ÿWPCi »X°ÇïY÷üŸvdÿ/5d߈=г4yE>BÐ Éwh ºö+‚ø3£ ˜¶×ÖQ[ƒèå´ú0ßÂ,þ™£N—Ø‘Éþ6 Ö@Î Ec3bö&¡‚ìšÑä÷÷NŠv6GBÁß6 ¢Z|ZŸñ¬aж)¥ 2ž€:A´koª^\“%ï+P j›À¡ºÜî ½¥ód¥ÎRV³j‡²Ié´˘Û>Üg3èyÆ6‡=Hz@8B6»yæG8Cí^°3SKŸrC7fMPϼ0Ô—æ¼{=4 !‡õ9OŒ¿kzä¹bŒ8Â&¦ {ȧ³z'r‰^º®qW L9îº$ÑOé£Q‰yµçJ”<>µf¤‡@ßY)ð"Æ,‰2^c¡†ŽN×ì>ë»Su€þ‹eíry`ZšOSCN…¸jÔ[ÑÆÑ]jäÞç:„ÿšÖ2ÑŸ£+ ^é Âãåf:§©ÍúY|xëçëúäq¯T1à&›°ì¨ÌgäÑÚ5rf6f{G ž<]ªŒ‚Èzs:þ*ϾâhÕN¡\o !ËÔã)éD™0›‰Â5 dDe¹`‡$CoŒÏÙ¶°0r"ƒV{Ñg±‹èáÆ\y6œ0åÓ,1Ÿ‘æ c%ÄE`#!@UNa %¯ 0(µU:Ýb w 4# 7 0ÆF 0D NP 'R py "é $ Õ/}U:^ »Ç mÉVàààààààà B6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 AQSƤ 0Dj 0D® 0Dòò D36˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù-{Z='3|x(v(2”$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X»ˆXXXÔÔ€ôp×õXX»ˆÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒ w$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xµ8XXXÔÔ€ô‰¥ òXXµ8Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€animosity€between€the€women€had€culminated€into€a€previous€incident€whereby€theÐ `  Ðappellant€struck€Loretta€in€the€head€with€a€baseball€bat.€€ò òó óThe€appellant€was€convicted€of€simple€assault€asÐ  ¾ Ða€result.€€ò òó óThe€appellant€and€Loretta€had€been€ordered€by€the€Chancery€Court€to€have€no€contact€with€oneÐ Ü | Ðanother.€ò òó ó fÝ ƒ w$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xµ8XXXÔÔ€ô‰¥ òXXµ8Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€One€count€charged€the€appellant€with€the€aggravated€assault€of€Robert€Norman€on€August€3,Ð `  Ðand€the€other€count€charged€her€with€the€aggravated€assault€of€Loretta€Norman€on€August€3. Ý ƒ w$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xµ8XXXÔÔ€ô‰¥ òXXµ8Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€appellant€also€makes€a€conclusory€allegation€that€the€trial€court€imposed€an€excessiveÐ `  Ðsentence€with€regard€to€her€harassment€conviction€in€Count€Three.€€Because€the€appellant€has€failed€toÐ  ¾ Ðsupport€this€allegation€with€argument,€this€Court€will€not€address€this€issue€on€the€merits.€€Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.Ð Ü | ÐApp.€R.€10(b). Ý ƒ w$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xµ8XXXÔÔ€ô‰¥ òXXµ8Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€trial€court€imposed€consecutive€sentences€as€to€Counts€One€and€Two€only.€€Because€thisÐ `  ÐCourt€has€determined€that€the€appellantððs€convictions€for€reckless€endangerment€in€Counts€One€and€TwoÐ  ¾ Ðshould€merge€into€one€(1)€conviction,€we€need€not€address€the€appellantððs€argument€with€regard€toÐ Ü | Ðconsecutive€sentencing. ËÝ ƒ w$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xµ8XXXÔÔ€ô‰¥ òXXµ8Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Although€the€trial€court€found€that€two€(2)€enhancement€factors€were€applicable,€it€indicated€thatÐ `  Ðit€would€be€placing€weight€on€only€one€(1)€enhancement€factor.€€The€court€stated,€ð ðif€the€law€permits€me,Ð  ¾ ÐIððm€not€sure€it€does,€to€rely€upon€both€of€those€enhancing€factors,€Iððm€only€relying€to€a€great€part€on€one.€Ð Ü | ÐMakes€no€difference€which€one€you€choose€because€they€are€both€present€.€.€.€€But€I€place€great€weightÐ š : Ðupon€the€enhancing€factor€Iððm€relying€upon.ðð sÝ ƒ w$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xµ8XXXÔÔ€ô‰¥ òXXµ8Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Because€the€appellant€was€convicted€of€reckless€endangerment€in€violation€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð `  Ððð€39„13„103,€she€is€ineligible€for€community€corrections€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(2).,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular¢ˆ)' ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ LÝ ƒ[¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€X»ˆXXXÔÔ€ÙXX»ˆÔÓ  ÓÔ_Ôò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X»ˆXÙÔÐ  ÐÌSeptember€9,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€Ô_ÔClerkÔdAxÔó óÔ_Ô dZ[\]_Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Š¢Á‹XXÔÔ€Š/‹‹Š¢ÁÔÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ8€ÖXXdìdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÔ_Ôßv€Y_@0,j:ûÿ`  `€€@ÿEïa ` 8ttxP'` ð  vßÔ_ÔÔ_ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌMAY€SESSION,€1999ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9805„CC„00230Ð n Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó ó)Ð p Ðà ` àAppellee,à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð l  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àMOORE€COUNTYÐ p  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ r  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€CHARLES€LEEó óÐ t  Ðò òBETTY€W.€NORMAN,ó óà h àà À àò ò)à  àJUDGEó óÐ v Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ x Ðà ` àAppellant.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  à(Direct€Appeal€„€Class€E€FelonyÐ z Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à&€Class€A€Misdemeanor)Ð | Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à À àà  àà p àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð n ÐÌCLIFTON€N.€MILLERà h àà À àà  àPAUL€G.€SUMMERSÐ f! ÐHenry,€McCord,€Bean€&€Millerà À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ b" Ð300€North€Jackson€StreetÌTullahoma,€TN€€37388à h àà À àà  àKIM€R.€HELPERÐ Z$ú Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àMIKE€MCCOWENÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCHARLES€CRAWFORDÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àP.€O.€Box€878Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àFayetteville,€TN€€37334ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌCONVICTIONS€FOR€RECKLESS€ENDANGERMENT€COUNT€ONE€ANDÏTWO€MERGED;€AFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ   8ª./ø ÐÓ  ÓÔ€°êg °‹Š/Ôò òòòÔ‡„pâ „ °°êgÔOPINIONÔ#†°êg ° „„pâ| #Ôóóó óÔ€Š/‹ °°êgÔÐ `  ÐÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌà ` àThe€appellant,€Betty€W.€Norman,€was€convicted€by€a€Moore€County€jury€ofÐ ¢ B Ðtwo€(2)€counts€of€reckless€endangerment,€a€Class€E€felony,€and€one€(1)€count€ofÐ ’2 Ðharassment,€a€Class€A€misdemeanor.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€appellant€asÐ ‚" Ða€Range€I€offender€to€consecutive€terms€of€one€(1)€year€and€three€(3)€months€andÐ r  Ðone€(1)€year€and€two€(2)€months€for€the€reckless€endangerment€convictions.€€TheÐ b  Ðappellant€received€a€concurrent€sentence€of€six€(6)€months€for€her€conviction€forÐ Rò  Ðharassment.€€The€trial€court€ordered€that€the€appellant€serve€her€sentences€inÐ Bâ Ðconfinement.€€On€appeal,€the€appellant€presents€the€following€issues€for€ourÐ 2Ò Ðreview:Ð " ÐÓÓà8 ` à(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€limiting€the€appellantððs€cross„Ð ² Ðexamination€of€a€state€witness€regarding€the€trajectory€of€a€bulletÐ  ª Ðand€by€subsequently€instructing€the€jury€to€disregard€the€witnessððÐ !¢ Ðtestimony€regarding€the€trajectory€of€the€bullet;Ðú!š` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€allow€the€appellant€toÐ ê#Š Ðquestion€the€victims,€Robert€and€Loretta€Norman,€regarding€anyÐ â$‚ Ðdomestic€problems€between€them;ÐÚ%z` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à(3)€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€appellantððsÐ Ê'j Ðconvictions€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt;ÐÂ(b ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à(4)€whether€the€trial€court€imposed€excessive€sentences;в*R!"` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à(5)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€imposing€consecutive€sentences;Ð ¢,B#$ ÐandК-:$%` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à(6)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€probation.Њ/*&'` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓÓAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€record€before€this€Court,€we€conclude€that€theÐ z1() Ðappellant€was€erroneously€convicted€of€two€(2)€counts€of€reckless€endangermentÐ j3 *+ Ðarising€out€of€the€same€course€of€conduct.€€Therefore,€the€appellantððs€convictionÐ Z5ú+- Ðâ âfor€reckless€endangerment€in€Count€One€is€merged€with€her€conviction€forÐ J7ê-/ Ðreckless€endangerment€in€Count€Two.€€In€all€other€respects,€however,€theÐ `  Ðjudgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ð P ð Ðâ âÌà@FF,®àò òòòFACTSó óóóˆÐ 0Ð ÐÌà ` àThe€appellant€was€previously€married€to€the€victim,€Robert€Norman,€andÐ °  Ðthey€had€two€(2)€sons,€Derrick,€age€thirteen€(13)€at€the€time€of€trial,€and€Michael,Ð    Ðeight€(8)€years€of€age€at€the€time€of€trial.€€Since€their€divorce€in€1992,€theÐ ð  Ðappellant€and€Robert€Norman€had€appeared€in€Chancery€Court€on€severalÐ à€ Ðoccasions€as€a€result€of€disputes€over€custody€of€their€children.€€€In€1997,€RobertÐ Ðp ÐNorman€had€custody€of€the€children,€but€the€appellant€had€visitation€everyÐ À` ÐSunday.€€In€addition,€Robert€Norman€had€remarried,€and€the€appellant€andÐ °P ÐRobertððs€present€wife,€Loretta,€exhibited€an€obvious€dislike€for€one€another.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð   @ Ðà ` àAt€approximately€1:30€a.m.€on€July€11,€1997,€Robert€and€Loretta€NormanÐ "0 Ðwere€sleeping€in€their€home€when€the€telephone€rang.€€Loretta€answered€theÐ €$  Ðphone,€but€hung€up€because€there€was€no€one€on€the€other€end€of€the€line.€€TheÐ p& Ðphone€rang€a€second€time,€but€neither€Robert€nor€Loretta€answered€it.€€When€theÐ `(  Ðphone€rang€the€third€time,€Loretta€answered€the€phone€and€heard€someoneÐ P*ð " Ðsaying,€ð ðwhat€are€you€doing€now?ðð€€Robert€picked€up€another€extension€of€theÐ @,à"$ Ðphone€and€heard€a€woman€saying,€ð ðdoing.ðð€€€Both€Robert€and€Loretta€identifiedÐ 0.Ð$& Ðthe€caller€as€the€appellant.€€Additionally,€the€Caller€ID€box€attached€to€theÐ  0À&( ÐNormansðð€telephone€identified€the€phone€number€of€the€incoming€calls.€€The€callsÐ 2°(* Ðcame€from€the€appellantððs€residence€in€Pelham,€Tennessee.€€€However,€only€twoÐ 4 *, Ð(2)€telephone€calls€registered€on€the€Caller€ID€box,€one€at€1:28€a.m.€and€the€otherÐ `  Ðat€1:29€a.m.€Ð P ð Ðà ` àOn€August€2,€the€appellant€and€the€Normans€were€involved€in€aÐ @ à Ðconfrontation€which€took€place€at€Michael€Normanððs€baseball€game€inÐ 0Ð ÐMurfreesboro.€€Robert€and€Loretta€brought€Derrick€and€Michael€to€MurfreesboroÐ  À Ðfor€Michaelððs€game.€€The€appellant€arrived€soon€thereafter€and€attempted€speakÐ °  Ðwith€Derrick,€but€Derrick€did€not€wish€to€talk€to€his€mother.€€The€appellantÐ    Ðcontinued€her€efforts€for€several€minutes,€but€Derrick€continued€to€ignore€her.€Ð ð  ÐRobert€looked€at€the€appellant€and€stated,€ð ð[c]anððt€you€see€that€he€doesnððt€wantÐ à€ Ðto€talk€to€you€or€see€you?ðð€€The€appellant€then€pointed€at€Loretta€and€proclaimedÐ Ðp Ðin€a€loud€voice,€ð ðIððm€€going€to€beat€the€hell€out€of€her.ððÐ À` Ðà ` àAfter€the€game€concluded,€the€appellant€attempted€to€take€pictures€ofÐ °P ÐMichael,€but€because€Robert€and€Loretta€wanted€to€go€home,€they€would€notÐ   @ Ðallow€her€to€take€pictures€of€her€son.€€The€appellant€grabbed€Michaelððs€arm€andÐ "0 Ðstated,€ð ðhe€is€coming€with€me.ðð€€€Loretta€grabbed€Michaelððs€other€arm.€€Ð €$  ÐEventually,€the€appellant€released€Michaelððs€arm€but€followed€Robert,€Loretta€andÐ p& Ðthe€boys€as€they€walked€to€their€car.€€The€appellantððs€actions€frightened€theÐ `(  ÐNormans,€and€they€contacted€security€for€a€police€escort€from€the€baseball€field.€Ð P*ð " Ðà ` àThe€next€day,€the€appellant€was€scheduled€to€have€visitation€with€her€sons.€Ð @,à"$ ÐHowever,€because€Michael€was€limping€due€to€an€injury€sustained€at€the€baseballÐ 0.Ð$& Ðgame€on€the€previous€day€and€because€Derrick€was€experiencing€a€severeÐ  0À&( Ðheadache,€Robert€decided€it€was€not€a€good€day€for€visitation.€€€When€RobertÐ 2°(* Ðtelephoned€the€appellant€to€inform€her€that€he€would€not€bring€Derrick€andÐ 4 *, ÐMichael€for€the€weekly€visitation,€the€appellant€demanded€that€he€bring€them.€Ð ð5,. Ðâ âRobert€refused.€Ð à7€.0 Ðà ` àLater€that€afternoon,€at€approximately€4:15€p.m.,€Robert€was€relaxing€in€hisÐ `  Ðâ âhome€when€he€heard€his€dog€barking.€€€He€heard€the€doorbell€ring,€and€becauseÐ P ð Ðhe€was€not€dressed,€walked€into€another€room€looking€for€clothes.€€LorettaÐ @ à Ðwalked€into€the€room€and€informed€him€that€the€appellant€was€at€the€front€door.€Ð 0Ð ÐRobert€walked€to€the€telephone€and,€as€he€passed€by€the€front€door,€saw€theÐ  À Ðappellant€standing€at€the€door€wearing€a€purple€bathing€suit.€€Robert€called€911,Ð °  Ðand€he€and€his€sons€went€into€the€closet€of€the€master€bedroom.€€Loretta€walkedÐ    Ðinto€the€kitchen€to€lock€the€door€leading€to€the€garage€and€heard€the€appellantÐ ð  Ðstanding€outside€of€this€door€yelling€for€Robert.€€€As€she€turned€to€walk€out€of€theÐ à€ Ðkitchen,€Loretta€heard€a€gunshot.€€She€ran€into€the€bedroom,€and€Robert€calledÐ Ðp Ð911€again.€After€the€police€arrived,€the€Normans€observed€that€the€deadbolt€lockÐ À` Ðon€the€door€leading€to€their€kitchen€had€been€shot.Ð °P Ðà ` àThe€police€did€not€collect€any€evidence€on€August€3,€but€the€next€dayÐ   @ ÐLoretta€discovered€a€red€plastic€shotgun€shell€casing€in€her€garage€and€gave€itÐ "0 Ðto€her€husband.€€€Robert€subsequently€turned€the€shell€casing,€along€with€theÐ €$  Ðdeadbolt€and€bullet€fragments,€over€to€the€police.€€However,€the€policeÐ p& Ðsubsequently€misplaced€this€evidence.Ð `(  Ðà ` àThe€appellant€was€subsequently€arrested€and€indicted€with€two€(2)€countsÐ P*ð " Ðof€aggravated€assault׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€for€the€August€3€incident€and€one€(1)€count€of€harassmentÐ @,à"$ Ðfor€the€July€11€incident.Ð 0.Ð$& Ðà ` àAt€trial,€the€defense€called€David€Vaughn€of€the€Ben€Lomand€RuralÐ  0À&( ÐTelephone€Co„op€in€McMinnville€to€testify.€€Vaughn€produced€copies€of€phoneÐ 2°(* Ðbills€from€the€residence€of€Gladys€Sartain,€the€appellantððs€mother,€with€whom€theÐ 4 *, Ðappellant€had€been€residing.€€The€bills€indicated€only€one€call€to€the€NormanÐ ð5,. Ðresidence€on€July€11,€1997,€at€1:29€a.m.€€Vaughn€testified€that€every€outgoingÐ `  Ðlong€distance€call€that€is€answered€is€recorded€on€these€records.€€However,€heÐ P ð Ðacknowledged€that€if€a€phone€call€is€not€answered,€there€is€no€record€of€the€callÐ @ à Ðon€the€phone€bill.€Ð 0Ð Ðà ` àThe€appellant€attempted€to€establish€an€alibi€for€her€whereabouts€on€theÐ  À Ðafternoon€of€August€3.€€Wendee€Partin,€a€clerk€at€a€FINA€station€in€Pelham,Ð °  Ðtestified€that€she€was€working€on€August€3€when€the€appellant€came€into€theÐ    Ðservice€station€between€3:00€p.m.€and€4:00€p.m.€€When€the€appellant€walkedÐ ð  Ðthrough€the€door,€she€appeared€as€if€she€might€faint.€€The€appellant,€who€sufferedÐ à€ Ðfrom€seizures,€fell€to€the€floor€and€asked€Partin€to€call€Dale€Perry,€the€appellantððsÐ Ðp Ðbrother„in„law.€€Because€she€had€other€customers€to€attend,€Partin€summonedÐ À` Ðher€friend,€Chris€Davidson,€to€assist€the€appellant.€€Davidson€attempted€to€rouseÐ °P Ðthe€appellant,€and€the€appellant€asked€him€to€call€Perry.€€Davidson€complied,€andÐ   @ ÐPerry€arrived€shortly€thereafter.€€Perry€helped€the€appellant€to€his€car€and€thenÐ "0 Ðdrove€her€to€her€residence.€€Perry€stayed€with€the€appellant€for€approximatelyÐ €$  Ðthirty€(30)€minutes€and€returned€home€around€6:00€p.m.€€The€appellantððs€mother,Ð p& ÐGladys€Sartain,€testified€that€she€and€the€appellant€remained€at€home€for€the€restÐ `(  Ðof€the€evening.€Ð P*ð " Ðà ` àPerry€testified€that,€driving€the€speed€limit,€it€takes€approximately€forty„sixÐ @,à"$ Ð(46)€minutes€to€drive€from€the€FINA€station€to€Robert€Normanððs€house€in€MooreÐ 0.Ð$& ÐCounty.€Ð  0À&( Ðà ` àThe€jury€returned€guilty€verdicts€for€the€lesser€offense€of€felony€recklessÐ 2°(* Ðendangerment€in€Count€One€and€Count€Two.€€The€jury€also€found€the€appellantÐ 4 *, Ðguilty€of€harassment€as€charged€in€Count€Three€of€the€indictment.€€The€trial€courtÐ ð5,. Ðsentenced€the€appellant€to€consecutive€terms€of€one€(1)€year€and€three€(3)Ð à7€.0 Ðmonths€and€one€(1)€year€and€two€(2)€months€for€the€appellantððs€convictions€forÐ Ð9p02 Ðreckless€endangerment.€€These€sentences€were€ordered€to€run€concurrently€withÐ `  Ða€six€(6)€month€sentence€for€harassment.€€From€her€convictions€and€sentences,Ð P ð Ðthe€appellant€now€brings€this€appeal.Ð @ à ÐÌà@v v ®àò òòòTESTIMONY€CONCERNING€BULLET€TRAJECTORYóóó óˆÐ  À ÐÌà ` àIn€her€first€issue,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€improperlyÐ    Ðrestricted€the€cross„examination€of€Moore€County€Sheriffððs€Deputy€MichaelÐ ð  ÐBlackburn€regarding€the€trajectory€of€the€bullet€in€the€deadbolt€lock.€€She€furtherÐ à€ Ðclaims€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€subsequently€instructing€the€jury€to€disregardÐ Ðp ÐOfficer€Blackburnððs€testimony€concerning€the€trajectory€of€the€bullet.€€TheÐ À` Ðappellant€contends€that€the€proposed€testimony€regarding€the€trajectory€of€theÐ °P Ðbullet€was€admissible€as€lay€testimony€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€701€because€it€wasÐ   @ Ðbased€upon€Blackburnððs€observations€of€the€bullet.Ð "0 Ðà ` àDuring€the€stateððs€examination€of€Officer€Blackburn,€he€testified€that€ð ðtheÐ €$  Ðperson€who€shot€the€door€knob€had€to€be€standing€up€on€the€porch€because€theÐ p& Ðprojectory€[sic]€of€the€bullet€was€kind€of€downward.ðð€€When€defense€counselÐ `(  Ðattempted€to€cross„examine€Officer€Blackburn€on€this€statement,€the€stateÐ P*ð " Ðobjected.€€The€trial€court€sustained€the€objection,€finding€that€ð ðthe€angle€andÐ @,à"$ Ðtrajectory€of€a€bullet€normally€requires€expert€opinion,ðð€and€because€OfficerÐ 0.Ð$& ÐBlackburn€was€not€qualified€as€an€expert,€his€opinion€regarding€the€trajectory€ofÐ  0À&( Ðthe€bullet€was€inadmissible.€€When€counsel€attempted€to€resume€questioningÐ 2°(* ÐBlackburn,€the€trial€court€interjected:Ð 4 *, ÐÓÓà8 ` àCounsel€for€the€defense€is€partially€correct.€€It€would€not€be€properÐ ð5,. Ðfor€the€State€to€ask€a€person€an€opinion€then€object€to€that€sameÐ è6ˆ-/ Ðopinion€being€asked€about.€€Consequently€the€Court€is€going€toÐ à7€.0 Ðsustain€the€Stateððs€objection.€€The€jury€shall€disregard€anyÐ Ø8x/1 Ðstatements€this€witness€made€about€any€opinions€concerning€thisÐ Ð9p02 Ðbullet.€€He€is€not€an€expert.€€The€Court€will€strike€that€testimony€asÐ `  Ðoffered€by€the€State€since€the€State€is€not€objecting€to€the€sameÐ X ø Ðtestimony€being€offered.€€The€jury€will€disregard€and€consider€for€noÐ P ð Ðpurpose€this€witnessððs€opinions€concerning€any€trajectory€evidenceÐ H è Ðconcerning€this€travel€of€bullet.€€That€is€an€opinion€that€only€anÐ @ à Ðexpert€can€testify€to€and€this€person€was€not€qualified€as€an€expert.Ð8Ø` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓÓà ` àð ðQuestions€regarding€the€admissibility,€qualifications,€relevancy€andÐ (È Ðcompetency€of€expert€testimony€are€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€whoseÐ ¸  Ðruling€will€not€be€overturned€in€the€absence€of€abuse€or€arbitrary€exercise€ofÐ ¨  Ðdiscretion.ðð€€òòState€v.€Begleyóó,€956€S.W.2d€471,€475€(Tenn.€1997).€€The€admissionÐ ø˜  Ðof€expert€testimony€is€governed€by€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702,€which€provides:Ð èˆ ÐÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ àIf€scientific,€technical,€or€other€specialized€knowledge€willÐ Øx Ðsubstantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact€to€understand€the€evidence€or€toÐ Ðp Ðdetermine€a€fact€in€issue,€a€witness€qualified€as€an€expert€byÐ Èh Ðknowledge,€skill,€experience,€training,€or€education€may€testify€in€theÐ À` Ðform€of€an€opinion€or€otherwise.иX` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓÓEvidence€is€ð ðscientific€technical€or€other€specialized€knowledgeðð€if€ð ðit€concerns€aÐ ¨H Ðmatter€that€ððthe€average€juror€would€not€know,€as€a€matter€of€course.€.€.€.ðððð€€òòStateÐ ˜!8 Ðv.€Murphyóó,€953€S.W.2d€200,€203€(Tenn.€1997)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Bolinóó,€922Ð ˆ#( ÐS.W.2d€870,€874€(Tenn.€1996)).Ð x% Ðà ` àWe€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€testimony€concerning€the€trajectory€of€aÐ h' Ðbullet€ordinarily€requires€expert€testimony.€€òòSeeóóòòState€v.€Tiffany€Lafonzo€Bettsóó,Ð X)ø! ÐC.C.A.€No.€02C01„9709„CC„00337,€1999€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€73,€at€*4,Ð H+è!# ÐMadison€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€January€29,€1999,€at€Jackson)€(holdingÐ 8-Ø#% Ðthat€testimony€concerning€the€mechanics€of€a€shotgun€ð ðwould€have€beenÐ (/È%' Ðappropriate€only€from€an€expert€on€firearmsðð).€€Because€Officer€Blackburn€wasÐ 1¸') Ðnot€qualified€as€an€expert€in€this€regard,€the€trial€court€properly€sustained€theÐ 3¨)+ Ðstateððs€objection€to€this€testimony€on€cross„examination.€€Furthermore,€the€trialÐ ø4˜+- Ðcourt€properly€instructed€the€jury€to€disregard€Officer€Blackburnððs€statement€onÐ è6ˆ-/ Ðdirect€examination€concerning€the€bulletððs€trajectory.Ð Ø8x/1 Ðà ` àWe€reject€the€appellantððs€contention€that€the€stateððs€objection€to€theÐ `  Ðtestimony€on€cross„examination€was€improper€because€the€state€effectivelyÐ P ð Ðð ðopened€the€doorðð€to€such€testimony€by€directly€eliciting€the€trajectory€testimonyÐ @ à Ðon€direct€examination.€€The€prosecutor€asked€Officer€Blackburn,€ð ð[d]o€youÐ 0Ð Ðremember€seeing€anything€on€top€of€the€door€facing€on€the€outside€„„ðð.€€BlackburnÐ  À Ðresponded,€ð ð[n]ot€that€I€remember.€€The€only€thing€„„€when€I€looked€at€the€doorÐ °  Ðthe€person€who€shot€the€door€knob€had€to€be€standing€up€on€the€porch€becauseÐ    Ðthe€projectory€[sic]€of€the€bullet€was€kind€of€downward.ðð€€Clearly,€the€portion€ofÐ ð  ÐBlackburnððs€answer€referring€to€the€bulletððs€trajectory€was€not€responsive€to€theÐ à€ Ðquestion€posed€by€the€prosecutor.€€Thus,€we€disagree€with€the€appellant€that€theÐ Ðp Ðstate€directly€elicited€this€response€from€Blackburn.Ð À` Ðà ` àThe€testimony€concerning€the€trajectory€of€the€bullet€required€expertÐ °P Ðtestimony,€and€Blackburn€was€not€qualified€as€an€expert€to€testify€in€this€regard.€Ð   @ ÐAs€such,€the€trial€court€acted€properly€in€instructing€the€jury€to€disregard€theÐ "0 Ðimproperly€admitted€testimony€and€in€refusing€to€allow€any€further€testimony€onÐ €$  Ðthe€subject.Ð p& Ðà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ð `(  ÐÌà@”” ®àò òòòCROSS€EXAMINATION€OF€VICTIMSóóó óˆÐ @,à"$ ÐÌà ` àIn€her€next€issue,€the€appellant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€toÐ  0À&( Ðallow€defense€counsel€to€cross„examine€Robert€and€Loretta€Norman€concerningÐ 2°(* Ðany€domestic€relations€problems€between€them.€€The€appellant€claims€thatÐ 4 *, Ðevidence€of€the€Normansðð€marital€problems€would€indicate€that€the€parties€wereÐ ð5,. Ðbiased€against€her.€€Thus,€she€argues€that€the€evidence€was€properly€admissibleÐ à7€.0 Ðunder€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€616.€€We€must€disagree.Ð Ð9p02 Ðà ` àOther€than€the€appellantððs€allegations,€there€is€no€evidence€in€the€recordÐ `  Ðthat€Robert€and€Loretta,€in€fact,€had€martial€problems.€€In€any€event,€evidenceÐ P ð Ðthat€Robert€and€Loretta€Norman€had€marital€difficulties€does€not€indicate€that€theyÐ @ à Ðwere€biased€against€the€appellant.€€Furthermore,€any€domestic€disputes€betweenÐ 0Ð Ðthe€Normans€are€irrelevant€to€whether€the€appellant€committed€the€instantÐ  À Ðoffenses.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€The€trial€court€did€allow€defense€counsel€toÐ °  Ðquestion€both€Robert€and€Loretta€as€to€whether€either€of€them€was€responsibleÐ    Ðfor€shooting€the€door€on€August€3.€Ð ð  Ðà ` àThe€admissibility€of€testimony€as€well€as€the€scope€of€direct€and€cross„Ð à€ Ðexamination€is€a€matter€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ Ðp Ðv.€Barnardóó,€899€S.W.2d€617,€624€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Furthermore,€a€trialÐ À` Ðcourtððs€determination€of€relevancy€is€subject€to€an€abuse€of€discretion€standard.€Ð °P ÐòòState€v.€DuBoseóó,€953€S.W.2d€649,€652€(Tenn.€1997).€€The€trial€court€restrictedÐ   @ Ðthe€appellantððs€cross„examination€of€the€victims€in€this€regard€because€it€foundÐ "0 Ðthe€evidence€to€be€irrelevant€and€unduly€prejudicial€and€confusing€to€the€jury.€Ð €$  ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€The€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€refusingÐ p& Ðto€allow€the€victims€to€be€cross„examined€regarding€alleged€martial€difficulties.Ð `(  Ðà ` àThis€issue€has€no€merit.Ð P*ð " ÐÌà@îî!®àò òòòSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óóóˆÐ 0.Ð$& ÐÌà ` àThe€appellant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€for€herÐ 2°(* Ðconvictions.€€First,€she€claims€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€herÐ 4 *, Ðconvictions€for€reckless€endangerment€because€no€one€observed€her€shootingÐ ð5,. Ðthe€door€to€the€Norman€residence€and€because€she€presented€evidence€of€anÐ à7€.0 Ðalibi€on€the€afternoon€of€August€3.€€With€respect€to€the€harassment€conviction€sheÐ Ð9p02 Ðcontends€that€under€òòState€v.€Hoxieóó,€963€S.W.2d€737€(Tenn.€1998),€to€establishÐ `  Ðthe€offense€of€harassment,€€the€state€is€required€to€prove€that€she€placed€moreÐ P ð Ðthan€one€telephone€call€in€a€repetitious€manner.€€As€a€result,€she€insists€thatÐ @ à Ðbecause€the€telephone€records€reveal€that€only€one€call€was€placed€to€theÐ 0Ð ÐNorman€residence€on€the€morning€of€July€11,€the€appellant€cannot€be€found€guiltyÐ  À Ðof€harassment.Ð °  Ðà@#®àò òA.€€Standard€of€Reviewó óˆÐ    Ðà ` àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€CourtÐ ð  Ðmust€review€the€record€to€determine€if€the€evidence€adduced€during€the€trial€wasÐ à€ Ðsufficient€ð ðto€support€the€findings€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonableÐ Ðp Ðdoubt.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€This€rule€is€applicable€to€findings€of€guiltÐ À` Ðpredicated€upon€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence€or€a€combination€ofÐ °P Ðdirect€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Breweróó,€932€S.W.2d€1,€19€(Tenn.Ð   @ ÐCrim.€App.€1996).Ð "0 Ðà ` àIt€is€well„settled€that€a€criminal€offense€may€be€established€exclusively€byÐ €$  Ðcircumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Lequireóó,€634€S.W.2d€608,€614€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð p& ÐApp.€1981);€òòState€v.€Haileyóó,€658€S.W.2d€547,€552€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€Ð `(  ÐFurther,€to€support€a€conviction€based€upon€circumstantial€evidence€alone,€theÐ P*ð " Ðfacts€and€circumstances€ð ðmust€be€so€strong€and€cogent€as€to€exclude€every€otherÐ @,à"$ Ðreasonable€hypothesis€save€the€guilt€of€the€defendant.ðð€€òòState€v.€Crawfordóó,€225Ð 0.Ð$& ÐTenn.€478,€470€S.W.2d€610,€612€(1971).Ð  0À&( Ðà ` àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€Court€does€not€reweighÐ 2°(* Ðor€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ð 4 *, Ð1978).€€Nor€may€this€Court€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trierÐ ð5,. Ðof€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286Ð à7€.0 ÐS.W.2d€856,€859€(1956).€€To€the€contrary,€this€Court€is€required€to€afford€the€stateÐ Ð9p02 Ðthe€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€as€well€asÐ `  Ðall€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€Ð P ð ÐòòState€v.€Tuttleóó,€914€S.W.2d€926,€932€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€ð ðA€guilty€verdictÐ @ à Ðby€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnessesÐ 0Ð Ðfor€the€State€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€theory€of€the€State.ðð€€òòStateÐ  À Ðv.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).€€Questions€concerning€theÐ °  Ðcredibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€the€evidence€as€wellÐ    Ðas€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€jury€as€the€trierÐ ð  Ðof€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuttleóó,€914€S.W.2d€at€932.Ð à€ Ðà ` àBecause€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€andÐ Ðp Ðreplaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused€has€the€burden€in€this€CourtÐ À` Ðof€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€byÐ °P Ðthe€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982);€òòState€v.Ð   @ ÐGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€at€476.Ð "0 Ðà@  "®àò òB.€€Reckless€Endangermentó óˆÐ €$  Ðà ` àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€sustain€herÐ p& Ðconvictions€of€reckless€endangerment€because€no€one€saw€her€shoot€the€doorÐ `(  Ðto€the€Norman€residence€and€none€of€the€stateððs€witnesses€saw€her€with€a€gun.€Ð P*ð " ÐFurthermore,€she€argues€that€she€presented€more€than€substantial€proof€of€anÐ @,à"$ Ðalibi€for€the€afternoon€of€August€3.€Ð 0.Ð$& Ðà ` àAn€accused€commits€the€offense€of€reckless€endangerment€when€he€orÐ  0À&( Ðshe€ð ðrecklessly€engages€in€conduct€which€places€or€may€place€another€personÐ 2°(* Ðin€imminent€danger€of€death€or€serious€bodily€injury.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„Ð 4 *, Ð103(a).€€When€reckless€endangerment€is€committed€with€a€deadly€weapon,€theÐ ð5,. Ðâ âoffense€is€a€Class€E€felony.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„103(b).Ð à7€.0 Ðà ` àThe€evidence€at€trial€showed€that€the€appellant€was€observed€by€Robert,Ð `  Ðâ âLoretta,€Derrick€and€Michael€Norman€ringing€the€doorbell€at€the€NormanÐ P ð Ðresidence€on€the€afternoon€of€August€3.€€Due€to€their€previous€confrontations€withÐ @ à Ðthe€appellant,€Robert€Norman€called€911€and€took€his€sons€into€a€bedroomÐ 0Ð Ðcloset.€€Loretta€walked€into€the€kitchen€to€lock€the€door€leading€into€the€garageÐ  À Ðand€heard€the€appellant€standing€outside€of€the€door€yelling€Robert€NormanððsÐ °  Ðname.€€She€testified€that€approximately€2€to€3€seconds€after€she€heard€theÐ    Ðappellantððs€voice,€she€heard€a€gunshot.€Ð ð  Ðà ` àAlthough€no€one€actually€observed€the€appellant€shoot€the€door,€a€rationalÐ à€ Ðtrier€of€fact€could€conclude€that€the€appellant€was€the€shooter.€€By€shooting€theÐ Ðp Ðdoor,€the€appellant€recklessly€engaged€in€conduct€which€placed€the€Normans€inÐ À` Ðimminent€danger€of€death€or€serious€bodily€injury.€€Moreover,€while€the€appellantÐ °P Ðpresented€evidence€of€an€alibi,€four€witnesses€testified€that€the€appellant€was€atÐ   @ Ðthe€Norman€residence€on€the€afternoon€of€August€3.€€By€their€verdict€of€guilt,€theÐ "0 Ðjury€obviously€accredited€the€testimony€of€the€stateððs€witnesses.€€It€is€well„settledÐ €$  Ðthat€the€jury,€as€the€trier€of€fact,€resolves€questions€regarding€the€credibility€of€theÐ p& Ðwitnesses.€€òòState€v.€Maddoxóó,€957€S.W.2d€547,€556€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€TheÐ `(  Ðevidence€was€sufficient€to€convict€the€appellant€of€reckless€endangerment.Ð P*ð " Ðà ` àAlthough€not€raised€by€the€appellant€nor€the€State€of€Tennessee,€this€CourtÐ @,à"$ Ðnotes€that€the€appellant€has€two€(2)€convictions€for€reckless€endangerment€as€aÐ 0.Ð$& Ðresult€of€her€shooting€the€door€at€the€Norman€residence.€€However,€this€Court€hasÐ  0À&( Ðheld€that€the€act€of€firing€a€single€shot€constitutes€only€one€(1)€act€of€recklessÐ 2°(* Ðendangerment,€regardless€of€the€number€of€victims€endangered.€€òòState€v.€DonnieÐ 4 *, ÐWebbóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9112„CR„00414,€1996€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€200,Ð ð5,. Ðat€*1,€Cocke€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€March€29,€1996,€at€Knoxville);€òòseeÐ à7€.0 ÐalsoóóòòState€v.€Ramseyóó,€903€S.W.2d€709,€713€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(holdingÐ Ð9p02 Ðthat€one€act€of€reckless€driving€does€not€justify€multiple€convictions€for€recklessÐ `  Ðendangerment€even€though€the€defendant€endangered€multiple€victims).€€In€thisÐ P ð Ðcase,€the€appellant€was€convicted€for€firing€a€single€shot€into€the€door€at€theÐ @ à ÐNorman€residence,€and€only€one€(1)€conviction€for€reckless€endangerment€was,Ð 0Ð Ðtherefore,€proper.€€As€a€result,€the€appellantððs€conviction€for€recklessÐ  À Ðendangerment€in€Count€Two€is€vacated€and€merged€into€the€appellantððsÐ °  Ðconviction€for€reckless€endangerment€in€Count€One.Ð    Ðà@œœ'®àò òC.€€Harassmentó óˆÐ ð  Ðà ` àThe€appellant€also€contends€that€the€evidence€does€not€support€herÐ à€ Ðconviction€for€harassment.€€She€asserts€that€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€hasÐ Ðp Ðheld€that€the€offense€of€harassment€requires€proof€of€more€than€one€phone€callÐ À` Ðin€a€repetitious€manner.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hoxieóó,€òòsupraóó.€€Because€the€telephoneÐ °P Ðrecords€only€indicate€one€phone€call€to€the€Norman€residence€on€July€11,€theÐ   @ Ðappellant€argues€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€finding€ofÐ "0 Ðguilt€for€this€offense.€€Furthermore,€she€claims€that€any€phone€call€made€to€theÐ €$  ÐNorman€residence€was€accidental;€therefore,€there€is€no€evidence€that€theÐ p& Ðappellant€knowingly€annoyed€or€alarmed€the€recipient€of€the€phone€calls.Ð `(  Ðà ` àA€person€commits€the€offense€of€harassment€who€intentionally€ð ð[p]lacesÐ P*ð " Ðone€(1)€or€more€telephone€calls€anonymously,€or€at€an€inconvenient€hour,€or€inÐ @,à"$ Ðan€offensively€repetitious€manner,€or€without€a€legitimate€purpose€ofÐ 0.Ð$& Ðcommunication,€and€by€this€action€knowingly€annoys€or€alarms€the€recipient.ðð€Ð  0À&( ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„308(a)(2).Ð 2°(* Ðà ` àThe€appellant€claims€that€under€òòState€v.€Hoxieóó,€963€S.W.2d€737€(Tenn.Ð 4 *, Ð1998),€the€state€is€required€to€prove€more€than€one€telephone€call€in€order€toÐ ð5,. Ðestablish€the€offense€of€harassment.€€However,€the€appellantððs€reliance€on€òòHoxieóóÐ à7€.0 Ðis€misplaced.Ð Ð9p02 Ðà ` àIn€òòHoxieóó,€the€Supreme€Court€decided€the€issue€whether€the€state€isÐ `  Ðrequired€to€make€an€election€of€offenses€at€the€close€of€its€proof€with€regard€toÐ P ð Ðthe€offense€of€stalking.€€òòId.óó€at€741.€€The€Court€held€that€no€election€is€requiredÐ @ à Ðdue€to€the€nature€of€the€stalking€offense€as€a€ð ðcontinuing€course€of€conduct.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ 0Ð Ðat€743.€€The€Court€further€added,€ð ð[l]ikewise,€the€offense€of€telephone€harassmentÐ  À Ðfor€which€the€defendant€was€convicted€contemplates€a€continuing€course€ofÐ °  Ðconduct.€.€.€.€The€offense€of€harassment€itself€requires€more€than€one€telephoneÐ    Ðcall€or€telephone€calls€in€a€repetitious€manner.ðð€€òòIdóó.Ð ð  Ðà ` àWe€do€not€agree€with€the€appellantððs€interpretation€of€òòHoxieóó€as€requiringÐ à€ Ðthe€state€to€present€evidence€of€more€than€one€phone€call€to€establish€the€offenseÐ Ðp Ðof€harassment€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„308.€€Although€the€Courtððs€opinionÐ À` Ðstates,€ð ð[t]he€offense€of€harassment€itself€requires€more€than€one€telephone€callÐ °P Ðor€telephone€calls€in€a€repetitious€manner,ðð€this€statement€contradicts€the€clearÐ   @ Ðlanguage€of€the€statute.€€Under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„308(a)(2),€an€accusedÐ "0 Ðcommits€the€offense€of€harassment€by€placing€ð ðone€(1)€or€more€telephone€callsÐ €$  Ð.€.€.ððÐ p& Ðà ` àMoreover,€in€òòHoxieóó,€the€Supreme€Court€was€faced€with€the€issue€whetherÐ `(  Ðthe€state€is€required€to€elect€offenses€for€the€offense€of€stalking.€€The€issue€ofÐ P*ð " Ðelection€of€offenses€with€regard€to€the€offense€of€harassment€was€not€before€theÐ @,à"$ ÐCourt;€therefore,€the€statement€that€harassment€ð ðrequires€more€than€oneÐ 0.Ð$& Ðtelephone€callðð€was€only€dicta€and,€as€a€result,€not€binding€as€precedent.€€ð ðCourtÐ  0À&( Ðdecisions€must€be€read€with€special€reference€to€the€questions€involved€andÐ 2°(* Ðnecessary€to€be€decided,€and€language€used€which€is€not€decisive€of€the€case€orÐ 4 *, Ðdecided€therein€is€not€binding€as€precedent.ðð€€òòShepherd€Fleets,€Inc.€v.€Opryland,Ð ð5,. ÐU.S.A.óó,€759€S.W.2d€914,€921„22€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.),€òòperm.€to€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.Ð à7€.0 Ð1988).Ð Ð9p02 Ðà ` àIn€any€event,€we€conclude€that€the€state€presented€sufficient€evidence€thatÐ `  Ðthe€appellant€placed€one€(1)€or€more€telephone€calls€at€an€inconvenient€hour€andÐ P ð Ðin€an€offensively€repetitious€manner.€€Robert€and€Loretta€Norman€testified€that€theÐ @ à Ðtelephone€rang€three€(3)€times€at€approximately€1:30€a.m.€on€July€11,€1997.€Ð 0Ð ÐWhen€Loretta€answered€the€phone€on€the€first€ring,€there€was€no€one€on€the€otherÐ  À Ðend€of€the€line.€€The€phone€rang€a€second€time,€but€neither€Robert€nor€LorettaÐ °  Ðanswered€it.€€When€the€phone€rang€the€third€time,€Loretta€answered€the€phoneÐ    Ðand€heard€someone€saying,€ð ðwhat€are€you€doing€now?ðð€€Robert€picked€upÐ ð  Ðanother€extension€of€the€phone€and€heard€a€woman€saying,€ð ðdoing.ðð€€Both€RobertÐ à€ Ðand€Loretta€identified€the€caller€voice€as€that€of€the€appellant.€€In€addition,€theÐ Ðp ÐCaller€ID€box€attached€to€the€Normanððs€telephone€identified€the€appellantððs€phoneÐ À` Ðnumber€as€the€origin€of€two€(2)€of€the€incoming€calls.Ð °P Ðà ` àAlthough€David€Vaughn€of€the€Ben€Lomand€Rural€Telephone€Co„opÐ   @ Ðtestified€that€the€phone€records€indicated€only€one€(1)€phone€call€to€the€NormanÐ "0 Ðresidence€on€the€morning€of€July€11,€he€acknowledged€that€the€records€would€notÐ €$  Ðindicate€a€phone€call€that€was€not€answered.€€It€was€a€question€for€the€jury,€asÐ p& Ðtrier€of€fact,€to€resolve€whether€the€appellant€made€multiple€phone€calls€to€theÐ `(  ÐNorman€residence€on€July€11.Ð P*ð " Ðà ` àThe€appellant€further€claims€that€there€is€no€evidence€that€she€ð ðknowinglyððÐ @,à"$ Ðannoyed€or€alarmed€the€Normans€because€the€evidence€demonstrates€that€theÐ 0.Ð$& Ðphone€calls€were€accidental.€€To€the€contrary,€there€was€no€evidence€presentedÐ  0À&( Ðat€trial€that€the€appellant€accidentally€called€the€Norman€residence€multiple€timesÐ 2°(* Ðin€the€early€morning€hours€of€July€11.€€The€evidence€demonstrated€that€theÐ 4 *, Ðappellant€made€telephone€calls€to€the€Norman€residence€at€an€hour€in€which€theyÐ ð5,. Ðwould€obviously€be€asleep.€€According€to€the€Normans,€she€called€three€(3)€timesÐ à7€.0 Ðwithin€a€two„minute€period.€€After€thoroughly€reviewing€the€evidence€presentedÐ Ð9p02 Ðat€trial,€we€conclude€that€a€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€that€the€appellantÐ `  Ðplaced€one€or€more€telephone€calls€to€the€Norman€residence€at€an€inconvenientÐ P ð Ðhour€and€in€an€offensively€repetitious€manner€and€by€her€actions€knowinglyÐ @ à Ðannoyed€or€alarmed€the€recipient€of€the€telephone€call.Ð 0Ð Ðà ` àThis€issue€has€no€merit.Ð  À ÐÌà@@@&®àò òòòSENTENCING€ISSUESó óóóˆÐ    ÐÌà ` àThe€appellant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€imposing€her€sentences.€Ð à€ ÐFirst,€she€claims€that€the€trial€court€misapplied€one€enhancement€factor€and€failedÐ Ðp Ðto€apply€a€mitigating€factor€in€determining€her€sentence;€as€a€result,€she€arguesÐ À` Ðthat€her€sentences€are€excessive.€€She€further€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erredÐ °P Ðin€imposing€consecutive€sentences.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Finally,€she€contends€that€the€trial€courtÐ   @ Ðerred€in€denying€probation.Ð "0 Ðà@#®àò òA.€€Standard€of€Reviewó óˆÐ €$  Ðà ` àThis€Courtððs€review€of€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóóÐ p& Ðwith€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-401(d).€€ThisÐ `(  Ðpresumption€is€conditioned€upon€an€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trialÐ P*ð " Ðjudge€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€andÐ @,à"$ Ðcircumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€If€the€trialÐ 0.Ð$& Ðcourt€fails€to€comply€with€the€statutory€directives,€there€is€no€presumption€ofÐ  0À&( Ðcorrectness€and€our€review€is€òòde€novoóó.€€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€96€(Tenn.Ð 2°(* Ð1997).Ð 4 *, Ðà ` àThe€burden€is€upon€the€appealing€party€to€show€that€the€sentence€isÐ `  Ðimproper.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-401(d)€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€Ð P ð ÐIn€conducting€our€review,€we€are€required,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ @ à Ð40-35-210,€to€consider€the€following€factors€in€sentencing:Ð 0Ð ÐÓÓà8 ` à(1)€[t]he€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencingÐ  À Ðhearing;и ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à(2)€[t]he€presentence€report;Ш ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à(3)€[t]he€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencingÐ ø˜  Ðalternatives;Ðð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à(4)€[t]he€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;Ðà€` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à(5)€[e]vidence€and€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€theÐ Ðp Ðenhancement€and€mitigating€factors€in€ðððð€40-35-113€and€40-35-114;Ð Èh ÐandÐÀ`` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à(6)€[a]ny€statement€the€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€the€defendant'sÐ °P Ðown€behalf€about€sentencing.ШH` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓÓà ` àUnder€the€1989€Sentencing€Act,€the€presumptive€sentence€is€the€minimumÐ ˜!8 Ðwithin€the€applicable€range€if€no€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors€for€sentencingÐ ˆ#( Ðare€present.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-210(c);€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2dÐ x% Ð785,€788€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€However,€if€such€factors€do€exist,€a€trial€courtÐ h' Ðshould€start€at€the€minimum€sentence,€enhance€the€minimum€sentence€within€theÐ X)ø! Ðrange€for€enhancement€factors€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€forÐ H+è!# Ðthe€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-210(e).€€No€particular€weight€forÐ 8-Ø#% Ðeach€factor€is€prescribed€by€the€statute,€as€the€weight€given€to€each€factor€is€leftÐ (/È%' Ðto€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€as€long€as€its€findings€are€supported€by€theÐ 1¸') Ðrecord.€€òòState€v.€Santiagoóó,€914€S.W.2d€116,€125€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€€òòseeóóÐ 3¨)+ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-210€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.Ð ø4˜+- Ðâ âà@ªª!®àò òB.€€Trial€Courtððs€Findingsó óˆÐ è6ˆ-/ Ðà ` àIn€determining€the€appellantððs€sentence,€the€trial€court€found€two€(2)Ð `  Ðâ âenhancement€factors€would€apply:€(1)€that€the€appellant€had€a€previous€historyÐ P ð Ðof€criminal€convictions,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1);€and€(2)€that€theÐ @ à Ðappellant€committed€the€present€offense€while€she€was€on€probation,€Tenn.€CodeÐ 0Ð ÐAnn.€40„35„114(13)(C).€€In€mitigation,€the€appellant€presented€evidence€that€sheÐ  À Ðsuffered€from€seizures€and€proposed€that€these€seizures€constituted€a€ð ðphysicalÐ °  Ðcondition€that€significantly€reduced€[her]€culpability€for€the€offense.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÐ    ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„113(8).€€However,€the€trial€court€rejected€this€mitigating€factor€dueÐ ð  Ðto€the€lack€of€evidence€that€the€offenses€committed€were€related€to€her€physicalÐ à€ Ðcondition.€€As€a€result,€the€trial€court€imposed€sentences€of€one€(1)€year€and€threeÐ Ðp Ð(3)€months€and€one€(1)€year€and€two€(2)€months€for€the€appellantððs€convictionsÐ À` Ðfor€reckless€endangerment.€€The€trial€court€further€imposed€a€sentence€of€six€(6)Ð °P Ðmonths€for€the€appellantððs€conviction€for€harassment.Ð   @ Ðà ` àThe€trial€court€found€that€because€the€instant€offenses€were€committedÐ "0 Ðwhile€the€appellant€was€on€probation,€her€sentences€for€both€counts€of€recklessÐ €$  Ðendangerment€should€run€consecutively€to€one€another.€€The€court€found€that€theÐ p& Ðsentence€for€harassment€should€run€concurrently€with€the€appellantððs€convictionsÐ `(  Ðin€Counts€One€and€Two.Ð P*ð " Ðà ` àWith€regard€to€alternative€sentencing,€the€trial€court€noted€that€measuresÐ @,à"$ Ðless€restrictive€than€confinement€had€been€recently€applied€unsuccessfully€to€theÐ 0.Ð$& Ðappellant.€€Significantly,€the€court€observed€that€the€appellant€was€on€probationÐ  0À&( Ðfor€an€assault€committed€upon€Loretta€Norman,€one€of€the€victims€in€the€instantÐ 2°(* Ðcase.€€Furthermore,€the€trial€court€determined€that€granting€probation€wouldÐ 4 *, Ðdiminish€the€seriousness€of€the€offenses€committed.€€Therefore,€the€trial€courtÐ ð5,. Ðdenied€probation€and€ordered€that€the€appellant€serve€her€sentences€inÐ à7€.0 Ðconfinement.Ð Ð9p02 Ðà@ÂÂ#®àò òC.€€Excessive€Sentencesó óˆÐ `  Ðà ` àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€imposed€excessive€sentencesÐ P ð Ðfor€her€convictions€for€reckless€endangerment€in€Counts€One€and€Two.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р@ à ÐSpecifically,€she€argues€that€the€trial€court€misapplied€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð 0Ð Ð114(13)€and€failed€to€apply€her€proposed€mitigating€factor.€€Thus,€she€claims€thatÐ  À Ðshe€is€entitled€to€the€minimum€sentence€of€one€(1)€year€for€the€Class€E€felony.Ð °  Ðà@šš®àò ò1.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(13)ó óˆÐ    Ðà ` àThe€appellant€claims€that€the€trial€court€misapplied€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„Ð ð  Ð35„114(13)€because€she€was€on€probation€for€a€misdemeanor,€not€a€felony,€atÐ à€ Ðthe€time€the€instant€offenses€were€committed.€€We€agree.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„Ð Ðp Ð35„114(13)€specifically€states€that€this€enhancement€factor€is€applicable€if€theÐ À` Ðdefendant€commits€an€offense€while€on€release€status€ð ðif€such€release€is€from€aÐ °P Ðprior€felony€conviction.ðð€€Because€the€appellant€was€on€probation€for€aÐ   @ Ðmisdemeanor€assault€conviction,€the€trial€court€improperly€applied€thisÐ "0 Ðenhancement€factor.Ð €$  Ðà@ÖÖ®àò ò2.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(8)ó óˆÐ p& Ðà ` àThe€appellant€also€maintains€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€applying€as€aÐ `(  Ðmitigating€factor€that€she€suffered€from€a€physical€condition,€i.e.,€seizures,€whichÐ P*ð " Ðreduced€her€culpability€for€the€offenses€committed.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð @,à"$ Ð113(8).€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€appellant€testified€that€she€had€a€seizureÐ 0.Ð$& Ðon€August€3€and€suffered€from€a€lapse€of€memory€following€the€seizure.Ð  0À&( Ðà ` àThe€trial€court€observed€at€sentencing,Ð 2°(* ÐÓÓà8 ` à[t]he€defendant€wishes€her€cake€and€desires€to€eat€it,€too.€€SheÐ 4 *, Ðmaintains€her€innocence€before€the€jury€and€before€the€Court€todayÐ ø4˜+- Ðeven€but€says€well,€I€could€be€wrong.€€I€could€have€had€a€seizure.€Ð `  ÐI€could€have€had€a€seizure€and€it€is€somehow€related€to€the€offenseÐ X ø Ðand€therefore€it€is€a€mitigating€factor.ÐP ð` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓÓThe€trial€court€found€that€the€appellant€suffered€from€a€physical€condition€whichÐ @ à Ðcaused€her€to€have€seizures,€but€rejected€this€as€a€mitigating€factor€becauseÐ 0Ð Ðthere€was€no€evidence€in€the€record€that€the€seizures€reduced€her€culpability€forÐ  À Ðthe€offenses€committed.€€We€agree.Ð °  Ðà ` àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(8)€is€applicable€only€when€the€defendant€canÐ    Ðestablish€that€the€mental€or€physical€condition€reduced€his€or€her€culpability€forÐ ð  Ðthe€offenses€committed.€€Therefore,€there€must€be€a€causal€connection€betweenÐ à€ Ðthe€condition€and€the€offense.€€òòSeeóóòòState€v.€John€Walter€Whittenóó,€C.C.A.€No.Ð Ðp Ð01C01„9803„CR„00106,€1999€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€164,€at€*2„3,€DavidsonÐ À` ÐCounty€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€February€24,€1999,€at€Nashville);€òòState€v.Ð °P ÐKatherine€Irene€Warrenóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9710„CC„00455,€1998€Tenn.€Crim.Ð   @ ÐApp.€LEXIS€1123,€at€*5,€Bedford€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€October€28,Ð "0 Ð1998,€at€Nashville);€òòState€v.€Mark€W.€Rawlingsóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9612„CR„Ð €$  Ð00475,€1998€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS,€at€*6,€Shelby€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð p& Ðfiled€February€10,€1998,€at€Jackson).€€There€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€that€theÐ `(  Ðappellantððs€seizures€are€related€to€her€committing€the€offense€of€recklessÐ P*ð " Ðendangerment€on€August€3.€€Indeed,€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€defense€counselÐ @,à"$ Ðacknowledged,€ð ð[d]id€this€physical€condition€play€into€the€events€of€this€crime?€Ð 0.Ð$& ÐI€donððt€know.€€We€donððt€have€any€proof€connecting€those€two.ðð€Ð  0À&( Ðà ` àThe€trial€courtððs€determination€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(8)€did€notÐ 2°(* Ðapply€in€mitigation€is€fully€supported€by€the€record.Ð 4 *, ÐÌÌÐ Ð9p02 Ðà@¬¬®àò ò3.€€Appropriate€Length€of€Sentenceó óˆÐ `  Ðà ` àAlthough€the€trial€court€misapplied€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(13),€theÐ P ð Ðappellant€is€not€necessarily€entitled€to€a€reduction€in€her€sentence.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòState€v.Ð @ à ÐLavenderóó,€967€S.W.2d€803,€809€(Tenn.€1998).€€The€trial€court€did€not€considerÐ 0Ð Ðtwo€enhancement€factors€which€are€clearly€applicable€here.€€First,€the€appellantððsÐ  À Ðprevious€conviction€for€assault€estabilshes€a€history€of€criminal€convictions€orÐ °  Ðbehavior€above€and€beyond€that€necessary€to€establishe€her€standard€offenderÐ    Ðrange.€€See.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Sec.€40„35„114(1).€€In€addition,€the€use€of€aÐ ð  Ðfirearm€justifies€enhancement€of€the€appellantððs€sentence€for€recklessÐ à€ Ðendangerment.€€See,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Sec.€40„35„114(9).€€Furthermore,€thereÐ Ðp Ðare€no€mitigating€factors€which€are€applicable€to€the€appellantððs€sentence€forÐ À` Ðreckless€endangerment.€€For€her€conviction€in€Count€One,€the€appellant€receivedÐ °P Ða€sentence€of€one€(1)€year€and€three€(3)€months,€a€sentence€which€is€barelyÐ   @ Ðabove€the€minimum€for€a€Class€E€felony.€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€courtÐ "0 Ðimposed€an€appropriate€sentence€of€one€(1)€year€and€three€(3)€months€for€theÐ €$  Ðappellantððs€conviction€for€reckless€endangerment.Ð p& Ðà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ð `(  Ðà@(®àò òD.€€Probationó óˆÐ P*ð " Ðà ` àIn€her€final€issue,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ @,à"$ Ðdenying€probation.€€She€claims€that€because€she€has€an€insignificant€criminalÐ 0.Ð$& Ðhistory€and€was€convicted€of€a€Class€E€felony€and€a€Class€A€misdemeanor,€sheÐ  0À&( Ðâ âis€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing.Ð 2°(* Ðà ` àAn€especially€mitigated€or€standard€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€C,€D€orÐ `  Ðâ âE€felony€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing€in€theÐ P ð Ðabsence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-102(6).€€A€trialÐ @ à Ðcourt€must€presume€that€a€defendant€sentenced€to€eight€years€or€less€and€whoÐ 0Ð Ðis€not€an€offender€for€whom€incarceration€is€a€priority€is€subject€to€alternativeÐ  À Ðsentencing.€€òòState€v.€Byrdóó,€861€S.W.2d€377,€379-80€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€ItÐ °  Ðis€further€presumed€that€a€sentence€other€than€incarceration€would€result€inÐ    Ðsuccessful€rehabilitation€unless€rebutted€by€sufficient€evidence€in€the€record.€€òòId.óóÐ ð  Ðat€380.Ð à€ Ðà ` àUnder€the€1989€Sentencing€Act,€sentences€which€involve€confinement€areÐ Ðp Ðto€be€based€on€the€following€considerations:Ð À` ÐÓÓà8 ` à(A)€[c]onfinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society€by€restraining€aÐ °P Ðdefendant€who€has€a€long€history€of€criminal€conduct;ШH` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à(B)€[c]onfinement€is€necessary€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousnessÐ ˜!8 Ðof€the€offense€or€confinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€anÐ "0 Ðeffective€deterrence€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses;€€orЈ#(` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à(C)€[m]easures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€frequently€orÐ x% Ðrecently€been€applied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant.Ðp&` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-103(1);€òòState€v.€Bostonóó,€938€S.W.2d€435,€438€(Tenn.Ð `(  ÐCrim.€App.€1996).€€A€trial€court€may€consider€the€enhancement€and€mitigatingÐ P*ð " Ðfactors€set€forth€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„113,€40„35„114€as€they€areÐ @,à"$ Ðrelevant€to€the€ðð€40„35„103(1)€considerations.€€òòState€v.€Bostonóó,€938€S.W.2d€atÐ 0.Ð$& Ð438;€òòState€v.€Zeoliaóó,€928€S.W.2d€457,€461€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€The€trialÐ  0À&( Ðcourt€should€also€consider€the€defendantððs€potential€for€rehabilitation€whenÐ 2°(* Ðdetermining€whether€an€alternative€sentence€would€be€appropriate.€€òòState€v.Ð 4 *, ÐZeoliaóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€461.Ð ð5,. Ðà ` àIn€determining€whether€to€grant€or€deny€probation,€a€trial€court€shouldÐ à7€.0 Ðconsider€the€circumstances€of€the€offense,€the€defendantððs€criminal€record,€theÐ Ð9p02 Ðdefendant's€social€history€and€present€condition,€the€need€for€deterrence,€and€theÐ `  Ðbest€interest€of€the€defendant€and€the€public.€€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€925€S.W.2d€237,Ð P ð Ð244€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€924€S.W.2d€912,€917€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð @ à ÐApp.€1995).€€There€is€no€mathematical€equation€to€be€utilized€in€determiningÐ 0Ð Ðsentencing€alternatives.€€Not€only€should€the€sentence€fit€the€offense,€but€itÐ  À Ðshould€fit€the€offender€as€well.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-103(2);€òòState€v.€Boggsóó,Ð °  Ð932€S.W.2d€467,€476„77€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).Ð    Ðà ` àThe€trial€court€found€that€incarceration€was€appropriate€because€measuresÐ ð  Ðless€restrictive€than€confinement€had€recently€been€applied€unsuccessfully€to€theÐ à€ Ðappellant.€€We€agree.Ð Ðp Ðà ` àAs€a€result€of€her€striking€Loretta€Norman€in€the€head€with€a€baseball€bat,Ð À` Ðthe€appellant€was€convicted€in€December€1996€with€one€(1)€count€of€simpleÐ °P Ðassault€and€received€eleven€(11)€months€and€twenty„nine€(29)€days€probation.€Ð   @ ÐNotwithstanding€a€court€order€to€stay€away€from€Loretta€Norman,€eight€(8)Ð "0 Ðmonths€later€the€appellant€fired€a€shotgun€into€the€door€at€Robert€and€LorettaÐ €$  ÐNormanððs€residence.€€Obviously,€measures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€haveÐ p& Ðproven€unsuccessful,€and€this€reflects€poorly€on€the€appellantððs€rehabilitationÐ `(  Ðpotential.€Ð P*ð " Ðà ` àAfter€considering€the€circumstances€of€these€offenses,€along€with€theÐ @,à"$ Ðappellantððs€recent€unsuccessful€effort€at€rehabilitation,€we€conclude€that€the€trialÐ 0.Ð$& Ðcourt€properly€found€sufficient€ð ðevidence€to€the€contraryðð€to€rebut€the€appellantððsÐ  0À&( Ðpresumption€for€alternative€sentencing.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€trial€court€properly€denied€probationÐ 2°(* Ðin€this€case.Ð 4 *, Ðà ` àThis€issue€is€meritless.Ð ð5,. Їà@ØØ)®àò òòòCONCLUSIONó óóóˆÐ `  ÐÌà ` àBecause€the€appellant€was€improperly€convicted€of€two€(2)€counts€ofÐ @ à Ðreckless€endangerment€arising€out€of€the€same€criminal€conduct,€the€appellantððsÐ 0Ð Ðconviction€for€reckless€endangerment€in€Count€Two€is€vacated€and€merged€withÐ  À Ðthe€appellantððs€conviction€for€reckless€endangerment€in€Count€One.€€However,Ð °  Ðin€all€other€respects,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.Ð    ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à¹Ó  ÓÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ð Ðp Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ Èh ÐÌÌÌCONCUR:Ð ¨H ÐÌÌÌ___________________________________Ð ˆ#( ÐDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÐ €$  ÐÌÌ___________________________________Ð h' ÐNORMA€MCGEE€OGLE,€JUDGE