ÿWPC{ 1<)‘„ «†"Ý~L¤ßÔ© ÷Âd)¯'Ê6¿LhÕ°‚‰¤Z/¹ªæ¼JéD«¶è Hu?1—R„IUˆš½£ÊÜðL“ßõWãØwSù¨ á‚$'ÚʨßÍ9qžÈ¿7öóÅàñ6Æ/aÕûÁüš–ö‚ÚV[x´ÚžùåZ¨òÕgù L°w£D`}YÞ¬¯œ”è^3ò;¨ê:j{e@LVXÃíÔ/ÊíA¾m¥ÑBºó-"»~Kmà‡,# hU>s %± 0í·UB¤4æún­ U:¶fðV"^w@€&À D3æ 01 0DJ U:Ž U:È -             0D/ Bs s s s AQ Æá 0D§ 0Dë D// B^˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLÜÏ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiV&3|xÅ «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\Ñ Ñ Ü ÑÑ  Ñ ± ² E³ ´ Dµ ¶ E· ¸ ¹ Eº Ó€ Ý ƒ(¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XlXXXÔÔ€JXXlÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XlXJÔÐ  ÐÌò òMarch€31,€1999Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ô”—ôXXlÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó""""'ÿÿdxd(á(3l0$¤¤Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€KãXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular #Ñ#€iXÿÿd#Ñ(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý d'(!)*Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó++'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€KãXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  ݛѰÑÑÜ°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÑ€ †ÑÑ€ í:ÑÔ€ XlXXXÔÑ7€ l XXdæXXdÈ7ÑÑ€}2Ññº ñœßr€&<,(j 8` `€€@E  ` ttx$Xð Õrß›ñº ñ€à8 ¸ àà@Ñ Ñ D¸ x¸ xàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@~~%DàAT€KNOXVILLEà@@66-Rà€€€€€€€€€ˆÌà ¸ àà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€MAY€1998€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À à)à  àÐ 80 Ѐà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð   Ðà ¸ àAppellee,€à h àà À à)à  àNo.€03C01„9707„CR„00262Ð ü  Ðà ¸ à€€€€€à  àà h à€€à À à)Ð êâ  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à€Knox€CountyÐ ÐÈ  Ðv.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€€Ð ¶®  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHonorable€Mary€Beth€Leibowitz,€Judge€€€€€Ð œ”  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌWILLIAM€JASON€McMAHAN,à À à)à  à(Aggravated€Robbery,€Criminally€Negligent€Ð h` Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHomicide,€and€Theft)Ð NF Ðà ¸ àAppellant.à h àà À à)Ð 4, Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à  àà h àà À àà  àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:Ð æÞ ÐÌJ.€Jeffrey€Whittà  àà h àà À àà  àJohn€Knox€Walkup€Ð ²ª Ð706€Walnut€Streetà  àà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÐ ˜ ÐSuite€902à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àandÐ ~v ÐKnoxville,€TN€37902à h àà À àà  àEllen€H.€Pollack€€€€€Ð d\ Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€Tennessee€€€€€€€€€€Ï€€€€€€€€€€€€€à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€€€€€à Ð àà (# àÐ 0 ( Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àRandall€E.€NicholsÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àandÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àFred€BrightÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCity„County€BuildingÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àKnoxville,€TN€37902ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌJUDGMENTS€OF€CONVICTION€FOR€AGGRAVATED€ROBBERY€AND€CRIMINALLYÏNEGLIGENT€HOMICIDE€AFFIRMED;€JUDGMENT€OF€CONVICTION€FOR€THEFTÏVACATED€AND€CONVICTION€MERGED€INTO€THE€AGGRAVATED€ROBBERYÏJUDGMENT€OF€CONVICTIONÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÐ >:639S ЇÌÌÓÓà@õõ)Dàòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€NˆÐ ÔÌ ÐÌà ¸ àó óóóThe€defendant,€William€Jason€McMahan,€appeals€as€of€right€following€hisÐ „ | Ð1997€jury€convictions€in€the€Knox€County€Criminal€Court€for€aggravated€robbery,€aÏClass€B€felony,€criminally€negligent€homicide,€a€Class€E€felony,€and€theft€of€more€thanÏone€thousand€dollars€but€less€than€ten€thousand€dollars,€a€Class€D€felony.€€He€receivedÏconsecutive€sentences€of€twelve€years,€two€years€and€four€years,€respectively,€to€beÏserved€in€the€Department€of€Correction€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender.€€TheÏdefendant€presents€the€following€issues€for€our€review:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ à(1)€whether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€theÏdefendantððs€aggravated€robbery€conviction;Ð ¸ x¸ x Ðà8 ¸ àÐ ¸ x¸ x Ðà8 ¸ à(2)€whether€the€defendant€can€be€found€guilty€of€bothÏaggravated€robberyà8À¸ x¸ xàand€theft;а¨À À  Ðà8 ¸ àÐ ¸ x¸ x Ðà8 ¸ à(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€allow€theÏjury€to€rehear€testimony€upon€request€onceÏdeliberations€had€begun;€andÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€theÏdefendant€with€regard€to€the€weight€given€certainÏenhancement€factors€and€to€the€imposition€ofÏconsecutive€sentencing.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓWe€conclude€(1)€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€defendantððs€aggravatedÏrobbery€conviction,€(2)€that€the€convictions€for€both€aggravated€robbery€and€theft€violateÏdouble€jeopardy€principles,€(3)€that€although€the€trial€court€should€have€allowed€the€juryÏto€rehear€the€testimony,€the€error€was€harmless€and€(4)€that€the€defendant€was€properlyÏsentenced.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€was€charged€with€felony€murder€for€the€killing€of€the€victim,ÏRobert€Lambdin,€in€perpetration€of€robbery€and€theft.€€The€defendant€also€was€chargedÏwith€one€count€of€especially€aggravated€robbery€and€one€count€of€theft€of€propertyÏvalued€at€more€than€ten€thousand€dollars€but€less€than€sixty€thousand€dollars.€€ÌÐ Š8‚17 Ðà ¸ àAt€trial,€James€ð ðJ.L.ðð€Keaton€testified€that€on€the€afternoon€of€SeptemberÏ15,€1995,€he€went€to€The€Finish€Line€bar€after€work.€€He€said€that€while€there,€he€ranÏinto€Danny€Carroll€and€another€person,€whom€he€identified€as€the€defendant.€€He€statedÏthat€he€and€Carroll€went€behind€the€bar€to€drink€and€smoke€cocaine,€but€the€defendantÏremained€in€the€bar.€€He€said€that€after€a€couple€of€hours,€he€drove€the€three€of€them€toÏan€apartment€in€South€Knoxville€where€they€bought€some€cocaine.€€He€testified€that€allÏthree€of€them€used€the€cocaine€initially,€but€then€the€defendant€ran€out€of€money.€€HeÏsaid€that€he€and€Carroll€continued€to€use€cocaine€but€did€not€give€any€to€the€defendant.ÌÌà ¸ àKeaton€testified€that€the€defendant€said€he€wanted€to€be€driven€to€hisÏhouse€to€get€some€money.€€He€said€that€he€was€driving,€Carroll€was€in€the€passengerÏseat€and€the€defendant€was€in€the€backseat.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€directed€him€toÏa€subdivision,€which€he€later€learned€was€Murphy€Hills.€€He€stated€that€once€there,€theyÏhad€to€drive€around€before€the€defendant€could€identify€the€right€house.€€He€said€thatÏwhen€they€left€the€defendant€at€the€house,€the€defendant€did€not€ask€them€to€wait€forÏhim.ÌÌà ¸ àKeaton€testified€that€he€and€Carroll€then€drove€to€his€motherððs€trailer,Ïwhich€was€about€two€miles€from€where€they€left€the€defendant.€€He€stated€that€he€andÏCarroll€continued€to€smoke€cocaine€in€the€trailer.€€He€said€that€about€thirty€minutes€later,Ïthe€defendant€came€to€his€door.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€had€been€to€the€trailerÏonce€before€to€help€Carroll€repair€his€car€while€he€was€at€work.€€He€said€that€when€heÏanswered€the€door,€the€defendant€was€breathing€heavily€and€sweating€like€he€had€beenÏrunning.€€He€stated€that€Carroll€went€out€on€the€porch€and€spoke€with€the€defendant.ÌÌà ¸ àKeaton€testified€that€the€defendant€left€and€Carroll€came€inside€and€saidÏthat€the€defendant€had€to€go€drop€off€his€car.€€He€said€that€he€and€Carroll€stayed€at€theÏtrailer€and€finished€using€the€cocaine,€then€they€drove€up€the€street€and€picked€up€theÐ Œ7„06 ÐÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  Ñdefendant€who€was€walking€and€carrying€a€lunch€cooler€that€he€did€not€have€earlier.€€HeÏsaid€he€then€drove€the€three€of€them€back€to€the€apartment€in€South€Knoxville,€whereÏthey€continued€to€use€cocaine,€drink€and€take€Valium€throughout€the€night.€€He€statedÏthat€he€did€not€remember€what€happened€to€the€defendant€after€this€but€that€he€thoughtÏthat€he€and€Carroll€left€the€defendant€at€the€apartment€and€that€he€took€Carroll€home.€ÏHe€said€that€he€did€not€know€whether€they€used€Carrollððs€or€the€defendantððs€money€forÏthe€final€cocaine€purchase€but€that€he€had€no€money€at€that€point.ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€Keaton€testified€that€did€not€know€the€defendantÏbefore€running€into€him€at€the€bar€that€afternoon.€€He€said€the€purpose€of€taking€theÏdefendant€to€his€house€was€for€the€defendant€to€get€money€to€get€high€with€them€butÏthat€he€did€not€remember€if€the€defendant€said€that€he€was€going€to€get€the€money€orÏborrow€it.€€He€stated€that€when€the€defendant€came€to€the€trailer€door,€he€did€not€noticeÏany€blood€on€the€defendantððs€clothes,€and€the€defendant€did€not€come€into€his€trailer€toÏchange€clothes.ÌÌà ¸ àDanny€Carroll€testified€that€on€September€15,€1995,€he€and€the€defendantÏworked€together€building€homes.€€He€said€that€he€and€the€defendant€left€work€togetherÏand€went€to€The€Finish€Line€bar€around€5:00€or€6:00€p.m.€€He€stated€that€he€saw€J.L.ÏKeaton€at€the€bar,€and€he€introduced€the€defendant€to€Keaton.€€He€said€while€at€the€bar,Ïthe€three€of€them€were€drinking€and€using€cocaine.€€He€stated€that€Keaton€drove€theÏthree€of€them€to€South€Knoxville,€where€they€bought€more€cocaine.€€Carroll€said€that€heÏthought€they€all€got€some€cocaine€but€that€he€did€not€remember€who€paid€for€it.€€HeÏstated€that€they€used€more€cocaine€while€in€South€Knoxville,€then€they€returned€to€TheÏFinish€Line€about€7:00€or€8:00€p.m.ÌÌà ¸ àCarroll€testified€that€the€three€of€them€left€the€bar€after€a€couple€of€hours.€ÏHe€stated€that€the€defendant€said€he€wanted€to€borrow€some€money€from€Blue,€whoÐ Œ7„06 Ðowed€the€defendant€money€because€the€defendant€had€repaired€his€truck.€€Carroll€saidÏhe€knew€Robert€Lambdin,€who€ran€Greenway€Sports,€by€the€nickname€Blue.€€HeÏtestified€that€Keaton€drove,€he€rode€in€the€passengerððs€seat€and€the€defendant€rode€inÏthe€backseat.€€He€said€that€he€did€not€know€where€Blue€œlived,›€but€they€took€theÏdefendant€to€Murphy€Hills.€€He€said€the€defendant€did€not€know€which€house€wasÏBlueððs,€and€they€had€to€drive€around€the€block€before€dropping€œoff€the›€œdefendant.›€€HeÏsaid€œthey›€did€not€wait€on€the€defendant€because€he€told€them€that€Blue€would€give€himÏa€ride€home.ÌÌà ¸ àCarroll€testified€that€he€and€Keaton€went€to€Keatonððs€trailer,€which€wasÏabout€one€to€one€and€one„half€miles€away,€and€they€used€cocaine€and€drank.€€He€saidÏone€to€one€and€one„half€hours€later,€the€defendant€came€to€the€door.€€He€said€that€theÏdefendant€had€been€to€Keatonððs€trailer€with€him€before€to€work€on€Keatonððs€car€while€heÏwas€not€there.€€Carroll€said€that€he€and€the€defendant€talked€outside€and€that€theÏdefendant€looked€like€he€had€been€in€a€fight.€€He€stated€that€the€defendant€was€upsetÏand€crying.€€He€said€the€defendant€told€him€that€he€and€Blue€got€into€a€fight,€Blue€hit€hisÏhead€on€a€table,€and€it€might€have€knocked€out€Blue.€€He€stated€that€the€defendant€toldÏhim€that€he€did€not€know€whether€the€blow€had€killed€Blue.€€He€said€Keaton€gave€theÏdefendant€another€shirt€to€wear€because€the€defendantððs€shirt€was€ripped€and€bloody.€ÏHe€stated€that€the€defendant€changed€clothes€in€Keatonððs€bathroom.ÌÌà ¸ àCarroll€testified€that€the€defendant€said€he€was€in€Blueððs€car€and€neededÏto€œdrop€off›€the€œcar.›€€He€stated€that€the€defendant€said€he€was€going€to€park€the€car€upÏthe€street,€and€he€wanted€them€to€meet€him€there.€€He€said€that€he€and€Keaton€left€aÏfew€minutes€after€the€defendant€and€picked€him€up€about€one€mile€down€the€road.€€HeÏsaid€that€when€they€picked€him€up,€the€defendant€had€a€small€Igloo€cooler€with€him.€€HeÏstated€that€he€had€seen€the€cooler€before€at€the€pool€hall,€and€Blue€used€it€to€hold€hisÏmarijuana.€€He€said€the€cooler€contained€two€bags€of€marijuana€and€some€snacks.€€HeÐ Œ7„06 Ðstated€that€he€saw€the€defendant€counting€some€money,€and€he€overheard€theÏdefendant€say€it€was€over€two€thousand€dollars.€€He€said€that€he€did€not€think€theÏdefendant€had€the€money€before€they€dropped€him€off€at€Blueððs€house.€€He€stated€thatÏthe€defendant€kept€the€marijuana€but€threw€the€cooler€out€of€the€car.ÌÌà ¸ àCarroll€testified€that€the€three€of€them€then€drove€back€to€South€Knoxville,Ïand€the€defendant€gave€him€two€or€three€hundred€dollars€to€buy€cocaine.€€He€statedÏthat€he€did€not€know€exactly€how€much€cocaine€he€purchased€that€night€but€that€heÏmade€at€least€three€purchases€with€money€from€the€defendant.€€He€said€that€theÏdefendant€left€while€he€was€making€the€final€purchase€and€that€he€rode€home€withÏKeaton€at€2:00€or€3:00€a.m.€€He€stated€that€the€next€evening€while€watching€the€news,Ïhe€found€out€that€Blue€had€been€killed.ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€Carroll€testified€that€the€defendant€did€not€have€aÏgun€or€a€knife€with€him€when€they€dropped€him€off€at€Blueððs€house.€€He€stated€that€theÏdefendant€had€asked€him€to€go€inside€Blueððs€house.€€He€said€the€defendant€also€askedÏthem€to€wait€on€him,€but€Keaton€wanted€to€leave.€€He€admitted€that€they€had€countedÏthe€defendantððs€money€at€Keatonððs€trailer.ÌÌà ¸ àJim€Kesterson€testified€that€he€is€a€highway€patrolman€with€the€crimeÏscene€unit€for€the€Knox€County€Sheriffððs€Department.€€He€stated€that€on€September€16,Ï1995,€he€went€to€the€crime€scene€at€the€victimððs€house.€€He€said€the€victim€was€lying€onÏthe€floor€near€the€front€entrance,€and€a€recliner€was€overturned€on€top€of€him€coveringÏhis€face.€€He€said€the€victim€was€clutching€part€of€a€plastic€bag,€and€another€part€of€theÏbag€was€in€front€of€the€fireplace.€€He€stated€that€a€black€nylon€bag€that€held€a€.38Ïcaliber€revolver€was€on€the€end€table.€€He€said€an€open€bag€was€on€the€couch,€and€it€Ïcontained€money€and€an€automatic€pistol.€€He€said€that€the€victimððs€wallet€was€in€hisÏrear€pocket€and€contained€money.€€He€stated€that€the€fingerprints€on€a€drinking€glass€inÐ Œ7„06 ÐÑ †ÑÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ñthe€room€matched€those€of€the€defendant.€€He€testified€that€the€telephone€receiverÐ  Ðappeared€to€have€been€ripped€from€its€base.€€He€stated€that€blood€spatters€were€foundÏin€various€places€in€the€room,€along€with€bloodstains€on€the€recliner€and€on€the€rugÏunderneath€the€victimððs€head.ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€Officer€Kesterson€testified€that€he€could€not€sayÏwhether€the€blood€in€the€room€belonged€to€the€victim€or€to€the€defendant.€€He€statedÏthat€there€was€no€blood€on€the€œtelephone.›€€He€said€that€he€found€clear€plastic€baggiesÏand€a€football€betting€sheet€near€the€victim.€€He€stated€that€he€did€not€collect€anyÏmarijuana€as€a€result€of€his€investigation,€but€he€knew€that€Detective€Johnson€collectedÏsome.ÌÌà ¸ àDetective€Darrell€Johnson€testified€that€he€is€a€detective€for€the€KnoxÏCounty€Sheriffððs€Department€and€that€he€went€to€the€victimððs€house€on€September€16,Ï1995.€€He€stated€that€the€victim€appeared€to€have€been€dead€for€several€hours€and€hadÏbruises€and€cuts.€€He€stated€that€the€victimððs€1988€red€Ford€Festiva€was€recovered.€HeÏsaid€that€on€September€29,€1995,€he€interviewed€the€defendant,€and€the€defendantÏgave€him€the€name€of€an€individual€that€might€have€information€about€the€crime.€ÏDetective€Johnson€stated€that€the€next€time€he€spoke€with€the€defendant€was€on€MarchÏ29,€1996,€at€the€Sheriffððs€Department€and€that€the€defendant€was€a€suspect€at€that€time.€ÏHe€said€that€the€defendant€executed€a€written€waiver€and€then€gave€a€taped€statement.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendantððs€taped€statement€was€played€for€the€jury.€€In€thisÏstatement,€the€defendant€said€that€he€and€Danny€Carroll€went€to€The€Finish€Line€afterÏwork.€€The€defendant€said€he€and€Carroll€took€a€cab€from€the€bar€to€South€Knoxville,Ïwhere€they€used€cocaine€before€returning€to€the€bar.€€The€defendant€said€that€at€theÏbar,€he€and€Carroll€ran€into€Carrollððs€friend,€J.L.€Keaton,€and€the€three€of€them€left€theÏbar€in€Keatonððs€car.€€The€defendant€stated€that€Carroll€asked€him€where€he€could€getÐ Œ7„06 Ðmore€money€for€cocaine.€€He€said€that€he€had€them€take€him€to€Blueððs€house€in€orderÏfor€him€to€borrow€one€hundred€dollars.€€He€stated€that€he€already€owed€Blue€two€orÏthree€hundred€dollars.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendantððs€statement€revealed€that€they€arrived€at€Blueððs€house€justÏbefore€nightfall.€€He€said€that€he€asked€Carroll€to€go€inside€with€him€but€Carroll€declined.€ÏThe€defendant€said€that€Blue€let€him€in€the€house.€€He€said€that€Blue€showed€him€someÏmarijuana€in€the€kitchen,€and€Blue€said€that€he€intended€to€give€the€defendant€an€ounceÏof€marijuana€for€repairing€his€truck.€€He€said€that€Blue€refused€his€request€to€borrowÏmoney€because€he€owed€Blue€money,€and€Blue€said€if€he€did€not€pay€him,€Blue€couldÏhave€ð ðsomething€done.ððÌÌà ¸ àIn€his€statement,€the€defendant€said€that€he€went€to€make€a€telephoneÏcall,€and€he€felt€Blue€push€or€hit€him€in€the€back.€€He€said€that€he€turned€and€hit€BlueÏonce€on€his€head€with€the€telephone.€€He€said€that€he€and€Blue€began€to€fight€and€thatÏwhen€they€fell€to€the€floor,€he€got€on€top€of€Blue€and€hit€him€with€his€fist€until€Blue€didÏnot€move.€€He€said€that€once€Blue€stopped€moving,€he€tried€to€shake€him,€but€BlueÏwould€not€wake€up.€€He€said€he€got€up€and€wiped€the€blood€from€his€hands€onto€theÏwall.€€He€said€that€he€tried€to€get€Blue€to€talk€and€shook€him€again.€€He€said€he€sat€inÏthe€house€for€a€period€of€time,€then€he€pushed€a€chair€on€top€of€Blue.ÌÌà ¸ àIn€his€statement,€the€defendant€said€that€he€realized€that€Carroll€andÏKeaton€had€not€waited€on€him,€so€he€checked€Blueððs€pockets€for€keys.€€He€said€that€heÏtook€keys€and€a€bag€of€marijuana€from€Blueððs€pockets,€and€he€took€an€envelopeÏcontaining€twenty„five€hundred€dollars€from€the€table.€€He€said€that€he€left€in€Blueððs€car,Ïa€red€Ford€Festiva.€€He€said€he€drove€to€Keatonððs€trailer€where€he€told€Carroll€that€heÏthought€he€had€killed€Blue.€€He€stated€that€his€nose€was€bleeding,€and€he€changed€intoÏKeatonððs€clothes€because€his€clothes€had€blood€on€them.€€He€said€that€Carroll€got€rid€ofÐ Œ7„06 Ðhis€clothes€and€told€him€to€move€the€victimððs€car.€€He€said€he€drove€the€car€to€a€certainÏspot,€and€Keaton€and€Carroll€picked€him€up.€€He€said€they€all€left€Keatonððs€trailer€at€theÏsame€time.€€He€said€that€when€he€got€in€Keatonððs€car,€he€had€the€victimððs€cooler€withÏhim.€€He€said€that€he€removed€some€marijuana€and€threw€the€cooler€out€the€carÏwindow.Ì€€Ìà ¸ àThe€defendantððs€statement€revealed€that€he€spent€the€entire€twenty„fiveÏhundred€dollars€on€cocaine€that€night.€€The€defendant€stated€that€after€purchasing€andÏusing€cocaine€in€South€Knoxville,€he€left€Carroll€and€Keaton€and€went€with€RobbieÏGibson€to€buy€more€cocaine€with€the€last€one€hundred€dollars,€but€he€was€cheated.€€HeÏsaid€that€he€did€not€mean€to€kill€the€victim€and€that€he€did€not€go€to€the€victimððs€houseÏintending€to€rob€him.€€He€said€that€he€did€not€come€forward€earlier€because€he€wasÏscared.ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€Detective€Johnson€testified€that€no€tests€wereÏperformed€on€the€blood€at€the€crime€scene.€€He€stated€that€money€was€found€in€theÏvictimððs€wallet€and€in€the€money€bag€and€that€a€ring€was€found€in€the€bathroom.€€HeÏsaid€that€he€later€recovered€marijuana€and€money€that€had€been€in€the€victimððs€houseÏbut€was€not€discovered€when€the€police€processed€the€crime€scene.€€The€detective€saidÏthat€the€defendant€was€upset€and€crying€during€his€statement€and€during€the€precedingÏinterview.ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Sandra€K.€Elkins€testified€that€she€is€the€Knox€County€MedicalÏExaminer€and€that€she€performed€an€autopsy€on€the€victim.€€She€said€that€the€victimÏdied€from€multiple,€blunt€force€injuries€sustained€during€a€beating.€€She€testified€thatÏblows€to€the€head€had€resulted€in€brain€injuries€and€caused€the€victimððs€brain€to€bleed.€ÏShe€said€that€the€victim€had€two€broken€cervical€vertebrae€in€his€lower€neck.€€SheÏstated€that€blunt€force€injuries€to€the€chest€resulted€in€nine€broken€ribs.€€She€testifiedÐ Œ7„06 Ðthat€ten€moderate€to€severe€blows€with€a€telephone€receiver,€fists€or€feet€could€haveÏcaused€these€injuries.€€She€said€that€death€could€have€resulted€from€either€the€head€orÏthe€chest€injuries€and€that€the€victim€could€have€survived€for€one€and€one„half€hoursÏafter€sustaining€these€injuries.ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Elkins€testified€that€the€victim€was€sixty„three€years€old,€five„feet„eight„¼inches€tall,€weighed€one„hundred„sixty€pounds,€and€had€emphysema.€€She€stated€thatÏthe€œvictim›€had€defensive€wounds€on€the€back€of€his€lower€right€arm€but€no€offensiveÏwounds€on€his€hands€or€knuckles.€€ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€Dr.€Elkins€testified€that€death€could€have€occurredÏwithin€minutes€but€not€instantaneously.€€She€said€that€the€injuries€had€no€distinctÏpatterns€and€could€have€occurred€from€falling€on€a€table€or€against€a€wall.€€She€statedÏthat€the€victimððs€spinal€cord€was€not€severed,€and€she€believed€that€the€brokenÏvertebrae€were€due€to€violent€twisting€or€jerking€of€the€neck.€€She€stated€that€bonesÏbreak€more€easily€as€people€age€and€that€cardiopulmonary€resuscitation€(C.P.R.)€oftenÏcauses€broken€ribs€on€sixty„year„old€individuals.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€the€lesser€included€offenses€ofÏcriminally€negligent€homicide,€aggravated€robbery€and€theft€of€more€than€one€thousandÏdollars€but€less€than€ten€thousand€dollars.ÌÌà@¯¯ Dàò òI.€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEˆÐ .ˆ', Ðó óà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€not€sufficient€to€support€hisÐ h0`). Ðaggravated€robbery€conviction€because€he€did€not€form€the€intent€to€take€the€victimððsÏmoney€until€after€the€fight€had€concluded.€€The€defendant€states€that€the€proof€showsÏthat€he€went€to€the€victimððs€house€to€borrow€money€and€was€refused.€€The€defendantÏclaims€he€then€attempted€to€make€a€phone€call.€€The€defendant€says€at€that€point,€aÐ ˜706 Ðfight€took€place€which€rendered€the€victim€motionless.€€The€defendant€argues€that€it€wasÏnot€until€after€the€fight,€as€he€was€preparing€to€leave€the€house,€that€he€decided€to€takeÏthe€money.€€The€defendant€contends€that€because€the€proof€does€not€show€that€heÏintended€to€take€the€money€while€the€fight€was€in€progress,€he€merely€committed€theftÏand€not€aggravated€robbery.€€The€defendant€argues€that€the€evidence€showing€that€heÏasked€Carroll€to€go€into€the€victimððs€house€with€him,€that€he€took€no€weapons€with€him,Ïand€that€money,€jewelry€and€other€valuables€were€left€in€the€victimððs€home€furtherÏsupports€his€contentions.€€The€state€argues€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient.€€€ÌÌò òà ¸ àó óOur€standard€of€review€when€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€questionedÐ 4, Ðon€appeal€is€"whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏprosecution,€òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€theÐ ÌÄ Ðcrime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.Ð ˜ Ð2781,€2789€(1979).€€This€means€that€we€may€not€reweigh€the€evidence,€but€mustÏpresume€that€the€jury€has€resolved€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€and€drawn€allÏreasonable€inferences€from€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,Ð ü!ô Ð676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ð È#À  Ð1978).€€This€standard€applies€to€both€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.Ð ”%Œ" ÐThomasóó,€755€S.W.2d€838,€842€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988);€òòState€v.€Lequireóó,€634€S.W.2dÐ `'X $ Ð608,€614€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).ÌÌà ¸ àCircumstantial€evidence€may€be€used€exclusively€or€in€combination€withÏdirect€evidence€to€establish€guilt€for€a€criminal€act.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2dÐ .ˆ', Ð561,€569€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€one€element€present€in€almost€all€criminal€offenses€whichÏis€most€often€proven€by€circumstantial€evidence€is€that€relating€to€the€culpable€mentalÏstate.€€òòSeeóó€òòHall€v.€Stateóó,€490€S.W.2d€495,€496€(Tenn.€1973).€€Other€than€an€accusedÐ ô3ì,2 Ðstating€what€his€or€her€purpose,€intent,€or€thinking€was€at€the€relevant€times,€the€trier€ofÏfact€is€left€to€determine€the€mental€state€by€making€inferences€drawn€from€theÐ Œ7„06 Ðsurrounding€circumstances€it€finds€to€exist.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòPoag€v.€Stateóó,€567€S.W.2d€775,Ð  Ð778€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€Furthermore,€the€jury€is€not€obligated€to€accept€theÏdefendantððs€explanation€of€events.€€The€weight€to€be€given€circumstantial€evidence€isÏfor€the€jury€to€determine.€€òòSeeóó€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€520€S.W.2d€371,€374€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð l d ÐApp.€1977).€€ÌÌà ¸ àAggravated€robbery€is€ð ðthe€intentional€or€knowing€theft€of€property€fromÏthe€person€of€another€by€violence€or€putting€the€person€in€fearðð€when€accomplished€withÏa€deadly€weapon€or€when€the€victim€suffers€serious€bodily€injury.€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„402,Ï403.€€A€deadly€weapon€is€defined€as€ð ð[a]nything€that€in€the€manner€of€its€use€orÏintended€use€is€capable€of€causing€death€or€serious€bodily€injury[.]ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„11„¼106(a)(5)(B).ÌÌà ¸ àTaking€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€defendantÏwent€to€the€victimððs€house€because€he€needed€money€to€buy€more€cocaine.€€The€victimÏrefused€to€lend€him€money.€€The€defendant€admitted€that€he€hit€the€victim€on€the€headÏwith€the€telephone.€€He€also€admitted€hitting€the€victim€numerous€times€on€the€head€andÏchest€with€his€fist€until€the€victim€became€motionless.€€The€autopsy€results€revealed€noÏoffensive€wounds€on€the€victimððs€hands€or€knuckles€but€did€show€defensive€wounds.€ÏThe€victim€died€from€the€injuries€he€sustained€in€this€beating.€€The€defendant€took€anÏenvelope€containing€twenty„five€hundred€dollars€from€a€table€near€the€victimððs€body.€ÏThe€defendant€preceded€to€use€all€of€the€money€he€took€from€the€victim€to€purchaseÏcocaine€that€same€night.€€The€jury€could€rationally€conclude€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÏthat€the€victim€did€not€participate€in€the€ð ðfight,ðð€but,€instead,€the€defendant€attacked€theÏvictim€when€the€victim€refused€to€lend€him€money€in€order€to€gain€the€money€by€force.€ÏThe€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€aggravated€robbery€conviction.ÌÌÐ Œ7„06 Їà@Í Í Dàò òII.€INCIDENTAL€CONVICTION/€DOUBLE€JEOPARDYó óˆÐ  Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€because€his€theft€conviction€was€factuallyÏsimilar€and€involved€the€same€property€as€his€aggravated€robbery€conviction,€theÏconviction€for€theft€is€essentially€incidental€to€the€aggravated€robbery€conviction€underÏòòState€v.€Anthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€299€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€state€argues€that€theft€andÐ D< Ðaggravated€robbery€are€two€distinct€offenses,€with€robbery€involving€a€person€and€theftÏinvolving€property€only.€€The€state€contends€that€the€defendant€beat€the€victim€in€orderÏto€take€his€money,€but€only€after€the€beating€concluded€did€the€defendant€decide€to€takeÏthe€victimððs€car.ÌÌà ¸ àIn€òòAnthonyóó,€our€supreme€court€held€that€convictions€for€both€kidnappingÐ   Ðand€robbery€violated€the€defendantððs€due€process€rights€when€the€detention€resulting€inÏthe€kidnapping€conviction€was€essentially€incidental€to€the€commission€of€theÏaccompanying€felony.€€òòId.óó€at€306.€€However,€when€addressing€whether€convictions€forÐ ph Ðaggravated€assault,€attempted€voluntary€manslaughter€and€a€weapons€offense€couldÏproperly€arise€out€of€a€single€criminal€act,€the€supreme€court€has€preferred€to€addressÏthe€question€under€principles€of€double€jeopardy€rather€than€conducting€a€due€processÏanalysis€under€òòAnthonyóó.€€òòState€v.€Dentonóó,€938€S.W.2d€373,€378€(Tenn.€1996).€€UnlikeÐ  %˜" Ðthe€kidnapping€and€robbery€statutes€discussed€in€òòAnthonyóó,€which€each€required€proof€ofÐ l'd $ Ðan€element€that€the€other€did€not,€the€aggravated€robbery€statute€itself€requires€proof€ofÏa€theft.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðððð€39„13„402.€€We€believe€that€a€double€jeopardy€analysis€underÐ +ü#( ÐòòDentonóó€best€reflects€whether€the€defendantððs€constitutional€rights€were€violated.Ð Ð,È%* ÐÌà ¸ àBoth€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions€protect€against€twiceÏbeing€put€in€jeopardy€for€the€same€offense.€€U.S.€Const.€amend.€V;€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,Ïðð€10.€€The€double€jeopardy€clause€contains€three€protections:€ð ðIt€protects€against€aÏsecond€prosecution€for€the€same€offense€after€acquittal.€€It€protects€against€a€secondÏprosecution€for€the€same€offense€after€conviction.€€And€it€protects€against€multipleÐ ˜706 Ðpunishments€for€the€same€offense.ðð€€òòNorth€Carolina€v.€Pearceóó,€395€U.S.€711,€717,€89€S.Ð  ÐCt.€2072,€2076€(1969);€òòDentonóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€378.Ð ÔÌ ÐÌà ¸ àIn€multiple€punishment€cases,€such€as€this€one,€the€focus€is€on€legislativeÏintent€with€the€presumption€being€that€the€legislature€typically€does€not€mean€for€theÏsame€offense€to€be€punished€under€two€separate€statutes.€€òòId.óó€at€379.€€In€Tennessee,Ð ü  Ðdouble€jeopardy€analysis€requires€four€steps:€(1)€an€analysis€of€the€two€statutes€inÏquestion,€(2)€an€analysis€of€the€evidence€needed€to€prove€the€two€offenses,€(3)€aÏconsideration€of€the€number€of€victims€and€discrete€acts,€and€(4)€a€comparison€of€theÏpurposes€behind€the€two€statutes.€€òòId.óó€at€379„81.€€These€steps€are€weighed€as€theyÐ 4, Ðrelate€to€each€other€with€none€being€determinative.€€òòId.óó€at€381.Ð ø ÐÌà ¸ àThe€analysis€of€the€two€statutory€provisions€is€directed€by€the€testÏarticulated€in€òòBlockburger€v.€United€Statesóó:Ð d\ ÐÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ à[W]here€the€same€act€or€transaction€constitutes€aÏviolation€of€two€distinct€statutory€provisions,€the€test€toÏbe€applied€to€determine€whether€there€are€two€offensesÏor€only€one€is€whether€each€provision€requires€proof€ofÏan€additional€fact€that€the€other€does€not.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  Ó284€U.S.€299,€304,€52€S.€Ct.€180,€182€(1932).€€As€noted€above,€theft€does€not€requireÏproof€of€an€additional€fact€that€aggravated€robbery€does€œnot€require.›€€Thus,€this€stepÏreflects€that€the€legislature€did€not€intend€for€a€defendant€to€be€convicted€of€bothÏaggravated€robbery€and€theft€for€the€same€set€of€facts.ÌÌà ¸ àOur€supreme€court€in€òòDuchac€v.€Stateóó€examined€the€evidence€required€byÐ .ˆ', Ðthe€two€statutory€provisions€to€determine€whether€multiple€punishments€could€stand:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àð ðOne€test€of€identity€of€offenses€is€whether€the€sameÏevidence€is€required€to€prove€them.€€If€the€sameÏevidence€is€not€required,€then€the€fact€that€both€chargesÏrelate€to,€and€grow€out€of,€one€transaction,€does€notÏmake€a€single€offense€where€two€are€defined€byÏstatutes.€€.€.€.€[T]here€is€no€identity€of€offenses€if€on€theÏtrial€of€one€offense€proof€of€some€fact€is€required€that€isÏnot€necessary€to€be€proved€in€the€trial€of€the€other,Ð r8j17 Ðalthough€some€of€the€same€acts€may€necessarily€beÏproved€in€the€trial€of€each.ððÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  Ó505€S.W.2d€237,€239€(Tenn.€1973)€(quoting€Am.€œJur›.€œ2d›€òòCriminal€Lawóó,€ðð€82)€(notingÐ º ² Ðthat€this€determination€turns€upon€the€facts€of€each€case).€€In€the€present€case,€theÏevidence€supporting€the€aggravated€robbery€was€that€after€the€victim€refused€to€loanÏthe€defendant€money,€the€defendant€beat€the€victim€until€he€was€motionless€and€thenÏtook€twenty„five€hundred€dollars€from€a€table€in€the€victimððs€home.€€Although€theÏdefendant€insisted€that€he€was€only€participating€in€a€fight€initiated€by€the€victim,€the€juryÏcould€reasonably€infer€from€the€absence€of€offensive€wounds€on€the€victim€and€theÏdefendantððs€need€for€money€to€buy€cocaine,€that€the€defendant€intended€to€rob€theÏvictim€while€he€was€inflicting€the€beating.€€The€victim€suffered€serious€bodily€injury€inÏthat€he€died€as€a€result€of€the€beating.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€state€contends€that€different€evidence€supports€the€theft€conviction.€Ïð ðA€person€commits€theft€of€property€if,€with€intent€to€deprive€the€owner€of€property,€theÏperson€knowingly€obtains€or€exercises€control€over€the€property€without€the€ownerððsÏeffective€consent.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„14„103.€€The€defendant€admitted€in€his€statement€thatÏwhen€he€realized€that€the€victim€was€no€longer€moving,€he€wiped€the€blood€from€hisÏhands€and€tried€to€revive€the€victim€by€shaking€him€and€talking€to€him.€€After€sittingÏthere€for€a€period€of€time,€the€defendant€said€he€turned€a€chair€over€onto€the€victim,Ïtook€the€car€keys€and€a€bag€of€marijuana€from€the€victimððs€front€pockets,€took€anÏenvelope€of€money€from€the€table,€went€outside,€and€left€in€the€victimððs€car.€€The€stateÏargues€that€although€the€defendant€beat€the€victim€in€order€to€take€money€from€him,€theÏdefendant€only€decided€to€take€the€car€after€the€beating€had€taken€place.€€But€evenÏunder€the€stateððs€reasoning,€the€robbery€of€the€victim€was€not€complete€until€theÏdefendant€took€the€envelope€of€money,€which€according€to€the€defendantððs€statement,Ïoccurred€at€the€same€time€he€took€the€keys€and€the€marijuana€and€just€before€he€left€inÏthe€car.€€ÌÐ r8j17 Ðà ¸ àIn€òòState€v.€Loweryóó,€667€S.W.2d€52,€53„54€(Tenn.€1984),€our€supremeÐ  Ðcourt€held€that€the€defendant€could€not€be€convicted€of€both€robbery€with€a€deadlyÏweapon€and€grand€larceny€that€resulted€from€a€single€criminal€act.€€In€òòLoweryóó,€theÐ   ˜ Ðdefendant€used€a€gun€to€take€money€and€car€keys€from€a€service€station€clerk,€then€heÏdrove€away€in€the€clerkððs€car.€€The€state€argued€that€the€jury€could€have€found€that€theÏdefendant€formed€the€intent€to€steal€the€car€subsequent€to€stealing€the€money€and€theÏkeys.€€òòId.óó€at€57.€€The€supreme€court€reasoned€that€for€multiple€convictions€based€uponÐ ÐÈ  Ðsuch€a€subsequent€intent€to€succeed,€sufficient€evidence€must€exist€to€support€thisÏinference.€€òòId.óó€€Here,€as€in€òòLoweryóó,€the€defendant€took€the€money€at€the€same€time€heÐ h` Ðtook€the€œkeys,›€and€he€then€took€the€victimððs€car.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€third€step€of€the€double€jeopardy€analysis€looks€to€the€number€ofÏvictims€and€discrete€acts.€€When€there€exists€only€one€victim,€as€here,€multipleÏconvictions€generally€are€not€justified.€€òòSeeóó€òòDentonóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€381.€€ð ðDiscrete€actsÐ d\ Ðcan€justify€multiple€convictions.ðð€€òòId.óó;€òòState€v.€Phillipsóó,€924€S.W.2d€662,€664„65€(Tenn.Ð 0 ( Ð1996)€(holding€evidence€of€three€discrete€penetrations€supported€three€aggravated€rapeÏconvictions).€€As€discussed,€the€evidence€does€not€indicate€that€the€aggravated€robberyÏof€the€victim€and€the€theft€of€the€victimððs€car€were€two€discrete€acts€because€theÏdefendant€completed€the€robbery€by€taking€the€keys,€marijuana€and€money€immediatelyÏbefore€he€took€the€car.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€final€step€in€the€double€jeopardy€analysis€is€to€consider€the€purposesÏbehind€the€two€statutes€involved.€€òòDentonóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€381;€òòseeóó€òòLoweryóó,€667€S.W.2dÐ .ˆ', Ðat€54.€€In€òòLoweryóó,€our€supreme€court€held€that€the€statutory€provisions€defining€robberyÐ \0T). Ðand€larceny€protected€overlapping€interests.€€òòId.óó€€The€court€held€that€both€protectedÐ (2 +0 Ðproperty€while€robbery€protected€people€as€well.€€òòId.óó€€The€same€reasoning€also€appliesÐ ô3ì,2 Ðto€aggravated€robbery€and€theft.ÌÐ Œ7„06 Ðà ¸ àAfter€considering€these€four€steps€as€they€relate€to€each€other,€we€believeÏthat€the€defendantððs€convictions€for€both€aggravated€robbery€and€theft€violate€theÏprinciples€of€double€jeopardy.€€The€statutes€are€not€distinct€under€òòœBlockburger›óó,€theÐ   ˜ Ðsame€evidence€is€needed€to€support€both€convictions,€the€offenses€have€a€single€victimÏand€stem€from€a€single€act€and€the€statutes€have€overlapping€purposes.€€We€hold€thatÏthe€finding€of€guilt€for€the€theft€conviction€merges€into€the€aggravated€robberyÏconviction.€€The€judgment€of€conviction€for€theft€is€vacated.€€ÌÌà@å å Dàò òIII.€JURY€REQUEST€TO€REHEAR€TESTIMONYó óˆÐ h` Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€the€juryððsÏrequest€to€rehear€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Sandra€Elkins,€the€stateððs€expert€in€forensicÏpathology,€once€deliberations€had€started.€€The€defendant€argues€that€this€court€hasÏupheld€such€a€rehearing€when€reasonable,€even€over€the€defendantððs€objection.€€òòSeeóóÐ ¤œ ÐòòState€v.€Jenkinsóó,€845€S.W.2d€787€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€The€defendant€stressesÐ ph Ðthat€in€this€case,€the€defendant€did€not€object€to€the€rehearing€and€even€went€so€far€asÏto€request€that€the€trial€court€allow€it.€€The€state€contends€that€the€trial€court€did€notÏabuse€its€discretion€in€refusing€the€rehearing€to€avoid€placing€undue€emphasis€uponÏone€witnessððs€testimony.€€The€state€further€argues€that€even€if€the€trial€court€erred,€theÏdefendant€has€not€shown€how€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€of€the€juryððsÏrequest.€€We€hold€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€the€juryððs€request€to€rehearÏtestimony€but€that€the€defendant€was€not€prejudiced€by€this€error.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€denied€the€juryððs€request€to€rehear€the€testimony€of€Dr.ÏElkins€because€it€did€not€want€to€give€undue€emphasis€to€this€one€witnessððs€testimony.€ÏIn€òòJenkinsóó,€this€court€recognized€the€benefit€gained€from€having€jurors€base€theirÐ 42,+0 Ðdecisions€on€accurate€recollections€of€the€evidence.€€òòId.óó€at€792.€€It€noted€that€a€trialÐ 4ø,2 Ðcourt€does€not€emphasize€the€requested€evidence€by€permitting€it€to€be€reheard;Ïinstead,€it€is€the€jury€that€has€placed€emphasis€on€this€evidence.€€òòId.óó€€This€court€heldÐ ˜706 Ðthat€the€rehearing€of€testimony€after€deliberations€have€begun€is€within€the€trial€courtððsÏdiscretion€as€limited€by€ABA€Standards€Relating€to€the€Administration€of€CriminalÏJustice€15„4.2€regarding€jury€trials:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ à(a)€If€the€jury,€after€retiring€for€deliberation,€requests€aÏreview€of€certain€testimony€or€other€evidence,€they€shallÏbe€conducted€to€the€courtroom.€€Whenever€the€juryððsÏrequest€is€reasonable,€the€court,€after€notice€to€theÏprosecutor€and€counsel€for€the€defense,€shall€have€theÏrequested€parts€of€the€testimony€read€to€the€jury€andÏshall€permit€the€jury€to€reexamine€the€requestedÏmaterials€admitted€into€evidence.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(b)€The€court€need€not€submit€evidence€to€the€jury€forÏreview€beyond€that€specifically€requested€by€the€jury,Ïbut€in€its€discretion€the€court€may€also€have€the€juryÏreview€other€evidence€relating€to€the€same€factual€issueÏso€as€not€to€give€undue€prominence€to€the€evidenceÏrequested.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌòòÓÓÓ  ÓId.óó€at€793.€€This€court€further€noted€that€the€trial€court€had€the€ð ðdiscretion€to€take€suchÐ ÌÄ Ðaction€as€necessary,€including€denying€the€juryððs€request,€to€insure€that€the€juryððsÏdetermination€of€a€factual€issue€would€not€be€distorted€by€òòundueóó€emphasis€on€particularÐ d\ Ðevidence.ðð€€òòId.óó€(emphasis€in€original).Ð 0 ( ÐÌà ¸ àIn€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€the€juryððs€request€toÏrehear€Dr.€Elkinsðð€testimony.€€The€ABA€standard€directs€that€the€trial€court€òòshallóó€permitÐ ”%Œ" Ðthe€requested€testimony€to€be€reheard€if€the€request€is€reasonable.€€Here,€the€jury€wasÏnot€asking€for€evidence€that€had€yet€to€be€created€or€given,€nor€were€they€asking€toÏrehear€everyoneððs€testimony.€€Dr.€Elkins€was€the€only€witness€to€give€expert€testimonyÏas€to€the€cause€of€death€and€the€extent€of€the€victimððs€injuries.€€The€defendant,€in€hisÏstatement,€gave€an€account€of€how€the€victim€received€these€injuries.€€The€defendantððsÏaccount€conflicts€with€Dr.€Elkinsðð€testimony€that€the€victim€had€only€defensive€and€noÏoffensive€wounds€and€her€testimony€regarding€how€the€victimððs€vertebrae€were€broken.€ÏAs€suggested€in€subsection€(b)€of€the€ABA€standard,€the€trial€court€could€have€avoidedÏgiving€undue€prominence€to€Dr.€Elkinsðð€account€by€having€the€jury€also€rehear€theÏportion€of€the€defendantððs€statement€describing€the€altercation.Ð Œ7„06 Їà ¸ àAlthough€the€refusal€of€the€juryððs€request€was€error,€the€defendant€has€notÏshown€how€he€was€harmed.€€Even€though€Dr.€Elkins€testified€that€the€bones€of€olderÏindividuals€break€more€easily€and€that€the€victimððs€injuries€could€have€resulted€fromÏfalling€into€a€table€or€the€wall,€her€testimony€that€the€victim€had€defensive€wounds€butÏno€offensive€wounds€supported€the€stateððs€theory€that€the€victim€did€not€participate€inÏthe€ð ðfight,ðð€but€was€attacked€by€the€defendant.€€She€stated€that€the€victimððs€spinal€cordÏwas€not€severed,€but€she€also€testified€that€the€victimððs€broken€vertebrae€were€the€resultÏof€a€violent€jerking€or€twisting€of€his€head.€€The€potential€for€her€testimony€to€supportÏinferences€that€the€victimððs€injuries€were€sustained€in€mutual€combat€because€the€victimÏwas€merely€the€older€and€weaker€of€the€two€combatants€was€negated€by€other€portionsÏof€her€testimony.€€The€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€the€least€degree€of€homicideÏexisting€rather€than€felony€murder.€€Thus,€it€is€logical€to€infer€that€the€juryððs€inability€toÏrehear€this€testimony€did€not€harm€the€defendant.ÌÌà@(Dàò òIV.€€SENTENCINGˆÐ 0 ( Ðó óà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€imposed€an€excessiveÐ " Ðsentence€because€it€improperly€considered€certain€enhancement€factors,€improperlyÏweighed€other€enhancement€factors€and€failed€to€give€any€weight€to€the€defendantððsÏmitigating€factors.€€The€defendant€also€argues€that€consecutive€sentences€are€notÏsupported€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€The€state€responds€that€in€light€of€theÏnumber€of€applicable€enhancement€factors,€the€trial€court€properly€imposed€theÏmaximum€sentence€for€each€conviction.€€The€state€also€contends€that€consecutiveÏsentences€are€appropriate€because€the€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender.ÌÌà ¸ àAppellate€review€of€sentencing€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€on€the€record€with€aÐ 42,+0 Ðpresumption€that€the€trial€court's€determinations€are€correct.€€T.C.A.€ðððð€40„35„401(d)Ïand€„402(d).€€As€the€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€to€these€sections€note,€theÏburden€is€now€on€the€appealing€party€to€show€that€the€sentencing€is€improper.€€ThisÐ ˜706 Ðmeans€that€if€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€made€findingsÏof€fact€that€are€adequately€supported€in€the€record,€and€gave€due€consideration€andÏproper€weight€to€the€factors€and€principles€that€are€relevant€to€sentencing€under€theÏ1989€Sentencing€Act,€we€may€not€disturb€the€sentence€even€if€a€different€result€wereÏpreferred.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Ð 80 ÐÌà ¸ àHowever,€"the€presumption€of€correctness€which€accompanies€the€trialÏcourt's€action€is€conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trialÏcourt€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€ÏòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€this€respect,€for€the€purpose€ofÐ 4, Ðmeaningful€appellate€review,ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àthe€trial€court€must€place€on€the€record€its€reasons€forÏarriving€at€the€final€sentencing€decision,€identify€theÏmitigating€and€enhancement€factors€found,€state€theÏspecific€facts€supporting€each€enhancement€factorÏfound,€and€articulate€how€the€mitigating€andÏenhancement€factors€have€been€evaluated€andÏbalanced€in€determining€the€sentence.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„¼210(f)€(1990).€€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌòòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,€599€(Tenn.€1995).Ð â"Ú ÐÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà ¸ àAlso,€in€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review,€we€must€consider€(1)€the€evidence,Ð ”%Œ" Ðif€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing,€(2)€the€presentence€report,€(3)€theÏprinciples€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives,€(4)€the€natureÏand€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct,€(5)€any€mitigating€or€statutory€enhancementÏfactors,€(6)€any€statement€that€the€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf€and€(7)€theÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€T.C.A.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103,€„210;€òòseeóó€òòAshbyóó,Ð .ˆ', Ð823€S.W.2d€at€168;€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229€(Tenn.€1986).€Ð \0T). ÐÌà ¸ àThe€sentence€to€be€imposed€by€the€trial€court€for€a€Class€B,€C,€D€or€EÏfelony€is€presumptively€the€minimum€in€the€range€if€neither€enhancement€nor€mitigatingÏfactors€are€present.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210(c).€€Procedurally,€the€trial€court€is€to€increaseÐ Œ7„06 ÐÑ}2ÑÑ7€›VXXdð XXdæ7ÑÑ  Ñthe€sentence€within€the€range€based€upon€the€existence€of€enhancement€factors€and,Ïthen,€reduce€the€sentence€as€appropriate€for€any€mitigating€factors.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„¼210(d)€and€(e).€€The€weight€to€be€afforded€an€existing€factor€is€left€to€the€trial€court'sÏdiscretion€so€long€as€it€complies€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€1989ÏSentencing€Act€and€its€findings€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„¼35„210,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments;€òòMossóó,€727€S.W.2d€at€237;€òòseeóó€òòAshbyóó,Ð ü  Ð823€S.W.2d€at€169.ÌÌà ¸ àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€Donald€Jones€testified€that€he€first€met€theÏvictim€in€1989€or€1990€and€that€they€were€very€good€friends.€€Jones€said€that€he€knewÏthe€victim€from€the€Greenway€Pool€Hall,€that€he€sometimes€worked€around€the€pool€hallÏas€a€volunteer€and€that€occasionally€he€would€run€the€pool€hall€for€the€victim.€€He€saidÏthat€the€victim€was€a€peaceful€person.€€He€stated€that€he€had€never€seen€the€victim€loseÏhis€temper,€even€when€someone€shot€a€hole€in€the€victimððs€Coke€machine.€€Jones€saidÏthat€the€victim€would€always€politely€ask€obnoxious€customers€to€leave€or€to€refrain€fromÏcursing€in€the€presence€of€women€or€children.ÌÌà ¸ àJones€testified€that€he€knew€the€defendant€for€a€little€over€a€year€at€theÏtime€the€victim€was€killed.€€He€said€that€the€victim€and€the€defendant€were€businessÏacquaintances,€that€the€defendant€had€worked€on€the€victimððs€car€and€that€the€victimÏhad€loaned€the€defendant€money€and€marijuana.€€Jones€stated€that€he€had€never€seenÏthe€defendant€in€a€fight€but€that€he€knew€the€defendant€had€been€in€fights.€€He€said€heÏonce€overheard€the€defendant€say€that€if€anyone€wanted€to€fight€with€the€defendant,€heÏwould€try€to€kill€them.€€Jones€testified€that€the€defendant€had€once€started€to€hit€him€withÏa€pool€stick.€€Jones€also€said€that€the€defendant€once€explained€his€bloody€hand€byÏsaying€that€he€had€hit€a€bed.€€Ìâ âÐ À5¸.4 Ðà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€Jones€testified€that€the€defendant€was€five€feet,Ïâ âseven€or€eight€inches€tall,€stocky€and€weighed€between€one€hundred€forty„five€and€oneÏhundred€fifty€pounds.€€He€admitted€that€the€defendant€and€the€victim€could€have€seenÏeach€other€when€he€was€not€around€them,€but€he€said€that€he€never€knew€of€theÏdefendant€running€errands€for€the€victim.€€He€stated€that€he€knew€the€defendant€wouldÏbuff€and€wash€the€œvictimððs›€car€but€that€he€thought€this€was€a€business€arrangement.€€HeÏsaid€that€he€knew€that€the€defendant€was€supposed€to€work€on€the€victimððs€truck€butÏthat€the€defendant€never€did.ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Peter€Young,€a€psychologist€who€specializes€in€clinical€psychology€andÏneuropsychology,€testified€that€he€first€treated€the€defendant€on€April€5,€1996€and€hadÏmet€with€him€at€the€jail€once€a€week€since€then.€€He€stated€that€the€defendant€isÏdepressed€and€anxious€and€that€this€condition€predates€his€incarceration.€€He€said€thatÏthe€defendant€has€had€multiple€substance€abuse€issues€and€has€borderline€personalityÏdisorder.€€He€also€found€the€defendant€to€have€learning€problems€and€weak€languageÏskills.€€He€stated€that€the€defendant€has€had€problems€since€he€was€a€little€boy€thatÏcould€have€stemmed,€in€part,€from€head€injuries.ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Young€testified€that€the€defendant€needs€to€come€to€a€more€integratedÏsense€of€self.€€He€said€that€when€the€defendant€becomes€stressed,€depressed€orÏanxious,€he€will€inflict€physical€injuries€upon€himself€and€during€these€times,€he€isÏpsychotic.€€He€stated€that€the€defendant€has€borderline€personality€disorder€because€inÏbetween€these€psychotic€episodes,€the€defendant€calms€down€to€a€more€normal,Ïrational€state.€€Dr.€Young€said€that€at€the€time€the€crimes€were€committed,€theÏdefendant€was€already€in€an€altered€state€from€alcohol,€marijuana€and€cocaine€use.€€Dr.ÏYoung€stated€that€the€defendant€related€that€he€believes€he€was€hit€from€behind,€heÏâ âturned€and€began€striking€the€victim€and€continued€to€strike€the€victim.€€Dr.€YoungÐ À5¸.4 Ðtestified€that€he€believes€the€defendant€was€not€in€a€normal€state€of€mind€at€the€time€ofÏthe€offenses.Ìâ âÌà ¸ àDr.€Young€testified€that€the€defendantððs€mental€condition€has€improvedÏover€the€last€year€and€that€the€defendant€now€takes€œantidepressants.›€€He€said€that€theÏdefendant€has€repeatedly€brought€up€his€feelings€of€guilt€and€remorse€and€his€inabilityÏto€imagine€how€he€can€make€up€for€what€has€happened.€€Dr.€Young€said€that€theÏdefendant€told€him€that€he€does€not€envision€ever€forgiving€himself€for€the€offenses.ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€Dr.€Young€testified€that€borderline€personalityÏdisorder€involves€intermittent€breaks€with€reality€and€that€these€breaks€can€be€violent.€ÏHe€stated€that€the€defendant€still€poses€a€threat€to€his€own€safety€but€that€due€to€theÏdefendantððs€remorse,€the€chance€of€him€injuring€others€in€the€future€is€unlikely.€€HeÏstated€that€if€the€defendant€drinks€alcohol€or€uses€cocaine€again,€he€could€pose€aÏdanger€to€others€as€well€as€to€himself€but€that€he€believed€the€defendant€was€sincere€inÏhis€decision€not€to€use€these€substances€again.ÌÌà ¸ àA€presentence€report€was€introduced€into€evidence.€€It€reflects€that€theÏthen€twenty„four€year€old€defendant€studied€auto€mechanics€in€high€school€but€that€heÏdropped€out€after€ninth€grade.€€It€reflects€that€the€defendant€reported€beginning€to€useÏalcohol€at€age€fourteen,€marijuana€at€sixteen€and€cocaine€at€twenty„one.€€TheÏdefendant€stated€that€by€the€time€he€was€twenty„two,€he€used€one€hundred€dollarsÏworth€of€cocaine€a€week€and€that€he€was€under€the€influence€of€cocaine€when€heÏcommitted€the€offenses.€€The€report€shows€that€the€defendant€worked€four€months€as€aÏfork„lift€operator€before€being€arrested€in€this€case.€€The€report€reveals€that€beforeÏtaking€the€fork„lift€operator€position,€the€defendant€had€resigned€from€a€job€as€aÏmechanic,€which€he€had€held€for€three€years.€€The€defendant€had€six€misdemeanorÏconvictions€from€September€1992€through€May€15,€1996,€four€of€which€occurred€afterÐ Œ7„06 Ðthe€offenses€in€this€case.€€The€defendantððs€probation€œfor€misdemeanor€theft€was›Ïrevoked€on€September€1,€œ1992.›€€The€report€reflects€an€extensive€juvenile€recordÏbeginning€in€November€of€1986€and€including€assault€with€a€knife,€shoplifting,€severalÏprobation€violations,€attempting€to€start€a€fire€in€a€group€home,€illegal€consumption€ofÏalcohol€and€twice€being€beyond€parental€control.€€€ÌÌà ¸ àMs.€Arlena€Ruther,€the€victimððs€daughter,€gave€a€statement€in€which€sheÏdescribed€the€effect€that€the€victimððs€death€has€had€on€her€family.€€She€stated€thatÏalthough€her€father€had€been€portrayed€as€a€drug€addict€and€a€bookie€who€had€a€lot€ofÏmoney€and€guns€lying€around€his€house,€he€was€a€kind,€generous€person€who€hadÏovercome€alcoholism€and€did€not€use€drugs.€€She€testified€that€several€family€membersÏnow€take€antidepressants,€one€has€anxiety€attacks,€and€another€is€on€the€verge€of€aÏnervous€breakdown€as€a€result€of€the€offenses.€€She€asked€that€the€defendant€receiveÏthe€maximum€sentence€possible€for€these€offenses.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€addressed€the€court€before€he€was€sentenced€and€statedÏthat€he€realized€what€he€had€done€and€that€he€was€sorry.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€theÏdefendant€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender€to€twelve€years€for€the€aggravated€robbery,Ïtwo€years€for€the€criminally€negligent€homicide€and€four€years€for€the€theft€conviction,€toÏbe€served€consecutively.ÌÌà@n n Dàò òA.€ENHANCEMENT€AND€MITIGATING€FACTORSó óˆÐ Ä,¼%* Ðà ¸ àThe€trial€court€applied€the€following€eight€enhancement€factors€as€listed€inÏT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114:ÌÓÓà8 ¸ à(1)€The€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminalÏconvictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€thoseÏnecessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓ  Óà8 ¸ à(4)€A€victim€of€the€offense€was€particularly€vulnerableÏbecause€of€age€or€physical€or€mental€disability€.€.€.;Ð ¸ x¸ x Ðâ âÐ ˜706 Ðà8 ¸ à(5)€The€defendant€treated€or€allowed€a€victim€to€beÏâ âtreated€with€exceptional€cruelty€during€the€commissionÏof€the€offense;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(6)€The€personal€injuries€inflicted€upon€or€the€amount€ofÏdamage€to€property€sustained€by€or€taken€from€theÏvictim€was€particularly€great;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(7)€The€offense€involved€a€victim€and€was€committed€toÏgratify€the€defendantððs€desire€for€pleasure€orÏexcitement;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(8)€The€defendant€has€a€previous€history€ofÏunwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€aÏsentence€involving€release€in€the€community;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(10)€The€defendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committingÏa€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high;€[and]Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌ€à8 ¸ à(20)€The€defendant€was€adjudicated€to€have€committedÐ  Ða€delinquent€act€or€acts€as€a€juvenile€that€wouldÏconstitute€a€felony€if€committed€by€an€adult.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓThe€defendant€argues€not€only€that€the€trial€court€misapplied€these€factors€but€also€thatÏthe€trial€court€was€not€clear€as€to€how€it€applied€these€factors€to€the€convictions€forÏcriminally€negligent€homicide€and€theft.€€The€defendant€contends€that€our€review€shouldÏbe€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€without€the€presumption€of€correctness€with€regard€to€the€convictions€forÐ ! Ðcriminally€negligent€homicide€and€theft.€€€€As€noted€above,€the€judgment€of€convictionÏfor€theft€is€vacated,€therefore,€we€will€address€the€defendantððs€contentions€with€regardÏto€the€convictions€for€aggravated€robbery€and€criminally€negligent€homicide.€€ÌÌà ¸ àA€trial€court€is€required€to€state€specifically€how€the€facts€indicateÏenhancement€or€mitigation€with€respect€to€each€conviction.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210(f).€Ð Þ+Ö$) ÐA€trial€courtððs€failure€to€do€so€will€normally€result€in€a€remand€of€the€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð ª-¢&+ ÐCliftonóó,€880€S.W.2d€737,€745€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€However,€from€the€trial€courtððsÐ v/n(- Ðdirect€references€to€the€aggravated€robbery€conviction,€indirect€reference€to€theÏcriminally€negligent€homicide€conviction€when€discussing€its€belief€that€the€defendantÏdid€not€go€to€the€victimððs€house€to€enjoy€killing€someone€under€factor€(7)€as€reflected€inÏthe€juryððs€verdict,€and€its€obvious€application€of€the€enhancement€factors€to€enhanceÏboth€convictions€up€to€the€maximum€sentence€within€the€range,€we€assume€that€the€trialÐ r8j17 Ðcourtððs€discussion€of€the€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€applied€to€bothÏconvictions.ÌÌ€à ¸ àWith€regard€to€enhancement€factor€(1),€the€trial€court€found€that€theÐ l d Ðdefendant€had€a€pattern€of€criminal€behavior€starting€at€age€thirteen€when€theÏdefendant€was€found€delinquent€for€assault€with€a€knife.€€The€trial€court€found€that€theÏdefendant€was€declared€a€serious€habitual€offender€as€a€juvenile,€had€a€misdemeanorÏconviction€for€œtheft›€when€he€was€eighteen€and€has€had€a€misdemeanor€conviction€everyÏyear€from€1994€until€his€present€convictions€in€1997.€€Thus,€the€court€found€that€theÏdefendant€had€many€more€offenses€than€that€necessary€to€establish€him€as€a€Range€I,Ïstandard€offender.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€bulk€of€his€prior€criminal€history€relates€toÏdriving€on€a€suspended€license.€€The€defendant€contends€that€because€he€had€neverÏbeen€charged€with€a€felony,€this€factor€should€not€be€given€any€weight.€€EnhancementÏfactor€(1)€is€not€limited€to€felonies€but€instead€extends€to€any€criminal€convictions€orÏbehavior€above€that€needed€to€establish€the€defendantððs€range.€€A€defendant€qualifiesÏas€a€Range€I€offender€when€he€does€not€fall€within€any€of€the€other€higher€ranges.€€òòSeeóóÐ ”%Œ" ÐT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„105.€€Thus,€all€of€the€defendantððs€prior€convictions€qualify€under€thisÏfactor€because€none€were€needed€to€establish€the€range€itself.€€The€defendant€hadÏmisdemeanor€convictions€for€œtheft›€on€œOctober›€œ29,›€œ199ñ® ñ2ñ® ññ¯ ñ1ñ¯ ñ,›€œñ° ñfor›€theft›€up›€to›€five›€hundred›€dollars›€ñ° ññ± ñand€ñ± ñon›€March€16,€1994,€forÏdriving€while€his€license€was€suspended€on€October€30,€œ1995ñ¹ ññ¸ ñ,ñ¸ ññ¹ ñ›€and€on€May€15,€1996,€forÏdriving€with€a€revoked€license€on€May€15,€1996,€and€for€a€violation€of€the€bad€check€lawÏon€May€15,€1996.ÌÌà ¸ àHowever,€we€believe€that€the€trial€court€improperly€relied€on€theÏdefendantððs€juvenile€record€to€support€factor€(1).€€This€court€has€held€that€when€theÏlegislature€enacted€enhancement€factor€(20)€in€1995,€factor€(20)€became€the€exclusiveÐ Œ7„06 Ðmeans€for€using€juvenile€offenses€to€enhance€a€defendantððs€sentence€for€offensesÏoccurring€after€July€1,€1995.€€òòState€v.€Brent€Brownóó,€No.€02C01„9710„CC„00419,Ð ÔÌ ÐHardeman€County,€slip€op.€at€5„6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Oct.€26,€1998).€€On€the€other€hand,Ïthe€record€supports€consideration€of€the€defendantððs€admitted€use€of€controlledÏsubstances€as€criminal€behavior€under€factor€(1).€€Although€the€trial€court€improperlyÏconsidered€the€defendantððs€juvenile€record€with€regard€to€this€factor,€factor€(1)€wasÏproperly€applied€to€both€convictions€in€light€of€the€defendantððs€misdemeanor€convictionsÏand€admitted€substance€abuse.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€applied€enhancement€factor€(4),€finding€that€the€victim€wasÏparticularly€vulnerable€because€he€was€sixty„three€years€old€and€suffered€fromÏemphysema.€€The€trial€court€gave€this€factor€less€weight€than€the€others.€€TheÏdefendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€considering€this€factor€because€thisÏfactor€relates€to€the€victimððs€physical€and€mental€limitations,€rather€than€merely€his€age.€ÏThe€defendant€argues€that€the€victim€had€no€mental€or€physical€defects,€that€he€ran€aÏpool€hall€and€that€he€was€apparently€able€to€function€as€fully€as€any€other€sixty„threeÏyear€old€man.€€In€assessing€vulnerability€under€this€factor,€the€trial€court€shouldÏð ðconsider€whether€evidence€in€the€record€with€regard€to€the€victimððs€age€or€physical€orÏmental€attributes€demonstrated€an€inability€to€resist€the€crime,€summon€help,€or€testifyÏat€a€later€date.ðð€€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€96€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€864Ð ,)$"& ÐS.W.2d€31,€35€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€record€must€contain€evidence€other€than€the€victimððsÏage€and€must€relate€to€the€victimððs€condition€at€the€time€the€offense€was€committed.€ÏòòPooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€at€97.€€Ð .ˆ', ÐÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€apparently€ignores€the€evidence€given€by€Dr.€Elkins€thatÏthe€victim€suffered€from€emphysema€which€made€it€more€difficult€for€him€to€try€toÏsurvive€the€injuries€inflicted€by€the€defendant.€€This€condition€would€have€also€affectedÏhis€ability€to€resist€the€beating€and€to€call€for€help€during€the€offense.€€The€trial€courtÐ Œ7„06 Ðproperly€applied€factor€(4)€to€enhance€the€convictions€for€aggravated€robbery€andÏcriminally€negligent€homicide.ÌÌà ¸ àWith€regard€to€enhancement€factor€(5),€the€trial€court€found€that€theÏvictimððs€injuries€were€significant,€that€blood€was€found€all€around€the€scene,€that€theÏinjuries€inflicted€by€the€defendant€caused€the€victim€a€great€deal€of€pain€and€sufferingÏbefore€he€died,€and€that€the€victimððs€death€resulted€in€part€from€his€inability€to€breathe.€ÏThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€not€have€considered€this€factorÏbecause€it€was€not€supported€by€the€evidence.€€The€defendant€argues€that€Dr.€ElkinsÏtestified€that€the€victim€received€ten€moderate€to€severe€blows,€that€these€blows€wereÏmostly€to€the€body€rather€than€the€head,€and€that€the€victimððs€skull€was€not€fractured.€ÏAdditionally,€the€defendant€argues€that€he€did€not€mutilate€or€degrade€the€victimððs€body.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€properly€applied€factor€(5)€to€enhance€the€aggravatedÏrobbery€conviction.€€Exceptional€cruelty€is€not€an€element€of€aggravated€robbery€nor€is€itÏautomatically€established€by€proof€of€serious€bodily€injury.€€òòSeeóó€òòPooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€atÐ ü!ô Ð98€(holding€that€factor€(5)€may€be€used€to€enhance€an€especially€aggravated€robberyÏconviction).€€ð ð[T]he€facts€in€a€case€may€support€a€finding€of€ððexceptional€crueltyðð€thatÏððdemonstrates€a€culpability€distinct€from€and€appreciably€greater€than€that€incident€toððÏthe€crime.ðð€€òòId.óó€(quoting€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,€603€(Tenn.€1994)).€€In€òòPooleóó,Ð ,)$"& Ðour€supreme€court€relied€upon€a€finding€that€after€striking€the€seventy„year„old€victim€inÏthe€head€with€a€baseball€bat,€the€defendants,€who€knew€the€victim€lived€alone,€left€theÏvictim€unconscious€and€bleeding,€and€she€was€not€discovered€until€the€next€day.€€TheÏsupreme€court€held€that€this€evidence€supported€an€enhancement€of€the€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery€sentence€for€exceptional€cruelty€under€factor€(5).€€òòId.óó€at€99.Ð (2 +0 ÐÌà ¸ àIn€the€present€case,€the€defendant€beat€the€victim€until€he€was€motionless,Ïcovered€his€face€with€a€recliner€and€left€the€house€locking€the€door€behind€him.€€TheÐ Œ7„06 Ðvictim,€who€could€have€lived€for€one€and€one„half€hours€after€the€beating,€wasÏdiscovered€the€next€day.€€We€believe€the€record€supports€a€finding€of€exceptionalÏcruelty.€€Exceptional€cruelty€is€not€an€element€of€criminally€negligent€homicide,€andÏtherefore,€we€hold€that€factor€(5)€was€properly€applied€to€this€conviction€under€the€sameÏreasoning.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„212.Ð 80 Ѐ€€Ìà ¸ àThe€trial€court€found€that€enhancement€factor€(6)€should€be€given€littleÏweight€because€it€found€that€aggravated€robbery€usually€involved€considerable€propertyÏdamage€and€because€it€had€already€applied€factor€(5)€with€regard€to€the€extent€of€theÏvictimððs€injuries.€€The€defendant€contends€that€particularly€great€personal€injuries€underÏfactor€(6)€equate€with€serious€bodily€injury€which€is€an€element€of€aggravated€robbery.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòJonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€at€602.€€Particularly€great€injury€is€also€an€essential€element€ofÐ ÌÄ Ðcriminally€negligent€homicide€because€no€greater€injury€than€death€can€be€inflicted€uponÏa€person.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Lambertóó,€741€S.W.2d€127,€134€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€ThisÐ d\ Ðfactor€was€improperly€applied€to€both€convictions.ÌÌà ¸ àWith€regard€to€enhancement€factor€(7),€the€trial€court€found€that€althoughÏthe€defendant€did€not€derive€pleasure€or€excitement€from€the€act€of€killing€the€victim,Ïthis€factor€could€be€applied€because€the€defendant€injured€the€victim€in€order€to€getÏmoney€to€purchase€drugs.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€found€that€offenses€were€committed€soÏthat€the€defendant€could€satisfy€his€desire€for€the€drugs€which€brought€him€pleasure€orÏexcitement.€€The€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€not€have€considered€thisÏfactor€because€the€record€contains€no€proof€that€the€defendant€committed€theseÏoffenses€by€engaging€in€what€the€jury€determined€to€be€negligent€conduct€in€order€toÏgratify€his€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement.€€This€court€has€held€that€the€state€failed€toÏmeet€its€burden€of€proof€with€regard€to€this€factor€when€the€proof€€demonstrated€that€theÏdefendant€stole€from€the€victim€in€order€to€buy€drugs.€€òòState€v.€Antonio€D.€Masonóó,€No.Ð À5¸.4 Ð01C01„9607„CC„00315,€Bedford€County,€slip€op.€at€7„8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Oct.€24,Ð Œ7„06 Ð1997)€(citing€òòState€v.€Chad€Douglas€Pooleóó,€No.€02C01„9506„CC„00178,€HardemanÐ  ÐCounty,€slip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Jan.€31,€1996),€òòaffððdóó€954€S.W.2d€93€(Tenn.Ð ÔÌ Ð1997)€(not€discussing€this€enhancement€factor)).€€Thus,€the€trial€court€erred€in€applyingÏfactor€(7)€to€both€convictions.ÌÌà ¸ àIn€applying€enhancement€factor€(8),€the€trial€court€found€that€theÏdefendant€exhibited€a€previous€unwillingness€to€comply€with€conditions€of€his€releaseÏinto€the€community€because€the€defendantððs€probation€was€revoked€with€regard€to€oneÏof€his€misdemeanor€convictions.€€The€defendant€argues€that€this€factor€should€be€givenÏlittle€weight€because€the€defendantððs€probation€was€revoked€when€he€was€a€juvenile€€Ïstruggling€with€divorced€parents.€€The€trial€court€did€not€rely€on€the€defendantððs€juvenileÏprobation€revocations€to€support€this€factor€but€referred€instead€to€the€revocation€œñ² ñthatñ² ññ³ ñof€hiñ³ ññ¶ ññ³ ñsñ³ ññ¶ ññ· ñs€ñ· ññµ ñÏñµ ññ³ ñ1991€suspended€sentence€for€misdemeanor€theftñ³ ñ›€œñ´ ñoccurred›€as›€a›€result›€of›€the›€defendantððs›€September›€1992›€conviction›€for›€misdemeanor›€forgery›€ñ´ ñwhen›€the€defendant€was€nineteenÏyears€old.€€The€trial€court€properly€applied€this€factor€to€both€convictions.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€applied€enhancement€factor€(10),€finding€that€the€defendantÏhad€no€hesitation€in€committing€this€crime€because€he€gave€no€thought€to€the€crimeÏitself€but€was€instead€thinking€only€of€the€cocaine€he€wanted.€€The€defendant€arguesÏthat€factor€(10)€cannot€be€used€to€enhance€an€aggravated€robbery€conviction€because€itÏis€an€element€of€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Claybrooksóó,€910€S.W.2d€868,€872„73€(Tenn.Ð ,)$"& ÐCrim.€App.€1994).€€When€determining€the€applicability€of€factor€(10),€we€focus€onÏwhether€the€defendant€created€a€high€risk€to€human€life.€€òòJonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€at€602.€Ð Ä,¼%* ÐThis€factor€represents€a€legislative€determination€that€ð ðacts€which€cause€high€risk€toÏhuman€life€may€establish€culpability€beyond€that€necessary€for€conviction€of€a€chargedÏoffense.ðð€€òòJonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€at€603.€€Thus,€for€factor€(10)€to€apply,€the€factsÐ (2 +0 Ðestablishing€the€high€risk€to€human€life€must€demonstrate€a€culpability€greater€than€thatÏnecessary€to€establish€the€offense.€€òòId.óó€€Ð À5¸.4 ÐÐ Œ7„06 Ðà ¸ àIn€this€case,€the€defendant€committed€the€offenses€upon€the€victim€whileÏhe€was€alone€in€his€home,€thus€his€culpability€did€not€go€beyond€that€involved€in€theÏaggravated€robbery.€€òòSeeóó€òòClaybrooksóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€873€(holding€that€the€ð ðoffense€ofÐ   ˜ Ðaggravated€robbery€necessarily€entails€a€high€risk€to€human€lifeðð).€€Factor€(10)€is€notÏapplicable€to€the€criminally€negligent€homicide€committed€when€only€the€victim€and€theÏdefendant€were€present€because€a€high€risk€to€human€life€always€accompanies€theÏcommission€of€a€homicide.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€452„53€(Tenn.Ð ÐÈ  ÐCrim.€App.€1995)€(noting€that€factor€(10)€does€not€apply€to€vehicular€homicide€when€theÏdefendant€presents€no€risk€to€the€life€of€anyone€other€than€the€victim).€€The€trial€courtÏerred€in€applying€this€factor€to€both€convictions.€€€€€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€also€enhanced€the€defendantððs€convictions€withÏenhancement€factor€(20),€finding€that€both€the€1986€assault€with€a€knife€and€the€1988Ïattempt€to€start€a€fire€in€a€residence,€which€were€committed€while€the€defendant€was€aÏjuvenile,€would€have€constituted€felonies€had€the€defendant€been€an€adult.€€TheÏdefendant€concedes€that€this€factor€applies€but€argues€that€it€should€be€given€littleÏweight€because€the€defendant€was€thirteen€years€old€at€the€time€of€the€assault.€€WeÏnote€that€the€presentence€report€reflects€that€the€defendant€was€sixteen€at€the€time€heÏattempted€to€start€the€fire.€€The€weight€to€be€given€an€enhancement€factor€is€within€theÏsound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€Nothing€in€the€record€indicates€that€the€trial€courtÏabused€that€discretion.€€The€trial€court€properly€applied€this€factor€to€both€convictions.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€requested€that€the€trial€court€consider€the€following€factorsÏin€mitigation:ÌÓÓà8 ¸ à(2)€The€defendant€acted€under€strong€provocation;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓ  Óà8 ¸ à(8)€The€defendant€was€suffering€from€a€mental€orÏphysical€condition€that€significantly€reduced€theÏdefendantððs€culpability€for€the€offense;€however€theÏvoluntary€use€of€intoxicants€does€not€fall€within€theÏpurview€of€this€factor;€[and]Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÐ r8j17 Ðà8 ¸ à(11)€The€defendant,€although€guilty€of€the€crime,Ïcommitted€the€offense€under€such€unusualÏcircumstances€that€it€is€unlikely€that€a€sustained€intentÏto€violate€the€law€motivated€the€criminal€conduct.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„113.€€The€defendant€also€lists€factor€(13),€the€catch„all€provision,€in€hisÏbrief,€but€he€does€not€specify€how€this€factor€is€applicable.€€We€conclude€that€it€is€not.€€€€€Ï€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà ¸ àThe€trial€court€rejected€the€application€of€mitigating€factor€(2),€finding€thatÏeven€if€the€defendant€thought€that€the€victim€hit€him€or€even€if€the€victim€did€hit€him,€theÏinjuries€that€the€defendant€inflicted€upon€the€victim€went€far€beyond€self„defense.€€TheÏtrial€court€refused€to€give€much€weight€to€factor€(8),€finding€that€although€Dr.€YoungÏstated€that€the€defendant€could€not€always€control€himself,€the€cocaine€that€theÏdefendant€had€ingested€was€a€significant€factor€in€the€defendantððs€inability€to€controlÏhimself€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€Because€the€use€of€voluntary€intoxicants€cannot€beÏconsidered€under€factor€(8),€the€court€gave€that€factor€little€weight.€€The€trial€court€foundÏthat€factor€(11)€did€not€apply€because€the€defendantððs€sustained€intent€to€violate€the€lawÏwas€his€desire€to€obtain€drugs.€€Without€pointing€to€any€specific€errors€on€the€part€of€theÏtrial€court,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€ignored€the€mitigating€factors.€€TheÏtrial€court€specifically€addressed€the€three€factors€presented€by€the€defendant€andÏmade€its€findings€based€upon€evidence€in€the€record.€€The€defendantððs€argument€withÏregard€to€the€mitigating€factors€is€without€merit.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€properly€applied€enhancement€factors€(1),€(4),€(5),€(8)€andÏ(20)€to€the€convictions€for€aggravated€robbery€and€criminally€negligent€homicide.€€TheÏtrial€court€found€that€only€factor€(8)€applied€in€mitigation,€and€it€gave€this€factor€littleÏweight.€€In€light€of€the€number€and€significance€of€the€applicable€enhancement€factorsÏand€the€little€weight€given€the€sole€mitigating€factor,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€impositionÏof€the€maximum€sentence€for€both€of€the€convictions.ÌÌÐ r8j17 Ðà@))"Dàò òB.€€CONSECUTIVE€SENTENCINGó óˆÐ  Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€ordering€his€sentencesÏto€be€served€consecutively€because€the€state€did€not€prove€by€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€that€the€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà ¸ àConsecutive€sentencing€is€guided€by€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„115(b),€which€statesÏin€pertinent€part:€ÌÓÓà ¸ àThe€court€may€order€sentences€to€run€consecutively€if€the€courtÌà ¸ àfinds€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that:ÌÌà8 ¸ à€.€.€.€.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(2)€The€defendant€is€an€offender€whose€record€ofÏcriminal€activity€is€extensive;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à.€.€.€.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(4)€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€whoseÏbehavior€indicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life,Ïand€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€whichÏthe€risk€to€human€life€is€high.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓFurthermore,€ð ðconsecutive€sentences€cannot€be€imposed€unless€the€terms€reasonablyÏrelate€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committed€and€are€necessary€in€order€to€protectÏthe€public€from€further€serious€criminal€conduct€by€the€defendant.ðð€€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,Ð º$²! Ð905€S.W.2d€933,€938€(Tenn.€1995).€€Rule€32(c)(1),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€requires€that€theÏtrial€court€ð ðspecifically€recite€the€reasonsðð€behind€its€imposition€of€a€consecutiveÏsentence.€€ÌÌà ¸ àIn€the€instant€case,€the€trial€court€determined€the€defendant€to€be€aÏdangerous€offender.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€defendant€was€a€danger€to€himselfÏand€to€others,€especially€if€he€used€drugs€again.€€Also,€the€trial€court€found€that€theÏdefendant€had€an€extensive€record€with€some€violence€in€his€past.€€The€court€expressedÏconcern€that€the€defendant€would€eventually€be€released€into€the€community.€€The€trialÏâ âcourt€noted€that€although€it€thought€the€defendantððs€remorse€was€genuine,€theÐ ²6ª/5 Ðdefendant€had€not€been€able€to€control€his€cocaine€use€and€that€unless€he€were€able€toÏcontrol€it,€these€crimes€would€happen€to€someone€else.Ìâ âÌà ¸ àThe€record€supports€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€Although€he€was€onlyÏtwenty„two€at€the€time€he€committed€the€present€offenses,€the€defendantððs€criminalÏrecord€shows€continuous€criminal€behavior€from€the€age€of€thirteen,€including€assaultÏwith€a€knife,€forgery€and€theft€of€property€up€to€five€hundred€dollars€in€value.€€He€hasÏdemonstrated€no€signs€of€rehabilitation€over€this€extensive€criminal€history.€€At€sixteen,Ïhe€was€declared€a€serious€habitual€juvenile€offender.€€His€probation€was€revoked€as€aÏresult€of€an€adult€misdemeanor€conviction.€€The€instant€offenses€were€particularlyÏviolent.€€The€determination€that€the€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€is€supported€byÏa€preponderance€of€the€evidence.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€has€admitted€drug€abuse€since€age€sixteen,€with€alcoholÏuse€predating€the€drug€use.€€Dr.€Youngððs€testimony€that€the€defendant€would€continueÏto€be€a€danger€to€himself€and€to€others€if€he€used€drugs,€in€combination€with€theÏdefendantððs€lack€of€self€control,€supports€a€finding€that€consecutive€sentences€areÏnecessary€to€protect€the€public€from€further€crimes€by€the€defendant.€€Finally,€the€recordÏalso€supports€a€determination€that€consecutive€sentences€would€be€reasonably€relatedÏto€the€severity€of€the€offenses.€€The€defendant€brutally€beat€the€victim,€ultimatelyÏcausing€his€death.€€The€effective€fourteen„year€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€isÏsupported€by€the€record.ÌÌà ¸ àWe€affirm€the€€judgments€of€conviction€for€criminally€negligent€homicideÏand€aggravated€robbery.€€However,€we€vacate€the€judgment€of€conviction€for€theft€andÏmerge€this€conviction€into€the€judgment€of€conviction€for€aggravated€robbery.€ÌÌÓÓà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È à_______________________Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÐ r8j17 ЇÌCONCUR:ÌÌœÌÌ___________________________›ÌJoe€G.€œRiley›,€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________ÌJames€œCurwood›€œWitt›,€Jr.,€Judge