ÿWPCG …# VUNa %¯ 0(µÝbåw@í4- A 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ 0d- U>‘ U*Ï B)ù DC" AMe²v~Á B?vÓ\ D3/ 0@b AO¢Æñ 0D· D/û B*˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- MNEOPQERSTUVÓ€Ô¡¨ ial Re"|x_2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌOctober€8,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@ dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€u+XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßL€"#!;+'h|` ç `€€LßIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌAUGUST€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.Ï01C01„9509„CC„00301Ìà 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 àCHEATHAM€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€ALLEN€W.€WALLACEó óÌò òTONY€WAYNE€MCELHINEY,ó óà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àó ó(Sentencing)ò òÌó óÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌCIRCUIT€COURT€OF€CHEATHAM€COUNTYó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌCAREY€J.€THOMPSONà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€160ÌCharlotte,€TN€37036à àà àà àCYRIL€V.€FRASERÌ€€€(ON€APPEAL)à àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌDan€Cookà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243Ì102€North€Main€StreetÌAshland€City,€TN€37016à àà àà àDAN€ALSOBROOKSÌ€€€(AT€TRIAL)à àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJAMES€W.€KIRBYÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à105€Sycamore€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAshland€City,€TN€37015ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€°Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓ›à àThis€is€an€appeal€as€of€right€pursuant€to€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Appellate€Procedure.€€Upon€his€plea€of€òònoloóó€òòcontendereóó,€the€Defendant€wasÏconvicted€of€four€counts€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€The€trial€judge€sentencedÏhim€to€four€concurrent€twelve„year€sentences€to€be€served€in€the€TennesseeÏDepartment€of€Correction.€€On€œappeal,›€the€Defendant€argues€that€his€sentencesÏare€excessive.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àThe€indictment€in€this€case€charged€the€Defendant€with€twenty€separateÏcounts€of€aggravated€rape€of€a€seven„year„old€victim€during€a€ten„month€timeÏframe.€€The€Defendant€was€about€thirty€years€old€at€the€time€the€offensesÏoccurred.€€The€victim€was€the€daughter€of€the€Defendantððs€girlfriend.€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€entered€into€a€plea€agreement€which€allowed€him€to€enterÏa€plea€of€òònoloóó€òòcontendereóó€to€four€counts€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.€ÏSentencing€was€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€After€conducting€aÏsentencing€hearing,€the€trial€judge€sentenced€the€Defendant€as€a€Range€IÏstandard€offender€to€the€maximum€sentence€of€twelve€years€for€each€conviction,Ísaid€sentences€to€be€served€œconcurrently.€€It›€is€from€the€sentence€imposed€byÏthe€trial€judge€that€the€Defendant€appeals.ÌÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€the€manner€of€serviceÏof€a€sentence,€this€court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€theÏsentence€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€areÏcorrect.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditionedÏupon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€theÏsentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àIn€conducting€a€de€novo€review€of€a€sentence,€this€court€must€consider:Ï(a)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€theÏpresentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€toÏsentencing€alternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conductÏinvolved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statementÏthat€the€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€ofÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€XÔððððÔ€ŠÔ€40„35„102,€„103,Ïand€„210;€òòseeóó€òòState€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,Ïand€that€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,Ïthen€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€aÏdifferent€result.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Ìà àÌà àThe€presentence€report€reflects€that€the€Defendant€was€approximatelyÏthirty€years€old€and€œthat€his›€formal€education€ended€with€the€ninth€grade.€€HeÏhas€no€significant€history€of€criminal€convictions,€although€he€does€have€a€longÏhistory€of€marijuana€use.€€He€apparently€has€been€regularly€employed€as€aÏlaborer,€roofer,€and€welder.ÌÌà àA€child€abuse€investigator€employed€by€the€Department€of€HumanÏServices€testified€that€the€Defendant€admitted€that€he€had€sexually€abused€theÏvictim€more€than€twenty€times.€€She€specifically€referred€to€one€incident€in€whichÏthe€Defendant€stated€that€he€got€the€victim€in€his€car€and€ð ðthat€he€had€pulledÏœ[the›€œvictimððs]›€panties€down,€placed€his€penis€between€her€legs€and€ejaculated,Ïkissed€her€on€her€vagina€and€told€her€to€go€play.ðð€€She€stated€that€the€victimÏwas€receiving€psychological€counseling€and€has€had€some€behavior€andÏpsychological€problems€from€ð ðpost„traumatic€disorder.ððÌÌà àThe€Defendantððs€mother€testified€that€her€son€had€a€good€work€recordÏand€that€she€needed€him€to€help€her€take€care€of€her€husband,€who€hasÏmultiple€sclerosis.ÌÌà àIn€considering€the€enhancement€factors€applicable€to€the€DefendantððsÏsentence,€the€trial€court€made€no€specific€reference€to€the€statutory€enhancementÏfactors€codified€at€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„114.€€In€discussingÏthe€enhancement€factors,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€victim€suffered€ð ðseriousÏbodily€injury.ðð€€The€trial€court€further€observed€that€sentencing€the€Defendant€toÏthe€minimum€would€ð ðdeprecate€œ[sic]€the›€seriousness€of€the€offense.ðð€€He€alsoÏnoted€that€there€was€a€need€for€œdeterrence,›€and€ð ðthat€in€itself€would€require€moreÏthan€the€minimum€sentence.ðð€€Finally,€the€trial€court€noted€ð ðthe€number€of€timesÏthat€this€happened€in€this€case,€the€court€has€to€consider.ðð€€After€making€theseÏobservations,€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€Defendant€to€the€maximum€of€twelveÏœyears€on€each€count.›ÌÌà àThe€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€provides€that€the€record€ofÏthe€sentencing€hearing€must€include€specific€findings€of€fact€upon€whichÏapplication€of€the€sentencing€principles€was€based.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„209(c).€€The€purposes€of€the€sentencing€laws€and€certain€sentencingÍconsiderations€are€set€forth€in€the€statutes.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102Ïand€ðð€40„35„103.€€When€the€trial€court€imposes€a€sentence,€it€is€required€byÏstatute€to€place€on€the€record€either€orally€or€in€writing€what€enhancement€orÏmitigating€factors€it€found,€if€any.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(f).€€œÌÌà àIn›€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€although€the€trial€judge€did€discuss€on€the€recordÏthe€circumstances€which€he€believed€œshould€enhance€the›€DefendantððsÏœsentence,€he›€did€not€identify€which€of€the€statutory€enhancement€factors€heÏdetermined€were€applicable.€€Because€the€trial€judge€did€not€make€the€requiredÏfindings€of€fact€and€because€the€record€does€not€demonstrate€that€the€trial€courtÏconsidered€the€applicable€sentencing€laws€and€principles,€our€review€of€theÏsentence€will€be€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€without€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€madeÏby€the€trial€court€are€correct.ÌÌà àWe€first€address€the€enhancement€factors€which€we€believe€areÏsupported€by€the€œrecord.€€The€Defendant€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€IÏstandard€offender€and€he€does€have€a€previous€history€of€criminal€behavior.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1).€€This€is€evidenced€by€the€DefendantððsÏadmitted€long€history€of€marijuana€use.€€We€believe€that€the€multiplicity€of€theÏcounts€in€the€indictment€and€the€fact€that€the€Defendant€admitted€to€theÏDepartment€of€Human€Services€investigator€that€he€had€sexually€abused€theÍvictim€more€than€twenty€times€also€support€the€existence€of€this€enhancementÏfactor.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Cummingsóó,€868€S.W.2d€661,€667€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€ÏIn€addition,€the€record€supports€a€finding€that€the€Defendant€abused€a€positionÏof€private€trust.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(15).€€The€victim€was€the€daughterÏof€the€Defendantððs€girlfriend,€and€both€his€girlfriend€and€the€victim€had€apparentlyÏresided€with€the€Defendant€for€some€period€of€time.ÌÌà àWe€note€that€the€trial€court€referred€to€the€ð ðserious€bodily€injuryðð€suffered€byÏthe€victim€in€discussing€the€enhancement€factors.€€We€readily€acknowledge€thatÏall€child€victims€of€sexual€abuse€suffer€serious€injuries€as€a€result€of€theÏperpetratorððs€crimes.€€This€is€one€of€the€reasons€that€the€legislature€hasÏclassified€the€offense€of€aggravated€sexual€battery€as€a€Class€B€felony.€ÏTherefore,€in€order€for€the€Defendantððs€sentence€to€be€further€enhanced€withinÏthe€Class€B€felony€range€based€on€the€personal€injuries€inflicted€upon€the€victim,Ïthere€must€be€proof€that€the€injuries€inflicted€upon€this€victim€were€ð ðparticularlyÏgreatðð€in€relation€to€the€injuries€suffered€by€other€child€victims€of€aggravatedÏsexual€battery.€€No€evidence€of€the€injuries€being€ð ðparticularly€greatðð€wasÏintroduced€at€the€sentencing€hearing€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó.€€ÌÌà àIn€considering€enhancement€factors,€the€trial€court€made€reference€to€theÏneed€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€Defendantððs€offense€and€theÍneed€to€provide€effective€deterrence€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses.€ÏThese€are€valid€statutory€considerations€to€guide€the€court€in€determining€whetherÏa€sentence€should€be€served€in€confinement€rather€than€on€some€form€ofÏrelease€in€the€community.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103.€€However,€theseÏfactors€have€already€been€considered€by€the€legislature€in€setting€theÏappropriate€range€for€the€offense€and€thus€are€not€appropriate€considerations€toÏenhance€the€length€of€the€sentence€within€the€range.ÌÌà àThe€trial€judge€found€that€no€mitigating€factors€were€established€by€theÏDefendant,€and€we€agree€that€the€record€does€not€support€the€application€ofÏmitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113.€€ÌÌà àWe€also€note€that€at€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€StateÏargued€that€the€trial€judge€should€consider€ordering€one€or€more€of€theÏDefendantððs€sentences€to€be€served€consecutively.€€In€summarily€rejecting€theÏStateððs€argument€and€request€concerning€consecutive€sentencing,€the€trial€judgeÏdid€not€discuss€the€possible€applicability€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÏ40„35„115(b)(5).€€The€trial€judge€simply€stated€that€he€did€not€believe€this€was€aÏcase€for€consecutive€sentencing.ÌÌà àFrom€our€review€of€the€entire€record€in€this€case,€we€believe€that€theÏtwelve€year€sentences€ordered€by€the€trial€court€are€reasonable€andÏappropriate.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÓÓà àÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGE