ÿWPCó /# ¢UN­ %û 0(b)w@14q… 0J” 0TÞ 0^2 0h 0rø 0|j 0†æ 0l 1uü 0dqU>ÕU * 0@= D3} B° B)Í DCö AM9 1† v~· vÓ5 AQÆY 0D 0Dc D/§ BÖ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- @DABDCDDEDFGHÓ€TìSï" Ú7Ú  3|xT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd* $Cþÿ << Gÿÿ 'Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òJuly€16,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€xXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€JACKSONÌÙ€*ÙßR€%&$A1-j|Uœ` Å `€€@ÿRßÌDECEMBER€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9501„CC„00029Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHARDIN€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€C.€CREED€MCGINLEYó óÌò òALBERT€DEWAYNN€PORTER,ó óà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(Direct€Appeal)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌRICHARD€W.€DEBERRYà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌAssistant€District€Public€Defenderà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ24th€Judicial€Districtà àÌP.€O.€Box€663à àà àà àà àJANIS€L.€TURNERÌCamden,€TN€€38320à àà àà àCounsel€for€the€StateÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àROBERT€RADFORDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€OVERTONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€D€strict€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àHardin€County€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSavannah,€TN€€38372ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇòòò òÓ  ÓÔ€„ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€ŠÔÌÓÓÓ  ÓÔ€XÔÌà àA€Hardin€County€Circuit€Court€jury€found€Appellant€Albert€Dewaynn€PorterÏguilty€of€selling€cocaine€in€excess€of€0.5€grams.€€As€a€Range€I€standard€offender,€heÏreceived€a€sentence€of€ten€years€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.€€InÏthis€direct€appeal,€Appellant€presents€the€following€issues€for€review:€€(1)€whetherÏthe€evidence€presented€at€trial€is€legally€sufficient€to€sustain€a€conviction;€(2)Ïwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€give€a€procuring€agent€jury€instruction;€(3)Ïwhether€the€prosecutionððs€use€of€a€peremptory€challenge€to€dismiss€a€blackÏprospective€juror€was€racially€motivated;€and€(4)€whether€the€sentence€isÏexcessive.ÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓI.€FACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óÌÓ  Óà àAs€accredited€by€the€juryððs€verdict,€the€proof€shows€that,€on€September€30,Ï1994,€Karla€Abbott,€an€undercover€operative€for€the€24th€Judicial€Drug€Task€Force,Ïand€Bobby€Wicker,€an€informant,€picked€up€Appellant€at€a€pre„arranged€location€forÏthe€purpose€of€acquiring€crack€cocaine.€€The€three€of€them€proceeded€by€car€to€theÏHunter€Hills€apartment€complex.€€En€route,€they€discussed€the€impending€drugÏpurchase.€€Once€inside€one€of€the€apartments,€Ms.€Abbott€gave€Appellant€$250.€ÍAppellant€took€the€money€and€proceeded€to€another€apartment€across€the€street.€ÏSoon€thereafter,€Appellant€returned€and€explained€that€he€could€not€get€theÏcocaine€from€the€other€apartment€until€certain€individuals€left.€€Eventually,€AppellantÏand€an€individual€from€the€other€apartment€identified€only€as€ð ðDeeðð€exchanged€theÏmoney€and€the€cocaine€in€view€of€Ms.€Abbott€and€Mr.€Wicker.€€Appellant€then€gaveÏthe€cocaine€to€Ms.€Abbott,€and,€at€Appellantððs€request,€all€three€took€ð ða€hit.ðð€ÏAfterwards,€Ms.€Abbott€and€Mr.€Wicker€€returned€Appellant€to€where€they€hadÏpicked€him€up.ÌÌà àA€Hardin€County€Grand€Jury€indicted€Appellant€on€one€count€of€selling€aÏcontrolled€substance€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€39„17„417(a)(3)€and€on€one€count€of€delivering€a€controlled€substance€in€violation€ofÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€39„17„417(a)(2).€€On€August€7,€1995,ÏAppellant€was€tried€before€a€Hardin€County€Circuit€Court€jury.€€At€the€conclusion€ofÏthe€trial,€the€jury€found€Appellant€guilty€of€selling€cocaine.€€Following€a€sentencingÏhearing€on€September€7,€1995,€the€trial€court€imposed€a€mid„range€sentence€of€tenÏyears.€ÌÌò òÓ  ÓII.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€first€alleges€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€is€legallyÏinsufficient€to€support€his€conviction.€€Citing€òòState€v.€Baldwinóó,€867€S.W.2d€358Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€Appellant€argues€that€the€evidence€supported€only€simpleÏpossession€or€casual€exchange.ÌÌà àWhen€an€appeal€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€the€standard€ofÏreview€is€whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏState,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crimeÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€318€(1979);€òòStateÏv.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€190„91€(Tenn.€1992);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€OnÏappeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€allÏreasonable€or€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.ÏCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€This€Court€will€not€reweigh€theÏevidence,€re„evaluate€the€evidence,€or€substitute€its€evidentiary€inferences€forÏthose€reached€by€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Careyóó,€914€S.W.2d€93,€95€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1995).€€Furthermore,€in€a€criminal€trial,€great€weight€is€given€to€the€result€reachedÏby€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€910€S.W.2d€897,€899€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).ÌÌà àOnce€approved€by€the€trial€court,€a€jury€verdict€accredits€the€witnessesÏpresented€by€the€State€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòState€v.ÍWilliamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983).€€The€credibility€of€witnesses,€theÏweight€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€the€reconciliation€of€conflicts€in€the€proof€areÏmatters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676ÏS.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984).€€A€juryððs€guilty€verdict€removes€the€presumption€ofÏinnocence€enjoyed€by€the€defendant€at€trial€and€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt.€ÏòòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€The€defendant€then€bears€theÏburden€of€overcoming€this€presumption€of€guilt€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815ÏS.W.2d€166,€175€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àWe€will€first€address€Appellantððs€reliance€on€òòBaldwinóó.€€In€òòBaldwinóó,€this€CourtÏheld€that€directing€an€undercover€operative€to€where€cocaine€could€be€purchasedÏand€subsequently€facilitating€that€purchase€was€insufficient€to€support€a€convictionÏfor€the€sale€of€cocaine.€€òòId.óó€at€359„60.€€The€Court€further€held€that€a€ð ðprocuringÏagentðð€defense€was€available€to€defendants€charged€with€the€sale€of€a€controlledÏsubstance.€€òòId.óó€at€360.€€However,€the€offense€addressed€in€òòBaldwinóó€predated€theÏTennessee€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989.€€In€òòState€v.€Greenwoodóó,€No.Ï01C01„9109„CR„00280,€1992€WL€50962,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Mar.€19,€1992),€a€caseÏpostdating€the€1989€Act,€this€Court€held€that€even€though€the€defendant€servedÏonly€as€the€ð ðprocuring€agent,ðð€he€remained,€pursuant€to€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€Section€39„11„402,€criminally€responsible€for€the€sale€of€cocaine€to€theÍsame€extent€as€the€individual€who€actually€provided€the€substance.€€òòId.óó€at€*2.€ÏSection€39„11„402€provides€that€a€person€is€criminally€responsible€for€anotherððsÏactions€if,€ð ð[a]cting€with€intent€to€promote€or€assist€the€commission€of€the€offense,€orÏto€benefit€in€the€proceeds€or€results€of€the€offense,€the€person€solicits,€directs,€aids,Ïor€attempts€to€aid€another€person€to€commit€the€offense€.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„11„402(2).€€Here,€Appellant€directed€Ms.€Abbott€and€Mr.€Wicker€to€the€apartmentÏcomplex€where€the€drug€transaction€would€take€place.€€He€then€took€the€$250€andÏexchanged€it€for€an€8„ball€of€cocaine.€€Clearly,€as€in€òòGreenwoodóó,€Appellant€aided€inÏthe€commission€of€this€drug€sale€and€injested€some€of€the€drugs€himself.€€He€isÏtherefore€criminally€responsible€for€the€sale.ÌÌà àWe€will€now€address€Appellantððs€contention€that€his€actions€constituted€onlyÏsimple€possession€or€casual€exchange.€€Simple€possession€or€casual€exchange€isÏcodified€at€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€39„17„318.€€In€òòState€v.€Humphreyóó,ÏNo.€01C01„9404„CR„00134,€1995€WL€50039€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Feb.€8,€1995),€thisÏCourt€affirmed€a€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€give€a€casual€exchange€jury€instructionÏwhere€the€trial€court€offered€the€following€reasoning:ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓà àA€casual€exchange€is€just€what€it€means:€casual,Ïwithout€design,€sometimes€among€friends€even,€or€where€itÏoccurs€with€a€group€of€people€who€are€doing€drugs€orÏdrinking€or€whatever,€and€is€exchanged,€although€moneyÏmay€be€passed,€but€it€is€still€rather€casual.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓòòId.óó€at€*1.€€Furthermore,€the€offense€of€casual€exchange€anticipates€a€small€amountÏof€a€controlled€substance.€€òòState€v.€Hortonóó,€No.€01C01„9312„CR„00435,€1994€WLÏ548750,€at€*4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Oct.€6,€1994),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€Jan.€30,Ï1995).€€Both€the€manner€in€which€Appellant€arranged€this€drug€transaction€and€theÏamount€of€cocaine€involved€preclude€any€consideration€of€this€offense€as€simpleÏpossession€or€casual€exchange.€€Thus,€we€find€that,€when€viewed€in€a€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€State,€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€supports€AppellantððsÏconviction.€€ÌÌò òÓ  ÓIII.€€PROCURING€AGENT€JURY€INSTRUCTIONó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€next€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€give€a€procuringÏagent€jury€instruction.€€Appellant€again€cites€òòBaldwinóó€as€the€sole€support€for€hisÏposition.€€As€stated€previously,€the€precedent€set€out€in€òòGreenwoodóó€controls.€ÏWhether€Appellant€actually€sold€the€cocaine€or€simply€acted€as€the€procuring€agentÏis€irrelevant€because,€when€analyzing€offenses€occurring€after€November€1,€1989,Ïthe€criminal€responsibility€statute€encompasses€both€forms€of€conduct.€€We€thusÏfind€that€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€give€the€requested€jury€instruction€was€proper.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓIV.€€PEREMPTORY€CHALLENGEó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€also€alleges€that€the€prosecutionððs€use€of€a€peremptory€challengeÏto€dismiss€a€black€prospective€juror€was€racially€motivated.€€In€support€of€thisÏallegation,€Appellant€points€out€that€both€he€and€the€challenged€prospective€jurorÏare€black.€€ÌÌà àThe€exercise€of€a€peremptory€challenge€for€purely€racial€reasons€violates€theÏEqual€Protection€Clause€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment.€€òòBatson€v.€Kentuckyóó,€476ÏU.S.€79,€89€(1986);€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€789€S.W.2d€545,€548€(Tenn.€1990).€€However,Ïthe€dismissal€of€one€or€more€black€jurors,€without€more,€is€not€unconstitutional.€ÏòòState€v.€Bellóó,€759€S.W.2d€651,€653€(Tenn.€1988).€€The€defendant€must€present€aÏòòprima€facieóó€case€of€racial€discrimination€by€showing€that€the€totality€of€the€relevantÏfacts€gives€rise€to€an€inference€of€discriminatory€purpose.€€òòBatsonóó,€476€U.S.€at€94.€ÏOnce€the€defendant€satisfactorily€presents€a€òòprima€facieóó€case€of€discriminatoryÏpurpose,€the€burden€shifts€to€the€prosecution€to€provide€a€rational,€race„neutralÏexplanation€for€the€exercise€of€the€peremptory€challenge.€€òòId.ÌÌà àóóWe€do€not€believe€that€the€Stateððs€peremptory€removal€of€one€African„American€from€the€jury€pool,€standing€alone,€is€sufficient€to€make€out€a€òòprima€facieóóÏcase€of€discrimination.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€915€S.W.2d€3,€8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1995).€€Moreover,€the€State€offered€the€following€rational,€race„neutral€explanationÍfor€the€exercise€of€its€peremptory€challenge:€the€prospective€juror€remained€silentÏwhen€asked€if€a€family€member€had€ever€been€arrested€despite€the€fact€that€her€sonÏhad€been€prosecuted€for€a€probation€violation€by€one€of€the€Stateððs€attorneys.€€ByÏdemonstrating€that€its€peremptory€challenge€was€not€exercised€to€further€aÏdiscriminatory€purpose,€the€State€properly€discharged€its€obligation€under€òòBatsonóó.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bibbsóó,€806€S.W.2d€786,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€Thus,€weÏconclude€that€the€trial€court€properly€refused€to€grant€a€mistrial.òòÌóóÌò òÓ  ÓV.€€SENTENCINGó óÌÓ  Óà àFinally,€Appellant€alleges€that€his€sentence€is€excessive.€€Specifically,€heÏargues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€determining€the€length€of€his€sentence€by€failingÏto€apply€mitigating€factor€(1):€his€criminal€conduct€neither€caused€nor€threatenedÏserious€bodily€injury.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1).ÌÌà àWhen€an€appeal€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€aÏsentence,€this€Court€conducts€a€òòde€novoóó€review€with€a€presumption€that€theÏdetermination€of€the€trial€court€was€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€ÏHowever,€this€presumption€of€correctness€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€the€affirmativeÏshowing€that€the€trial€court€in€the€record€considered€the€sentencing€principles€andÏall€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.Í1991).€€In€the€event€that€the€record€fails€to€demonstrate€such€consideration,€reviewÏof€the€sentence€is€purely€òòde€novoóó.€€òòId.óó€€If€appellate€review€reflects€that€the€trial€courtÏproperly€considered€all€relevant€factors€and€its€findings€of€fact€are€adequatelyÏsupported€by€the€record,€this€Court€must€affirm€the€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805ÏS.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€In€conducting€a€review,€this€Court€mustÏconsider€the€evidence,€the€presentence€report,€the€sentencing€principles,€theÏarguments€of€counsel,€the€nature€and€character€of€the€offense,€mitigating€andÏenhancement€factors,€any€statements€made€by€the€defendant,€and€the€potential€forÏrehabilitation€or€treatment.€€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,€860€S.W.2d€53,€60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1993).€€The€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€the€impropriety€of€the€sentenceÏimposed.€€òòState€v.€Gregoryóó,€862€S.W.2d€574,€578€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).ÌÌà àWe€note€initially,€and€Appellant€concedes,€that,€because€the€recordÏdemonstrates€that€the€trial€court€adequately€considered€the€sentencing€principlesÏand€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances,€our€review€of€Appellantððs€sentence€will€beÏòòde€novoóó€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.ÌÌà àAppellant€was€convicted€of€the€sale€of€cocaine€in€excess€of€0.5€grams,€aÏClass€B€felony.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„417(c)(1).€€As€a€Range€I€standardÏoffender€convicted€of€a€Class€B€felony,€Appellantððs€statutory€sentencing€range€wasÍeight€to€twelve€years.€€òòSee€id.óó€ðð€40„35„112(a)(2).€€The€trial€court€found€the€followingÏenhancement€factors€applicable€to€the€offense:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ „ ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓ(1)€the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminalÏconvictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€thoseÏnecessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range;ÌÌ(2)€the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€toÏcomply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€releaseÏin€the€community;€andÌÌ(3)€the€felony€was€committed€while€the€defendant€was€onÏprobation.€ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓòòId.óó€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(8),€(13)(C).€€The€trial€court€found€no€mitigating€factors.€€BasedÏon€the€foregoing,€the€trial€court€imposed€a€mid„range€sentence€of€ten€years.ÌÌà àIn€the€absence€of€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors,€the€presumptiveÏlength€of€sentence€for€a€Class€B,€C,€D,€and€E€felony€is€the€minimum€sentence€in€theÏstatutory€range€while€the€presumptive€length€of€sentence€for€a€Class€A€felony€is€theÏmidpoint€in€the€statutory€range.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c).€€Where€one€orÏmore€enhancement€factors€apply€but€no€mitigating€factors€exist,€the€trial€court€mayÏsentence€above€the€presumptive€sentence€but€still€within€the€range.€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„210(d).€€Where€Ñ Ð Ñboth€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€apply,€the€trial€court€mustÏstart€at€the€minimum€sentence,€enhance€the€sentence€within€the€range€asÏappropriate€to€the€enhancement€factors,€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€within€theÏrange€as€appropriate€to€the€mitigating€factors.€€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€The€weightÏafforded€an€enhancement€or€mitigating€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€courtÍso€long€as€the€trial€court€complies€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€theÏTennessee€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€and€its€findings€are€supportedÏby€the€record.€€òòState€v.€Hayesóó,€899€S.W.2d€175,€185€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).ÌÌà àWith€regard€to€Appellantððs€mitigation€argument,€this€Court€has€repeatedlyÏdenied€application€of€mitigating€factor€(1)€to€drug€offenses.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.ÏLeachóó,€No€01C01„9601„CC„00008,€1997€WL€230158,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€MayÏ7,€1997);€òòState€v.€Gardneróó,€No.€01C01„9302„CR„00060,€1993€WL€311539,€at€*2Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Aug.€12,€1993),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€Nov.€29,€1993);ÏòòArwood€v.€Stateóó,€No.€335,€1991€WL€73957,€at€*4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€May€9,€1991).€ÏGiven€the€magnitude€and€severity€of€cocaine€abuse€in€our€state€and€counties,€weÏare€still€of€the€opinion€that€application€of€mitigating€factor€(1)€is€inappropriate€inÏcases€of€this€type.€€Upon€òòde€novoóó€review€and€in€accord€with€the€presumption€ofÏcorrectness,€we€find€Appellantððs€sentence€justified€and€reasonable.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€ÌÓÓÔ€ŠÔà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.TIPTON,€JUDGE