ÿWPCQ º? xnõ½%F•œ²“éB€´R0|"^$_ä·!“7 x«#ã¾Æ Õ•—%>æ«\š£N6ì«çÒDº‡²uµ¯ÿ‡ƒ;µR~Þç¤Z1oPÄ;Mh¶,Ó±ÎbWåQLÙ«(=Rþc‚B!”ù£Pà!«[4Ö{âvÚ(ò#«g褵\“»]y¿6¢ùK¥ÿf¿^œåz`ΕÏr»ÈtO,ÐÒ áÛ’C£Ãþ4G*Ì•ÊR Uð,µ`ÞÍ ;£îÓé̹‡g–]j â~VW¢É.!GóÉ+‹A.VX7š%ý¢›ÅÆñÌ<‘—Ÿ“Ò ¢ˆž¾ò©TÃ…´¥ŠÁ þù3I…g%‚מ¥FvÙnºë…ëƒc`†€& •×®µÑ£ ðêÁû ›¯Z·Ó.Àƒð7 T&uZ7Qàdßy’>\ægÏý¦I™<ް6“Ø}Þf‘³"\e¬¬+¼±Þ06 gê[,×™ÞWü§‚gã‚ÌË’Ò¸È/íªÂ,su‡ÿŽ<ÏW¶€JžPñGdÌÆ*ñ·™âB3 ùéPà”þÆKHG2~©žÁ/§lÉVÏ š|Å1‚š6‹ÔW¨ñ…žþ •`#!@UNa %¯ 0(µU :Ýb w 4# 7 F rN 0ÆÀ 0D† U :Ê q ruçoõ&dWŠááN÷ù mû^  B AQ;ÆŒ 0DR 0D– 0DÚÚ D3˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,Ù¹6 AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù-{Z='¸dTdŒ–3|x hÑ ° ÑÑ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\Ñ(v(2 æ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XˆXXXÔÔ€ôCõXXˆÔà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,–ûyAZ‹"Arial Regular gÝ ƒ 7*$ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XnRXXXÔÔ€ôwqòXXnRÔà Œ àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÐ ° ÐÒŒ 4ÒÒÜ„Òà ä à(1)€€The€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€orÐ "r Ðcriminal€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriateÐ à0 Ðrange;Ð žî Ðà ä à.€.€.€.€€Ð \¬ Ðà ä à(8)€€The€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€withÐ j Ðthe€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€in€the€community;Ð Ø( Ðà ä à.€.€.€.€Ð – æ Ðà ä à(13)€€The€felony€was€committed€while€on€any€of€the€following€forms€ofÐ T ¤ Ðrelease€status€if€such€release€is€from€a€prior€felony€conviction:€.€.€.€(B)€Bail,€if€theÐ  b  Ðdefendant€is€openly€convicted€of€such€prior€felony;Ð Ð   Ðà ä à.€.€.€.€€Ð Ž Þ  Ðà ä à(15)€€The€defendant€abused€a€position€of€public€or€private€trust,€or€used€aÐ L œ  Ðspecial€skill€in€a€manner€that€significantly€facilitated€the€commission€or€theÐ  Z  Ðfulfillment€of€the€offense.Ð È  ÐÌÒ4Œ ÒÒ„ÜÒTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114€(1),€(8),€(13),€(15). hÝ ƒ 7*$ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XnRXXXÔÔ€ôwqòXXnRÔà Œ àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Although€the€state€seems€to€presume€that€the€defendant€was€referring€to€the€victim€ofÐ ° Ðthe€present€offense,€it€is€not€entirely€clear€that€he€was.€€The€victim€of€the€present€offense„ððABðð€andÐ n¾ Ðð ðARðð€share€the€same€first€name.€€However,€the€record€reflects€that€ð ðARðð€is€the€defendantððs€niece.€€Ð ,| ÐIt€is€the€policy€of€this€Court€not€to€name€victims€of€sexual€offenses.€ Ý ƒ 7*$ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XnRXXXÔÔ€ôwqòXXnRÔà Œ àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€ð ð(8)€The€defendant€was€suffering€from€a€mental€or€physical€condition€that€significantlyÐ ° Ðreduced€the€defendantððs€culpability€for€the€offense€.€.€.€;€Ð n¾ Ðà Œ à(13)€Any€other€factor€consistent€with€the€purposes€of€this€chapter.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ ,| Ð40„35„113(8),€(13).€ eÝ ƒ 7*$ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XnRXXXÔÔ€ôwqòXXnRÔà Œ àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô‡ôwqòòôwqÔThe€trial€court€accorded€no€weight€to€this€factorÔ‡XnRXòôwqÔ.Ô#†XnRXXXnR¯#ÔÔ#†ôwqòXXnRÿ#Ô WALKUPDEVASHERENGLEStahlmanTORRYSPROWImhofBrogdenLovasco S.CtT.P.I. Crim TPIAshbyJerniganWilkerson MÝ ƒ[¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XˆXXXÔÔ€öXXˆÔÓ  ÓÔ_Ôò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XˆXöÔÐ  ÐÌSeptember€22,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€Ô_ÔClerkÔdAxÔó óÔ_Ô Ñ  ÑÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ©¬6'  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_ÔѰÑÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ŠA»‹XXÔÔ€ŠªÝ‹‹ŠA»ÔÑ€ÑÑ8€U"XXdìdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ‡XˆX‹ŠªÝÔÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ  Óò òÑ€ W|ÑÑ€‹ÑÔ_Ôßv€Y_@0,j:ûÿ`  `€€@ÿEï ` 8ttxP'ð  vßÔ_ÔÔ_ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ  ÐÌAT€NASHVILLE€ÌÌMARCH€1999€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ D”§X°œXÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€à ì à*à D àó óC.C.A.€#01C01„9804„CR„00168ò òÐ TL  ÐÌà Œ àà ä àó óAppellee,ò òà ” àà ì à*à D àó óDAVIDSON€COUNTYò òÐ ,$  ÐÌó óVS.à Œ àò òà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à*à D àó óHonorable€Cheryl€Blackburn,€Judgeò òÐ ü  ÐÌEARL€JUNIOR€PIKE,à ” àà ì à*à D àó ó(Aggravated€Sexual€Battery„„Rape€of€a€Ð ÜÔ  Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àChild)ò òà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àà ü! àÐ ÈÀ Ðà Œ àà ä àó óAppellant.à ” àò òà ì à*Ð ®¦ Ðó óÌò òÌÌó óòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:ò òà ” àà ì àà D àó óòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ò òÐ XP ÐÌó óKARL€DEANà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ *" ÐDistrict€Public€Defenderà ” àà ì àà D àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ  ÐÌJEFFREY€A.€DEVASHER€(on€appeal)à D àMARVIN€E.€CLEMENTS,€JR.Ð ÜÔ ÐJ.€MICHAEL€ENGLE€(at€trial)à ì àà D àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralРº ÐAssistant€Public€Defendersà ì àà D à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÐ ¨   Ð1202€Stahlman€Buildingà ” àà ì àà D àNashville,€TN€37243Ð Ž!† ÐNashville,€TN€37201Ìà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àVICTOR€S.€(TORRY)€JOHNSON€IIIÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àDIANE€SPROW€LANCEÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D à222€Second€Avenue€North,€Suite€500Ìà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àNashville,€TN€37201„1649ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€_______________ÌÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ XÓÓ XÓò òAFFIRMEDó óÐ R5J.3 Ðò òÌÓÓJOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMS,Ìó óJudgeÓe ÓÐ î9æ28 ÐÐ º;²4: ÐÑ W|Ñâ  âѰÑÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal[° AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑâ  âÑ  ÑÌÓ Xè ÓÓ XÓÔ#†Š°ˆXXnRó#ÔÔ‡ jˆŠ°Ôò òÓ  ÓOPINIONó óÔ#†Š°ˆ j“#ÔÔ‡XnRXˆŠ°ÔÐ |Ì ÐÓµÓÓ XbÓÒÜ„ÒÒ„ÜÒÒŒ 4ÒÒ4Œ ÒÓÓÓÓThe€defendant,€Ô#†Š°ˆXXnRî#ÔÔ€XnRXˆŠ°ÔEarl€Junior€Pike,€was€tried€by€a€jury€and€convicted€ofÐ à0 Ðaggravated€sexual€battery€and€rape€of€a€child.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€him€toÐ ¬ ü Ðtwelve€years€on€the€aggravated€sexual€battery€(count€one)€and€to€twenty„fiveÐ x È Ðyears€for€rape€of€child€(count€two),€to€be€served€consecutively.€€The€defendantÐ D”  Ðchallenges€both€his€convictions€and€sentences,€presenting€the€following€issues:Ð `  ÐÒŒ 4nÒÒÜ„RÒÓŽÓÐ Ü,  ÐÓ XÓÓ Œ §ðD”§XÓ(1)€à 0 àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€his€motion€to€à à àà Ð àà À! àÐ Â Ðà @ àà 0 àsuppress€certain€incriminating€statements;€Ð ¨ø Ð(2)€à 0 àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€his€motion€to€dismiss€Ð ŽÞ Ðà @ àà 0 àdue€to€pre„accusatorial€delay;€Ð tÄ Ð(3)€à 0 àwhether€the€trial€court€erroneously€instructed€the€jury€on€the€à À! àÐ Zª Ðà @ àà 0 àdefinition€of€cunnilingus;€Ð @ Ð(4)€à 0 àwhether,€as€to€count€two,€the€evidence€was€sufficient€for€a€à Ð àà À! àÐ &v Ðà @ àà 0 àreasonable€trier€of€fact€to€find€that€the€defendant€committed€à À! àÐ  \ Ðà @ àà 0 àthe€offense;€Ð òB Ð(5)€à 0 àwhether€the€sentences€imposed€by€the€trial€court€are€à ð àà à àà Ð àà À! àÐ Ø( Ðà @ àà 0 àexcessive;€and€Ð ¾ Ð(6)€à 0 àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€ordering€consecutive€service.€Ð ¤ô ÐÓÓÌÒ„ÜÒÒ4Œ ÒFinding€no€error,€we€AFFIRM€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð V¦ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓBACKGROUNDÐ î">! ÐÓ  ÓÓ XÓó óIn€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€evidence€showed€that,€whileÐ º$ # Ðbabysitting€the€victim,€the€defendant€ð ðkissedðð€or€ð ðlickedðð€the€victimððs€vagina€twiceÐ †&Ö!% Ðon€consecutive€days€shortly€before€September€3,€1993.€€The€victim€was€born€onÐ R(¢#' ÐSeptember€18,€1983,€making€her€nine€years€of€age€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€Ð *n%) ÐThe€victim€identified€the€defendant€at€trial€and€testified€that,€on€the€first€occasion,Ð ê+:'+ Ðhe€entered€his€sonððs€room€where€she€was€lying€on€the€bed,€pulled€her€shortsÐ ¶-)- Ðaside,€and€licked€her€vagina€(count€two).€€Her€testimony€indicated€that€heÐ ‚/Ò*/ Ðrepeated€substantially€similar€actions€the€following€day€(count€one).€€Ð N1ž,1 ÐÐ 3j.3 Ðà @ àFollowing€a€complaint€from€the€victimððs€family,€Detective€David€ImhofÐ æ4605 Ðbegan€investigating€the€defendant€in€June,€1996.€€Imhof€first€attempted€toÐ ²627 Ðcontact€the€defendant€by€visiting€his€home€on€September€25,€1996.€€TheÐ ~8Î39 Ðdefendant€was€not€home€so€Imhof€left€his€card.€€The€defendant€called€Imhof€backÐ J:š5; Ðthat€same€day€and€agreed€to€meet€at€Imhofððs€office€for€an€interview€onÐ ° ÐSeptember€30.€€After€failing€to€attend€that€interview,€the€defendant€called€ImhofÐ |Ì Ðand€said€he€had€spoken€with€a€lawyer,€Joan€Lawson.€€He€stated€that€LawsonÐ H˜ Ðhad€told€him€that€it€was€ð ðprobably€not€in€his€best€interest€to€talk€with€[Imhof].ðð€€Ð  d ÐÐ à 0 ÐImhof€called€Lawson,€and€she€advised€him€that€the€defendant€was€a€pastÐ ¬ ü  Ðclient€but€that€she€did€not€represent€him€at€that€time.€€She€stated€that€she€hadÐ xÈ  Ðtold€the€defendant€that€this€matter€was€different€from€his€requirement€toÐ D”  Ðcooperate€with€his€community€corrections€officer€and€that€he€did€not€have€to€talkÐ ` Ðwith€police€or€take€a€polygraph€test.€€She€also€told€the€defendant€that€anything€heÐ Ü, Ðdid€say€to€Imhof€could€be€used€against€him.Ð ¨ø ÐÐ tÄ ÐImhof€next€spoke€to€the€defendant€on€October€29,€1996.€€On€that€date,Ð @ ÐImhof€went€to€the€defendantððs€residence,€introduced€himself€as€a€policeÐ  \ Ðdetective,€and€asked€if€the€defendant€would€be€willing€to€talk€in€Imhofððs€car.€€TheÐ Ø( Ðdefendant€agreed,€and€Imhof€advised€him€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€The€defendantÐ ¤ô Ðverified€that€he€understood€his€rights€and€signed€a€waiver.€€Imhof€thenÐ p!À  Ðquestioned€the€defendant€about€the€current€case,€and€the€defendant€denied€anyÐ <#Œ" Ðcriminal€conduct.€€Ð %X $ ÐÐ Ô&$"& ÐImhof€next€contacted€the€defendant€on€November€25,€1996,€viaÐ  (ð#( Ðtelephone.€€He€asked€the€defendant€if€he€would€be€willing€to€take€a€polygraph,Ð l*¼%* Ðand€the€defendant€agreed€to€do€so.€€The€following€morning,€the€defendantÐ 8,ˆ', Ðvoluntarily€went€to€Imhofððs€office€for€the€test.€€When€he€arrived,€Imhof€did€not€€€Ð .T). Ðre„advise€the€defendant€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€He€did,€however,€read€him€aÐ Ð/ +0 Ðconsent€form€for€the€polygraph€test€and€emphasized€that€the€test€was€completelyÐ œ1ì,2 Ðvoluntary.€€The€defendant€stated€that€he€understood€and€signed€the€form.€Ð h3¸.4 ÐDuring€the€polygraph,€the€defendant€made€several€incriminating€statements,Ð 45„06 Ðâ âincluding€admissions€that€he€had€put€his€hand€in€the€victimððs€shorts€and€touchedÐ 7P28 Ðher€vagina€and€that€he€had€kissed€her€on€the€vagina€on€two€separate€occasions.€Ð ° ÐHe€also€affirmed€that€he€was€sexually€excited€by€children.€€Ð |Ì Ðâ âÐ H˜ ÐAfter€the€polygraph,€Imhof€asked€the€defendant€if€he€would€come€to€hisÐ  d Ðoffice€to€discuss€the€results.€€Imhof€again€explained€to€the€defendant€that€he€wasÐ à 0 Ðnot€under€arrest,€that€he€did€not€have€to€talk€to€police,€and€that€he€was€free€toÐ ¬ ü  Ðleave€at€any€time.€€He€also€showed€the€defendant€how€to€operate€the€door€if€heÐ xÈ  Ðwanted€to€leave.€€Nevertheless,€the€defendant€agreed€to€be€interviewed€further.€Ð D”  ÐAt€that€time,€the€defendant€again€admitted€first€touching,€and€then€licking,€theÐ ` Ðvictimððs€vagina€on€two€separate€occasions€while€babysitting€the€victim.€€Ð Ü, ÐÐ ¨ø ÐEarlier€in€his€investigation,€Imhof€had€learned€that€the€defendant€wasÐ tÄ Ðserving€a€community€corrections€sentence€and,€as€part€of€this€sentence,€wasÐ @ Ðrequired€to€attend€sex„offender€counseling.€€Steve€Rhodes€was€the€defendantððsÐ  \ Ðcommunity€corrections€supervisor,€and€Dr.€John€Brogden€conducted€theÐ Ø( Ðdefendantððs€sex„offendersðð€group.€€On€November€26,€1996,€Imhof€told€RhodesÐ ¤ô Ðthat€the€defendant€had€confessed€to€sexually€abusing€the€victim€of€this€case.€Ð p!À  ÐThus,€Rhodes€knew€of€the€defendantððs€admissions€at€the€time€of€the€defendantððsÐ <#Œ" Ðnext€regularly€scheduled€office€visit.€€Rhodes€did€not,€however,€initiate€aÐ %X $ Ðdiscussion€of€the€events.€€Nonetheless,€during€his€next€scheduled€office€visit€withÐ Ô&$"& ÐRhodes,€the€defendant€spontaneously€told€Rhodes€and€Brogden,€who€was€alsoÐ  (ð#( Ðpresent,€that€he€had€sexually€molested€a€person€named€ð ðAR.ðð׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€defendantÐ l*¼%* Ðstated€that€ð ðARðð€had€come€out€of€the€bathroom€naked€and€that€he€ð ðran€[his]Ð 8,ˆ', Ðhands€on€her.ðð€€He€said€that€later€that€day,€he€took€her€pants€off€and€ð ðkissed€it.ðð€€Ð .T). ÐÐ Ð/ +0 ÐÒŒ 4ÒÒÜ„òÒÒ4Œ ÒÒ„ÜÒDr.€Brogden€testified€that,€in€late€November€1996,€the€defendant€came€toÐ œ1ì,2 Ðâ âhis€office€and€stated€that€he€had€just€confessed€to€the€police€regarding€theÐ h3¸.4 Ðcrimes€in€this€case.€€The€defendant€subsequently€made€similar€statements€duringÐ ° Ðgroup€therapy.€€Ð |Ì Ðâ âÐ H˜ ÐThe€defendant€was€indicted€on€February€8,€1997€and€arrested€on€MarchÐ  d Ð10,€1997.€€He€filed€a€pretrial€motion€to€suppress€his€statements€to€Imhof,Ð à 0 ÐRhodes,€and€Brogden,€arguing€that€these€statements€were€taken€in€violation€ofÐ ¬ ü  Ðhis€rights€against€self„incrimination€and€to€counsel.€€The€trial€court€denied€thisÐ xÈ  Ðmotion,€finding€that€the€defendant€had€not€been€in€custody€at€the€time€of€any€ofÐ D”  Ðhis€statements,€and€the€statements€were€admitted€into€evidence.Ð ` ÐÐ Ü, ÐÓ XÓÓ  Óò òANALYSISó óÐ ¨ø ÐòòòòSUPPRESSIONóóóóÐ tÄ ÐÓ  ÓÓ XÓThe€defendant€first€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€suppressÐ @ Ðhis€statements€to€Imhof,€Rhodes,€and€Brogden.€€He€asserts€that€each€statementÐ  \ Ðwas€taken€while€in€custody,€without€the€benefit€of€òòMirandaóó€warnings,€and€thatÐ Ø( Ðpolice€improperly€reinitiated€contact€with€him€after€he€had€invoked€his€rights€toÐ ¤ô Ðremain€silent€and€to€counsel.€€As€to€his€statements€to€Rhodes€and€Brogden,€theÐ p!À  Ðdefendant€further€argues€that€these€statements€should€have€been€suppressed€asÐ <#Œ" Ðð ðfruitðð€of€his€statement€to€Imhof.€€Ð %X $ ÐWhen€a€defendant€challenges€a€suppression€ruling,€this€Court€reviews€forÐ Ô&$"& Ðerror€under€the€following€standard.€€The€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€onÐ  (ð#( Ða€motion€to€suppress€are€binding€upon€this€Court€unless€the€evidence€containedÐ l*¼%* Ðin€the€record€preponderates€against€these€findings.€€òòState€v.€Henningóó,€975Ð 8,ˆ', ÐS.W.2d€290,€299€(Tenn.€1998).€€The€trial€court,€as€trier€of€fact,€is€able€to€assessÐ .T). Ðthe€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€determine€the€weight€and€value€to€be€affordedÐ Ð/ +0 Ðthe€evidence€and€resolves€any€conflicts€in€the€evidence.€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928Ð œ1ì,2 ÐS.W.2d€18,€223€(Tenn.€1996).€However,€this€Court€is€not€bound€by€the€trialÐ h3¸.4 Ðcourtððs€conclusions€of€law.€òòState€v.€Simpsonóó,€968€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€1998).Ð 45„06 Ðâ âThe€defendant€has€the€burden€of€establishing€that€the€evidence€contained€in€theÐ 7P28 Ðrecord€preponderates€against€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court.€€òòBrazielÐ ° Ðv.€Stateóó,€529€S.W.2d€501,€506€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975).Ð |Ì Ðâ âÐ H˜ ÐFollowing€this€standard,€we€first€examine€the€defendantððs€contestedÐ  d Ðstatement€to€Imhof€made€on€November€26,€1996,€and€find€that€it€was€notÐ à 0 Ðobtained€while€defendant€was€in€custody.€€€The€Court€notes€that€defendant€onÐ ¬ ü  Ðhis€own€voluntarily€went€to€the€police€station,€that€neither€defendantððs€freedomÐ xÈ  Ðnor€movement€was€restricted,€and€that€defendant€was€informed€he€was€notÐ D”  Ðunder€arrest,€was€free€to€leave,€and€was€free€to€discontinue€the€questioning€atÐ ` Ðany€time.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€setting€was€noncustodial€and€didÐ Ü, Ðnot€implicate€the€concerns€or€trigger€the€protections€of€òòMirandaóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòMiranda€v.Ð ¨ø ÐArizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436,€86€S.€Ct.€1602€(1966).€€Ð tÄ Ѐ€€€€€Ð @ ÐNext,€we€examine€the€defendantððs€statements€on€December€2,€1996.€€TheÐ  \ Ðdefendant€argues€this€statement€€was€obtained€in€violation€of€òòMirandaóó,€as€it€wasÐ Ø( Ðð ðcustodialðð€in€so€far€as€defendant€was€serving€a€Community€CorrectionsÐ ¤ô Ðsentence€at€the€time€and€was€required€thereby€to€attend€meetings€with€hisÐ p!À  ÐCommunity€Corrections€officer€and€to€attend€group€therapy.€€€Unpersuaded€byÐ <#Œ" Ðthis€argument,€this€Court€first€notes€that€the€statement€was€made€not€in€responseÐ %X $ Ðto€questioning€or€prompting€but€rather€offered€voluntarily€and€spontaneously€byÐ Ô&$"& Ðdefendant.€Such€voluntary€statements€are€admissible€in€evidence€whether€or€notÐ  (ð#( ÐòòMirandaóó€warnings€are€given€first.€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€664€S.W.2d€318,€320€(Tenn.Ð l*¼%* ÐCrim.€App.€1984).€€Second,€this€court€cannot€conclude€that€the€CommunityÐ 8,ˆ', ÐCorrections€setting€at€issue€here€was€custodial.€The€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ .T). Ðhas€noted€in€a€somewhat€different€context€that€Community€Corrections€isÐ Ð/ +0 Ðnoncustodial€in€nature.€òòBentley€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€706,€710€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Ð œ1ì,2 Ð1996).€€Defendantððs€arguments€against€this€characterization€are€not€compelling.€Ð h3¸.4 ÐFurther,€we€add€that€in€defendantððs€case€no€additional€imposition€was€placedÐ 45„06 Ðupon€defendantððs€freedom.€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Robert€Goss€and€Carl€Haleóó,€LauderdaleÐ 7P28 ÐCounty,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9610„CC„00367€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€filed€NovemberÐ Ì84: Ð10,€1998,€at€Jackson)€slip€op.€at€pp.€21„23,€citing€òòUnited€States€v.€Conleyóó,€779Ð ° ÐF.2d€970,€972„973€(4th€Cir.€1985);€òòUnited€States€v.€Cooperóó,€800€F.2d€412,€414„Ð |Ì Ð415€(4th€Cir.€1986);€òòCervantes€v.€Walkeróó,€589€F.2d€424,€427„429€(9th€Cir.€1978).€Ð H˜ ÐDefendant€was€not€forcibly€summoned€to€the€meeting,€the€defendant€was€notÐ  d Ðconfronted€with€any€evidence€of€his€guilt,€and€no€extra€pressure€was€exerted€toÐ à 0 Ðdetain€defendant.€€Therefore,€defendantððs€claim€that€his€statements€must€beÐ ¬ ü  Ðsuppressed€is€denied.€Ð xÈ  ÐÐ D”  ÐAs€we€have€upheld€the€admissibility€of€the€earlier€statement€of€NovemberÐ ` Ð26,€1996,€we€reject€defendantððs€further€argument€that€his€statements€ofÐ Ü, ÐDecember€2,€1996,€are€in€any€way€tainted€and€subject€to€suppression.€€€€€€€€Ð ¨ø ÐÐ tÄ ÐFinally,€as€we€have€found€that€defendant€was€not€in€custody€on€eitherÐ @ ÐNovember€26,€1996,€or€December€2,€1996,€we€reject€defendantððs€claim€that€anyÐ  \ Ðof€these€statements€were€the€result€of€impermissible€re„initiation€duringÐ Ø( Ðcontinuous€custody.€òòSeeóó€òòEdwards€v.€Arizonaóó,€451€U.S.€477,€101€S.Ct.€1880Ð ¤ô Ð(1981);€òòState€v.€Furloughóó,€797€S.W.2d€631€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).Ð p!À  ÐÐ <#Œ" ÐÓ  ÓÓ XÓòòòòPRE„ACCUSATORIAL€DELAYÐ %X $ ÐÓ  ÓÓ XÓóóóóThe€defendant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€hisÐ Ô&$"& Ðmotion€to€dismiss€due€to€the€stateððs€delay€in€bringing€proceedings€against€him.€Ð  (ð#( ÐThe€leading€Tennessee€case€on€pre„accusatorial€delay€is€òòState€v.€Grayóó,€917Ð l*¼%* ÐS.W.2d€668€(Tenn.€1996).€€There€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€stated,€Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÓ XÓÒÜ„ÒÒŒ 4ÒÓÓToday€we€articulate€a€standard€by€which€to€evaluate€pre„Ð .T). Ðaccusatorial€delay€and€hold€that€an€untimely€prosecution€may€beÐ ê.:*/ Ðsubject€to€dismissal€upon€Fifth€and€Fourteenth€Amendment€dueÐ Ð/ +0 Ðprocess€grounds€and€under€Article€I,€ðððð€8€and€9,€of€the€TennesseeÐ ¶0,1 ÐConstitution€even€though€in€the€interim€the€defendant€was€neitherÐ œ1ì,2 Ðformally€accused,€restrained,€nor€incarcerated€for€the€offense.€€InÐ ‚2Ò-3 Ðdetermining€whether€pre„accusatorial€delay€violates€due€process,Ð h3¸.4 Ðthe€trial€court€must€consider€the€length€of€the€delay,€the€reason€forÐ N4ž/5 Ðthe€delay,€and€the€degree€of€prejudice,€if€any,€to€the€accused.€€òòSeeóóÐ 45„06 Ðòò[United€States€v.]€Lovascoóó,€431€U.S.€at€790,€97€S.Ct.€at€2048„49Ð 6j17 Ð(ð ðproof€of€prejudice€is€generally€a€necessary€but€not€sufficientÐ 7P28 Ðelement€of€a€due€process€claim,€.€.€.€the€due€process€inquiry€mustÐ æ7639 Ðconsider€the€reasons€for€the€delay€as€well€as€the€prejudice€to€theÐ Ì84: Ðaccusedðð).€€Ð ²95; ЇÒ4Œ ÒÒ„ÜÒòòÓÓGrayóó,€917€S.W.2d€at€673.€€The€òòGrayóó€Court€also€recognized,€however,€that€aÐ ° Ðstatute€of€limitations€is€the€primary€safeguard€against€infringement€of€aÐ |Ì Ðdefendantððs€due€process€rights€resulting€from€long€delays.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€672€òòcitingÐ H˜ ÐUnited€States€v.€Marionóó,€404€U.S.€307,€321„23€(1971).Ð  d ÐÌÓ XÓIn€òòGrayóó,€there€was€no€period€of€limitation€applicable€to€the€chargedÐ ¬ ü  Ðoffense,€and€the€defendantððs€alleged€offense€had€occurred€some€forty„two€yearsÐ xÈ  Ðprior€to€indictment.€€In€contrast,€the€defendant€in€the€present€case€is€protected€byÐ D”  Ða€fifteen„year€statute€of€limitations.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„2„101(b)(1).€€WeÐ ` Ðagree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€approximately€three„year€delay€between€theÐ Ü, Ðdefendantððs€offense€and€indictment€was€not€excessive€under€the€circumstancesÐ ¨ø Ðof€this€case.€€Moreover,€the€defendant€had€not€established€any€prejudice€fromÐ tÄ Ðthis€delay.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€pertinent€witnesses€were€still€availableÐ @ Ðand€that€the€defendant€had€a€strong€recollection€of€the€events€that€formed€theÐ  \ Ðbasis€of€the€charges€against€him.€€Thus,€we€find€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððsÐ Ø( Ðdecision€denying€the€defendantððs€motion€to€dismiss€for€pre„accusatorial€delay.Ð ¤ô ÐÐ p!À  ÐòòòòÓ XÓÓ  ÓJURY€INSTRUCTIONSóóóóÐ <#Œ" ÐÓ  ÓÓ XÓThe€defendant€next€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€instruction€to€the€jury€onÐ %X $ Ðthe€definition€of€cunnilingus.€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€ð ðCunnilingusÐ Ô&$"& Ðmeans€a€sex€act€accomplished€by€placing€the€mouth€or€tongue€òòon€or€inóó€theÐ  (ð#( Ðvagina€of€another.ðð€(emphasis€added)€òòquotingóó€T.P.I.€„Crim.€ðð€10.12€(4th€Ed.Ð l*¼%* Ð1995).€€The€defendant€recognizes€that€this€Court€has€upheld€a€definition€ofÐ 8,ˆ', Ðcunnilingus€nearly€identical€to€the€one€in€this€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hoytóó,€928Ð .T). ÐS.W.2d€935,€942€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Nonetheless€the€defendant€arguesÐ Ð/ +0 Ðthat€this€definition€is€inappropriate€here€because,€by€failing€to€require€penetration,Ð œ1ì,2 Ðthe€courtððs€definition€of€cunnilingus€did€not€distinguish€the€acts€supporting€eachÐ h3¸.4 Ðof€the€defendantððs€offenses.€€We€do€not€find€this€troubling.€€The€same€act€mayÐ 45„06 Ðoften€support€multiple€offenses.€€The€instruction€given€is€a€correct€statement€ofÐ 7P28 Ðthe€law€and€was€sufficient€to€inform€the€jury.€€Thus,€we€find€no€error.Ð Ì84: ÐÑ‹ ÑÑ XÑÑ  ÑÐ ° ÐòòòòÓ XÓÓ  ÓSUFFICIENCY€OF€EVIDENCEÐ |Ì ÐÓ  ÓÓ XÓóóóóNext,€the€defendant€submits€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€theÐ H˜ Ðjuryððs€verdict€as€to€count€one,€rape€of€a€child.€€When€a€defendant€challenges€theÐ  d Ðsufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€Court€must€determine€whether,€after€viewing€theÐ à 0 Ðevidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€factÐ ¬ ü  Ðcould€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€a€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€Ð xÈ  ÐòòSeeóó€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979);€òòState€v.€Duncanóó,€698€S.W.2dÐ D”  Ð63,€67€(Tenn.€1985);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€The€appellant€is€entitled€to€theÐ ` Ðstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€that€mayÐ Ü, Ðbe€drawn€therefrom.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).Ð ¨ø ÐÐ tÄ ÐThe€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€of€their€testimony,€and€theÐ @ Ðreconciliation€of€conflicts€in€the€evidence€are€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€theÐ  \ Ðtrier€of€fact.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.Ð Ø( ÐGentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€1,€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€A€jury€verdict€for€the€stateÐ ¤ô Ðaccredits€the€testimony€of€the€stateððs€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favorÐ p!À  Ðof€the€state.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983).€Ð <#Œ" ÐMoreover,€a€guilty€verdict€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€enjoyed€byÐ %X $ Ðdefendants€at€trial€and€replaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð Ô&$"& ÐGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).€€Thus,€an€appellant€challenging€theÐ  (ð#( Ðsufficiency€of€the€evidence€carries€the€burden€of€illustrating€to€this€Court€why€theÐ l*¼%* Ðevidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Freemanóó,€943Ð 8,ˆ', ÐS.W.2d€25,€29€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).Ð .T). ÐÐ Ð/ +0 ÐSection€39„13„522€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€provides,€ð ðrape€of€aÐ œ1ì,2 Ðchild€is€the€unlawful€sexual€penetration€of€a€victim€by€the€defendant€.€.€.€if€suchÐ h3¸.4 Ðvictim€is€less€than€thirteen€years€of€age.ðð€€The€Code€further€defines€ð ðsexualÐ 45„06 Ðpenetrationðð€to€mean,€ð ðsexual€intercourse,€òòcunnilingusóó,€fellatio,€anal€intercourse,Ð 7P28 Ðor€any€other€intrusion,€however€slight,€of€any€part€of€a€personððs€body€or€of€anyÐ Ì84: Ðobject€into€the€genital€or€anal€opening€of€the€victimððs,€the€defendantððs,€or€anyÐ ° Ðother€personððs€body,€but€emission€of€semen€is€not€required.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ |Ì Ð39„13„501(7)€(emphasis€added).€€Ð H˜ ÐÐ  d ÐThe€defendant€argues€that€he€could€not€be€convicted€of€rape€of€a€childÐ à 0 Ðbecause€that€offense€requires€sexual€penetration€and€no€evidence€suggests€thatÐ ¬ ü  Ðhe€penetrated€the€victim€with€his€mouth€or€tongue.€€As€noted€above,€however,Ð xÈ  Ðsexual€penetration€includes€cunnilingus.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„501(7).€Ð D”  ÐThe€victim€testified,€and€the€defendant€admitted€in€his€statements€to€Imhof,Ð ` ÐRhodes,€and€Brogden,€that€he€ð ðlicked€and€kissed€the€victimððs€vagina.ðð€€Thus,€theÐ Ü, Ðevidence€is€clearly€sufficient€to€establish€that€the€defendant€performedÐ ¨ø Ðcunnilingus€on€the€victim,€as€that€term€was€defined€for€the€jury€from€theÐ tÄ ÐTennessee€Pattern€Jury€Instructions.€€€€Ð @ ÐÐ  \ ÐHere€again,€the€defendant€objects€to€the€trial€courtððs€definition€ofÐ Ø( Ðcunnilingus,€again€asserting€that€by€failing€to€require€actual€oral€penetration,€theÐ ¤ô Ðoffenses€of€rape€by€cunnilingus€and€aggravated€sexual€battery€by€cunnilingusÐ p!À  Ðcould€not€be€distinguished.€€For€the€reasons€stated€above,€we€do€not€find€thisÐ <#Œ" Ðproblematic.€€€ò òÐ %X $ ÐÐ Ô&$"& ÐÓ XÓÓ  ÓSENTENCINGó óÐ  (ð#( ÐÓãoÓÓ XÕoÓFinally,€the€defendant€asserts€that€his€sentence€is€excessive€and€thatÐ l*¼%* Ðconsecutive€service€was€not€warranted.€When€an€accused€challenges€the€lengthÐ 8,ˆ', Ðor€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€Court€to€conduct€a€deÐ .T). Ðnovo€review€on€the€record,€ð ðwith€a€presumption€of€the€determinations€made€byÐ Ð/ +0 Ðthe€trial€court€from€which€the€appeal€is€taken€are€correct.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ œ1ì,2 Ð40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€ð ðis€conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€inÐ h3¸.4 Ðthe€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€allÐ 45„06 Ðrelevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.Ð 7P28 Ð1991).€€The€appellant€carries€the€burden€of€showing€that€his€sentence€isÐ Ì84: Ðimproper.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€sentencing€commððn€cmts;€òòStateÐ ° Ðv.€Jerniganóó,€929€S.W.2d€391,€395€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Ð |Ì ÐÐ H˜ ÐÓ  ÓÓ XÓòòòòLENGTH€OF€SENTENCEóóóóÐ  d ÐÓ  ÓÓ XÓThe€defendant€is€a€Range€I€offender.€€Rape€of€a€child€is€a€Class€A€felony,Ð à 0 Ðòòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„522(b),€and€aggravated€sexual€battery€is€a€ClassÐ ¬ ü  ÐB€felony,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„504(b).€€Thus,€the€defendant€is€subject€toÐ xÈ  Ðsentencing€ranges€of€fifteen€to€twenty„five€years€and€eight€to€twelve€yearsÐ D”  Ðrespectively.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(1),€(2).€€The€trial€court€foundÐ ` Ðmitigating€factor€(13),€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(13),€and€enhancementÐ Ü, Ðfactors€(1),€(8),€(13),€and€(15)׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€applicable€to€both€of€the€defendantððs€offenses.€€AsÐ ¨ø Ðto€count€two€only,€the€trial€court€also€found€enhancement€factor€(7)€applicable.€Ð tÄ ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(7)€(ð ðThe€offense€involved€a€victim€and€wasÐ @ Ðcommitted€to€gratify€the€defendantððs€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement.ðð).€€BasedÐ  \ Ðon€these€findings,€the€trial€court€imposed€maximum€sentences€on€both€counts.Ð Ø( ÐÐ ¤ô ÐThe€defendant€argues€that€these€sentences€are€excessive.€€When€anÐ p!À  Ðaccused€challenges€the€length€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€it€is€the€dutyÐ <#Œ" Ðof€this€Court€to€conduct€a€de€novo€review€on€the€record,€ð ðwith€a€presumption€ofÐ %X $ Ðthe€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€from€which€the€appeal€is€taken€areÐ Ô&$"& Ðcorrect.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€ð ðis€conditionedÐ  (ð#( Ðupon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€theÐ l*¼%* Ðsentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ð 8,ˆ', Ð823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€appellant€carries€the€burden€of€showingÐ ° Ðthat€his€sentence€is€improper.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€sentencingÐ |Ì Ðcommððn€cmts;€òòState€v.€Jerniganóó,€929€S.W.2d€391,€395€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Ð H˜ ÐÐ  d ÐOf€the€enhancements€found€by€the€trial€court,€the€defendant€challengesÐ à 0 Ðthe€applicability€of€only€factor€(7).€€He€argues,€however,€that€the€trial€courtÐ ¬ ü  Ðadditionally€erred€failing€to€apply€mitigating€factors€(8)€and€(13)€to€bothÐ xÈ  Ðconvictions.€€Regarding€enhancement€factor€(7),€the€defendant€asserts€that€theÐ D”  Ðevidence€was€insufficient€to€support€a€conclusion€that€his€actions€were€sexuallyÐ ` Ðmotivated.€€We€disagree.€€In€applying€factor€(7),€the€trial€court€relied€on€theÐ Ü, Ðdefendantððs€crude€account€of€his€offensive€conduct,€finding€such€accountÐ ¨ø Ðindicated€elements€of€sexual€gratification.€€In€addition,€the€trial€court€noted€theÐ tÄ Ðdefendantððs€admissions€that€he€was€sexually€attracted€to€children,€that€he€wasÐ @ Ðsexually€aroused€at€the€time€of€the€rape,€and€that€after€the€offense€he€hadÐ  \ Ðfantasized€about€what€he€had€done€to€the€victim.€€This€evidence€clearly€supportsÐ Ø( Ðapplication€of€enhancement€factor€(7)€to€the€defendantððs€conviction€for€rape€of€aÐ ¤ô Ðchild.€ò òÐ p!À  ÐÐ <#Œ" Ðó óThe€defendant€next€argues€that€mitigating€factors€(8)€and€(13)€apply׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׄ„bothÐ %X $ Ðon€the€basis€of€his€alleged€lessened€mental€capacity.€€The€defendant€citesÐ Ô&$"& Ðevidence€from€his€psychological€evaluation€indicating€that€he€has€anÐ  (ð#( Ðð ðinadequately„developed€[sic]€personality€structure,ðð€ð ðlack€of€insight,ðð€ð ðlimitedÐ l*¼%* Ðability€to€reflect€upon€his€behavior,ðð€limited€skills€and€resources€for€coping€withÐ 8,ˆ', Ðlife,€ð ðpoor€problem„solving€abilities,ðð€an€intelligence€quotient€of€seventy„five,€andÐ .T). Ðhad€a€ð ðdisordered€and€failed€childhood.ðð€€The€trial€court€considered€this€evidenceÐ Ð/ +0 Ðbut€concluded€that€the€defendant€was€functioning€within€a€low€average€range€ofÐ œ1ì,2 Ðintelligence€and€declined€to€apply€mitigating€factor€(8).€€However,€contrary€to€theÐ h3¸.4 Ðdefendantððs€assertion,€the€trial€court€did€find€mitigating€factor€(13)€applicableÐ 45„06 Ðbased€on€the€above€cited€evidence.€×ƒ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€conclude€that€the€defendant€has€failedÐ ° Ðto€carry€his€burden€of€showing€that€his€sentence€is€improper.€€Ð |Ì ÐÐ H˜ ÐòòòòÓ XÓÓ  ÓCONSECUTIVE€SERVICEóóóóÐ  d ÐÓNˆÓÓ X@ˆÓThe€trial€court€ordered€that€the€defendant€serve€his€sentencesÐ à 0 Ðconsecutively€to€each€other€and€consecutively€to€a€prior€sentence€for€anÐ ¬ ü  Ðunrelated€offense€pursuant€to€subsections€(b)(2)€and€(b)(5)€of€Tennessee€CodeÐ xÈ  ÐAnnotated€ðð€40„35„115.€€These€subsections€allow€consecutive€sentencing€uponÐ D”  Ða€finding€by€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€ð ð[t]he€defendant€is€anÐ ` Ðoffender€whose€record€of€criminal€activity€is€extensiveðð;€or€that€ð ð[t]he€defendant€isÐ Ü, Ðconvicted€of€two€(2)€or€more€statutory€offenses€involving€sexual€abuse€of€a€minorÐ ¨ø Ðwith€consideration€of€the€aggravating€circumstances€arising€from€the€relationshipÐ tÄ Ðbetween€the€defendant€and€victim€or€victims,€the€time€span€of€the€defendantððsÐ @ Ðundetected€sexual€activity,€the€nature€and€scope€of€the€sexual€acts€and€theÐ  \ Ðextent€of€the€residual,€physical,€and€mental€damage€to€the€victim€or€victims.ððÐ Ø( ÐÐ ¤ô ÐThe€defendant€first€argues€that€neither€of€the€above€provisions€isÐ p!À  Ðsufficiently€established€in€the€present€case.€€As€to€subsection€(b)(2),€theÐ <#Œ" Ðdefendant€argues€that€his€two€prior€convictions€for€attempted€sexual€battery€andÐ %X $ Ðaggravated€assault€do€not€amount€to€an€extensive€criminal€history.€€The€recordÐ Ô&$"& Ðreflects,€however,€that€the€trial€court€based€its€finding€primarily€on€statements€byÐ  (ð#( Ðthe€defendant€indicating€that€he€had€committed€numerous€additional€sexualÐ l*¼%* Ðoffenses€against€young€children.€€Although€the€defendant€had€not€beenÐ 8,ˆ', Ðconvicted€of€these€offenses,€the€statute€does€not€limit€a€trial€court€toÐ .T). Ðconsideration€of€criminal€convictions.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(a)(2)Ð Ð/ +0 Ð(referring€to€ð ðcriminal€activityðð).€€The€defendantððs€statements€were€sufficient€toÐ œ1ì,2 Ðsupport€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€Ð h3¸.4 Ðâ âÐ 45„06 ÐAs€to€subsection€(b)(5),€the€defendant€asserts€that€at€least€two€of€theÐ ° Ðâ âfactors€mentioned€in€ðð€40„35„115(b)(5)€weigh€against€consecutive€sentencing€inÐ |Ì Ðhis€case.€€These€factors,€he€asserts,€are€ð ðthe€aggravating€circumstances€arisingÐ H˜ Ðfrom€the€relationship€of€the€defendant€and€the€victim€.€.€.€[and]€the€time€span€ofÐ  d Ðthe€defendantððs€undetected€sexual€activity.ðð€€The€defendant€does€not€contest,Ð à 0 Ðand€the€evidence€supports,€that€the€remaining€factors€weigh€in€favor€ofÐ ¬ ü  Ðconsecutive€sentencing.€€ò ò€Ð xÈ  ÐÐ D”  Ðó óRegarding€the€factors€cited€by€the€defendant,€the€evidence€shows€that€theÐ ` Ðdefendant€was€a€friend€of€the€victimððs€father€and€that€the€defendant€and€his€wifeÐ Ü, Ðwere€babysitting€the€victim€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€The€victimððs€father€testifiedÐ ¨ø Ðthat€the€incidents€had€an€ongoing€effect€on€his€daughter,€manifested€byÐ tÄ Ðnightmares,€changes€in€her€attitude,€and€a€drop€in€her€grades.€€As€a€result,€heÐ @ Ðstated€that€the€victim€was€attending€counseling.€€These€facts€contradict€theÐ  \ Ðdefendantððs€assertions€that€even€the€above€cited€factors€weigh€in€his€favor.€€TheÐ Ø( Ðdefendant€has€failed€to€carry€his€burden€of€demonstrating€that€his€sentence€isÐ ¤ô Ðimproper,€and€we€hold€that€consecutive€service€is€warranted€on€the€basis€ofÐ p!À  Ðeither€subsection€(b)(2)€or€(b)(5).Ð <#Œ" ÐÐ %X $ ÐFinally,€the€defendant€argues€that€even€if€consecutive€sentencing€isÐ Ô&$"& Ðappropriate€under€the€above€provisions,€such€service€is€neverthelessÐ  (ð#( Ðinappropriate€in€the€present€case€because€the€imposed€sentences€do€notÐ l*¼%* Ðð ðreasonably€relate€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committed€and€are€[not]Ð 8,ˆ', Ðnecessary€in€order€to€protect€the€public€from€further€criminal€conduct€by€theÐ .T). Ðdefendant.ðð€€òòquotingóó€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€938€(Tenn.€1995).€Ð Ð/ +0 ÐThis€argument€is€not€well€taken.€€The€evidence€abundantly€supports€that€theÐ œ1ì,2 Ðimposed€sentences€are€reasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€defendantððsÐ h3¸.4 Ðcrimes€and€that€consecutive€sentencing€is€necessary€to€protect€the€public€fromÐ 45„06 Ðâ âfurther€criminal€acts€of€the€defendant.€€The€defendant€has€a€long€history€ofÐ 7P28 Ðsexual€predation,€and€a€lengthy€term€of€incarceration€is€warranted€to€protectÐ ° Ðfuture€potential€victims.Ð |Ì Ðâ âÐ H˜ ÐÓ XÓÓ  Óò òCONCLUSIONó óÐ  d ÐÓ  ÓÓ XÓFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€judgment€and€sentences€of€the€trial€courtÐ à 0 Ðare€AFFIRMED.€€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÐ xÈ  ÐÐ D”  ÐÐ ` ÐÓÓà @ àà 0 àà àà  àà  àà ð àà à àà Ð àà À àà ° àà   àà  à_______________________________Ð Ü, Ðà @ àà 0 àà àà  àà  àà ð àà à àà Ð àà À àà ° àà   àà  àJOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMS,€JudgeÐ Â ÐÐ ¨ø ÐÐ ŽÞ ÐÐ tÄ ÐÓ XÓCONCUR:Ð Zª ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________Ð ¤ô ÐDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JudgeÐ Š Ú ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________Ð Ô&$"& ÐJOE€G.€RILEY,€Judge