€sentence.€€òòId.óó€at€725„26;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.ÏœGillium›óó,€901€S.W.2d€385,€392€(Tenn.€1995).€€In€light€of€the€fact€that€Appellantððs€effective€sentenceÏremained€the€same,€we€do€not€believe€that€he€received€a€harsher€sentence€as€anticipated€by€òòœPearce›óó.€ÏMoreover,€even€if€his€new€sentence€is€considered€a€harsher€one,€the€trial€court€overcame€the€presumptionÏof€vindictiveness€by€making€the€following€comments:€ð ð[œS]ince›€[the€aggravated€assault€and€aggravatedÏburglary€convictions]€ran€concurrently,€I€figured€they€were€œgimmes›€anyway€and€really€didnððt€have€a€factor€ofÏincreasing€[the€effective€length€of€sentence].€.€.€.€€I€will€give€him€a€mid„range€sentence€of€five€years€.€.€.Ï[because]€it€seems€to€me€œthat€that›€complies€with€what€[the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð]€instructions€are€.€.€.€.ðð€ÏWe€conclude€œthat›€Appellantððs€new€sentence€was€not€a€product€of€judicial€vindictiveness€and€is€not€violativeÏof€òòœPearce›óó.€€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 Ò$$$$'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€!ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€&cXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€%&#A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌNOVEMBER€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9507„CC„00219Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àCHEATHAM€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€ROBERT€E.€BURCHó óÌò òROY€DANNY€MAYO,ó óà àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(Direct€Appeal„Sentencing)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌSHIPP€R.€WEEMSà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€anfd€ReporterÌÌCAREY€J.€THOMPSONà àà àà àKAREN€M.€YACUZZOÌSTEVE€STACKà àà àà àà àCLINTON€J.€MORGANÌP.€O.€Box€160à àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌCharlotte,€TN€€37036à àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDAN€ALSOBROOKSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJAMES€W.€KIRBYÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à111€Sycamore€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAshland€City,€€TN€€37015ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇòòò òÓ  ÓÔ€!„ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€!ŠÔÌÌÓÓÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€Roy€Danny€Mayo€pled€guilty€in€the€Cheatham€County€CircuitÏCourt€to€assault€with€intent€to€commit€first€degree€murder,€especially€aggravatedÏburglary,€aggravated€assault,€and€aggravated€burglary.€€As€a€Range€IÏstandard€offender,€he€received€respective€sentences€of€twenty€years,€ten€years,Ïfive€years,€and€five€years.€€The€trial€court€ordered€the€first€two€sentences€servedÏconsecutively€to€each€other€but€concurrently€with€the€remaining€two€sentences,Ïfor€an€effective€sentence€of€thirty€years€in€the€Tennessee€Department€ofÏCorrection.€€In€this€appeal,€Appellant€presents€the€following€issue€for€review:Ïwhether€his€sentence€is€excessive.ÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓI.€FACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óÌÓ  Óà àDuring€the€early€morning€of€July€6,€1991,€Appellant€burglarized€a€storeÏowned€by€Kara€and€Gene€Fox.€€The€sounds€of€the€burglary€awakened€theÏFoxes€whose€home€was€located€adjacent€to€the€store.€€While€Mrs.€Fox€calledÏ911,€Mr.€Fox€went€outside€to€investigate.€€Mr.€Fox€removed€the€keys€fromÏAppellant's€car€before€retrieving€an€unloaded€shotgun€from€his€home.€€WhenÏAppellant€left€the€store€and€approached€his€car,€an€altercation€ensued€betweenÍMr.€Fox€and€Appellant.€€In€an€effort€to€aid€her€husband,€Mrs.€Fox€ran€from€theÏhouse€and€struck€Appellant€on€the€back€with€a€broom€stick.€€At€some€pointÏduring€the€altercation,€Appellant€shot€Mr.€Fox,€striking€him€once€in€the€arm€andÏonce€in€the€chest.€€Mrs.€Fox€then€fled€into€the€house,€locking€the€door€behind€her.€ÏAppellant,€who€was€unable€to€find€his€keys,€kicked€in€the€front€door€and€forcedÏMrs.€Fox€outside€at€gunpoint,€demanding€that€she€help€him€find€his€keys.€€At€thisÏpoint,€the€police€arrived.ÌÌà àAppellant€was€subsequently€convicted€of€attempted€first€degree€murder,Ïespecially€aggravated€burglary,€aggravated€assault,€and€aggravated€burglary.€€ÏAt€his€original€sentencing€hearing,€Appellant€received€mid„range€sentences€ofÏtwenty€years€and€ten€years€for€attempted€first€degree€murder€and€especiallyÏaggravated€burglary€but€minimum€sentences€of€three€years€each€for€aggravatedÏassault€and€aggravated€burglary.€€The€trial€court€ordered€the€first€two€sentencesÏserved€consecutively€to€each€other€but€concurrently€with€the€remaining€twoÏsentences.€€On€appeal,€this€Court,€pointing€out€that€the€trial€court€had€failed€toÏmake€separate€findings€for€each€offense,€questioned€the€imposition€of€mid„rangeÏsentences€for€two€of€the€offenses€and€minimum€sentences€for€the€other€twoÏoffenses.€€This€Court€also€found€that€the€trial€courtððs€justification€for€consecutiveÏsentencing€was€not€provided€for€by€statute.€€As€a€result,€this€Court€remandedÍthe€case€to€the€trial€court€for€resentencing.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Mayoóó,€No.€01C01„9308„CC„00287,€1994€WL€585420€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Oct.€20,€1994).ÌÌà àUpon€remand,€the€trial€court€ordered€mid„range€sentences€for€eachÏoffense,€relying€upon€Appellantððs€prior€criminal€record€and€his€parole€status€atÏthe€time€of€the€offenses.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(13).€€The€trialÏcourt€found€that€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences€for€the€most€seriousÏoffenses€was€appropriate€because€Appellantððs€actions€indicated€little€or€noÏregard€for€human€life€and€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€riskÏto€human€was€high.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€40„35„115(b)(4).€€Appellant€appeals€from€thisÏsentence.€ÌÌò òÓ  ÓII.€SENTENCINGó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€alleges€that€his€sentence€is€excessive.€€Specifically,€he€arguesÏthat€the€trial€court€erred€both€in€determining€the€length€of€his€sentences€and€inÏimposing€consecutive€sentences.ÌÌà àWhen€an€appeal€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€aÏsentence,€this€Court€conducts€a€òòde€novoóó€review€with€a€presumption€that€theÏdetermination€of€the€trial€court€was€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)Ï(1990).€€However,€this€presumption€of€correctness€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€theÍaffirmative€showing€that€the€trial€court€in€the€record€considered€the€sentencingÏprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823ÏS.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€the€event€that€the€record€fails€to€demonstrateÏsuch€consideration,€review€of€the€sentence€is€purely€òòde€novoóó.€€òòId.óó€€If€appellateÏreview€reflects€that€the€trial€court€properly€considered€all€relevant€factors€and€itsÏfindings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,€this€Court€must€affirmÏthe€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€ÏIn€conducting€a€review,€this€Court€must€consider€the€evidence,€the€presentenceÏreport,€the€sentencing€principles,€the€arguments€of€counsel,€the€nature€andÏcharacter€of€the€offense,€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors,€any€statementsÏmade€by€the€defendant,€and€the€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€òòState€v.ÏHollandóó,€860€S.W.2d€53,€60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€The€defendant€bears€theÏburden€of€showing€the€impropriety€of€the€sentence€imposed.€€òòState€v.€Gregoryóó,Ï862€S.W.2d€574,€578€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).ÌÌà àWe€note€initially€that,€because€the€record€fails€to€demonstrate€fullÏconsideration€of€all€the€factors€underlying€the€imposition€of€consecutiveÏsentencing,€our€review€of€Appellantððs€sentence€will€be€purely€òòde€novoóó.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓA.€LENGTH€OF€SENTENCEó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€first€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€determining€the€length€ofÏhis€sentence.× ƒ' ××  ×€Specifically,€Appellant€contends€that,€in€applying€enhancementÏfactors€(10)€and€(13),€the€trial€court€enhanced€his€sentence€too€much.€€AppellantÏalso€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€applied€mitigating€factor€(8),€whichÏstates€that€ð ð[t]he€defendant€was€suffering€from€a€mental€or€physical€conditionÏthat€significantly€reduced€his€culpability€for€the€offense€.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„113(8).ÌÌà àIn€the€absence€of€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors,€the€presumptiveÏlength€of€sentence€for€a€Class€B,€C,€D,€and€E€felony€is€the€minimum€sentence€inÏthe€statutory€range€while€the€presumptive€length€of€sentence€for€a€Class€AÏfelony€is€the€midpoint€in€the€statutory€range.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c)Ï(Supp.€1995).€€Where€one€or€more€enhancement€factors€apply€but€no€mitigatingÏfactors€exist,€the€trial€court€may€sentence€above€the€presumptive€sentence€butÍstill€within€the€range.€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„210(d).€€Where€both€enhancement€andÏmitigating€factors€apply,€the€trial€court€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence,Ïenhance€the€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€to€the€enhancementÏfactors,€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€to€theÏmitigating€factors.€€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€The€weight€afforded€an€enhancement€orÏmitigating€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€so€long€as€the€trial€courtÏcomplies€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€Tennessee€CriminalÏSentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€and€its€findings€are€supported€by€the€record.€ÏòòState€v.€Hayesóó,€899€S.W.2d€175,€185€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).ÌÌà àAppellant's€first€contention€is€without€merit.€€Unless€violative€of€theÏSentencing€Reform€Act€or€unsupported€by€the€record,€the€weight€afforded€anÏenhancement€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€AppellantÏfails€to€even€allege€that€either€exception€applies€here.€€The€trial€court€found€twoÏapplicable€enhancement€factors€and€imposed€a€mid„range€sentence.€€WeÏconclude€that€such€an€enhancement€is€both€supported€by€the€record€and€inÏaccord€with€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act.€€ÌÌà àAppellant's€second€contention€is€also€without€merit.€€The€only€evidence€toÏsupport€Appellant's€claim€is€a€psychological€evaluation€performed€over€a€yearÏbefore€the€crimes€were€committed.€€Appellant€fails€to€directly€link€this€evidence€toÍthe€crimes.€€Furthermore,€at€his€plea€hearing,€Appellant€failed€to€assert€that€hisÏactions€were€in€any€way€a€result€of€a€mental€condition.€€Moreover,€AppellantÏwas€given€a€psychological€examination€at€the€time€of€his€guilty€plea€whichÏconcluded€that€Appellant's€condition€would€not€prevent€him€from€assisting€in€hisÏown€defense€and€did€not€affect€his€ability€to€understand€the€nature€of€his€guiltyÏplea.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€acted€within€its€discretion€inÏdeclining€to€apply€mitigating€factor€(8).ÌÌò òÓ  ÓB.€CONSECUTIVE€SENTENCINGó óÓ  Óà àAppellant€next€argues€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€imposing€consecutive€sentences.€€When€imposing€sentences€for€multipleÏoffenses,€the€trial€court€has€the€discretion€to€order€the€sentences€servedÏconcurrently€or€consecutively.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„20„111(a)€(1990).€€TheÏimposition€of€consecutive€sentences€is€appropriate€if€the€defendant€has€beenÏconvicted€of€more€than€one€offense€and€the€trial€court€finds,€by€a€preponderanceÏof€the€evidence,€one€or€more€of€the€following€criteria:ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓà à(1)€The€defendant€is€a€professional€criminal€whoÏhas€knowingly€devoted€himself€to€criminal€acts€as€a€majorÏsource€of€livelihood;€Ìà à(2)€The€defendant€is€an€offender€whose€record€ofÏcriminal€activity€is€extensive;€Ìà à(3)€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€mentallyÏabnormal€person€so€declared€by€a€competentÏpsychiatrist€who€concludes€as€a€result€of€an€investigationÏprior€to€sentencing€that€the€defendant's€criminal€conductÏhas€been€characterized€by€a€pattern€of€repetitive€orÍcompulsive€behavior€with€heedless€indifference€toÏconsequences;€Ìà à(4)€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€whoseÏbehavior€indicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life,€and€noÏhesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€toÏhuman€life€is€high;€Ìà à(5)€The€defendant€is€convicted€of€two€(2)€or€moreÏstatutory€offenses€involving€sexual€abuse€of€a€minor€.€.€.;Ìà à(6)€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€an€offenseÏcommitted€while€on€probation;€or€Ìà à(7)€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€criminalÏcontempt.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115€(1990).Ìò òÌà àó óHere,€The€trial€court€found€that€Appellant€was€a€dangerous€offender€as€aÏground€for€imposing€consecutive€sentences.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115Ï(b)(4).€€However,€this€finding,€standing€alone€does€not€justify€consecutiveÏsentences.€€A€trial€court€may€not€impose€consecutive€sentences€based€uponÏthe€defendantððs€dangerous€offender€status€unless€the€record€establishes€that:€ÌÓÓÒ ` ÒÒ „ ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` Òà à(a)€the€defendant's€behavior€indicated€little€or€noÏregard€for€human€life,€and€no€hesitation€about€committingÏa€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€is€high;Ìà à(b)€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€commissionÏof€the€offense€were€aggravated;€Ìà à(c)€consecutive€sentences€are€necessary€to€protectÏsociety€from€further€criminal€conduct€by€the€defendant;Ìà à(d)€consecutive€sentences€reasonably€relate€to€theÏseverity€of€the€offenses€committed;€andÌà à(e)€the€sentence€is€in€accord€with€the€principles€setÏforth€in€the€Sentencing€reform€Act.ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ Ò€à àà àÌòòÓÓState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€938„39€(Tenn.€1995);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.ÏRossóó,€No.€03C01„9404„CR„00153,€1996€WL€167723,€*9€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Apr.Ï10,€1996).ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€made€adequate€findings€with€regard€to€the€first€twoÏrequirements€set€out€in€òòWilkersonóó,€and€the€record€supports€such€findings.€ÏHowever,€the€trial€court€failed€to€address€the€remaining€three.€€Mindful€of€theseÏremaining€requirements,€we€will€conduct€a€òòde€novoóó€review€of€the€record.€ÏAppellantððs€criminal€record€and€his€parole€status€from€an€earlier€felony€convictionÏestablishes€a€need€to€protect€society€from€further€criminal€conduct€by€Appellant.€ÏMoreover,€as€a€result€of€the€attack,€Mr.€Fox€remained€in€intensive€care€for€fiveÏdays,€suffering€from€two€gunshot€wounds€and€a€broken€jaw.€€At€the€originalÏsentencing€hearing,€Mr.€Fox€testified€that€he€had€permanent€nerve€damage€onÏthe€right€side€of€his€face€and€would€have€to€undergo€an€additional€surgery€toÏhave€one€of€the€bullets€removed.€€Pursuant€to€his€doctorsðð€instructions,€Mr.€FoxÏhas€sold€his€store,€no€longer€works,€and€lives€off€his€savings.€€Given€theÏseriousness€and€long„lasting€nature€of€these€injuries,€we€believe€thatÏAppellantððs€sentence€reasonably€relates€to€the€severity€of€the€offensesÏcommitted.€€We€further€believe€that€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences€is€inÏaccord€with€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act.€€When€imposing€a€sentence€involvingÏincarceration,€one€of€the€purposes€of€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€is€to€give€priorityÍto€ð ðconvicted€felons€committing€the€most€severe€offenses,€possessing€criminalÏhistories€evincing€a€clear€disregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€of€society,€andÏevincing€failure€of€past€efforts€at€rehabilitation.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(5).€€For€the€aforementioned€reasons,€we€believe€that€Appellant€is€just€suchÏa€convicted€felon€and€that€his€sentence€is€in€keeping€with€the€dictates€andÏpurposes€of€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE