ÿWPC˜ …UBV %˜ ž¤nX´ 0P 4\ p 0”x 0D w@P 0J 0TÚ 0^. 0hŒ 0rô 0|f 0†â 0h 1uø 0dmU6ÑU*B)1 BZDCw AMº(v~/vÓ­ D3€ 0@³ AOóÆB 0D D/L B{<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXHM3|XÓ «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÔ¡¨ (D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Á U Uà UÄ UÅ UÆ DÇ È DÉ Ê Ó€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d d####7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌOctoberÏ17,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHPð€ÿÜÿìô”(üHPð€P € €'Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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$$$$'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ X ÑÑ7€wÆXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÔ€"ÔÙ€€ÙßL€&'%;+'h|` 81 `€€Lß›à àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALSÏOF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÓ  Óà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà@ àAUGUST€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.ÏNO.€01C01„9511„CC„00372ó óÌà àà àAppellee,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àWILLIAMSON€COUNTYó óÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.ÏCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,ÌSTEVE€MCCAIN,à àà àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óAppellant.ò òà àà àà à)à àó ó(Sentencing)ò òÌó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THEÏAPPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òJOHN€HENDERSONà àà àà àà àCHARLESÏW.€BURSONÌó óPublic€Defenderà àà àà àà àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€&€Reporterò òÌó ó407€C€Main€St.ò òÌó óP.O.€Box€68à àà àà àà àò òà àà àTIMOTHYÏF.€BEHANó óÌFranklin,€TN€€€37065„0068à àà àà àAsst.€AttorneyÏGeneralÌ€€à àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€JamesÏRobertsonÏPkwy.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àJOE€D.€BAUGHó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àMARK€L.€PURYEAR,€IIIó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€937à àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFranklin,€TN€€€37065„0937Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÌJudgeÌÇÓ  ÓÑ  Ñà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌó óóóÌÓÓà àà àThe€defendant€was€indicted€on€two€counts€of€aggravated€robbery€and€oneÏcount€of€theft€of€property€valued€over€one€thousand€dollars€($1000).€€He€pled€guilty€to€oneÏcount€of€aggravated€robbery,€a€class€B€felony,€with€sentencing€left€to€the€court.€€After€a€hearing,Ïthe€court€below€sentenced€the€defendant€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender€to€ten€yearsÏincarceration.€€A€Range€I€sentence€for€a€class€B€felony€is€not€less€than€eight€and€not€more€thanÏtwelve€years.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(2)€(1990€Repl.).€€The€defendant€appeals€as€of€right,Ïcomplaining€that€his€sentence€is€excessive.€€Finding€no€error,€we€affirm€the€sentence€set€by€theÏtrial€court.ÌÌà àà àWhen€a€defendant€complains€of€his€or€her€sentence,€we€must€conduct€a€òòdeóóÏòònovoóó€review€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€The€burden€ofÏshowing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€the€appealing€party.€€T.C.A.€œÌðð›€40„35„401(d)€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€This€presumption,€however,€ð ðisÏconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€theÏsentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2dÏ166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àà àA€portion€of€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€codified€at€T.C.A.€œÌðð›€40„35„210,€established€a€number€of€specific€procedures€to€be€followed€in€sentencing.€€ThisÏsection€mandates€the€court's€consideration€of€the€following:ÌÓÓÌÒ ô ÒÒ  ÒÓ ` ¸ ŒX¸)Ó(1)€The€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencingÏhearing;€(2)€[t]he€presentence€report;€(3)€[t]he€principles€ofÏsentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€[t]heÏnature€and€characteris‚tics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(5)Ï[e]vidence€and€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€theÏenhancement€and€mitigating€factors€in€œÌðððð›€40„35„113€and€40„35„114;€and€(6)€[a]ny€statement€theÏdefendant€wishes€to€make€in€his€own€behalf€about€sen‚tencing.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ¢ ÒÓÓT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210.ÌÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÌÒ  ÒÒ ¢ Òà àà àIn€addition,€this€section€provides€that€the€minimum€sentence€within€the€range€isÏthe€presumptive€sentence.€€If€there€are€enhanc‚ing€and€mitigating€factors,€the€court€must€start€atÏthe€minimum€sentence€in€the€range€and€enhance€the€sentence€as€appropriate€for€theÏenhancement€factors€and€then€reduce€the€sen‚tence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€for€theÏmitigating€factors.€€If€there€are€no€mitigating€factors,€the€court€may€set€the€sentence€above€theÏminimum€in€that€range€but€still€within€the€range.€€The€weight€to€be€given€each€factor€is€left€to€theÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€854€S.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).ÌÌà àà àThe€Act€further€provides€that€ð ð[w]henever€the€court€imposes€a€sentence,€it€òòshallÏplace€on€the€recordóó€either€orally€or€in€writing,€what€enhance‚ment€or€mitigating€factors€it€found,€ifÏany,€as€well€as€findings€of€fact€as€required€by€ðð€40„35„209.ðð€€T.C.A.€œÌðð›€40„35„210(f)€(emphasis€added).€€Because€of€the€importance€of€enhancing€and€mitigatingÏfactors€under€the€sentencing€guide‚lines,€even€the€absence€of€these€factors€must€be€recorded€ifÏnone€are€found.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210€comment.€€These€findings€by€the€trial€judge€must€beÏrecorded€in€order€to€allow€an€adequate€review€on€appeal.ÌÌà àà àIn€this€case,€the€court€below€heard€testimony€from€a€co„defendant€andÏconsidered€the€presentence€report€and€proof€of€a€prior€conviction.€€Based€upon€the€evidenceÏpresented,€the€court€below€found€three€enhancement€factors:€€that€the€defendant€had€aÏprevious€history€of€criminal€convictions€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€theÏappropriate€range;€that€he€was€a€leader€in€the€commission€of€the€offense€that€involved€at€leastÏtwo€criminal€actors;€and€that€the€offense€was€committed€under€circumstances€under€which€theÏpotential€for€bodily€injury€to€a€victim€was€great.€€T.C.A.€œÌðð›€40„35„114(1),€(2)€and€(16)€(1990€Repl.).€€The€court€below€specifically€found€that€no€mitigatingÏfactors€applied.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€now€argues€that€the€court€erred€when€it€did€not€apply€asÍmitigating€factors€that,€because€of€his€youth,€he€lacked€substantial€judgment€in€committing€theÏoffense,€and€that€he€committed€the€offense€under€such€unusual€circumstances€that€it€is€unlikelyÏthat€a€sustained€intent€to€violate€the€law€motivated€his€conduct.€€T.C.A.€œÌðð›€40„35„113(6)€and€(11)€(1990€Repl.).€€However,€in€response€to€the€defendant's€offer€of€theseÏfactors€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€court€below€found€ð ðthat€there€is€[no]€proof€in€the€recordÏthat€this€crime€was€committed€under€such€unusual€circumstances€that€it€might€never€happenÏagain.€€And€although€this€defendant€is€young,€this€appears€to€have€been€a€carefully€thought€outÏand€preplanned€offense€which€went€wrong€only€because€the€inside€man,€so€to€speak,€didn'tÏcooperate€as€fully€as€anticipated.ðð€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€these€findingsÏby€the€court€below.€€The€œdefendantððs›€contention€that€these€mitigating€factors€should€have€beenÏapplied€is€therefore€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€the€sentencing€court€erred€in€finding€as€anÏenhancing€factor€that€he€was€a€leader€in€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€However,€theÏsentencing€court€heard€testimony€from€a€co„defendant€that€he€had€done€most€of€the€planningÏfor€the€crime.€€There€was€no€testimony€or€other€proof€refuting€this€statement.€€The€sentencingÏcourt€did€not€err€in€applying€this€factor.ÌÌà àà àFinally,€the€defendant€complains€that€the€court€below€gave€too€much€weight€toÍhis€prior€criminal€history€as€an€enhancing€factor.€€The€proof€at€the€sentencing€hearingÏestablished€that€the€defendant€had€assaulted€a€corrections€officer€while€he€was€incarcerated€forÏthe€instant€charge.€€In€referring€to€this€conviction,€the€court€below€stated€that€ð ðit€is€especially€ofÏconcern€to€this€court€because€it€is€a€conviction€for€assault€on€a€correctional€officer€while€he€wasÏincarcerated€in€jail€on€this€offense.€€If€anything,€that€suggests€a€lack€of€rehabilitation€and€aÏsituation€where€it's€not€simply€a€youthful€lack€of€judgment€or€an€unlikelihood€that€this€kind€ofÏoffense€might€occur€again.ðð€€We€see€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€weight€given€this€enhancingÏfactor€by€the€court€below.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€concedes€in€his€brief€that€the€sentencing€court€properly€appliedÏas€an€enhancing€factor€that€the€crime€was€committed€under€circumstances€where€the€potentialÏfor€bodily€injury€to€a€victim€was€great.€€However,€we€find€that€the€sentencing€court€erred€inÏapplying€this€factor€because€it€is€an€essential€element€of€the€offense€of€aggravated€robbery.€ÏòòState€v.€Kingóó,€905€S.W.2d€207,€213€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€€1995);€òòState€v.€Claybrooksóó,€910€S.W.2dÏ868,€873€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Nevertheless,€no€reduction€in€the€defendant's€sentence€isÏrequired€by€this€error€because€the€sentencing€court€properly€applied€two€other€enhancingÏfactors.€€Because€no€mitigating€factors€were€applicable,€the€defendant's€midrange€sentence€isÏproper.ÌÌà àà àWe€note€the€State's€argument€that€the€defendant€waived€his€right€to€appeal€hisÏsentence€because,€as€part€of€his€agreement€to€plead€guilty,€he€agreed€that€ð ðthe€court€willÏdetermine,€following€a€sentencing€hearing,€all€issues€of€sentencing,€including€without€limitationÏthe€following:€€(1)€the€length€of€sentence,€(2)€the€amount€of€any€fine,€and€(3)€the€amount€of€anyÏrestitution.ðð€€We€fail€to€see€how€this€agreement€includes€an€agreement€by€the€defendant€toÏwaive€his€statutory€right€to€appeal€the€sentencing€decision€by€the€sentencing€court.€€ThisÏargument€is€baseless.Ì€€Ìà àà àThe€œdefendantððs›€contentions€being€without€merit,€the€judgment€below€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌÔ% € ÔDAVID€H.€WELLES,€Judge