ÿWPC(! …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 0ˆ@ 0DÈ  0J \ 0Td 0^¸ 0h 0r~ 0|ð Bl 0†‰ 0 1uŸ 0d D3xU >« 0@éB))DCRU*• AM¿ß \ëªGU6ñ 'v~2vÓ° AOƒÆÒ 0D˜ D/Ü B !˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ RDSTDUVDWDXYDZD[Ó€Ô¡¨ 3|xd(8(2¨$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóH2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô!" ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò% Line 7 d....7Border 1dd< Œ 9p`(Arial€-/Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÕÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€0XÔÌÌJuly€31,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó RÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ôÔÔ€0ÔDuring€argument,€counsel€for€the€state€commented€the€defendant€"was€still€out€on€bail€forÏthose€[offenses]€...€per€the€presentence€report."€€At€one€point,€defense€counsel€implies€that€the€"onÏbail"€factor€should€be€applied.€€In€the€absence€of€a€stipulation,€however,€"arguments€of€counsel€...€areÏnot€evidence."€€òòState€v.€Robertsóó,€755€S.W.2d€833,€836€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€Ì  Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ôÔÔ€0ÔAlthough€the€issue€has€not€been€raised€by€either€party,€the€imposition€of€a€more€severeÏsentence€upon€resentencing€may€violate€due€process.€€òòSeeóó€òòNorth€Carolina€v.€Pearceóó,€395€U.S.€711Ï(1969).€€In€this€case,€however,€the€defendant€does€not€argue€that€his€sentence€is€the€result€ofÏvindictiveness;€we€hesitate€to€make€the€argument€for€him.€€The€defendant€only€addresses€whetherÏthe€trial€court€appropriately€followed€the€1989€Sentencing€Reform€Act.€€Ì< Œ 9p`(Courier New Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ôÔÔ€0ÔThe€first€four€criteria€are€found€in€òòGrayóó.€€A€fifth€category€in€òòGrayóó,€based€on€a€specific€number€ofÏprior€felony€convictions,€may€enhance€the€sentence€range€but€is€no€longer€a€listed€criterion.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.Ô€5ÔÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ќـ€ÙÔ€0ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€12/A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌÌà@ àòòAT€NASHVILLEóóÌÌà@ àFEBRUARY€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌROGER€D.€PULLEY,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€#€¢01C01£„9605„CC„00217€ÌÌà àà àAppellant,à àà à*à àWAYNE€COUNTYÌÌ¢VS£.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€¢Jim€T.€Hamilton£,€Judge€ÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à à(Sale€of€Cocaine„„5€Counts)ÌÌà àà àAppellee.à àà à*ÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àòòFor€Appellee:óóÌÌRobert€D.€Masseyà à€à àà àà àCharles€W.€¢Burson£Ì209€West€Madisonà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€409€ÌPulaski,€TN€€38478à àà àà àà à¢Peter€Coughlan£Ìà 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„0493à àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMike€Bottoms€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€459Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àLawrenceburg,€TN€€38464ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àStella€HargroveÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€œAttorney€General›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ10€Public€Square€›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœP.O.€Box€1619Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àColumbia,›€TN€€œ38402„1619›ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:_____________________ÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIED€ÌÌÌÌ¢GARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌÓÓòòò òÓ  ÓOPINIONó óóóÌÑ7€¼•XXdðXXdð7ÑÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant,€Roger€D.€Pulley,€was€convicted€of€five€counts€ofÏselling€cocaine;€all€were€Class€B€felonies.€€The€trial€judge€sentenced€the€defendantÏto€ten€years€on€each€offense€and€ordered€all€five€sentences€to€be€servedÏconsecutively,€for€an€effective€sentence€of€fifty€years.€€On€direct€appeal,€this€courtÏreduced€counts€one€and€two€to€Class€C€because€the€charging€language€in€theÏindictment€did€not€include€the€amount€of€cocaine€involved.€€òòState€v.€Roger€D.ÏPulleyóó,€No.€01C01„9501„CC„00013,€slip€op.€at€9€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,ÏSept.€20,€1995).€€Because€the€trial€judge€failed€to€state€on€the€record€the€rationaleÏfor€ordering€all€five€sentences€to€be€served€consecutively,€there€was€a€remand€forÏresentencing.€€òòId.óó€€At€the€second€sentencing€hearing,€the€state€presented€noÍadditional€proof.€€Thereafter,€the€trial€judge€sentenced€the€defendant€to€six€yearsÏeach€on€counts€one€and€two€and€twelve€years€each€on€counts€three,€four,€and€five.€ÏCounts€one€and€two€are€concurrent€with€each€other;€counts€three€and€four€areÏconsecutive€to€each€other€as€well€as€counts€one€and€two.€€Count€five€is€concurrentÏwith€count€four.€€Thus,€the€effective€sentence€is€thirty€years.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€this€appeal,€the€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÏmisapplying€certain€of€the€œenhancement›€factors€and€by€ordering€consecutiveÏsentences.€€We€modify€each€of€the€three€twelve„year€sentences€to€ten„yearÏsentences.€€We€also€modify€each€of€the€six„year€sentences€to€five„year€sentences.€ÏWe€otherwise€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€The€effective€sentence€is,Ïtherefore,€twenty„five€years.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€was€found€guilty€by€a€jury€of€selling€cocaine€on€fiveÏdifferent€occasions:€€Ìà àà à(1)€€3.5€grams€on€January€26,€1993;€Ìà àà à(2)€€5.8€grams€on€February€12,€1993;€Ìà àà à(3)€€26.8€grams€on€February€17,€1993;€Ìà àà à(4)€€51.7€grams€on€February€23,€1993;€and€Ìà àà à(5)€€92€grams€on€March€19,€1993.€€ÌòòSeeóó€òòRoger€D.€Pulleyóó,€slip€op.€at€2„4.€€ÌÌà àà àAt€the€first€sentencing€hearing,€Danny€Mathis€and€Gary€MatthewsÏtestified€as€character€witnesses€for€the€defendant;€both€had€worked€with€theÏdefendant€occasionally€and€described€him€as€a€good€worker.€€The€presentenceÏreport€indicates€that€the€forty„seven„year„old€defendant,€who€has€neither€completedÏhigh€school€nor€acquired€a€G.E.D.,€is€a€self„employed€painter,€roofer,€and€brickÏmason.€€He€has€worked€for€one€owner€consistently€for€the€last€three€years€and€"onÏand€off"€for€the€last€five€to€seven€years.€€W.F.€Guire,€a€minister,€testified€that€theÏdefendant€had€become€more€active€at€church€since€the€offenses€and€that€he€hadÏexpressed€a€desire€to€change€his€life€for€the€better.€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€presentence€report€shows€the€following€criminal€record:€€a€1987Ïconviction€for€DUI,€a€1987€conviction€for€failure€to€yield€to€blue€lights,€a€1984Ïconviction€for€public€intoxication,€two€1981€convictions€for€traffic€offenses,€a€1980Ïconviction€for€passing€worthless€checks,€a€1976€conviction€for€assault€and€battery,Ïa€1974€conviction€requiring€the€defendant€to€carry€his€license€and€exhibit€it€onÏdemand,€a€1973€conviction€for€driving€on€a€revoked€license,€a€1970€conviction€forÏburglary€other€than€a€habitation,€a€1967€conviction€for€a€traffic€offense,€and€a€1967Ïconviction€for€being€disobedient€to€police€officers.€€At€the€time€of€the€first€sentencingÍhearing,€the€defendant€had€the€following€charges€"pending":€€five€counts€of€sale€ofÏœSchedule›€II€drugs,€assault,€first€degree€burglary,€and€arson.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€initial€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€judge€failed€to€state€on€theÏrecord€which,€if€any,€œenhancement›€factors€were€applicable.€€On€appeal,€the€stateÏhad€argued€that€two€enhancement€factors€were€warranted:€€the€defendant's€priorÏcriminal€history€and€the€commission€of€these€offenses€while€on€bond.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(13).€€Our€court€ruled€that€the€prior€criminal€history€factor€hadÏbeen€established;€however,€this€court€ruled€that€the€second€enhancement€factorÏcould€not€be€considered€as€to€these€offenses€unless€the€defendant€was€actuallyÏconvicted€of€the€felonies€for€which€he€was€on€bail.€€Because€the€record€was€silentÏon€that€issue,€this€court€ordered€that€"the€applicability€of€this€factor€may€beÏdetermined€by€the€trial€judge€on€remand."€€òòRoger€D.€Pulleyóó,€slip€op.€at€7.€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àAt€the€second€sentencing€hearing,€the€state€presented€no€newÏevidence.€€There€were€no€supplements€to€the€presentence€report.€€ÌÌà àà àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€serviceÏof€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€with€aÏpresumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.ÍCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmativeÏshowing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€andÏall€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.Ï1991);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€SentencingÏCommission€Comments€provide€that€the€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€show€theÏimpropriety€of€the€sentence.€€ÌÌà àà àOur€review€requires€an€analysis€of€(1)€the€evidence,€if€œany,›€received€atÏthe€trial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€ofÏsentencing€and€the€arguments€of€counsel€relative€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€theÏnature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense;€(5)€any€mitigating€or€enhancing€factors;Ï(6)€any€statements€made€by€the€defendant€in€his€own€behalf;€and€(7)€theÏdefendant's€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€€40„35„102,€„103,€and€Ì„210;€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àà àAt€the€time€of€this€offense,€the€presumptive€sentence€was€theÏminimum€in€the€range€if€there€were€no€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210€(amended€in€1995€changing€the€presumptive€sentence€forÏa€Class€A€felony€to€the€midpoint€in€the€range).€€Should€the€trial€court€find€mitigatingÍand€enhancement€factors,€it€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range€andÏenhance€the€sentence€based€upon€any€applicable€enhancement€factors,€and€thenÏreduce€the€sentence€based€upon€any€appropriate€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€The€weight€given€to€each€factor€is€within€the€trial€court'sÏdiscretion€provided€that€the€record€supports€its€findings€and€it€complies€with€theÏSentencing€Act.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€trialÏcourt€should,€however,€make€specific€findings€on€the€record€which€œindicate€itsÏapplication›€of€the€sentencing€principles.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„209€and€„210.ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€found€the€following€factors€applicable:€€€€ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ[T]he€enhancement€factors,€of€course,€that€the€CourtÏfound€...€were€the€number€of€sales€involved,€theÏopenness€of€those€sales,€the€amount€of€money€involved,Ïthe€amount€of€drugs€involved,€the€fact€that€cocaine€itself,Ïis€destroying€this€country.ÌÌà àWayne€County,€especially,€has€a€bad€cocaineÏproblem,€as€œ[do]›€the€other€three€counties€in€this€district.€ÏThe€Court€is€considering€any€deterrent€effect€this€mightÏhave€on€that€type€of€criminal€activity€in€this€judicialÏ[district].ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓThe€following€exchange€then€occurred€between€the€state€and€the€court:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓAssistant€District€Attorney€General:€€And€for€the€record,€isÏYour€Honor€also€considering€the€two€enhancementÏfactors€that€were€considered€at€the€first€sentencingÏhearing.ÌÌThe€Court:€€Yes,€ma'am.ÌÌAssistant€District€Attorney€General:€€All€right.€€And€asÏaddressed€in€page€seven€of€the€opinion.ÌÌThe€Court:€€Right.ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÌà àà àThe€trial€court€erred€by€its€obvious€reliance€on€nonstatutoryÏenhancement€factors.€€Courts€have€consistently€held€that€the€enhancement€factorsÏcontained€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114€"are€the€exclusive€factors€which€may€beÏconsidered€in€setting€the€length€of€a€sentence€within€a€given€range."€€òòState€v.ÏDykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€258€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòRoger€D.€Pulleyóó,Ïslip€op.€at€8.€€Because€the€trial€court€neglected€œto›€follow€the€statutory€procedure,€ourÏreview€must€be€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€without€the€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏSheltonóó,€854€S.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)€("If€the€trial€court€appliesÏinappropriate€factors€or€otherwise€fails€to€follow€the€1989€Sentencing€Act,€theÏpresumption€of€correctness€œfalls.").›ÌÌà àà àOn€remand,€the€state€failed€to€prove€that€the€charges€for€which€theÏdefendant€was€on€bail€resulted€in€conviction.€€The€state's€appellate€brief€makes€noÏmention€of€the€applicability€of€this€enhancement€factor.€€The€state€chose€to€rely€onÍthe€original€presentence€report,€which€was€not€updated€for€the€resentencingÏprocedure.€€The€report€merely€shows€that€the€offenses€were€"pending";€there€is€noÏindication€of€the€final€disposition.€€We€must,€therefore,€resolve€this€matter€favorablyÏfor€the€defendant.œ× ƒ3 ××  ×›€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant's€prior€criminal€record€is€well€established.€€No€otherÏfactors€appear€to€be€applicable.€€Yet€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erredÏby€failing€to€consider€as€a€mitigating€circumstance€that€he€is€an€alcoholic€and€thatÏhe€has€a€limited€work€history.€€He€also€argues€the€trial€court€erred€in€resentencingÏœhim›€to€twelve€years€for€the€Class€B€felonies,€where€the€initial€sentence€was€tenÏyears€each.€€He€argues,€"[i]t€does€not€make€...€sense€to€now€find€the€defendantÏappropriate€for€a€twelve€...€year€sentence€when€the€previous€sentence€had€beenÏten€...€years€...."× ƒ4 ××  ×€ÌÌà àà àIn€reviewing€the€propriety€of€the€sentence€on€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€basis,€we€tendÏto€concur€with€the€trial€judge's€initial€assessment€that€an€enhanced€sentence€isÏwarranted.€€A€single€enhancement€factor,€however,€rather€than€the€two€cited€onÏremand,€is€applicable.€€Moreover,€the€trial€judge€based€the€twelve„year€sentences,Ïat€least€in€part,€on€several€nonstatutory€aggravating€circumstances.€€Under€theseÏcircumstances,€a€mid„range,€ten„year€sentence,€rather€than€the€maximum,€wouldÏbe€warranted€by€the€content€of€the€appellate€record.€€The€same€rationale€applies€toÏthe€propriety€of€the€two€six„year€sentences.€€In€our€view,€the€defendant's€priorÏcriminal€record,€standing€alone,€did€warrant€an€enhanced€sentence.€€The€range€forÏthe€Class€C€offenses€is€between€three€and€six€years.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(3).€€Mid„range€sentences€of€five€years€are€appropriate.Ì€€Ìà àà àWe€now€address€the€appropriateness€of€consecutive€sentences.€€PriorÏto€the€enactment€of€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€the€limitedÏclassifications€for€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences€were€set€out€in€òòGray€v.óóÏòòStateóó,€538€S.W.2d€391,€393€(Tenn.€1976).€€In€that€case€our€supreme€court€ruled€thatÏaggravating€circumstances€must€be€present€before€placement€in€any€one€of€theÏclassifications.€€Later,€in€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€739€S.W.2d€227€(Tenn.€1987),€the€courtÏestablished€an€additional€category€for€those€defendants€convicted€of€two€or€moreÏstatutory€offenses€involving€sexual€abuse€of€minors.€€There€were,€however,Íadditional€words€of€caution:€€"[C]onsecutive€sentences€should€not€routinely€beÏimposed€.€.€.€and€.€.€.€the€aggregate€maximum€of€consecutive€terms€must€beÏreasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€involved."€€œòòTayloróó,›€739€S.W.2d€atÏ230.€€The€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€adopted€the€cautionary€language.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115.€€The€1989€Act€is,€in€essence,€the€codification€of€theÏholdings€in€òòGrayóó€and€òòTayloróó;€consecutive€sentences€may€be€imposed€in€theÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€court€only€upon€a€determination€that€one€or€more€of€theÏfollowing€criteria× ƒ6 ××  ×€exist:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€The€defendant€is€a€professional€criminal€who€hasÏknowingly€devoted€himself€to€criminal€acts€as€a€majorÏsource€of€livelihood;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€€The€defendant€is€an€offender€whose€record€ofÏcriminal€activity€is€extensive;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€mentally€abnormalÏperson€so€declared€by€a€competent€psychiatrist€whoÏconcludes€as€a€result€of€an€investigation€prior€toÏsentencing€that€the€defendant's€criminal€conduct€hasÏbeen€characterized€by€a€pattern€of€repetitive€orÏcompulsive€behavior€with€heedless€indifference€toÏconsequences;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€whoseÏbehavior€indicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life,€andÍno€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€riskÏto€human€life€is€high;€€€€à à€€€€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)€€The€defendant€is€convicted€of€two€(2)€or€moreÏstatutory€offenses€involving€sexual€abuse€of€a€minor€withÏconsideration€of€the€aggravating€circumstances€arisingÏfrom€the€relationship€between€the€defendant€and€victimÏor€victims,€the€time€span€of€defendant's€undetectedÏsexual€activity,€the€nature€and€scope€of€the€sexual€actsÏand€the€extent€of€the€residual,€physical€and€mentalÏdamage€to€the€victim€or€victims;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(6)€€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€an€offenseÏcommitted€while€on€probation;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(7)€€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€criminal€contempt.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b).ÌÌà àà àIn€òòGrayóó,€our€supreme€court€ruled€that€before€consecutive€sentencingÏcould€be€imposed€upon€the€dangerous€offender,€as€now€defined€by€subsectionÏ(b)(4)€in€the€statute,€other€conditions€must€be€present:€€(a)€that€the€crimes€involvedÏaggravating€circumstances;€(b)€that€consecutive€sentences€are€a€necessary€meansÏto€protect€the€public€from€the€defendant;€and€(c)€that€the€term€reasonably€relates€toÏthe€severity€of€the€offenses.ÌÌà àà àMore€recently,€in€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€938€(Tenn.Ï1995),€our€high€court€reaffirmed€those€principles,€holding€that€consecutiveÍsentences€cannot€be€required€of€the€dangerous€offender€"unless€the€termsÏreasonably€œrelate›€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committed€and€are€necessary€inÏorder€to€protect€the€public€(society)€from€further€criminal€acts€by€those€persons€whoÏresort€to€aggravated€criminal€conduct."€€The€òòWilkersonóó€decision,€which€modifiedÏsomewhat€the€strict€factual€guidelines€for€consecutive€sentencing€adopted€in€òòStateÏv.€Woodsóó,€814€S.W.2d€378,€380€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991),€described€sentencing€asÏa€"human€process€that€neither€can€nor€should€be€reduced€to€a€set€of€fixed€andÏmechanical€rules."€€œòòWilkersonóó,›€905€S.W.2d€at€938.ÌÔ% € ÔÌà àà àIn€imposing€the€consecutive€sentences€in€this€case,€the€trial€courtÏobserved€as€follows:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà à[T]he€Court€finds€that€the€defendant,€Mr.€Pulley,Ïhas€knowingly€devoted€himself€to€criminal€acts€as€aÏmajor€source€of€his€livelihood.€€He€has€extensiveÏcriminal€activity€in€his€past.€€These€convictions€show€aÏcriminal€conduct€characterized€by€a€pattern€of€repetitiveÏor€compulsive€behavior€by€the€defendant,€with€no€regardÏto€the€consequences.ÌÌà àThe€Court€is€considering€that€the€defendant€wasÏout€on€bail€at€the€time€„„€out€of€jail€on€bail€at€the€time€theÏoffenses€were€committed.€€The€Court€also€is€consideringÏthe€fact€that€the€defendant's€behavior€indicates€little€orÏno€regard€for€human€life.€€He€didn't€hesitate€aboutÏcommitting€these€crimes€over€a€period€of€about€aÏmonth's€time.ÌÌà àHe€was€paid€some€$9250.00€for€the€sale€ofÏcocaine.€€And€the€Court€finds€this€crime€does€place€aÏhigh€risk€on€human€life.ÌÌà àThe€Court€finds€it's€necessary€to€protect€societyÏfrom€the€defendant's€unwillingness€to€lead€a€productiveÏlife,€and€his€antisocietal€lifestyle.ÌÌà àAnd€the€Court€finds€that€the€[aggregate]€length€ofÏthese€consecutive€sentences€...€do€reasonably€relate€toÏthe€offenses€for€which€the€defendant€stands€convicted.ÌÌà àThe€Court€is€unable€to€find€a€definition€for€theÏword,€"aggravated€circumstances."€€The€òòGrayóó€caseÏdoesn't€really€define€it.€€I€don't€find€it€defined€in€thisÏòòTayloróó€case.€€ÌÌÓ  Ó***ÌÓ  ÓÌà àI'm€just€simply€going€to€find€fulfillment€of€thatÏcriteria€that€the€circumstances€surrounding€these€offenseÏwere€aggravated€by€the€way€the€drugs€were€sold,€theÏpersistent€sale€of€the€drugs,€and€the€amount€of€money,Ïand€the€amount€of€drugs€that€were€involved.ÌœÌSo›€with€that€in€mind,€the€Court€will€fix€the€sentence€for€30Ïyears.€Ô€,Ô€œÌÌ›ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓà àà àÔ€0ÔWe€cannot€disagree€with€this€assessment.€€Consecutive€sentencesÏare€warranted.€€The€trial€court's€determination€that€the€defendant€is€a€"professionalÏcriminal€who€has€...€devoted€himself€to€criminal€acts€as€a€major€source€of€livelihood"€Ïis€supported€by€the€fact€that€he€was€paid€almost€$10,000€for€the€cocaine€sales€thatÍoccurred€in€slightly€over€a€month's€time.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(1).€ÏThe€presentence€report,€which€was€uncontested,€also€shows€that€the€defendantÏhad€operated€a€garage;€during€a€raid€in€1990,€police€discovered€several€baggies€ofÏcocaine€in€the€garage.€€This€indicates€a€packaging€process€for€resale.€€The€numberÏof€offenses€over€the€period€of€time€involved€in€these€cases€tends€to€substantiate€theÏconclusion€the€defendant€regularly€sold€cocaine€as€a€livelihood.€€ÌÌà àà àMoreover,€the€defendant's€extensive€criminal€record€also€warrantsÏconsecutive€sentencing.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(2).€€Forty„four€yearsÏof€age€at€the€time€the€presentence€report€was€prepared,€the€defendant€hasÏengaged€in€criminal€conduct€beginning€at€the€age€of€seventeen.€€He€soldÏprogressively€larger€amounts€of€cocaine.€€Our€conclusion€is€that€the€aggregateÏlength€of€the€sentences€is€necessary€to€protect€society€from€the€defendant'sÏpropensity€to€break€the€law.€ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed,€except€that€each€of€the€twelve„year€sentences€are€modified€to€ten„year€sentences€and€the€two€six„year€sentencesÏare€modified€to€five€years.€€Thus,€the€effective€sentence€is€twenty„five€years.ÌÓÓœ›à àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌDavid€G.€Hayes,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌCurwood€Witt,€JudgeÌÓÓ