ÿWPC± …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 H 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ U,- 0dY U,½ U>é U*'B)QDCz B½ AMÚ!'v~HvÓÆ D3™ 0@Ì AO Æ[ 0D! D/e B”˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- ôõEö÷øùúûDüýÓ€Ô¡¨ 3|x2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd d€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌJuly€5,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€  X„d&ÓÑ#€  Xd#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€!ŠÔÔ€"ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€¦0XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßL€&'$;+'h|` ç `€€LßIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÌAT€œNASHVILLE›ÌÌœFEBRUARY›€SESSION,€œ1996›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,›à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.Ïœ01C01„9507„CC„00225›Ìà àà àà àà àà àœ)›Ìà àó óAppelleeò ò,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœCOFFEE›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œJOHN€W.€ROLLINSó ó›Ìò òœJERRY€GLENN€NORRID,ó ó›à àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àœ)›à àœ(Sentencing)›ÌÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌœCIRCUIT›€COURT€OF€œCOFFEE€COUNTY›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€œAPPELLANTóó:›à àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ìó óœROBERT€S.€PETERS›à àà àà àœCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌSwafford,€Peters€&€Priestà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ100€First€Avenue,€S.W.ÌWinchester,€TN€37398à àà àà àSARAH€M.€BRANCHÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0485ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àC.€MICHAEL€LAYNEÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSTEPHEN€E.€WEITZMANÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àManchester,€TN€37355›ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœSENTENCE€MODIFIED›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€"°Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€"ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€Defendant€appeals€as€of€right€pursuant€to€Rule€3€of€the€TennesseeÏRules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€œHe›€was€convicted€at€a€jury€trial€of€one€count€ofÏtheft€of€property€over€$10,000€and€one€count€of€theft€of€property€over€$1,000.€ÏHe€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€II€œmultiple€offender›€to€eight€years€for€count€oneÏand€six€years€for€count€two.€€The€trial€judge€ordered€these€sentences€to€beÏserved€consecutively.€€The€Defendant€appeals€his€œsentences.›€€We€œreverse€andÏmodify›€the€judgment€of€the€trial€œcourt€to€reflect€concurrent€sentences.›ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€argues€two€issues€in€his€appeal€of€his€sentence.€€œHis€first›Ïargument€is€œthat€the›€trial€court€erred€in€relying€on€felony€convictions€out€of€TexasÏand€Oklahoma€to€support€a€sentence€as€a€Range€II€offender.€€œHis€second›Ïargument€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€œordering›€œthe€sentences›€œto€be€servedÏconsecutively.›ÌœÌ›à àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€the€manner€of€serviceÏof€a€sentence,€this€court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€theÏsentence€with€a€presumption€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€areÏcorrect.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€!ÔððÔ€"Ô€œ40„35„401(d).›€€This€presumption€is€"conditionedÍupon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€theÏsentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€ÌÌÓ ` °œXÓà àIn€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€court€must€consider:€Ï(a)€€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€theÏpresentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€toÏsentencing€alternatives;€œ(d)›€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conductÏinvolved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statementÏthat€the€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€ofÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€!Ôðððð€Ô€"Ô40„35„102,€„103,Ïand€„210;€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencingÏprocedure,€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€andÏproper€weight€to€the€factors€and€principals€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,Ïand€that€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,Ïthen€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€aÏdifferent€result.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌÓ  ÓœI.›ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Defendant€first€argues€that€he€should€not€have€been€sentenced€as€aÏRange€II€offender.€€There€was€a€stipulation€to€three€previous€convictions€inÏstates€other€than€Tennessee.€€These€convictions€were€not€specificallyÏdesignated€as€œfelonies€or€misdemeanors.›€€Two€were€in€Oklahoma,€and€oneÏwas€in€Texas.€€œOne›€of€the€Oklahoma€convictions€was€unable€to€be€verified€œby›Ïthe€jurisdiction€from€which€it€œcame.›€€The€trial€court€held€that€the€œout„of„state›Ïconvictions€were€felonies€and,€therefore,€the€Defendant€was€a€Range€II€œoffender›Ïbecause€he€had€two€or€more€previous€felony€convictions.ÌÌà àTo€be€œclassified€as€a›€Range€II€multiple€œoffender,›€a€defendant€must€haveÏð ð[a]€minimum€of€two€(2)€but€not€more€than€four€(4)€prior€felony€œconvictions€withinÏthe€conviction€class,€a€higher€class,€or€within€the€next€two€(2)€lower€felonyÏclasses.ð𛀀Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„106(a)(1).€€In€regard€to€the€application€ofÏout„of„state€convictions€to€determine€the€applicable€œrange,›€the€code€states:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌPrior€convictions€include€convictions€under€the€laws€of€any€otherÏstate,€government,€or€country€which,€if€committed€in€this€state,Ïwould€have€constituted€an€offense€cognizable€by€the€laws€ofÏthis€state.€€In€the€event€that€a€felony€from€a€jurisdiction€other€thanÏTennessee€is€not€a€named€felony€in€this€state,€the€elements€ofÏthe€offense€shall€be€used€by€the€Tennessee€court€to€determineÏwhat€classification€the€offense€is€given.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„106(b)(5).ÌÌà àOne€of€the€Oklahoma€convictions€was€for€ð ðPossession€of€Stolen€PropertyÏOver€$100.00."€€Although€this€conviction€was€not€verified€by€testimony€at€theÏsentencing€hearing,€the€parties€all€stipulated€to€this€prior€conviction€in€addition€toÏtwo€others.€€This€prior€conviction€occurred€in€October€of€1987.€€In€1987€underÏTennessee€law€possession€of€stolen€property€under€$200.00€was€punishableÏas€in€petit€larceny.€€According€to€the€conversion€chart€at€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€40„35„118,€this€crime€is€considered€a€Class€E€felony€forÏsentencing€under€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989.€€Therefore,€theÏDefendant€has€at€least€one€prior€felony€within€the€two€classes€below€hisÏpresent€convictions.€€›Ìà àÌà àThe€Texas€œconviction€and›€œthe€other€Oklahoma›€œconviction›€were€bothÏstyled€as€ð ðUnauthorized€use€of€an€automobile.ðð€€The€Defendant€œapparentlyÏargues›€that€the€label€œor€title€of›€the€crime€should€be€the€œcontrolling€factor›€whenÏdeciding€the€effect€of€an€out„of„state€conviction.€€œHe€argues›€that€the€TennesseeÏcrime€of€unauthorized€use€of€an€automobile€is€the€comparable€crime€to€theÏTexas€and€Oklahoma€convictions.€€The€Tennessee€crime€of€unauthorized€use€ofÏan€automobile€is€a€misdemeanor.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„106.€€Therefore,€theÏDefendant€argues,€he€should€not€be€sentenced€as€a€Range€œII€offender›Íbecause€he€does€not€have€two€previous€felony€convictions€within€the€next€twoÏlower€conviction€classes.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€held€that€the€two€convictions€were€indeed€felonies€and,Ïtherefore,€enhanced€the€Defendantððs€range.€€The€trial€judge€stated€in€hisÏsentencing€order€that:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌ[I]t€is€the€opinion€of€the€undersigned€that€it€is€not€the€label€of€theÏoffenses€that€determines€whether€or€not€a€conviction€is€a€felonyÏor€misdemeanor€but€under€Tennessee€law€the€punishmentÏdesignated€for€the€offense.€€The€break€point€in€[sic]€whether€orÏnot€the€punishment€carries€a€sentence€in€excess€of€one€year.€€ItÏis€the€opinion€of€the€undersigned€that€the€State€has€provenÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€was€on€paroleÏfrom€the€state€of€Texas;€that€the€prior€convictions€wouldÏconstitute€felony€convictions€in€the€state€of€Tennessee.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓà àThe€proof€of€the€Oklahoma€conviction€for€unauthorized€use€of€anÏautomobile€states:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌ[Defendant]€.€.€.did€commit€the€crime€of€UNAUTHORIZED€USEÏOF€VEHICLE,€by€unlawfully,€feloniously€and€willfully,€not€beingÏentitled€to€its€possession€did€take,€use€or€drive€a€certain€motorÏvehicle€.€.€.€belonging€to€and€without€the€consent€of€[victim]€withÏthe€òòunlawful€and€felonious€intentóó€on€the€part€of€said€defendantÏthen€and€there€òòto€deprive€said€owner€temporarily€or€permanentlyÏof€the€possession€of€said€vehicle.óóÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓ(emphasis€added).€€The€Tennessee€statute€that€the€Defendant€wishes€us€toÏuse€reads,€ð ðA€person€commits€a€Class€A€misdemeanor€who€takes€anotherððsÍautomobile€.€.€.€without€the€consent€of€the€owner€and€the€person€òòdoes€not€haveÏthe€intent€to€deprive€the€owner€thereofóó.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„106Ï(emphasis€added).€€These€two€crimes€cannot€be€said€to€be€the€same€becauseÏœone€requires›€a€different€œintent€than€the€other.›€œÌÌà àThe€Oklahoma€unauthorized€use€of€an€automobile€conviction€occurred€inÏJune€of€1989.€€For€this€reason,€we€must€look€at€the€law€in€effect€in€TennesseeÏat€the€time€of€the€conviction.€€In€Tennessee€the€definition€used€for€the€OklahomaÏoffense€is€similar€to€the€definition€of€joyriding.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„5„104(a)Ï(1988).€€According€to€the€conversion€chart€at€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏsection€40„35„119,€this€crime€converts€to€a€Class€E€felony.€€Therefore,€theÏDefendant€has€two€convictions€in€the€next€two€lower€classes€which€supports€aÏsentence€as€a€Range€II€offender€as€opposed€to€a€Range€I€offender.Ì›Ìà àThe€œ1991€Texas›€conviction€is€also€for€the€unauthorized€use€of€anÏautomobile.€€Because€this€Texas€felony€is€not€a€named€felony€in€Tennessee,Ïwe€must€compare€the€elements€of€the€Texas€statute€to€Tennessee€law.€€ð ðIn€theÏevent€that€a€felony€from€a€jurisdiction€other€than€Tennessee€is€not€a€namedÏfelony€in€this€state,€the€elements€of€the€offense€shall€be€used€by€the€TennesseeÏcourt€to€determine€what€classification€the€offense€is€given.ðð€€œTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„106(b)(5)›ÌÌà àAccording€to€the€Texas€œstatute,›€the€unauthorized€use€of€a€vehicle€isÏcommitted€if€a€person,€ð ðintentionally€or€knowingly€operates€anotherððs€boat,Ïairplane,€or€œmotor„propelled›€vehicle€without€the€effective€consent€of€the€owner.ðð€ÏTexas€Penal€Code€Ann.€ðð€31.07(a)€(1994).€€This€crime€is€a€felony€in€the€state€ofÏTexas.€€Texas€Penal€Code€Ann.€ðð€31.07(b)€(1994).€€This€definition€lacks€theÏelement€of€œintent€to€deprive€the€owner€of€the€property.›€€In€the€misdemeanor€crimeÏof€unauthorized€œuse›€of€an€automobile€in€œTennessee,›€there€is€œlikewise€a›€lack€ofÏœsuch€intent.›€€For€this€reason,€we€œconclude€that›€the€Defendantððs€Texas€convictionÏcannot€be€œrelied€upon€to›€classify€the€Defendant€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offender.ÌÌà àœThe€Defendant€has€two€prior€convictions€within€the€next€two€lower€felonyÏclasses.€€The›€judgment€of€the€trial€œcourt€in€sentencing€the€Defendant€as€aÏRange€II€multiple€offender€is€affirmed.ÌÌà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓII.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe›€second€issue€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€ordering€theÏDefendantððs€sentences€to€be€served€consecutively.€€œThe€trial€court€ordered€theÍTennessee€sentences€to€be€served€consecutively€to€the€Texas€sentence€fromÏwhich€the€Defendant€was€on€parole,€and€the€Defendant€does€not€argue€thatÏthis€was€error.€€Although€not€clear,€it›€appears€that€the€trial€court€œmay€haveÏordered›€the€œTennessee€sentences›€to€be€served€consecutively€œto€each€otherÏbecause›€the€Defendant€was€on€parole€from€his€conviction€in€Texas€when€heÏcommitted€the€crimes€he€was€convicted€of€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó.€€œIf€so,€weÏbelieve€this€was€error.›ÌÌà àœOur€sentencing€statutes€set›€forth€the€criteria€under€which€a€trial€court€œmay›Ïorder€œsentences€for€multiple€convictions€to€be€served€consecutively.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„115.€€The€criteria€that€could€possibly€apply€to€the€Defendant€are,›Ïð ð(1)€The€defendant€is€a€professional€criminal€who€has€knowingly€devotedÏhimself€to€criminal€acts€as€a€major€source€of€livelihood;ðð€and€ð ð(2)€The€defendantÏis€an€offender€whose€record€of€criminal€activity€is€extensive.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„115(b)(1)€&€(2).ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€has€the€previous€convictions€in€Oklahoma€and€Texas.€ÏHe€does€not€have€a€prior€record€in€Tennessee.€€œHe›€had€a€job€for€œthe€four›Ïmonths€prior€to€his€sentencing€report€and€worked€part„time€for€the€sameÏbusiness€for€a€year€before€that.€€He€also€worked€for€his€mother,€although€thereÏis€no€time€frame€given€for€that€work.€œ€With€his€limited€previous€record›€œwe›€œcannotÍconclude›€that€œhe›€meets€either€of€the€œcriteria.€€At›€the€time€of€the€DefendantððsÏœsentencing,›€he€œhad›€several€pending€charges,€but€these€charges€cannot€œbeÏrelied€upon›€to€impose€a€consecutive€sentence.ÌÌà àTherefore,€œwe€conclude›€that€the€œDefendant€should€not€have€been›Ïsentenced€to€œconsecutive€terms€for€his€two€Tennessee€convictions.€€WeÏconclude€that€the€sentences€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€shall€be€served€concurrentlyÏwith€each€other.Ì›Ìà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€œaffirmed€in€part€and€reversed€in€part.›€€ThisÏcase€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€œentry€of€an€order€consistent€with›€thisÏopinion.Ìà àà àà àà àà àœÌÓÓ›à àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌœÌCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JUDGE›ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGE›