ÿWPCõ /# ¢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 3† v~¹ vÓ7 AQ Æ[ 0D! 0De D/© BؘHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- 67E89D:D;D<=Ó€IL§aö"3|xL2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd* $Cþÿ << Gÿÿ )Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òAugust€22,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€6AXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€JACKSONÌÙ€*ÙßR€%&$A1-j|½ê` Å `€€@ÿRßÌSEPTEMBER€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9602„CC„00053Ìà 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 àMADISON€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JOHN€FRANKLIN€MURCHISONó óÌò òWILLIAM€HERBERT€STITTS,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  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALLà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌ203€Murrell€Streetà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌDickson,€TN€€37056„1075Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àELLEN€H.€POLLACKÌGEORGE€MORTON€GOOGEà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌ227€West€Baltimore€Streetà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌJackson,€TN€€38301Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€WOODALLÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDON€ALLENÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.€O.€Box€2825Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJackson,€TN€€38301ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇòòò òÓ  ÓÔ€„ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€ŠÔÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àÔ€XÔA€Madison€County€Circuit€Court€jury€found€Appellant€William€Herbert€StittsÏguilty€of€aggravated€robbery.€€As€a€Range€I€standard€offender,€he€received€aÏsentence€of€twelve€years€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.€€The€trialÏcourt€ordered€the€sentence€served€concurrent€with€another€Madison€CountyÏsentence€for€aggravated€robbery€but€consecutive€to€a€Georgia€sentence€for€theft€byÏdeception€and€false€report€of€a€crime.€€Both€Appellant€and€the€State€have€appealedÏas€of€right.€€Appellant€presents€the€following€issues:€(1)€whether€the€evidenceÏpresented€at€trial€is€sufficient€as€a€matter€of€law€to€sustain€a€conviction€forÏaggravated€robbery;€and€(2)€whether€the€length€of€the€sentence€is€excessive.€ÏAdditionally,€the€State€presents€the€following€issue:€whether€the€trial€court€erred€inÏfailing€to€order€the€sentence€served€consecutive€to€the€other€Madison€CountyÏaggravated€robbery€sentence.ÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓI.€€FACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óÌÓ  Óà àAs€accredited€by€the€juryððs€verdict,€the€proof€shows€that,€at€approximatelyÏ6:30€a.m.€on€December€24,€1992,€roughly€five€hours€after€committing€anotherÏaggravated€robbery,€Appellant€entered€Ideal€Cleaners€in€Jackson,€approached€theÍsole€employee€Diane€Carter,€and€mumbled€ð ðgive€me€the€money.ðð€ò ò€€ó óWhen€Ms.ÏCarter€attempted€to€clarify€what€was€said,€Appellant€struck€her€on€the€head€with€aÏhard€object€wrapped€in€a€cloth.ò ò€ó ó€€Appellant€then€pulled€Ms.€Carter€out€of€her€chairÏby€her€hair,€struck€her€on€the€head€again,€and€forced€her€to€open€the€cash€register.€€ÏOnce€he€had€taken€the€cash€from€the€register€and€the€bank€deposit€bag,€totalingÏapproximately€$600.00,€Appellant€struck€Ms.€Carter€on€the€head€one€final€time€andÏleft.€€ò ò€ó óÌ€Ìà àOn€March€1,€1993,€the€Madison€County€Grand€Jury€indicted€Appellant€forÏaggravated€robbery€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€39„13„402.€ÏOn€October€3,€1994,€Appellant€was€tried€before€a€jury€in€the€Madison€County€CircuitÏCourt.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€trial,€the€jury€found€him€guilty€of€the€offense€asÏcharged€in€the€indictment.ÌÌà àAt€the€original€sentencing€hearing€on€November€15,€1994,€the€trial€courtÏfound€Appellant€to€be€a€Range€II€multiple€offender€and€imposed€a€sentence€ofÏtwenty€years.ò ò€€ó óHowever,€on€September€22,€1995,€the€trial€court€resentencedÏAppellant€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender€to€twelve€years.ò ò€ó ó€€The€trial€court€orderedÏthe€sentence€served€concurrent€with€another€Madison€County€sentence€forÍaggravated€robbery€but€consecutive€to€a€Georgia€sentence€for€theft€by€deceptionÏand€false€report€of€a€crime.€€ÌÌò òÓ  ÓII.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€alleges€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€is€insufficient€as€aÏmatter€of€law€to€sustain€a€conviction€for€aggravated€robbery.€€Specifically,€heÏargues€that€the€State€failed€to€establish€that€the€weapon€used€during€the€robberyÏwas€a€rock,€as€set€out€in€the€indictment.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.Í1995).€€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.ÏWilliamsóó,€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 àIn€order€to€sustain€a€conviction€for€aggravated€robbery€in€this€case,€theÏevidence€must€show€that€Appellant€intentionally€or€knowingly€took€property€fromÏMs.€Carter€by€violence€and€that€this€taking€was€accomplished€with€a€deadlyÏweapon.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„13„401(a),€40„13„402(a)(1).€€The€indictmentÏalleges€that€the€robbery€was€ð ðaccomplished€with€a€deadly€weapon,€to„wit:€a€rock,€aÏmore€particular€description€to€the€Grand€Jurors€aforesaid€is€unknown.ðð€€AppellantÍneither€contests€that€property€was€taken€by€violence€nor€that€the€object€used€toÏbludgeon€Ms.€Carter€constitutes€a€deadly€weapon€but€instead€contends€only€thatÏthe€State€failed€to€establish€the€exact€nature€of€the€object€„„€that€it€was€in€fact€a€rock.€ÏAt€trial,€Ms.€Carter€testified€that,€during€the€robbery,€Appellant€struck€her€on€theÏhead€a€total€of€three€times€with€what€in€her€estimation€was€a€rock.€€She€suffered€aÏconcussion€as€a€result€of€the€attack.€€During€cross„examination,€Ms.€CarterÏconceded€that€the€object€was€wrapped€in€a€cloth€throughout€the€robbery€but€opinedÏthat€it€was€a€rock€of€some€kind€based€upon€the€impact€of€the€blows€and€the€fact€thatÏa€rock€matching€the€approximate€size€and€shape€of€the€object€was€found€outsideÏthe€cleaners€following€the€robbery.€€€Even€assuming€that€the€exact€nature€of€theÏobject€is€material,€we€believe€that€Ms.€Carterððs€testimony€constitutes€sufficientÏcircumstantial€evidence€to€support€the€juryððs€conclusion€that€Appellant€attacked€herÏwith€a€rock€of€some€kind.€€Thus,€we€find€that,€when€viewed€in€a€light€most€favorableÏto€the€State,€the€foregoing€evidence€is€legally€sufficient€to€sustain€AppellantððsÏconviction€for€aggravated€robbery.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓIII.€€SENTENCINGó óÌÓ  Óà àBoth€parties€allege€that€the€sentence€is€erroneous.€€Specifically,€AppellantÏargues€that€the€length€of€the€sentence€is€excessive,€while€the€State€argues€that€theÍtrial€court€erred€in€failing€to€order€the€sentence€served€consecutive€to€the€otherÏMadison€County€sentence.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.Ï1991).€€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€appealing€party€bears€the€burden€of€showing€the€impropriety€of€theÍsentence€imposed.€€òòState€v.€Gregoryóó,€862€S.W.2d€574,€578€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1993).ÌÌà àWe€note€initially€that,€because€the€record€demonstrates€that€the€trial€courtÏadequately€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€andÏcircumstances,€our€review€of€Appellantððs€sentence€will€be€òòde€novoóó€with€aÏpresumption€of€correctness.ÌÌà àAppellant€was€convicted€of€aggravated€robbery,€a€Class€B€felony.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„402(b).€€As€a€Range€I€standard€offender€convicted€of€aÏClass€B€felony,€Appellantððs€statutory€sentencing€range€was€eight€to€twelve€years.€ÏòòSee€id.óó€ðð€40„35„112(a)(2).€€The€trial€court€found€the€following€applicableÏenhancement€factors: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€felony€resulted€in€death€or€bodily€injury;€andÌÌ(3)€the€felony€was€committed€while€Appellant€was€onÏprobation.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓòòId.óó€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(11),€(13)(C).€€The€trial€court€found€no€applicable€mitigatingÏfactors.€€Based€on€the€foregoing,€the€trial€court€imposed€a€maximum€sentence€ofÏtwelve€years,€ordering€the€sentence€served€concurrent€with€another€MadisonÍCounty€sentence€but€consecutive€to€a€Georgia€sentence.€€We€will€address€theÏsentencing€arguments€of€both€parties€in€turn.ÌÌÌò òÓ  ÓA.€€LENGTH€OF€SENTENCEó óÌÓ  Óà àFirst,€Appellant€argues€that€the€length€of€his€sentence€is€excessive.€€ToÏsupport€this€argument,€Appellant€relies€exclusively€on€the€following€sentencingÏconsiderations:€€ð ð[t]he€sentence€imposed€should€be€no€greater€than€that€deservedÏfor€the€offense€committedðð€and€ð ð[t]he€sentence€imposed€should€be€the€least€severeÏmeasure€necessary€to€achieve€the€purposes€for€which€the€sentence€is€imposed.ðð€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(2),€(4).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€both€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€apply,€the€trial€court€mustÏstart€at€the€minimum€sentence,€enhance€the€sentence€within€the€range€asÍappropriate€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€courtÏso€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 àIn€light€of€three€applicable€and€uncontested€enhancement€factors€coupledÏwith€the€lack€of€any€applicable€mitigating€factors,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€wasÏwithin€its€discretion€in€imposing€a€maximum€sentence€of€twelve€years€and€that€suchÏa€sentence€complies€with€the€sentencing€considerations€set€out€in€Section€40„35„103.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓB.€€CONSECUTIVE€SENTENCINGó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€State€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€order€the€sentenceÏserved€consecutive€to€the€other€Madison€County€aggravated€robbery€sentence.€ÏThe€State€maintains€that€consecutive€sentencing€is€appropriate€both€becauseÏAppellant€is€a€dangerous€offender€as€anticipated€by€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏSection€40„35„115(4)€and€because€Appellant€was€on€probation€at€the€time€of€theÏrobbery€as€provided€for€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€40„35„115(6).ÌÌà àWhen€imposing€sentences€for€multiple€offenses,€the€trial€court€has€theÏdiscretion€to€order€the€sentences€served€concurrently€or€consecutively.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„20„111(a).€€The€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences€is€appropriateÏif€the€defendant€has€been€convicted€of€more€than€one€offense€and€the€trial€courtÏfinds,€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€one€or€more€of€the€following€criteria:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ „ ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓà à(1)€The€defendant€is€a€professional€criminal€who€hasÏknowingly€devoted€himself€to€criminal€acts€as€a€majorÏsource€of€livelihood;€Ìà à(2)€The€defendant€is€an€offender€whose€record€ofÏcriminal€activity€is€extensive;€Ìà à(3)€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€mentally€abnormalÏperson€so€declared€by€a€competent€psychiatrist€whoÏconcludes€as€a€result€of€an€investigation€prior€to€sentencingÏthat€the€defendant's€criminal€conduct€has€beenÏcharacterized€by€a€pattern€of€repetitive€or€compulsiveÏbehavior€with€heedless€indifference€to€consequences;€Ìà à(4)€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€whoseÏbehavior€indicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life,€and€noÏhesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€toÏhuman€life€is€high;€Ìà à(5)€The€defendant€is€convicted€of€two€(2)€or€moreÏstatutory€offenses€involving€sexual€abuse€of€a€minor€withÏconsideration€of€the€aggravating€circumstances€arising€fromÏthe€relationship€between€the€defendant€and€victim€orÏvictims,€the€time€span€of€defendantððs€undetected€sexualÏactivity,€the€nature€and€scope€of€the€sexual€acts€and€theÏextent€of€the€residual,€physical€and€mental€damage€to€theÏvictim€or€victims;ÌÌÌÌà à(6)€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€an€offenseÏcommitted€while€on€probation;€or€Ìà à(7)€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€criminal€contempt.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b).ÌÌà àAt€the€original€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€determined€that€AppellantððsÏsentence€should€run€concurrent€with€his€other€aggravated€robbery€sentence,Ïstating€as€follows:ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓUnder€the€circumstances€of€the€case,€I€donððt€think€thatÏconsecutive€sentences€on€these€two€robberies€areÏappropriate.€€I€am€not€going€to€impose€consecutiveÏsentences.€€I€donððt€think€that€would€be€appropriate,€and€IÏwonððt€go€into€all€the€details€about€that,€but€the€differentÏcrimes€were€not€separated€by€any€apprehension€of€theÏdefendant€or€anything€like€that.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓAt€resentencing,€the€trial€court€emphasized€that€it€was€not€imposing€consecutiveÏsentences€primarily€because€the€two€offenses€occurred€so€close€together€in€time.ò ò€Ïó óEven€though€it€is€undisputed€that€the€trial€court€could€have€imposed€consecutiveÏsentences€pursuant€to€subsection€(4)€or€subsection€(6)€of€Section€40„35„115,€thereÏis€no€requirement€that€it€do€so;€the€Tennessee€General€Assembly€has€determinedÏthat€such€a€decision€rests€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðððð€40„20„111(a),€40„35„115€sentencing€commission€comments.€€GivenÏthat€we€must€presume€the€sentencing€determination€of€the€trial€court€is€correct,€weÍfind€no€abuse€of€that€discretion€even€though€we€might€have€preferred€a€differentÏresult.€€òòSeeóó€òòFletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€at€789.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÔ€ŠÔÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE