ÿWPC[% …U:V % 0Ü–w@r 4² Æ Õ 0 Ý 0Dý 0JA 0T‹ 0^ß 0h= 0r¥ 0| 0†“ 0 1u© 0dU *‚ B¬B)ÉDCò AM5µ‚Ž7`Ŧ%'Ëv~òvÓp D3C# 0@v# AO¶#Æ$ 0DË$ D/% B>%, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ DDD U D U U ÙeÓ€·‚^!3|x(Ð(3+ñ$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€L¬XXdæXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial d% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ «Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òDe…cember€6,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó „Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€appellant€does€not€contest€his€classification€as€a€range€II€offender.Ì VÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€appellant€objected€to€the€introduction€of€six€FloridaÏconvictions€on€the€ground€that€these€convictions€were€either€not€listed€or€inconsistent€with€thoseÏset€forth€in€the€Stateððs€notice€of€enhancement.€€We€note,€however,€that€the€trial€court€agreed€toÏgrant€the€appellant€a€continuance€if€he€wished€to€challenge€the€convictions.€€The€record€is€clearÏthat€the€appellant€waived€the€trial€courtððs€offer€of€a€continuance,€and€accordingly,€waived€any€issueÏarising€from€the€Stateððs€use€of€the€convictions.Ì œÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóOn€the€date€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€appellant€had€spent€approximately€tenÏmonths€in€jail.€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóIn€addition€to€the€appellantððs€probationary€status€in€Bradley€County,€Tennessee,€at€theÏtime€of€the€offense,€the€record€also€reflects€a€prior€probation€violation€in€Broward€County,€Florida,Ïresulting€in€a€six€year€sentence.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  inion Geneva ÒÒ  inion Geneva Ò'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ý›ò òœÙ€€ÙÙ€€ÙßR€"#!A1-j|` e `€€@ÿRß›à@ àÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌà@ àAUGUST€SESSION,€1996ÌÌó óÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9510„CC„00329Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àBLOUNT€COUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€D.€Kelly€Thomas,€Jr.,€JudgeÌò òMICHAEL€STREITZó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Theft€Over€$1000)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌF.€D.€Gibsonà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌAttorney€at€Lawà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ116€E.€Harperà àÌMaryville,€TN€€7804à àà àà àà àMichael€J.€Fahey,€IIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÏà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMichael€L.€FlynnÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPhilip€H.€MortonÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à363€Court€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMaryville,€TN€€37804„5906ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÇÓÓà@ àòòò òOPINIONóóó óÌÌà àThe€appellant,€Michael€Streitz,€was€indicted€by€a€Blount€County€GrandÏJury€for€one€count€of€theft€of€property€over€$1000.€€Subsequently,€a€jury€foundÏthe€appellant€guilty€as€charged,€and€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€appellant€to€sixÏyears€incarceration€as€a€multiple€offender.€€The€appellant€now€challenges€thisÏconviction€for€three€reasons.€€First,€he€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failingÏto€dismiss€the€indictment€for€a€violation€of€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€Rule€8€(a).€€Second,Ïhe€argues€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€a€conviction€for€theft€ofÏproperty€over€$1000.€€Third,€the€appellant€alleges€that€the€court€imposed€anÏexcessive€sentence.ÌÌà àAfter€review€of€the€record€and€the€briefs€submitted€by€both€parties,€weÏconclude€that€the€appellant's€contentions€are€meritless.€€The€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌà@ àò òI.€€Backgroundó óÌÌà àOn€July€16,€1994,€Billy€Beets€parked€his€1988€maroon€GMC€SierraÏpickup€in€front€of€his€residence€in€Alcoa,€Tennessee.€€Beets€inadvertently€left€hisÏcar€keys€in€the€ignition€and€the€truck€doors€unlocked.€€At€some€point€after€11:00Ïp.m.,€the€truck€was€stolen€from€Beets'€property.ÌÌà àDuring€the€early€morning€hours€of€July€17,€1994,€Officer€Sharon€BordenÏof€the€Maryville€Police€Department€"received€a€call€regarding€a€possibleÏintoxicated€driver€headed€into€town€on€411€South."€€The€driver€"had€been€at€theÏSmokehouse€Restaurant€and€left€without€paying€for€the€meal."€€Officer€BordenÏreceived€a€description€of€the€vehicle€and€the€license€plate€number.€€ÌÌ€à àShortly€thereafter,€Officer€Borden€located€the€vehicle€and€confirmed€theÏregistration€number.€€She€observed€the€vehicle€for€only€a€few€seconds€when€theÏvehicle€went€through€a€raised€median,€almost€causing€an€accident.€€When€theÏdriver€regained€control,€Officer€Borden€turned€on€her€blue€lights,€and€the€driverÏstopped€the€truck.€€When€the€driver€exited€the€vehicle,€Officer€Borden€observedÏthat€the€driver€appeared€"highly€intoxicated."€€Officer€Borden€asked€the€driver€hisÏname€and€he€replied€"Michael€Greenwood."€€The€driver€admitted€that€he€did€notÏhave€any€type€of€identification€with€him.€€Later,€at€the€police€station,€OfficerÏBorden€learned€that€Michael€Streitz€and€not€"Michael€Greenwood"€was€theÏdriver's€true€identity.€€At€this€time,€the€appellant€was€charged€with€DUI.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€told€Officer€Borden€that€the€truck€belonged€to€his€"boss."€ÏThe€Officer€"ran€the€tag"€and€determined€that€Beets€was€the€owner.€€BeetsÏtestified€that€the€appellant€did€not€have€his€consent€to€operate€his€vehicle€andÏthat,€on€the€day€of€the€theft,€the€truck€had€a€value€of€$8000.€€The€appellant€wasÍthen€charged€with€theft€over€$1000.€€At€trial,€Beets€stated€that€the€appellant€laterÏcontacted€him€and€apologized€for€taking€the€vehicle.€€However,€the€appellantÏnever€communicated€an€intent€to€return€the€truck,€nor€was€he€able€to€explainÏwhy€he€took€the€truck.€€Rather,€he€stated€that€he€had€been€drinking€heavily€andÏtaking€pills.€€Other€than€the€sixty€miles€that€the€truck€had€been€driven,€BeetsÏobserved€no€other€damage€to€the€truck.€€The€appellant's€clothes€were€found€inÏthe€truck€bed.ÌÌà àIn€September€1994,€the€appellant€pled€guilty€to€DUI€in€General€SessionsÏCourt.€€In€December€1994,€the€Blount€County€Grand€Jury€indicted€the€appellantÏfor€the€theft€offense.€€A€jury€later€found€him€guilty€of€theft€of€property€over€$1000.€ÏHe€now€appeals€the€theft€conviction.ÌÌÌà@ àò òII.€€Joinder€of€Offensesó óÌÌà àThe€appellant€first€contends€that€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€8(a)€mandated€theÏjoinder€of€the€DUI€and€theft€charges,€because€both€offenses€resulted€from€theÏDUI€stop.€€Consequently,€he€argues,€the€theft€indictment€should€be€dismissed,Ïbecause€he€pled€guilty€to€the€DUI€offense.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€pled€guilty€to€DUI€in€the€general€sessions€court.€€ProbableÍcause€was€found€for€the€theft€charge,€and€the€appellant's€case€was€bound€overÏto€the€grand€jury.€€Approximately€three€months€later,€the€Blount€County€GrandÏJury€returned€an€indictment€charging€the€€appellant€with€theft€over€$1000.€€RuleÏ8(a)€provides,€in€part€relevant€to€this€issue:ÌÓÓà8 àTwo€or€more€offenses€shall€be€joined€in€the€same€indictment,Ïpresentment€or€information€with€each€offense€stated€in€a€separateÏcount€.€.€.€if€the€offenses€are€based€upon€the€same€conduct€or€ariseÏfrom€the€same€criminal€episode€and€if€such€offenses€are€known€byÏthe€appropriate€prosecuting€official€at€the€time€of€the€return€of€theÏindictment(s),€presentment(s),€or€information(s)€and€if€òòthey€areÏwithin€jurisdiction€of€a€single€courtóó.€.€.€.ÌÌÓÓ(Emphasis€added).€€In€òòState€v.€Pickettóó,€No.€01C01„9301„CC„00026€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€at€Nashville,€Dec.€2,€1993),€this€court€stated:€"Rule€8(a)€clearly€appliesÏprocedurally€only€to€two€or€more€offenses€that€are€prosecuted€by€indictment,Ïpresentment,€or€criminal€information,€and€not€to€offenses€triable€before€aÏmagistrate€of€a€municipal€court€or€general€sessions€court."€€Accordingly,€thisÏcourt€held€that€"Rule€8(a)€„€Mandatory€Joinder,€does€not€apply€to€criminalÏproceedings€before€the€general€sessions€court."€€òòIdóó.€€òòSee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Curtisóó,ÏNo.€01C01„9002„CC„00049€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Oct.€18,€1990).€ÏSince€the€appellant's€DUI€charge€was€disposed€of€in€the€general€sessionsÏcourt,€leaving€only€one€indictable€offense,€the€theft€charge,€this€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.€€Moreover,€adoption€of€the€appellant's€argument€would€produce€anÏabsurd€result€and€clearly€not€one€contemplated€by€Rule€8(a).€€Finally,€theÏpurpose€of€the€rule€is€to€prevent€a€prosecutor€from€"holding€back,"€for€additionalÍprosecution,€offenses€based€upon€the€same€conduct€or€arising€from€the€sameÏcriminal€episode€if€such€offenses€are€known€òòat€the€time€the€indictment€isÏreturnedóó.€€This€argument€is€factually€inapplicable€to€the€case€before€us.ÌÌÌà@ àò òIII.€€Sufficiency€of€the€Evidenceó óÌÌà àIn€his€next€issue,€the€appellant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€theÏconvicting€evidence.€€Specifically,€he€contends€that€the€evidence€fails€toÏestablish€the€requisite€"intent€to€deprive€the€owner€of€the€property"€to€sustain€aÏconviction€for€theft€of€property€over€$1000.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àA€jury€conviction€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€with€which€aÏdefendant€is€initially€cloaked€and€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt,€so€that€on€appealÏa€convicted€defendant€has€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€the€evidence€isÏinsufficient.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€In€determiningÏthe€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€does€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€theÏevidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€On€appeal,Ïthe€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€allÏreasonable€or€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.ÏHarrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992).€€It€is€the€appellate€court's€duty€to€affirmÏthe€conviction€if€the€evidence,€viewed€under€these€standards,€was€sufficient€forÍany€rational€trier€of€fact€to€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€offenses€Ìbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€317,€99€S.Ct.Ï2781,€2789€(1979);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994);€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€13(e).€€òòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13Ï(e).€€This€rule€is€applicable€to€findings€of€guilt€predicated€upon€direct€evidence,Ïcircumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€both€direct€and€circumstantialÏevidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).ÌÌà àIn€order€to€obtain€a€conviction€in€a€prosecution€for€theft€of€property€overÏ$1000,€the€State€must€show,€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€that€"a€person€.€.€.€,Ïwith€intent€to€deprive€the€owner€of€property,€.€.€.€knowingly€obtains€or€exercisesÏcontrol€over€the€property€without€the€owner's€effective€consent."€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„14„103€(1991€Repl.).€€€The€testimony€at€trial€revealed€that€theÏappellant€was€apprehended€in€Maryville€driving€Beets'€pickup€truck.€€€Beets'Ïlives€in€Alcoa.€€Articles€of€clothing,€identified€as€belonging€to€the€appellant,€wereÏfound€in€the€truck.€€Beets'€testified€that€he€did€not€give€the€appellant€his€consentÏto€remove€the€truck€from€his€property.€€Although€the€appellant€did€apologize€toÏBeets,€he€did€not€offer€an€explanation€as€to€why€he€took€the€truck,€and€he€neverÏmentioned€any€intent€to€return€the€truck.€€Finally,€Beets€testified€that€the€truckÏhad€a€value€of€$8000.€€Upon€this€evidence,€a€rational€jury€could€and€did€find€theÏappellant€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€of€theft€of€property€over€$1000.€ÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌà@ àò òIV.ó ó€€ò òLength€of€Sentenceó óÌÌà àIn€his€final€issue,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏimposing€€a€sentence€of€six€years€incarceration.× ƒ$ ××  ×€€Specifically,€the€appellantÏargues€that€the€trial€court,€in€applying€enhancement€factors,€did€not€follow€theÏprinciples€of€the€Sentencing€Act.€€We€conclude€otherwise.ÌÌÌà àThe€evidence€presented€at€the€sentencing€hearing€revealed€that€theÏappellantððs€record€includes€multiple€felony€and€misdemeanor€convictions€inÏFlorida€and€Tennessee.× ƒ% ××  ×€€The€appellant€verified€that€he€has€"at€least€four€or€fiveÏfelony€convictions."€€Additionally,€the€current€offense€was€committed€while€theÏappellant€was€on€probation€for€a€Bradley€County€conviction€for€theft€of€propertyÏover€$1000.€€The€appellant,€despite€his€prior€criminal€history,€stated€at€theÍhearing€that€he€felt€he€had€served€enough€time€for€the€current€offense.× ƒ& ××  ×€€He€alsoÏsummarized€the€improvement€he€has€made€while€incarcerated,€includingÏearning€work€release€status€and€helping€to€collect€litter€from€the€banks€of€theÏTennessee€River.€€The€appellant€also€stated€that€Billy€Beets,€the€victim€of€theÏcrime,€offered€him€his€old€job€back€if€he€were€released.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€appellant€was€a€€"multiple€offender,€that€youÏhave€at€least€two€previous€felony€convictions."€€òòSeeóó€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„106€(1990).€€€Because€he€was€convicted€of€a€class€D€felony,€the€appellant€wasÏeligible€for€a€sentence€"not€less€than€four€years€nor€more€than€eight€years."€€òòSeeóó€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(b)(4).€€The€court€imposed€a€sentence€of€six€yearsÏconfinement€in€the€Department€of€Correction.ÌÌà àIn€arriving€at€its€sentencing€determination,€the€trial€court€applied€twoÏenhancement€factors:€€"the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminalÏconvictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€theÏappropriate€range,"€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1)(1994€Supp.),€and€"theÏfelony€was€committed€while€on€felony€probation,"€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„114(13)(B).€€The€court€also€applied€one€mitigating€factor,€"the€defendant'sÏconduct€neither€caused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injury."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Íðð€40„35„113(1)€(1990).€€Moreover,€in€denying€an€alternative€sentence,€the€courtÏfound€€that€confinement€is€necessary€to€restrain€a€defendant€with€a€long€historyÏof€criminal€conduct,€and€measures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€have€beenÏrecently€applied€unsuccessfully€to€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103€(1)(A),€„103(1)(C)€(1990).€€The€court€considered€the€communityÏcorrections€program,€but€found€that,€since€"there's€been€a€flight;€there's€a€longÏhistory€of€the€same€kind€of€conduct;€there's€his€recent€conviction€in€BradleyÏCounty,€and€now€this€one,"€this€alternative€was€unavailable.€€Finally,€the€courtÏremarked€that€the€appellant€could€have€been€sentenced€as€a€persistentÏoffender,€based€upon€his€convictions€for€five€or€more€felonies.€€€€€ÌÌà àReview,€by€this€court,€of€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€aÏsentence€is€òòde€novoóó€with€a€presumption€that€the€determination€made€by€the€trialÏcourt€is€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1990).€€This€presumptionÏonly€applies,€however,€if€the€record€demonstrates€that€the€trial€court€properlyÏconsidered€relevant€sentencing€principles.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,Ï169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€the€case€before€us,€the€trial€court€considered€relevantÏsentencing€principles.€€€Accordingly,€we€apply€the€presumption.ÌÌà àIn€making€our€review,€this€court€must€consider€the€evidence€heard€at€theÏsentencing€hearing,€the€presentence€report,€the€arguments€of€counsel,€theÏnature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense,€any€mitigating€and€enhancementÍfactors,€the€defendant's€statements,€and€the€defendant's€potential€forÏrehabilitation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102,€„103(5),€„210(b)€(1990);€€òòsee€alsoóó€ÏòòState€v.€Byrdóó,€861€S.W.2d€377,€379€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(citing€òòAshbyóó,€823ÏS.W.2d€at€168).€€The€burden€is€on€the€appellant€to€show€that€the€sentenceÏimposed€was€improper.€€Sentencing€Commission€Comments,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€40„35„401(d).ÌÌà àUpon€òòde€novoóó€review,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€appropriatelyÏapplied€enhancement€factors€(1)€and€13(B)€and€mitigating€factor€(1).€€We€wouldÏadditionally€apply€enhancement€factor€(8),€"the€defendant€has€a€previous€historyÏof€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€inÏa€community."× ƒ' ××  ×€€Thus,€three€enhancement€factors€are€present,€in€addition€to€oneÏmitigating€factor.€In€determining€the€appropriate€sentence€for€a€felonyÏconviction,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c)(1990)€instructs€the€sentencingÏcourt€that€"[t]he€presumptive€sentence€shall€be€the€minimum€sentence€in€theÏrange€if€there€are€no€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors."€€If€there€areÏenhancement€and€mitigating€factors,€the€court€must€start€at€the€minimumÏsentence€in€the€range,€then€enhance€the€sentence€in€accordance€with€theÏenhancement€factors,€then€reduce€the€sentence€in€accordance€with€theÍmitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€There€is€no€mathematicalÏprocess€of€adding€the€sum€total€of€enhancement€factors€present€thenÏsubtracting€from€this€figure€the€mitigating€factors€present€for€a€net€number€ofÏyears.€€Rather,€"the€weight€to€be€afforded€mitigating€and€enhancement€factorsÏderives€from€balancing€relative€degrees€of€culpability€within€the€totality€of€theÏcircumstances€of€the€case€involved."€€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€238Ï(Tenn.€1986).€€€€Applying€the€presumption€of€correctness€to€the€trial€court'sÏdetermination,€we€conclude€that€a€sentence€of€six€years€is€justified€in€theÏpresent€case.€€Accordingly,€the€appellant€has€failed€to€show€€that€the€sentenceÏimposed€by€the€trial€court€is€improper.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òV.€€Conclusionó óÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record€and€the€briefs€of€both€parties,€we€concludeÏthat€there€is€no€evidence€that€preponderates€against€the€findings€of€the€trialÏcourt.€€Moreover,€we€find€no€error€of€law€mandating€reversal€of€the€trial€court'sÏjudgment.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌJOE€B.€JONES,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€Judge