ÿWPC8  …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 0l9 0D¥ é 0Jø B 0TJ 0^ž 0hü 0rd 0|Ö 0†R 0Ø 1uh U,Ý 0d  BmU,ŠU>¶U *ôB)DCG D3Š AM½.  0@8ûxÏsv~BvÓÀ AO“Æâ 0D¨ D/ì B ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- u vwxDyDzE{|E}~Ó€©U!((2üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó('Ã$òòÚ  Ú2Ú  Úóó"|x‰2 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 d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd""""'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ $Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òAugust€19,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ñÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔÔ€'Ô€€On€direct€appeal,€this€Court€modified€Appellantððs€second€theft€conviction€to€theft€of€overÏ$1,000€à0 àbut€less€than€$10,000€and€remanded€the€case€for€proper€sentencing.€€òòSeeóó€òòRankin€v.ÏStateóó,€No.€03C01„9408„CR„00300,€1995€WL€357816€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€June€15,Ï1995).€Ì ÅÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔ€€Ô€'ÔIt€should€be€noted€that€Appellant€failed€to€make€this€argument€at€the€hearing€on€theÏmotion€for€a€à0 ànew€trial.€€Instead,€he€argued€that€the€statements€of€the€attorney€were€admissibleÏunder€the€state€of€mind€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(3).€ÏThis€exception€permits€the€introduction€of€statements€of€the€declarantððs€then€existingÏstate€of€mind.€€However,€only€the€state€of€mind€of€the€declarant€is€provable€by€thisÏhearsay€exception.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€advisory€commission€comments.€€Appellant€wasÏattempting€to€show€his€own€state€of€mind€by€introducing€statements€of€his€attorney.€ÏClearly,€this€is€an€improper€use€of€the€state€of€mind€exception,€and€the€trial€court€wasÏcorrect€in€dismissing€such€an€argument.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€-‚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  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€&ŠÔÔ€'ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€µTXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßL€+,);+'h|` ¤ `€€LßIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌMAY€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9511„CC„00369Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àSULLIVAN€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€ARDEN€L.€HILLó óÌò òJOHN€DAVID€RANKIN,€Jr.,à à)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àó ó(Failure€to€Appear)ò òÌó óÌÌò òÓ  ÓON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌCRIMINAL€COURT€OF€SULLIVAN€COUNTYó óÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌLAURA€RULE€HENDRICKSà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌContract€Attorney€for€theà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌDistrict€Public€Defenderððs€OfficeÌfor€the€2nd€Judicial€Districtà àà àTIMOTHY€F.€BEHANÌ810€Henley€Streetà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌKnoxville,€TN€37902à àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àGREELEY€WELLSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àEDWARD€WILSONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àBlountville,€TN€37617ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€'°ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€'ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Ó›à àA€Sullivan€County€Criminal€Court€jury€convicted€Appellant€John€DavidÏRankin,€Jr.€of€failure€to€appear€at€the€Sullivan€County€jail€on€December€15,Ï1993,€to€serve€sentences€imposed€for€two€theft€convictions.€€As€a€Range€IIÏoffender,€Appellant€received€the€minimum€sentence€of€two€years.€€The€trialÏcourt€ordered€the€sentence€served€consecutive€to€the€sentences€for€theft.€€InÏthis€appeal,€Appellant€presents€the€following€issues€for€review:€(1)€whetherÏthe€evidence€presented€at€trial€is€legally€sufficient€to€sustain€a€conviction€forÏfailure€to€appear;€(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€allowÏAppellant€to€testify€as€to€statements€made€by€his€attorney;€(3)€whether€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€conducting€the€sentencing€hearing€almost€five€monthsÏafter€conviction;€and€(4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€ordering€the€sentenceÏserved€consecutive€to€the€sentences€for€theft.ÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓI.€€FACTUAL€BACKGROUNDÌÓ  Óó óà àOn€May€20,€1993,€a€jury€convicted€Appellant€of€theft€of€over€$500€butÏless€than€$1,000.€€On€July€19,€1993,€another€jury€convicted€Appellant€of€theftÏof€over€$10,000€but€less€than€$60,000.œ× ƒ. ××  ×›€€As€a€Range€I€standard€offender,ÏAppellant€received€concurrent€sentences€of€one€year€for€the€first€convictionÏand€five€years€for€the€second€conviction.€€The€trial€court€suspended€theÏsentences€in€favor€of€a€six„year€period€of€probation.€€As€a€condition€of€theÏprobation,€the€trial€court€ordered€Appellant€to€serve€six€months€in€theÏSullivan€County€jail.€€The€period€of€confinement€was€to€begin€on€DecemberÏ15,€1993.€€According€to€Appellant,€the€reporting€date€was€set€for€DecemberÏ15€so€that€he€could€complete€his€fall€semester€at€East€Tennessee€StateÏUniversity.€€However,€as€Appellant€later€learned,€the€fall€semester€examÏschedule€ran€through€December€17.€€On€the€appointed€date€of€DecemberÏ15,€Appellant€failed€to€report€to€the€Sullivan€County€jail.€€In€May€of€1994,ÏAppellant€was€arrested€and€charged€with€failure€to€appear€in€violation€ofÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„16„609.€€On€June€13,€AppellantððsÏprobation€for€the€theft€convictions€was€revoked,€and€he€began€serving€hisÏsentences€for€these€convictions.ÌÌà àAt€his€trial€for€failure€to€appear,€Appellant€maintained€that€he€had€reliedÏon€the€assurances€of€his€attorney€J.D.€Hickman€that€his€reporting€date€wouldÏbe€changed.€€He€argued€that€this€reliance€constituted€a€reasonable€excuseÏfor€his€failure€to€appear.€€In€an€effort€to€bolster€his€reasonable„excuseÏdefense,€Appellant€attempted€to€show€his€state€of€mind€by€testifying€as€toÏexactly€what€his€attorney€had€told€him€regarding€the€reporting€date.€ÏHowever,€the€trial€court€sustained€the€Stateððs€objections€that€any€statementsÏmade€by€Appellantððs€attorney€were€inadmissible€hearsay.€€On€January€3,Ï1995,€the€jury€convicted€Appellant€of€failure€to€appear.ÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€trial,€the€trial€court€set€the€sentencing€hearing€forÏMay€5.€€Appellant€filed€a€motion€for€a€sentencing€hearing€date€that€compliedÏwith€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€œ40„35„209(a)›€œwhich€requires›€aÏsentencing€hearing€within€forty„five€days€of€conviction.€€Despite€AppellantððsÏmotion,€the€sentencing€hearing€was€not€actually€held€until€May€30,€1995,Ïalmost€five€months€after€conviction.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencingÏhearing,€Appellant€received€a€sentence€of€two€years,€to€be€servedÏconsecutive€to€his€sentences€for€theft.Ìò òÌÓ  ÓII.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEÌÓ  Óó óà àAppellant€first€alleges€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€is€legallyÏinsufficient€to€sustain€his€conviction€for€failure€to€appear.€€When€an€appealÏchallenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€the€standard€of€review€is€whether,Ïafter€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€anyÏrational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crimeÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€318€(1979);ÏòòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€190„91€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€114€S.ÏCt.€740€(1994);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€theÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€or€legitimateÏinferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2dÏ832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€This€Court€will€not€reweigh€the€evidence,€reevaluateÏthe€evidence,€or€substitute€its€evidentiary€inferences€for€those€reached€by€theÏjury.€€òòState€v.€Careyóó,€914€S.W.2d€93,€95€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€ÏFurthermore,€in€a€criminal€trial,€great€weight€is€given€to€the€result€reached€byÏthe€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.ÏWilliamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€465€U.S.€1073Ï(1984).€€The€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€to€be€given€their€testimony,Ïand€the€reconciliation€of€conflicts€in€the€proof€are€matters€entrustedÏexclusively€to€the€jury€as€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547Ï(Tenn.€1984).€€A€juryððs€guilty€verdict€removes€the€presumption€of€innocenceÏenjoyed€by€the€defendant€at€trial€and€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.ÏTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€The€defendant€then€bears€theÏburden€of€overcoming€this€presumption€of€guilt€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Blackóó,Ï815€S.W.2d€166,€175€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àIn€order€to€sustain€a€conviction€for€failure€to€appear€in€this€case,€theÏState€had€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€Appellant€knowinglyÏfailed€to€appear€at€the€Sullivan€County€jail€on€December€15,€1993,€asÏordered€by€the€Sullivan€County€Criminal€Court.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„609(a)(2)€(1990).€€Rather€than€alleging€that€the€State€failed€to€establish€aÏspecific€element€of€the€offense,€Appellant€argues€that€his€reliance€on€theÏrepresentations€of€his€attorney€regarding€an€extension€of€the€reporting€dateÍconstitutes€both€a€reasonable€excuse€for€his€failure€to€appear€and€a€defenseÏto€prosecution.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€39„16„609(b)(2).€€At€trial,€Appellant€testified€that,€atÏsome€point€after€the€trial€court€assigned€his€reporting€date,€he€realized€thatÏhis€fall€semester€exam€schedule€did€not€conclude€until€December€17.€€HeÏfurther€testified€that,€as€a€result€of€this€conflict,€he€retained€attorney€J.D.ÏHickman€to€obtain€an€extension€of€his€reporting€date€so€that€he€couldÏcomplete€his€exams.€€Appellant€maintains€that€his€failure€to€appear€was€dueÏto€the€assurances€of€his€attorney€that€the€reporting€date€could€be€changed,Ïtestifying€as€follows:€ð ðMr.€Hickman€told€me€not€to€worry€about€[an€extension€ofÏthe€reporting€date],€he€would€take€care€of€it.€€He€said€it€would€be€no€problemÏgetting€ninety€days€on€it€while€he€took€over€as€my€new€attorney€of€record.ðð€ÏDespite€these€alleged€assurances,€Appellant€conceded€that€no€one€everÏspecifically€told€him€that€an€extension€had€actually€been€granted€or€that€heÏwas€no€longer€required€to€report€on€December€15.€€He€further€conceded€thatÏhe€made€no€effort€to€contact€anyone€in€order€to€determine€the€status€of€hisÏreporting€date.ÌÌà àHickman€testified€that€he€was€retained€by€Appellant€to€perfect€anÏappeal€of€the€theft€convictions€not€to€obtain€an€extension€of€the€reportingÍdate.€€Nevertheless,€in€response€to€his€request,€Hickman€assured€AppellantÏthat,€if€he€could€obtain€an€extension,€he€would€contact€him€to€tell€him€so.€ÏHickman€testified€that,€although€unsuccessful,€he€did€discuss€the€possibilityÏof€changing€the€reporting€date€with€the€trial€judge.€€He€denied€that€he€everÏtold€Appellant€ð ðnot€to€worryðð€about€the€extension,€testifying€instead€that€heÏtold€Appellant€that€an€extension€was€ð ðhighly€unlikely.ðð€€According€toÏHickman,€Appellant€never€contacted€him€to€inquire€about€his€reporting€date,Ïand€he€never€contacted€Appellant€to€tell€him€that€the€reporting€date€had€beenÏextended.ÌÌà àThe€reasonableness€of€Appellantððs€excuse€for€his€failure€to€appear€is€aÏfactual€question€to€be€decided€by€the€jury€based€upon€the€testimony€of€bothÏAppellant€and€his€attorney.€€As€stated€previously,€determining€the€credibilityÏof€witnesses€and€resolving€conflicts€in€the€proof€are€matters€entrustedÏexclusively€to€the€jury€as€trier€of€fact.€€òòSheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€at€547.€€ThisÏCourt€may€not€substitute€its€evidentiary€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€theÏjury,€even€if€it€wished€to€do€so.€€òòCareyóó,€914€S.W.2d€at€95.€€In€light€of€the€guiltyÏverdict€returned€against€Appellant,€it€appears€that€the€jury€attributed€greaterÏcredibility€to€the€attorneyððs€testimony€regarding€an€extension€of€the€reportingÍdate€than€to€Appellantððs€testimony€on€this€point.€€Thus,€we€find€that,€whenÏviewed€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€the€evidence€is€legally€sufficientÏto€sustain€Appellantððs€conviction€for€failure€to€appear.ÌÓ  ÓÌò òÓ  ÓIII.€€EVIDENCE€OF€STATEMENTS€MADE€BY€APPELLANTððS€ATTORNEYó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€next€alleges€that€the€trial€court€should€have€allowed€him€toÏtestify€as€to€the€representations€of€his€attorney€regarding€his€reporting€date.€ÏHe€argues€that€this€testimony€was€not€inadmissible€hearsay€because€it€wasÏnot€being€offered€for€the€proof€of€the€matter€asserted.€€Instead,€he€contendsÏthat€the€testimony€was€being€offered€for€proof€of€its€effect€on€the€hearer.œ× ƒ/ ××  ×›ÌÌà àAccording€to€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,€hearsay€is€ð ðaÏstatement,€other€than€one€made€by€the€declarant€while€testifying€at€the€trial€orÏhearing,€offered€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï801(c).€€Hearsay€evidence€is€generally€inadmissible.€€òòId.óó€802.€€However,Íextrajudicial€statements€offered€not€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matter€assertedÏbut€to€prove€the€effect€on€the€hearer€constitute€nonhearsay€evidence€and€areÏadmissible.€òòState€v.€Venableóó,€606€S.W.2d€298,€301€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€ÌÌà àHere,€the€testimony€was€offered€not€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€attorneyððsÏstatements€but€to€prove€the€effect€that€the€statements€had€on€Appellant€as€theÏhearer.€€Such€testimony€constitutes€nonhearsay€evidence€and€is€admissible.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Baileyóó,€No.€01„C01„9101„CR„00010,€1992€WL€62018,€at€*4Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Mar.€31,€1992)€(citing€Neil€P.€Cohen€et€al.,€òòTennessee€LawÏof€Evidenceóó€ðð€801.6€(2d€ed.€1990)).€€Thus,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððsÏexclusion€of€Appellantððs€testimony€regarding€the€representations€of€hisÏattorney€was€error.€ÌÌà àUpon€a€finding€of€error,€this€Court€must€reverse€the€conviction€only€ifÏthe€error€appears€to€have€affected€the€outcome€of€the€trial.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).€€Appellant€argues€that€he€wasÏprejudiced€by€the€trial€courtððs€hearsay€ruling€because€he€was€not€allowed€toÏpresent€to€the€jury€what€his€attorney€told€him€regarding€an€extension€of€hisÏreporting€date,€a€critical€element€in€establishing€his€reasonable„excuseÍdefense.€€However,€it€appears€from€a€review€of€the€record€that€Appellant€wasÏable€to€adequately€present€this€defense€to€the€jury.€€During€his€directÏexamination,€Appellant€testified€that€he€relied€on€the€representations€of€hisÏattorney€in€deciding€that€he€was€no€longer€required€to€appear€on€DecemberÏ15.€€Irrespective€of€what€was€actually€said€by€his€attorney,€this€testimonyÏsatisfactorily€presented€the€nature€and€substance€of€Appellantððs€defense€toÏthe€jury.€€Furthermore,€during€his€cross€examination,€Appellant€testified€asÏfollows:€ð ðMr.€Hickman€told€me€not€to€worry€about€[an€extension€of€theÏreporting€date],€he€would€take€care€of€it.€€He€said€it€would€be€no€problemÏgetting€ninety€days€on€it€while€he€took€over€as€my€new€attorney€of€record.ðð€ÏAppellant€was€also€afforded€the€opportunity€to€cross€examine€his€attorneyÏduring€the€Stateððs€rebuttal€proof.€€The€attorney,€during€both€direct€and€crossÏexamination,€addressed€the€issue€of€extending€the€reporting€date.€€HeÏtestified€that€he€never€told€Appellant€that€an€extension€had€been€or€would€beÏgranted.€€He€further€testified€that€he€never€told€Appellant€not€to€appear€on€theÏappointed€date€of€December€15.ÌÌà àThe€record€shows€that,€in€spite€of€the€improper€hearsay€ruling,€theÏnature€and€substance€of€Appellantððs€defense€was€adequately€presented€toÍthe€jury.€€Considering€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€theÏoutcome€of€the€trial€was€not€affected€by€this€erroneous€evidentiary€ruling.€ÏThus,€we€conclude€that€the€error€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓIV.€€TIMELINESS€OF€THE€SENTENCING€HEARINGó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€also€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€conducting€theÏsentencing€hearing€almost€five€months€after€conviction.€€Upon€a€verdict€ofÏguilt,€the€trial€court€ð ðshall€conduct€a€sentencing€hearing€withoutÏunreasonable€delay,€but€in€no€event€more€than€forty„five€(45)€days€after€theÏfinding€of€guilt€.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€40„35„209(a).€€Appellant€was€foundÏguilty€of€failure€to€appear€on€January€3,€1995.€€The€trial€court€conducted€hisÏsentencing€hearing€on€May€30,€1995.€€The€length€of€time€between€convictionÏand€the€sentencing€hearing€was€well€in€excess€of€the€statutorily„mandatedÏforty„five€days.€€At€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€a€new€trial,€the€trial€courtÏfound€that€the€delay€was€error€but€concluded€that,€because€Appellant€wasÏnot€prejudiced€in€any€way,€the€error€was€harmless.€ÌÌà àWe€first€recognize€that,€according€to€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€729€S.W.2d€683Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986),€the€statutory€time€constraints€placed€upon€aÍsentencing€hearing€are€directory€not€mandatory.€€òòId.óó€at€685.€€However,€inÏJones,€the€delay€was€extremely€minor.€€Given€the€excessiveness€of€the€delayÏin€this€case,€we€agree€with€Appellant€and€the€trial€court€that€the€failure€toÏconduct€a€sentencing€hearing€in€a€timely€fashion€was€error.€€We€must€nowÏdetermine€whether€this€error€requires€reversal.ÌÌà àAppellant€argues€that€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€conduct€a€sentencingÏhearing€in€a€timely€fashion€delayed€his€qualification€for€certain€programs€thatÏwould€have€reduced€his€length€of€incarceration.€€However,€Appellant€wouldÏnot€have€received€credit€toward€the€reduction€of€his€failure€to€appearÏsentence€until€he€had€actually€begun€serving€that€sentence.€€The€recordÏreveals€that,€during€the€five„month€period€between€his€conviction€and€hisÏsentencing,€Appellant€was€serving€his€sentence€for€theft,€not€his€sentence€forÏfailure€to€appear.€€Therefore,€because€the€sentences€were€consecutive€andÏAppellant€had€not€yet€completed€his€sentence€for€theft,€the€error€inÏsentencing€did€not€delay€his€opportunity€to€receive€credit€toward€theÏreduction€of€his€incarceration€period.€€Any€credit€toward€the€reduction€of€hisÏfailure€to€appear€sentence€begins€accruing€when€Appellant€actually€beginsÏserving€that€sentence,€irrespective€of€the€date€of€the€sentencing€hearing.€ÍFurthermore,€while€Appellant€makes€reference€to€certain€Sullivan€County€jailÏprograms€that€would€have€reduced€his€length€of€incarceration,€the€record€isÏdevoid€of€any€offer€of€proof€to€substantiate€these€claims.€€We€cannot€takeÏjudicial€notice€of€the€existence€of€programs€at€the€Sullivan€County€jail,€nor€ofÏAppellantððs€alleged€eligibility€for€them€had€he€received€a€sentence€withinÏforty„five€days€of€his€conviction.ÌÌà àAppellant€has€failed€to€make€a€sufficient€showing€of€prejudice€resultingÏfrom€the€delayed€sentence€hearing.€€Thus,€considering€the€record€as€aÏwhole,€we€conclude€that€the€error€was€harmless€and€does€not€requireÏreversal.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).€€However,€trialÏcourts€should€note€that,€in€cases€œwherein€actual€prejudice€is€demonstratedÏfrom€a›€failure€to€comply€with€the€forty„five€day€deadline€for€sentencingÏhearings€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€œ40„35„209(a),›€œreversal›Ïmay€be€required.Ì€€Ìò òÓ  ÓV.€€SENTENCINGó óÌÓ  Óà àFinally,€Appellant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€ordering€hisÏsentence€served€consecutive€to€his€sentences€for€theft.€€When€an€appealÍchallenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€this€CourtÏconducts€a€òòde€novoóó€review€with€a€presumption€that€the€determination€of€theÏtrial€court€was€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1990).€€However,Ïthe€presumption€of€correctness€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showingÏthat€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€factsÏand€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€InÏthe€event€that€the€record€fails€to€demonstrate€such€consideration,€review€ofÏthe€sentence€is€purely€òòde€novoóó.€€òòId.óó€€If€appellate€review€reflects€that€the€trialÏcourt€properly€considered€all€relevant€factors€and€its€findings€of€fact€areÏadequately€supported€by€the€record,€this€Court€must€affirm€the€sentence,Ïð ðeven€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€different€result.ðð€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805ÏS.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€In€conducting€a€review,€this€CourtÏmust€consider€the€evidence,€the€presentence€report,€the€sentencingÏprinciples,€the€arguments€of€counsel,€the€nature€and€character€of€the€offense,Ïmitigating€and€enhancement€€factors,€any€statements€made€by€theÏdefendant,€and€the€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,Ï860€S.W.2d€53,€60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€The€defendant€bears€theÏburden€of€showing€the€impropriety€of€the€sentence€imposed.€€òòState€v.ÏGregoryóó,€862€S.W.2d€574,€578€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).ÌÌà àWe€note€initially€that,€because€the€record€demonstrates€that€the€trialÏcourt€adequately€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€factsÏand€circumstances,€our€review€of€Appellantððs€sentence€will€be€òòde€novoóó€with€aÏpresumption€of€correctness.€€As€a€Range€II€multiple€offender€convicted€ofÏfailure€to€appear,€a€Class€E€felony,€Appellant€received€the€minimum€statutoryÏsentence€of€two€years.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann€ðð€40„35„112(b)(5).€ÌÌà àWhen€imposing€a€sentence€for€failure€to€appear,€a€trial€court€may€orderÏa€consecutive€sentence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„609(f);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.ÏDavidsonóó,€No.€03C01„9309„CR„00312,€1994€WL€615745,€at€*1€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€Nov.€7,€1994).€€Furthermore,€when€imposing€a€sentence€for€any€offenseÏcommitted€during€a€probationary€period,€a€trial€court€may€order€aÏconsecutive€sentence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(6);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.ÏMcGuireóó,€No.€01C01„9309„CC„00300,€1994€WL€179775,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€May€12,€1994).€€Thus,€upon€a€conviction€for€failure€to€appear,€it€is€left€toÏthe€discretion€of€the€trial€court€whether€to€impose€a€consecutive€sentence€orÏa€concurrent€sentence.ÌÌà àHere,€the€trial€court€determined€that€the€sentence€should€runÏconsecutively€because€Appellant€committed€the€offense€while€enjoying€theÏcourtððs€largess€of€being€allowed€to€complete€a€semester€of€college.€€At€theÏhearing€on€the€motion€for€a€new€trial,€the€trial€court€noted€that€to€impose€theÏsentence€concurrently€would€result€in€no€punishment€at€all,€creating€a€poorÏpublic€policy€with€regard€to€court„ordered€appearances€for€sentence€service.€ÏIn€light€of€the€trial€courtððs€reasoning€and€the€aforementioned€specific€statutoryÏauthorization,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€byÏordering€a€consecutive€sentence.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.œÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€K.€BYERS,€SPECIAL€JUDGE