’WPC 6oŠŠ2 /dO †k–!% Šuntil€about€8:30€p.m.€€She€said€she€saw€a€police€car€in€the€victimššs€yard€as€she€walked€to€theŠ Ō&$"& Šdefendantššs€house.€€Š ŗ' #' ŠĢą  ąBertha€King€testified€that€she€lived€across€the€street€from€the€defendant€and€that€she€saw€himŠ †)Ö$) Šstanding€in€his€yard€before€dark€on€the€day€of€the€robbery.€€She€said€she€telephoned€the€defendantššsŠ l*¼%* Šresidence€after€dark€and€spoke€with€the€defendant.€€Š R+¢&+ ŠŠ 8,ˆ', Šą@²²)ģąI.ˆŠ ° ŠĢą  ąThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€Shawn€Jones€to€testify€that€theŠ |Ģ Šdefendant€told€him€a€year€before€the€robbery€that€the€defendant€was€going€to€rob€Ms.€Hudson.€€HeŠ b² Šargues€that€the€statement€was€too€remote€in€time€to€have€any€probative€value€and€was€too€prejudicialŠ H˜ Što€him€to€be€admitted€into€evidence.€€He€asserts€that€the€statementššs€probative€value€is€substantiallyŠ . ~ Šoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€pursuant€to€Rule€403,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€€The€stateŠ  d Šresponds€that€pursuant€to€Rule€404(b),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€the€trial€court€properly€found€that€theŠ ś J Šstatementššs€probative€value€outweighed€its€potential€prejudicial€effect€relative€to€motive,€intent€and,Š ą 0 Šprimarily,€the€identity€of€the€robber.€€We€agree€with€the€state,€viewing€Rule€404(b),€not€Rule€403,Š Ę   Šas€controlling.Š ¬ ü  ŠĢą  ąPursuant€to€Rule€404(b),€other€crimes,€wrongs,€or€acts€by€the€defendant€are€not€admissibleŠ xČ  Što€prove€the€character€of€a€person€in€order€to€show€propensity.€€However,€when€the€evidence€isŠ ^®  Šrelevant€to€an€issue€such€as€identity€or€intent,€it€is€admissible€if€the€trial€court€determines€that€theŠ D”  Šdanger€of€unfair€prejudice€does€not€outweigh€the€evidenceššs€probative€value.€€ņņSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Š *z  Š404(b),€Advisory€Commission€Comment.€€When€the€trial€court€substantially€complies€with€theŠ ` Šprocedural€requirements€of€Rule€404(b),€the€standard€of€review€of€its€decision€regarding€theŠ öF Šadmissibility€of€evidence€is€abuse€of€discretion.€€ņņState€v.€DuBoseóó,€953€S.W.2d€649,€652€(Tenn.Š Ü, Š1997).Š Ā ŠĢą  ąWe€believe€that€the€trial€court€acted€within€its€discretion.€€The€trial€court€heard€the€proposedŠ ŽŽ Štestimony€in€a€jury„out€proceeding€and€noted€that€the€main€issue€in€the€case€was€the€identity€of€theŠ tÄ Šrobber.€€It€determined€that€the€defendantššs€statement€to€Mr.€Jones€was€relevant€to€show€that€theŠ ZŖ Šdefendant€was€the€robber€and€that€the€relevance€outweighed€any€potential€for€unfair€prejudice€to€theŠ @ Šdefendant.€€The€record€contains€material€evidence€to€support€the€trial€courtššs€conclusions.Š &v ŠĢą@‘‘)ģąII.ˆŠ ņB ŠĢą  ąThe€defendant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€Sergeant€Smothers€to€testifyŠ ¾ Šregarding€the€victimššs€statement€to€him€that€she€had€seen€the€defendant€almost€every€day€walkingŠ ¤ō Šby€her€house€on€his€way€to€school.€€He€argues€that€the€statement€was€inadmissible€hearsay€and€didŠ Š Ś Šnot€qualify€as€an€excited€utterance,€which€is€an€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule€of€exclusion.€€ņņSeeóó€Tenn.Š p!Ą  ŠR.€Evid.€803(2).€€The€state€responds€that€the€statement€was€admissible€as€an€excited€utterance€underŠ V"¦! ŠRule€803(2),€arguing€that€it€related€to€a€startling€event,€the€robbery,€while€the€victim€was€under€theŠ <#Œ" Šstress€of€excitement€caused€by€the€event.€Š "$r# ŠĢą  ąSergeant€Smothers€testified€that€he€found€the€victim€in€š špretty€bad€shapešš€and€that€she€wasŠ ī%>!% Šš špretty€muchšš€excited.€€The€state€sought€to€introduce€the€victimššs€statement€to€Sergeant€SmothersŠ Ō&$"& Šas€an€excited€utterance,€but€the€trial€court€rejected€that€basis.€€Upon€the€stateššs€added€assertion€thatŠ ŗ' #' Šthe€statement€was€a€prior€consistent€statement,€the€trial€court€admitted€it€because€it€was€not€beingŠ  (š#( Šsubmitted€for€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted€in€the€statement.€€Given€the€limited€evidence€and€theŠ †)Ö$) Šlimited€nature€of€the€trial€courtššs€ruling,€including€making€no€findings,€we€hesitate€to€conclude€thatŠ l*¼%* Šthe€victimššs€statement€to€Sergeant€Smothers€was€admissible€as€an€excited€utterance.€Š R+¢&+ ŠŠ 8,ˆ', Šą  ąRelative€to€a€prior€consistent€statement,€the€standard€rule€is€that€it€is€not€admissible€to€bolsterŠ ° Ša€witnessššs€credibility.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņState€v.€Braggsóó,€604€S.W.2d€883,€885€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).Š –ę ŠHowever,€once€the€opponent€has€brought€the€issue€of€a€witnessššs€credibility€to€the€forefront€byŠ |Ģ Šattacking€or€impeaching€the€witnessššs€testimony,€through€cross„examination€or€other€evidence,Š b² Šcertain€types€of€witness€rehabilitation€are€allowed€to€occur€through€corroborative€proof€in€order€toŠ H˜ Šrebut€the€attack.€€In€other€words,€the€attack€has€made€evidence€of€credibility€more€relevant€and€hasŠ . ~ Šopened€the€door€to€rehabilitation.€€ņņSeeóó,€ņņe.g.óó,€ņņSutton€v.€Stateóó,€155€Tenn.€200,€204,€291€S.W.€1069,Š  d Š1070€(1927);€ņņGraham€v.€McReynoldsóó,€90€Tenn.€673,€696,€18€S.W.€272,€277„78€(1891).€€For€instance,Š ś J Šif€the€credibility€of€a€witness€is€impeached€by€suggestion€of€faulty€recollection,€it€would€be€relevantŠ ą 0 Što€prove€that€the€witness€made€a€consistent€statement€soon€after€the€event€when€the€matter€wasŠ Ę   Šfresher€in€the€witnessššs€memory.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņState€v.€Tizardóó,€897€S.W.2d€732,€746€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Š ¬ ü  Š1994).Š ’ā  ŠĢą  ąIn€the€present€case,€the€defendant€questioned€the€victimššs€ability€to€identify€him€as€herŠ ^®  Šassailant.€€The€record€suggests€that€the€defendant€questioned€the€truth€of€the€victimššs€claim€that€sheŠ D”  Šsaw€the€defendant€very€often€in€front€of€her€house.€€The€key€issue€for€the€defense€was€the€identityŠ *z  Šof€the€robber.€€Under€these€circumstances,€we€believe€that€the€record€contains€sufficient€justificationŠ ` Što€allow€the€victimššs€statement€at€the€scene€to€be€introduced€to€corroborate€her€testimony€by€whichŠ öF Šshe€identified€the€defendant€as€her€assailant,€including€how€often€she€had€seen€him€prevously.Š Ü, ŠĢą  ąWe€note€that€although€admitting€this€statement€as€a€prior€consistent€one,€the€trial€court€failedŠ Øų Što€instruct€the€jury€that€evidence€of€the€statement€should€be€considered€only€to€corroborate€theŠ ŽŽ Švictimššs€testimony€and€not€for€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted.€€However,€we€do€not€believe€that€theŠ tÄ Šdefendant€was€harmed.€€First,€the€defendantššs€identity€as€the€robber€did€not€stem€solely€from€theŠ ZŖ Švictim.€€More€importantly,€though,€we€believe€that€the€statement€was€admissible€as€substantiveŠ @ Ševidence€as€an€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule€of€exclusion.€€Pursuant€to€Rule€803(1.1),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,Š &v Šthe€victimššs€statement€to€Sergeant€Smothers€was€admissible€as€one€identifying€the€defendant€afterŠ  \ Šperceiving€him€and€the€victim€was€subject€to€cross„examination€concerning€the€statement€at€the€trial.€Š ņB ŠDeclarations€of€eye„witness€identifications€are€admissible€in€Tennessee.€€Rule€803(1.1),€AdvisoryŠ Ų( ŠCommission€Comment.€€Thus,€the€defendant€was€not€harmed€by€the€trial€courtššs€failure€to€instructŠ ¾ Šthe€jury€to€limit€its€consideration€of€the€statement€to€corroboration€only.Š ¤ō ŠĢą@pp(ģąIII.ˆŠ p!Ą  ŠĢą  ąFinally,€the€defendant€contends€that€his€twenty„one€year€sentence€is€excessive€punishment.€Š <#Œ" ŠHe€does€not€specify€any€error€or€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€trial€courtššs€determinations.€€He€notes€thatŠ "$r# Šin€a€case€with€similar€facts,€ņņState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93€(Tenn.€1997),€the€court€affirmed€thisŠ %X $ Šcourtššs€reduction€of€a€sentence€from€twenty„one€years€to€nineteen€years€having€determined€that€theŠ ī%>!% Štrial€court€had€improperly€applied€an€enhancement€factor.€€The€defendant€also€notes€that€the€trialŠ Ō&$"& Šcourt€originally€sentenced€him€to€twenty„one€years€based€upon€two€enhancement€factors€but€keptŠ ŗ' #' Šthe€sentence€at€twenty„one€years€when€it€decided€that€one€of€the€enhancement€factors€was€notŠ  (š#( Šapplicable.Š †)Ö$) ŠĢą  ąThe€record€reflects€that€the€defendant€was€seventeen€at€the€time€of€his€trial€and€had€beenŠ R+¢&+ Štransferred€from€juvenile€court€to€be€tried€as€an€adult.€€His€juvenile€record€reflects€delinquenciesŠ 8,ˆ', Šrelative€to€two€thefts,€a€burglary,€and€possession€of€marijuana.€The€defendant€admitted€usingŠ ° Šmarijuana€and€cocaine€in€the€past.€The€defendant€was€fired€by€a€McDonaldššs€Restaurant€a€weekŠ –ę Šbefore€the€robbery€in€this€case€occurred.€€€Š |Ģ ŠĢą  ąThe€trial€court€found€that€the€defendant€had€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€orŠ H˜ Šcriminal€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€sentencing€range.€ņņSeeóóŠ . ~ ŠTenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€40„35„114(1).€€It€also€concluded€that€the€defendant€had€a€previous€history€ofŠ  d Šunwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€that€involved€release€into€the€community.€Š ś J ŠņņSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€40„35„114(8).€€Although€it€found€that€the€defendantššs€history€did€not€call€forŠ ą 0 Šmitigation€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€40„35„113(6)€relative€to€a€lack€of€judgment€because€of€his€age,Š Ę   Šthe€trial€court€gave€his€youthfulness€some€mitigation€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€40„35„113(13),€theŠ ¬ ü  Šcatchall€mitigating€factor.€€It€concluded€that€the€appropriate€sentence€should€be€twenty„one€years.€Š ’ā  ŠSubsequently,€after€deciding€that€enhancement€factor€(8)€did€not€apply€to€the€defendant,€the€trialŠ xČ  Šcourt€determined€that€the€twenty„one„year€sentence€remained€appropriate.Š ^®  ŠĢą  ąAppellate€review€of€sentencing€is€ņņdeóó€ņņnovoóó€on€the€record€with€a€presumption€that€the€trialŠ *z  Šcourtššs€determinations€are€correct.€€ņņSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€40„35„401(d).€€As€the€SentencingŠ ` ŠCommission€Comments€to€this€section€notes,€the€burden€is€now€on€the€defendant€to€show€that€theŠ öF Šsentence€is€improper.€€In€this€respect,€we€note€that€the€defendantššs€contention€that€his€sentence€isŠ Ü, Šexcessive€provides€nothing€upon€which€we€may€focus€our€review.€€Moreover,€the€fact€that€the€trialŠ Ā Šcourt€kept€the€sentence€at€twenty„one€years€even€though€it€reduced€the€number€of€enhancementŠ Øų Šfactors€lends€itself€only€to€a€question€of€the€weight€that€the€trial€court€should€place€upon€theŠ ŽŽ Šremaining€factors.€€Left€with€these€circumstances,€the€defendant€would€have€us€review€the€recordŠ tÄ Šonly€to€determine€whether€or€not€the€trial€court€abused€€its€discretion.€€ņņSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€40„35„Š ZŖ Š210,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€Š @ ŠĢą  ąHowever,€we€conclude€that€the€presumption€of€correctness€falls€in€the€present€case,€leavingŠ  \ Šus€with€a€ņņdeóó€ņņnovoóó€review.€€This€is€because€the€trial€court€should€not€have€applied€enhancement€factorŠ ņB Š(1)€with€regard€to€the€defendantššs€juvenile€record.€€€ņņóóSince€July€1,€1995,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€40„35„Š Ų( Š114(20)€has€provided€for€sentence€enhancement€for€a€defendant€who€š šwas€adjudicated€to€haveŠ ¾ Šcommitted€a€delinquent€act€or€acts€as€a€juvenile€that€would€constitute€a€felony€if€committed€by€anŠ ¤ō Šadult.šš€€With€this€enactment,€certain€things€are€clear€relative€to€the€legislatureššs€intent.€€First,€theŠ Š Ś Šlegislature€did€not€contemplate€delinquent€acts€to€be€š šcriminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavioršš€asŠ p!Ą  Šprovided€in€enhancement€factor€(1).€€Second,€it€did€not€contemplate€delinquency€relative€toŠ V"¦! Šmisdemeanor€offenses€being€used€for€enhancement€purposes.€€ņņSeeóó,€ņņe.g.óó,€ņņState€v.€Anthony€T.€Jonesóó,€Š <#Œ" ŠNo.€03C01„9807„CR„00245,€Knox€County,€slip€op.€at€12„13€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€July€14,€1999).Š "$r# ŠĢą  ąThe€record€reflects€that€only€the€burglary€would€constitute€a€felony€if€committed€by€an€adult.€Š ī%>!% ŠThe€thefts€and€marijuana€possession€would€have€been€misdemeanors.€€Thus,€although€enhancementŠ Ō&$"& Šfactor€(1)€does€not€apply,€enhancement€factor€(20)€applies€relative€to€the€defendantššs€delinquentŠ ŗ' #' Šconduct€that€would€constitute€the€felony€of€burglary€if€committed€by€an€adult.Š  (š#( ŠĢą  ąThe€presumptive€sentence€for€a€Range€I,€violent€offender€who€has€committed€the€Class€AŠ l*¼%* Šfelony€of€especially€aggravated€robbery€is€twenty€years€without€parole.€€ņņSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€40„Š R+¢&+ Š35„112(a)(1),€„210(c),€„501(i)(1).€€In€this€respect,€we€note€that€ņņPooleóó,€upon€which€the€defendantŠ 8,ˆ', Šrelies,€involved€a€presumptive€sentence€of€fifteen€years.€€In€any€event,€each€case€rests€upon€its€ownŠ ° Šmerits.Š –ę ŠĢą  ąIn€the€present€case,€we€acknowledge€that€our€application€of€factor€(20)€is€based€upon€less€pastŠ b² Šculpable€conduct€than€was€used€by€the€trial€court€in€applying€factor€(1),€and,€accordingly,€it€carriesŠ H˜ Šless€weight.€€Given€the€existence€of€this€enhancement€factor€and€the€mitigating€factor€found€by€theŠ . ~ Štrial€court,€we€conclude€that€the€defendant€shall€be€sentenced€to€twenty€years€in€the€Department€ofŠ  d ŠCorrection€without€parole.Š ś J ŠĢą  ąWe€affirm€the€defendantššs€conviction,€but€we€modify€his€sentence€to€twenty€years.€€€€Š Ę   ŠĢĢĢą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ą___________________________________€Š ^®  Šą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ąJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGE