ÿWPC( F%Ü÷®dgELmàv®¹x›#cìN{¬öPý½ˆ¦ÙLéDBŸ©5s xZÉȈ#„E’‹ôŽþÊžv‘¾9< Ÿõ"ɧ‹Ô*ÞÏ×ÊHCÃóþ_iIuJuÿá É<ðí]lkÝ,¦ø*â>òÞ\”"óŒ½}Ë“Ú)U:G•þ‡Ž¸°Ad{´T³µáˆ¸‘¦÷’Ö½?H¹15óCá¯Qlh´ê|Ï{ÖÛÛSŠ”\)þÚR¦´deê…ñ× ¯Y³t~$”tã6Þ©£ lgeð£-ƒ3ï»p$3Û“ûI“ CR´G],AæÈû sœË°»D™Z@oË- ¢ì¯º%Å+¿­D »VýYVmìœW¥„hpÖ˜æDwÙnähâ°‡ŸŽqÞ0Ö:v?%íUsOe.üÇX{d“òj1ûS½üñXŠaîÇ3þm{n9†‹ÕE¿BÞv„â*¼GZËð5Fk\šøšxÖ™šÚ†‰ûÔŸèôç¾Ñ¦Çµªr_'OJ†¢,ºÏV³oe[ÉøäïÜìzdðÞª«Ù$I¾«¶b'(q@ÇžÙ¹sHS¥Èg&ûŽ£$Ùh¹› M6†éø7Ôòh\JQ¬d#!xUN™ %ç 0(íUD: w O UC:Y 4“ § ¶ N¾ ^ À Ì mÎ lå ßQ 0ê0 0DE^X£U:ûûU,5XaU:¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹ Bó 0D D5TTTTT AQ‰ÆÚ 0D  0Dä˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡, øð AZ"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegulartpO'€ô3|xB›S'L ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ GraingerreweighMencerCocke Goffrecusedrecusing I]fEasont]hey t]he n]ow I]nsponte suaMiddlebrooksWilkerson w]eBigbeeBlockburgerW]hereDuchacT]hreepresentenceByrgeC]onsecutiveW]hetherFaisonC]ollectivedelictsCallananaffd ÕÝ ƒx$ÝÑT@R[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ@Ü°ÑÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€Xz¤XXXÔÔ€ô‘Ë õXXz¤ÔòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Donald€Ray€Middlebrooksóó,€995€S.W.2d€550€(Tenn.€1999):Ð `  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à[I]n€addition€to€any€action€taken€by€the€appellate€courts,€theÏprofessional€misconduct€of€prosecutors€is€more€efficiently€andÏauthoritatively€addressed€at€the€trial€level€where€courts€are€in€aÏbetter€position€to€view€the€conduct,€assess€its€impact,€and€chooseÏthe€appropriate€action€to€ensure€a€fair€trial.€€For€example,€the€trialÏjudge€can€order€the€cessation€of€offending€statements€and€can€giveÏcurative€jury€instructions.€€In€egregious€cases,€the€trial€judge€mayÏsua€sponte€stop€a€prosecutor's€prejudicial€argument.€€In€addition,€theÏtrial€courts€may€consider€direct€sanctions€to€deter€prosecutorialÏmisconduct,€including€contempt€citations,€fines,€andÏrecommendations€for€disciplinary€action€to€the€Board€of€ProfessionalÏResponsibility.€€We€encourage€the€trial€courts€to€consider€theseÏsanctions€where€the€misconduct€is€flagrant.(š(2x$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑÜ°ÑÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ;Ý ƒx$ÝÑT@R[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ@Ü°ÑÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€Xz¤XXXÔÔ€ô‘Ë õXXz¤ÔThe€first€four€criteria€are€found€in€òòGrayóó.€€A€fifth€category€in€òòGrayóó,€based€on€a€specificÐ `  Ðnumber€of€prior€felony€convictions,€may€enhance€the€sentence€range€but€is€no€longer€a€listedÏcriterion.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments. NÝ ƒb¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€Xz¤XXXÔÔ Ad ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Lñ¤MXXz¤ÔFILEDÔ€Xz¤XMLñ¤ÔÐ  ÐÌò òÔ€B×XXz¤ÔOctober€19,€1999Ð ŒŒ ÐÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular, øð AZArial  NÝ ƒb¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€Xz¤XXXÔÔ Ad ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Lñ¤MXXz¤ÔFILEDÔ€Xz¤XMLñ¤ÔÐ  ÐÌò òÔ€B×XXz¤ÔOctober€19,€1999Ð ŒŒ ÐÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝYYYY)ÿÿ!dxdxabZc[Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ` °ÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ‘°ÑÔ€Xz¤XXXÔÑ8€·|XdìdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤ÔÓÓññßn€`[8($hxý `€€Ex] ôtt  °• ˜„nßññññÔ_Ôßw€`[A1-jzý `€€@ÿEx] ôtt  °• ˜„wßÔ_Ôññà@g g ÚàòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóˆÐ `  Ðà@*ÚàòòAT€KNOXVILLEóóˆà ô àà L àÐ , Ì Ðà@(ÚàJULY€1999€SESSIONˆÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à ” àà ì à*à D àNo.€03C01„9811„CC„00384Ð \ü  Ðà Œ àAppellee,à < àà ” àà ì à*à D àCOCKE€COUNTYÐ (È  ÐVS.à Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà0 ì à*à D àHon.€Ben€W.€Hooper,€II,€JudgeÐô” ì€%ì€% ÐJIMMY€THORNTONÔ#†Xz¤XXXz¤#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ô,à ” àà0 ì à*à D à(Sale€of€Cocaine,€Conspiracy€to€Deliver)ÐÀ`ì€%ì€% Ðà Œ àAppellant.à < àà ” àà ì à*Ð Œ, ÐÌÓÓÌÌòòFor€Appellantóó:à < àà ” àà ì àà D àòòFor€Appelleeóó:Ð ð ÐÌHerbert€S.€Ô_ÔMoncierÔ_Ôà < àà ” àà ì àà D àPaul€G.€Summers€Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤E#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤ÔÐ ¼ \ Ðand€David€Ô_ÔWiglerÔ_Ô,€Attorneysà ì àà D àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÔ#†Xz¤XXXz¤8#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤ÔÐ ¢!B ÐSuite€775,€Nations€Bank€CenterÌ550€Main€Avenueà0 < àà0”<€%<€%àà0씀%”€%àà0Dì€%ì€%àEllen€H.€PollackÔ#†Xz¤XXXz¤ý#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤ÔÐn#D€%D€% ÐKnoxville,€TN€€37902à ” àà ì àà D àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÔ#†Xz¤XXXz¤Ú#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤ÔÐ T$ô Ð(on€appeal)€à0 ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÔ#†Xz¤XXXz¤ #ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤ÔÐ:%Úä €%ä €% Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÔ#†Xz¤XXXz¤E #ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤ÔÐ  &À  ÐWilliam€Ô_ÔLeibrockÔ_Ô,€Attorney€à ì àà D àÔ#†Xz¤XXXz¤ #ÔNashville,€TN€€37243Ô‡Xz¤XXXz¤ÔÐ '¦! Ð339€East€Main€Street€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌNewport,€TN€€37821à0 ” àà0씀%”€%àà0Dì€%ì€%àÔ#†Xz¤XXXz¤Â #ÔCharles€Ô_ÔAtchleyÔ_Ô,€Jr.Ô‡Xz¤XXXz¤ÔÐÒ(r#D€%D€% Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà0 ì àà0Dì€%ì€%àAssistant€District€AttorneyÔ#†Xz¤XXXz¤È #ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ôи)X $D€%D€% Ðand€à0 Œ àà0ä Œ €%Œ €%àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àÔ#†Xz¤XXXz¤” #ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ô125€Court€Avenue,€Suite€301„EÔ#†Xz¤XXXz¤I#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤ÔО*>!%ä €%ä €% Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” à€€€€€€€€€à ì àà D àÔ#†Xz¤XXXz¤¨#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤ÔÔ_ÔSeviervilleÔ_Ô,€TN€€37862Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤Z#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤ÔÐ „+$"& ÐRichard€Ô_ÔTalleyÔ_Ô,€Attorney€€à ” àà ì àà D àà œ àà ô àÔ#†Xz¤XXXz¤Ò#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤ÔÐ j, #' Ð145€East€Main€StreetÌÔ_ÔDandridgeÔ_Ô,€TN€€37725à ” àà ì àà D àà œ àà ô àà L àÔ#†Xz¤XXXz¤Ÿ#ÔÐ 6.Ö$) Ð(at€trial)à ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤ÔÐ /¼%* Ðà0 Œ àÔ#†Xz¤XXXz¤î#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ôà ä àà < àÔ#†Xz¤XXXz¤Q#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ôà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àÐ Œ €%Œ €% ÐÔ#†Xz¤XXXz¤«#Ôà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà0 ì àà0Dì€%ì€%àÐ D€%D€% ÐÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ôà Œ àà ä àÔ#†Xz¤XXXz¤›#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ôà < àà ” àà ì àà0 D àÐ D€%D€% ÐÔ#†Xz¤XXXz¤õ#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ôà Œ àÔ#†Xz¤XXXz¤~#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ôà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àÔ#†Xz¤XXXz¤Ì#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤ÔÌOPINION€FILED:__________________________ÌÌÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÐ  Ê:j17  ÐÔ_ÔÓÓò òà@33-ÚàòòOPINIONóóó óˆÐ `  ÐÔ#†Xz¤XXXz¤M#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ôà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant,€Jimmy€Thornton,€was€convicted€of€two€counts€of€saleÐ 8 Ø Ðof€cocaine€and€two€counts€of€conspiracy€to€sell€cocaine.€€The€trial€court€imposed€aÏRange€II€sentence€of€twenty€years€on€each€count.€€Three€of€the€four€sentences€areÏto€be€served€consecutively;€the€effective€sentence€is,€therefore,€sixty€years.€€FinesÏtotaled€$800,000.Ì€€Ìà Œ àà ä àIn€this€appeal€of€right,€the€defendant€presents€the€following€issues€forÏreview:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(I)€€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€theÏdefendant's€convictions€for€conspiracy€to€sell€cocaineÔ#†Xz¤XXXz¤h#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ô;Ð~ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(II)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€theÏdefendant's€motion€for€a€mistrial€based€on€improperÏargument€made€by€the€prosecuting€attorney;Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà Œ àà ä à(III)€€whether€the€trial€judge€should€have€recused;Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤3#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤ÔÐ â‚ ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(IV)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€theÏdefendant's€motion€challenging€the€jury€venireÔ#†Xz¤XXXz¤ª#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ô;Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤ƒ#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤ÔД"4ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(V)€€whether€the€defendant€is€entitled€to€a€new€trial€basedÏon€the€rule€against€multiplicity;Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤Æ#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤ÔÐF%æä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(VI)€€whether€the€defendant€has€been€subjected€toÏdouble€jeopardy€and€due€process€violationsÔ#†Xz¤XXXz¤¥#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ô;Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤ƒ#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤ÔÐø'˜"ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(VII)€€whether€the€trial€court€erroneously€instructed€theÏjury€that€the€defendant€could€be€found€guilty€if€he€actedÏrecklessly;Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤Æ#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤ÔÐ+0"&ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(VIII)Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤Ç#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ô€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€instructing€the€juryÐ \-ü#( Ðon€the€range€of€punishmentÔ#†Xz¤XXXz¤O#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ô;€andÐB.â$)ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(IX)€€whether€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentencesÏwas€improperÔ#†Xz¤XXXz¤÷#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ô.€€Ðô0”',ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓpÓà Œ àÌà Œ àà ä àBecause€we€find€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€instructions€to€the€jury,Ïwe€reverse€the€convictions€and€remand€for€a€new€trial.ÓÓÔ#†Xz¤XXXz¤À #ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤ÔÐ X6ø,2 Ðà Œ àÌÓ¿!ÓÐ $8Ä.4 Ðà Œ àà ä àOn€January€5,€1995,€Tom€Davidson,€who€was€incarcerated€in€theÏGrainger€County€jail,€made€a€telephone€call€to€the€defendant€to€arrange€for€theÏpurchase€of€illegal€drugs.€€Davidson€had€previously€contacted€Mike€Hannan,€anÏofficer€with€the€Tennessee€Highway€Patrol€Criminal€Investigation€Division,€andÏoffered€to€assist€in€making€purchases€of€illegal€drugs€in€Cocke€County.€€DavidsonÏwished€to€assist€law€enforcement€officials€in€an€investigation€of€the€defendant€inÏorder€to€get€"out€of€the€Grainger€County€Jail."€€He€was€also€upset€because€theÏdefendant€had€married€his€ex„wife.Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤4!#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ô€€€One€day€after€his€first€call,€Davidson€made€aÐ ô”  Ðsecond€call€to€the€defendant,€who€arranged€for€his€son,€Mark€Thornton,€to€meet€withÏDavidson€for€a€cocaine€transaction.€€The€price€for€one€ounce€(27.3€grams)€was€setÏbetween€$1,100€to€$1,200.€€Each€of€the€two€telephone€calls€was€recorded.€€On€theÏfollowing€day,€Davidson€and€an€undercover€agent,€Tom€Conner,€Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤$#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ôpurchased€from€theÐ $Ä Ðdefendantððs€son€27.4€grams€of€cocaine€for€$1,300.€€€€Ìà Œ àà ä àÌà Œ àà ä àOn€January€10,€1995,€Davidson€and€Agent€Conner€called€theÏdefendant€and€arranged€a€second€cocaine€purchase.€€The€defendant€directed€thatÏthe€two€men€meet€his€son,€Mark,€at€the€Wal„Mart€parking€lot€in€Newport€andÏdescribed€the€car€that€his€son€would€be€driving.€€As€arranged,€Mark€ThorntonÏdelivered€53.4€grams€of€cocaine€to€Conner€and€Davidson€for€the€price€of€$2,600.Ìà Œ àà ä àÌà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant,€who€has€been€blind€since€1981,€was€indicted€by€theÏCocke€County€Grand€Jury€for€two€counts€of€sale,€two€counts€of€delivery,€and€twoÏcounts€of€conspiracy€to€sell€and€deliver€cocaine.€€After€the€trial€judge€rejected€a€pleaÏagreement€reached€by€the€state€and€the€defendant's€trial€counsel,€the€caseÏproceeded€to€trial.€The€defendant€was€found€guilty€of€all€six€offenses.€€Ìà Œ àà ä àÌà Œ àà ä àThe€trial€court,€which€properly€concluded€that€the€two€convictions€forÐ 8¸.4 Ðsale€of€cocaine€merged€with€the€two€convictions€for€delivery€of€cocaine,€sentencedÏthe€defendant€to€twenty€years€for€each€of€the€four€remaining€counts.€€Because€threeÏof€the€counts€were€ordered€to€be€served€consecutively,€the€effective€sentence€wasÏsixty€years.€ÌÌÓ  ÓIÌÓ  Óà Œ àà ä àInitially,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€toÏsustain€his€conviction€for€conspiracy.€€Specifically,€he€claims€that€the€state€failed€toÏprove€that€he€personally€delivered€and€sold€cocaine€as€set€forth€in€the€indictment.€ÏHe€reasons€that€there€was€no€evidence€of€an€overt€act,€as€required€by€law€to€supportÏthe€convictions.€€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àÔ#†Xz¤XXXz¤×%#ÔOn€appeal,€of€course,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimateÐ ð Ðview€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€might€be€drawn€therefrom.€ÏòòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€The€credibility€of€theÐ ˆ"( Ðwitnesses,€the€weight€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€the€reconciliation€of€conflictsÏin€the€proof€are€matters€entrusted€to€the€jury€as€trier€of€fact.€€òòByrge€v.€Stateóó,€575Ð  &À  ÐS.W.2d€292,€295€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€When€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€isÏchallenged,€the€relevant€question€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€lightÏmost€favorable€to€the€state,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2dÐ P-ð#( Ð405,€410€(Tenn.€1983);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€Ô‡Xz¤XXXz¤ÔÐ /¼%* ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€applicable€statutes€provide€as€follows:ÌÓÓà Œ àà ä àIt€is€an€offense€for€a€defendant€to€knowingly:Ìà Œ àà ä à(1)€Manufacture€a€controlled€substance;Ìà Œ àà ä à(2)€Deliver€a€controlled€substance;Ìà Œ àà ä à(3)€Sell€a€controlled€substance;€orÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(4)€€Possess€a€controlled€substance€with€intent€toÏmanufacture,€deliver€or€sell€such€controlled€substance.Ðþ8ž/5ä Ð ä Ð  Їà@--.ÚàÓû0Ó*€*€*ˆÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àThe€offense€of€conspiracy€is€committed€if€two€(2)€or€moreÏpeople,€each€having€the€culpable€mental€state€requiredÏfor€the€offense€which€is€the€object€of€the€conspiracy€andÏeach€acting€for€the€purpose€of€promoting€or€facilitatingÏcommission€of€an€offense,€agree€that€one€(1)€or€more€ofÏthem€will€engage€in€conduct€which€constitutes€suchÏoffense.€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓå2ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„417;Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤‚0#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ô€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„103(a).€€The€commissionÐ \ü  Ðof€an€overt€act€in€furtherance€of€the€conspiracy€is€an€essential€element€of€theÏoffense.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€òòóóðð€39„12„103(Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤ß4#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ôd);€òòState€v.€Perkinsonóó,€867€S.W.2d€1€(Tenn.Ð ô”  ÐCrim.€App.€1992).ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€contends€that€because€he€is€blind,€no€rational€trier€ofÏfact€could€have€found€that€he€could€deliver€cocaine.€€The€state€disagrees.€ÌÌà Œ àà ä à'''Deliver'€or€'delivery'€means€the€actual,€constructive,€or€attemptedÏtransfer€from€one€person€to€another€of€a€controlled€substance,€whether€or€not€thereÏis€an€agency€relationship."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„402(6).€€Because€theÏdefendant€is€blind,€he€might€require€assistance€in€an€illegal€drug€transaction.€€Here,Ïhowever,€the€evidence€shows€that€the€defendant€orchestrated€both€transactions.€€HeÏarranged€the€subsequent€meetings€between€his€son€and€the€purchasers.€€AlthoughÏthe€defendant€directed€that€his€son€meet€with€Davidson€and€Agent€Conner€toÏexchange€the€cocaine€and€the€money,€there€is€ample€evidence€to€conclude€that,€at€aÏminimum,€a€constructive€delivery€took€place.€€In€our€view,€the€evidence€wasÏsufficient.ÌÌÓ  ÓII€ÌÓû9Óà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€toÏdeclare€a€mistrial€based€on€the€following€statements€made€by€the€prosecutingÐ 8¸.4 Ðattorney€during€closing€argument:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àLadies€and€gentlemen,€when€you€came€in€we€talked€toÏyou€a€little€bit€about€burden€of€proof,€and€the€fact€that€itÏwas€on€me.€€And€that€I€was€going€to€have€to€show€youÏwhat€evidence€that€we€had,€and€he€had€to€assert€noÏdefense€whatsoever€if€we€didn't€prove€our€case.€€OfÏcourse,€if€we€did€come€in€and€show€a€case,€it€wouldÏcertainly€be€to€their€benefit€that€they€show€some€type€ofÏdefense.€€òòI€submit€to€you,€ladies€and€gentlemen,€thereÐ v  Ðhas€not€been€any€defense€asserted€here€whatsoever.€.€.€.ÏThere€is€no€defense,€there€is€nothing€to€itóó.€€òòÐBâ ä Ð ä Ð  ÐóóÌÓ  Ó*€*€*òòÐ ®  ÐÌÓ  Óà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àóóNow€they€made€a€big€deal€about€our€crime€lab,€òòwhich€IððmÐ Ü|  Ðvery€proud€of€our€crime€lab.€€They€do€an€excellent€jobóó.€Ð Âb ÐFirstly,€[defense€counsel]€wants€to€know€why€there€wereÏno€fingerprints€on€that?€€Ladies€and€gentlemen,€that€bagÏof€cocaine€went€from€the€residence€of€Jimmy€Thornton€€€Ï.€.€.€to€Mark€Thornton,€to€Tom€Davidson,€to€Tom€Conner,Ïto€the€TBI€Crime€Lab.€€òòWhy,€thereððs€more€prints€on€thatÐ @à Ðbag€than€this€tableóó.Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤è5#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ô€Ð&Æä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà@ÚÚ0ÚàˆÌà@--.Úà*€*€*ˆÌÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àI'm€always€flattered€when€somebody€like€[the€defendant'sÏtrial€counsel]€says€I€come€in€here€and€beat€up€on€themÏbecause,€quite€frankly,€itððs€just€me.€€òòAnd€I€think€it's€ratherÐ p# Ðridiculous€to€think€that€I'm€going€to€run€over€the€top€of€twoÏhigh€priced,€slick€lawyersóó€.€.€.€.€€Secondly,€[defenseÐ <%Ü Ðcounsel]€wants€to€know€what€happened€to€the€money.€ÏWell,€I'd€like€to€know€where€the€money€is€too.€€I'd€say€it'sÏprobably€everywhere.€€òòI€imagine€Mr.€Thornton€spends€aÐ î'Ž" Ðlot€of€money.€€I€know€heððs€got€two€expensive€lawyersÏthereóó.к)Z $ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓû:Ó(emphasis€added).€€Defense€counsel€objected€only€to€the€prosecuting€attorney'sÏstatement€that€there€were€"more€prints€on€that€bag€than€this€table."òò€€óóThe€failure€toÐ R-ò#( Ðobject€to€the€other€remarks€results€as€a€waiver€on€appeal.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€Ìà Œ àÌà Œ àà ä àIn€general,€closing€argument€is€subject€to€the€trial€court's€discretion.€ÏCounsel€for€both€the€prosecution€and€the€defense€should€be€permitted€wide€latitudeÏin€arguing€their€cases€to€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€809€(Tenn.Ð R6ò,2 Ð1994).€€Arguments€must€be€temperate,€predicated€on€evidence€introduced€duringÐ 8¾.4 Ðthe€trial,€relevant€to€the€issues€being€tried,€and€not€otherwise€improper€under€theÏfacts€or€law.€€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€995€S.W.2d€550€(Tenn.€1999).€€Ð , Ì ÐÌà Œ àà ä àIt€is€never€proper€for€a€prosecuting€attorney€to€comment€upon€aÏdefendant's€decision€not€to€testify.€€òòGriffin€v.€Californiaóó,€380€U.S.€609.€615€S.€Ct.Ð 0 Ð1229€(1995).€€To€do€so€constitutes€misconduct.€€òòId.óó€at€615.€€The€ultimate€test€toÐ \ü  Ðdetermine€if€that€misconduct€is€reversible€error€depends€on€whether€it€had€aÏprejudicial€effect€upon€the€verdict.€€òòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,€€215€Tenn.€338Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤î?#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ô,€385€S.W.2dÐ ô”  Ð758€(1965).€€In€making€that€determination,€courts€must€consider€five€factors:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(1)€€the€conduct€complained€of€in€light€of€the€facts€andÏcircumstances€of€the€case;Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓÝHÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(2)€€the€curative€measures€undertaken;Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(3)€€the€intent€of€the€prosecutor€in€making€the€improperÏremarks;Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓíIÓÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(4)€€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€improper€conduct€andÏany€other€errors€in€the€record;Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓŽJÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(5)€€the€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€case.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐòòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).Ð :%Ú Ðà Œ àà ä àÌà Œ àà ä àIn€our€view,€€the€prosecuting€attorney's€comments€regarding€theÏdefendant's€failure€to€present€a€defense€were€not€improper.€€Taken€in€context,€theÏprosecuting€attorney€was€referring€only€to€the€defendant's€failure€to€refute€the€state'sÏcase,€not€to€the€defendant's€failure€to€testify.€€It€has€long€been€established€that€aÏdistrict€attorney€general€may€argue€that€the€state's€evidence€is€uncontradicted.€€ThisÏargument€does€not€violate€the€rule€prohibiting€comments€on€the€failure€of€theÏdefendant€to€testify€in€support€of€his€defense.€€€òòState€v.€Riceóó,€638€S.W.2d€424Ð š3:*/ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€Furthermore,€the€jury€instructions€correctly€stated€theÏburden€of€proof€and€lessened€any€impact€the€prosecuting€attorney's€statements€mayÏhave€had.€€Moreover,€the€tape€recorded€evidence€against€the€defendant€made€theÐ þ8ž/5 Ðcase€particularly€strong.€òòóó€€Thus,€even€if€the€statements€were€improper,€application€of€Ð `  Ðthe€factors€set€forth€in€òòJudgeóó€would€lead€us€to€the€conclusion€that€the€prosecutor'sÐ , Ì Ðstatements€did€not€have€a€prejudicial€affect€upon€the€verdict.Ìà Œ àÌà Œ àà ä àThe€comments€regarding€the€crime€laboratory,€to€which€no€objectionÏwas€made,€were€inappropriate.€€It€is€a€violation€of€the€Code€of€ProfessionalÏResponsibility,€DR€7„106(C)(4)€for€lawyers€engaged€in€trial€to€express€their€personalÏopinion€about€any€issue€involved€in€the€justice€of€the€cause€they€represent.€€òòSeeóóÐ ô”  ÐòòState€v.€Hallóó,€976€S.W.2d€121€(Tenn.€1998).€€Certainly,€a€lawyer€should€not€assertÐ À` Ðhis€or€her€personal€opinion€as€to€the€credibility€of€a€witness,€or€as€to€the€accused'sÏguilt€or€innocence.€€òòState€v.€Henleyóó,€774€S.W.2d€908,€911€(Tenn.€1989).Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤OH#Ô€€Whether€aÐ Xø Ðstatement€qualifies€as€misconduct€often€depends€upon€the€specific€terminologyÏused.€€òòUnited€States€v.€Stulgaóó,€584€F.2d€142,€147€(6òòthóó€Cir.€1978)€(stating€"The€use€ofÐ ð Ðthe€words€'submit'€are€not€the€equivalent€of€expressing€an€opinion.")òòóó.€€In€this€case,Ð ¼ \ Ðthe€prosecuting€attorney€essentially€vouched€for€the€effectiveness€of€the€crime€lab,Ïstating€that€he€was€"very€proud€of€our€crime€lab."€€He€further€stated€that€"[t]hey€do€anÏexcellent€job."€€There€were€no€prefatory€words,€such€as€"€submit,"€or€qualifyingÏterms,€such€as€"In€my€view."€€Rather,€the€statement€that€the€crime€lab€does€"anÏexcellent€job,"€qualified€as€a€personal€opinion€made€before€the€jury€and€inÏcontravention€of€the€rule.€€€The€statements€would€not,€however,€constitute€reversibleÏerror€under€the€òòJudgeóó€test.€€Likewise,€the€statement€of€opinion€by€the€prosecutorÐ P-ð#( Ðthat€"thereððs€more€prints€on€that€bag€than€this€table"€was€harmless€in€the€context€ofÏthe€entire€record€of€the€trial.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€prosecutor's€statements€about€the€defendantððs€ability€to€pay€"twoÏhigh€priced,€slick€lawyers"€were€improper.€€Generally,€arguments€calling€attention€toÏa€defendant's€wealth€or€means,€ability€to€retain€counsel,€to€pay€counsel€large€fees,Ð 8¸.4 Ðor€to€finance€his€or€her€own€defense,€are€highly€prejudicial.€€òòState€v.€Norrisóó,€874Ð `  ÐS.W.2d€590€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòGoff€v.€Commonwealthóó,€241€Ky.Ð , Ì Ð428,€44€S.W.2d€306,€308€(1931)€(stating€that€a€"reference€to€.€.€.€the€ability€of€theÏdefendant€to€pay€a€fee€was€improper.€€The€defendant€was€charged€with€murder,€andÏnot€with€being€wealthy,€and€no€reference€should€have€been€made€to€his€station€inÏlife.").€€In€òòNorrisóó,€the€prosecuting€attorney€suggested€that€the€jury€should€not€let€theÐ \ü  Ðdefendant€"buy€his€way€out€of€the€case."€€òòId.óó€at€598.€€Defense€counsel€lodged€anÐ (È  Ðobjection€which€was€overruled€by€the€trial€court.€€In€that€case,€upon€application€of€theÏòòJudgeóó€factors,€this€court€concluded€that€the€objection€should€have€been€sustained,Ð À` Ðbut€that€the€prosecutor's€statement,€while€"improper€and€intemperate,"€was€harmlessÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòId.óó€at€598„99.€€€Had€there€been€a€contemporaneousÐ Xø Ðobjection€to€the€snide€remarks€about€defense€counsel,€the€trial€court€would€haveÏlikely€admonished€the€prosecutor€and€provided€curative€instructions€to€the€jury.€€But,Ïsuch€personal€references€usually€tend€to€discredit,€rather€than€serve,€the€cause€ofÏthe€state.€€€By€application€of€the€òòJudgeóó€factors,€particularly€the€relative€strength€ofÐ ˆ"( Ðthe€stateððs€case,€we€must€conclude€that€the€improper€reference€to€defense€counselÏmore€than€likely€did€not€affect€the€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€the€defendant.Ô‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ô€€TheÐ  &À  Ðfollowing€language€from€òòNorrisóó€cautions€attorneys€about€the€impropriety€of€suchÐ ì'Œ" Ðcommentary:Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤ê^#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤ÔÐ ¸)X $ ÐÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àBy€not€reversing€this€conviction€for€this€improperÏargument,€the€court€is€concerned€that€lawyers€willÏcontinue€to€make€arguments€ignoring€appropriate€rulesÏgoverning€final€argument.€€Improper€argument€threatensÏthe€verdict.€€Both€the€Supreme€Court€of€Tennessee€andÏthis€court€have€reversed€for€improper€argument.€.€.€.€€TheÏSupreme€Court€has€suggested€that€offending€argumentÏshould€be€the€subject€of€disciplinary€action€against€theÏlawyer€.€.€.€€Still€another€court€has€suggested€thatÏdisciplinary€action€would€be€far€more€effective€than€"theÏdisapproving€remarks€in€a€score€of€appellateÏopinions...."€€Suffice€it€to€say€that€a€lawyer€is€mistaken€ifÏhe€or€she€thinks€that€improper€argument€will€not€threatenÏthe€conviction€or€judgment€or€result€in€disciplinaryÏsanctions€against€the€offending€lawyer.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÐ þ8ž/5 ÐÓï_ÓòòId.óó€at€599€(citations€and€footnotes€omitted).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤»_#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤ÔÐ `  ÐÌà Œ àà ä àIn€reviewing€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€cannot€find€that€the€cumulativeÏeffect€of€the€prosecutor's€improper€argument€warrants€relief.€€The€closing€remarksÏmade€on€behalf€of€the€state€did€not€rise€to€the€level€of€prejudicial€error.€€¹Ó  ÓÌIIIÌà @ àà @ àà @ àÓ  Ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€The€defendant€next€contends€that€the€trial€judge€erred€by€failing€toÏrecuse€himself.€€The€defendant€requested€recusal€just€prior€to€the€sentencing€phaseÏof€the€trial€based€on€the€trial€judge's€prior€representation€and€personal€knowledge€ofÏthe€defendant.€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€judge€stated€as€follows:€ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àI€may€have€represented€Mr.€Thornton€in€some€of€theseÏconvictions,€or€possibly€the€one€that€was€notð"ð€did€notÏcome€to€a€conviction,€but€I€believe€in€'87€I€may€haveÏrepresented€him€on€a€cocaine€possessions€charge.€€AndÏthat€charge,€I€believe,€Mr.€Thornton,€was€actually€placedÏon€a€Retired€Docket€in€the€General€Sessions€Court.€€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓ÷fÓAdditionally,€the€trial€judge€acknowledged€having€represented€the€defendant€in€aÏreal€estate€matter€and€he€recalled€having€recused€himself€in€a€divorce€case€becauseÏof€his€acquaintance€with€the€defendant€and€his€wife€at€that€time.€€The€trial€judge€alsoÏcommented€that€he€knew€the€defendant's€mother,€his€children,€and€his€step„father.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àA€trial€judge€should€grant€a€motion€to€recuse€if€he€or€she€has€any€doubtÐ j, #' Ðas€to€his€or€her€ability€to€preside€impartially€in€a€criminal€case,€or€whenever€he€or€sheÏbelieves€that€his€or€her€impartiality€can€reasonably€be€questioned.€€òòLackey€v.€Stateóó,Ð , Ì Ð578€S.W.2d€101,€104€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€Our€supreme€court€has€held€that€aÏjudge€is€not€disqualified€from€hearing€a€case€because€he€or€she€has€knowledge€ofÏthe€facts€of€a€case.€€òòState€ex€rel€Phillips€v.€Hendersonóó,€220€Tenn.€701,€423€S.W.2dÐ 0 Ð489,€492€(1968).€€When€a€trial€judge€has€no€doubt€of€his€or€her€ability€to€presideÏfairly€over€the€matters€presented,€there€is€no€need€to€grant€a€motion€for€recusal.€òòóó€€Ð (È  ÐThe€decision€to€deny€a€motion€for€recusal€will€be€upheld€absent€an€abuse€ofÏdiscretion.€€òòLackey€v.€Stateóó,€578€S.W.2d€101,€104€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤2d#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤ÔÐ À` ÐÌà Œ àà ä àHere,€there€is€no€indication€that€the€trial€judge€used€confidential€orÏprivileged€information€in€sentencing€the€defendant.€€It€is€not€uncommon€in€a€smallÏcommunity€for€trial€judges€to€be€acquainted€with€litigants.€There€must€be€more,Ïhowever,€before€there€is€a€legitimate€basis€for€disqualification.€€In€our€view,€the€trialÏjudge€did€not€abuse€his€discretion€in€denying€the€defendant's€motion€for€recusal.€ÏFurthermore,€the€proper€time€for€the€defendant€to€raise€the€issue€of€recusal€wouldÏhave€been€pre„trial,€not€prior€to€sentencing.€€The€record€suggests€that€the€defendantÏwas€well€aware€of€his€previous€contacts€with€the€judge€before€the€trial€began.€€"'[I]fÏthe€facts€are€known€to€the€party€recusing,€he€is€bound€to€make€his€objection€beforeÏissue€joined,€and€before€the€trial€is€commenced,€otherwise€he€will€be€deemed€toÏhave€waived€the€objection.€.€.€.'"€€òòThompson€v.€Stateóó,€958€S.W.2d€156,€172€(Tenn.Ð P-ð#( ÐCrim.€App.€1997)€(quoting€òòHolmes€v.€Easonóó,€76€Tenn.€754€(1882)).€€Having€receivedÐ /¼%* Ðan€unfavorable€verdict,€a€defendant€should€not€be€allowed€to€mount€a€belated€attackÏon€the€impartiality€of€the€judge€at€the€sentencing€phase.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€DustinÐ ´2T). ÐDwayne€Davisóó,€No.€03C01„9712„CR„00543,€slip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€atÐ €4 +0 ÐKnoxville,€March€15,€1999).€€By€holding€otherwise,€"'the€parties€would€be€allowed€toÏexperiment€with€the€court€by€tacit€acquiescence,€and€raise€the€objection€when€theÐ 8¸.4 Ðresult€of€the€trial€proved€to€be€unfavorable.'"€€€òòThompsonóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€172€(citingÐ `  ÐòòHolmes€v.€Easonóó,€76€Tenn.€754€(1882)).Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤Àm#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ô€Ð , Ì ÐÌÓ  ÓIVÌÓ  Óà Œ àà ä àNext,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€toÏuphold€his€challenge€to€the€jury€venire.€€He€asserts€that€immediately€after€the€stateÏcompleted€its€questioning€of€the€jury,€defense€counsel€asked€the€trial€court€to€strikeÏthe€entire€jury€because€they€had€heard€that€the€defendantððs€co„conspirator,€MarkÏThornton,€had€made€an€"agreement"€in€his€case.€€The€record€is€not€clear€who€madeÏthe€statement.€€There€is€no€transcript€of€the€proceedings€during€which€the€jury€mightÏhave€heard€the€reference€to€Mark€Thornton.€€When€defense€counsel€raised€theÏissue,€the€trial€court€adjourned€to€play€the€audio€tape€of€the€proceedings€toÏdetermine€precisely€what€was€said€and€what,€if€any,€effect€that€statement€wouldÏhave€upon€the€members€of€the€jury.€€The€trial€judge€concluded€that€"[t]he€only€thingÏthat€was€said€was€that€there€was€'an€agreement'€in€the€case.€€We€were€sounding€theÏDocket.€€Nothing€to€indicate€at€all€what€the€agreement€was.€.€.€.€€The€Court€seesÏabsolutely€nothing€in€that€statement€that€would€be€prejudicial€to€this€defendant."€€InÏthe€absence€of€the€tape€or€a€transcript€of€the€proceedings,€we€must€presume€thatÏthe€trial€court's€conclusion€was€correct.€€òòSmith€v.€Stateóó,€584€S.W.2d€811,€812€(Tenn.Ð ¸)X $ ÐCrim.€App.€1979).€€ÌÌÓ  ÓVÌÓ  Óà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€the€two€indictments,€each€of€whichÏcharged€one€count€of€sale€of€cocaine€and€one€count€of€delivery€of€cocaine,€violatedÏthe€"rule€against€multiplicity."€€"Multiplicity€is€the€term€applied€to€the€improperÏcharging€of€the€same€offense€in€more€than€one€count."€€òòState€v.€Desireyóó,€909Ð L6ì,2 ÐS.W.2d€20€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€The€rule€against€multiplicity€in€indictments€isÐ 8¸.4 Ðdesigned€to€assure€that€criminal€defendants€will€not€receive€multiple€sentences€for€aÏsingle€offense.€€òòState€v.€Youngóó,€904€S.W.2d€603,€606€(Tenn.€1995).€€Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤¼t#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤ÔÐ , Ì ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€alleges€that€the€indictment,€which€divided€the€sale€andÏdelivery€offense€contained€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„417Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤Ó|#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ô€into€separate€charges,Ð 0 Ðcreated€a€psychological€effect€on€the€jury€by€suggesting€that€he€had€engaged€inÏmore€criminal€activity€than€the€state€could€prove.€€Clearly,€the€law€precludesÏconvictions€for€both€the€sale€and€delivery€of€illegal€drugs.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€WillieÐ ô”  ÐB.€Jacksonóó,€No.€01C01„7902„CR„00054€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€Apr.€23,Ð À` Ð1998).€€The€defendant€could€have€been€found€guilty€of€only€four€offenses.€€In€suchÏcases,€the€correct€remedy€is€to€set€aside€the€inappropriate€convictions.€€Here,€theÏtrial€court€did€so.€€Absent€harm€to€the€defendant,€he€is€not€entitled€to€a€new€trial€onÏthe€two€convictions€for€sale€of€cocaine.€€ÌÌÓ  ÓVIÌÓ  Óà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant's€challenge€to€his€conviction€on€double€jeopardyÏgrounds€can€be€stated€as€follows:€€because€he€is€blind,€he€necessarily€requires€theÏassistance€and€cooperation€of€another€person€to€sell€or€deliver€cocaine.€€He€arguesÏthat€a€conviction€for€conspiracy€under€those€circumstances€would€violate€the€doubleÏjeopardy€clauses€of€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions.€€The€defendantÏalso€contends€that€convictions€for€both€conspiracy€and€the€sale€or€delivery€ofÏcocaine€violate€due€process.€€The€defendant€submits€that€the€state's€theory€of€sale,Ïwhich€was€based€on€a€constructive€delivery,€should€not€permit€an€additionalÏconviction€for€conspiracy,€an€offense€which€also€requires€the€participation€ofÏanother.€€In€our€assessment,€the€defendant's€convictions€for€the€substantive€drugÏoffenses€and€the€conspiracies€to€commit€those€offenses€are€not€the€"same€offense"Ïunder€either€a€double€jeopardy€or€a€due€process€analysis.€€€Ð 8¸.4 Їà Œ àà ä à"[T]hree€fundamental€principles€underlie€double€jeopardy:€(1)Ïprotection€against€a€second€prosecution€after€an€acquittal;€(2)€protection€against€aÏsecond€prosecution€after€conviction;€and€(3)€protection€against€multiple€punishmentsÏfor€the€same€offense.€.€.€.€€The€key€issue€in€multiple€punishment€cases€is€legislativeÏintent."€€òòState€v.€Dentonóó,€òòóó938€S.W.2d€373,€378„79€(Tenn.€1996).Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤Å}#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ô€€In€òòDentonóó,€theÐ 0 Ðdefendant€was€convicted€of€aggravated€assault,€attempted€voluntary€manslaughter,Ïand€carrying€a€weapon.€€Our€supreme€court€reversed€the€defendant's€convictions€forÏboth€possession€of€a€weapon€and€attempted€voluntary€manslaughter,€holding€thatÏonly€one€of€the€convictions€could€be€sustained.€€The€court€examined€the€statutoryÏlanguage€of€each€offense€and€concluded€that€the€weapons€charge€was€a€lesserÏincluded€offense€of€aggravated€assault€and€that€the€same€evidence€was€required€forÏconviction€of€both€aggravated€assault€and€attempted€voluntary€manslaughter.€€Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤o†#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤ÔÐ $Ä ÐÌà Œ àà ä àIn€determining€whether€two€offenses€are€the€"same"€for€doubleÏjeopardy€purposes,€the€following€test€applies:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à[W]here€the€same€act€or€transaction€constitutes€aÏviolation€of€two€distinct€statutory€provisions,€the€test€to€beÏapplied€to€determine€whether€there€are€two€offenses€orÏonly€one€is€whether€each€provision€requires€proof€of€anÏadditional€fact€which€the€other€does€not.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌòòBlockburger€v.€United€Statesóó,€284€U.S.€299,€307,€52€S.€Ct.€180,€182€(1932).€€òòóóÐ ¸)X $ ÐÌÌÌÓÓà Œ àà ä àThe€òòBlockburgeróó€test,€however,€"is€not€conclusive."€€òòDentonóó,€928Ð P-ð#( ÐS.W.2d€at€379.€€Courts€should€also€consider€whether€the€same€evidence€is€used€toÏprove€both€offenses.€€In€òòDuchac€v.€Stateóó,€505€S.W.2d€237€(Tenn.€1973),€ourÐ è0ˆ', Ðsupreme€court€stated€the€rule€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àOne€test€of€identity€of€offenses€is€whether€the€sameÏevidence€is€required€to€prove€them.€€If€the€same€evidenceÏis€not€required,€then€the€fact€that€both€charges€relate€to,Ïand€grow€out€of,€one€transaction,€does€not€make€a€singleÏoffense€where€two€are€defined€by€the€statutes.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÐ þ8ž/5 ÐòòDentonóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€380€(quoting€òòDuchacóó,€505€S.W.2d€at€239).Ð `  ÐÌÌÌà Œ àà ä àFinally,€courts€should€examine€other€factors€relative€to€legislativeÌÌintent:ÌÌà Œ àà ä à(1)€whether€there€were€multiple€victims€involved;Ìà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(2)€whether€several€discrete€acts€were€involved;€andÐ ä Ð ä Ð  Ðà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(3)€whether€the€evil€at€which€each€offense€is€directed€isÏthe€same€or€different.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌòòDentonóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€381€(footnote€omitted).Ð ®  ÐÌÌÌÓÓà Œ àà ä àIn€our€view,€the€offenses€of€delivering€or€selling€cocaine€and€theÏoffense€of€conspiracy€to€deliver€or€sell€cocaine€contain€different€elements.€€TheÏapplicable€statutes€provide€as€follows:ÌÓÓà Œ àà ä àà < àIt€is€an€offense€for€a€defendant€to€knowingly:Ìà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àà8<ä Ð ä Ð à(1)€Manufacture€a€controlled€substance;Ð <x<x Ðà8 Œ àà ä àà < à(2)€Deliver€a€controlled€substance;Ð Œ (#Œ (# Ðà8 Œ àà ä àà < à(3)€Sell€a€controlled€substance;€orÐ Œ (#Œ (# Ðà8 Œ àà0ä Œ (#Œ (#àà0<ä (#ä (#à(4)€Possess€a€controlled€substance€with€intent€toÏmanufacture,€deliver€or€sell€such€controlled€substance.Ð <(#<(# Ðà@--.Úà*€*€*ˆÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àà8<ä Ð ä Ð àThe€offense€of€conspiracy€is€committed€ifÏtwo€(2)€or€more€people,€each€having€theÏculpable€mental€state€required€for€theÏoffense€which€is€the€object€of€theÏconspiracy€and€each€acting€for€the€purposeÏof€promoting€or€facilitating€commission€ofÏan€offense,€agree€that€one€(1)€or€more€ofÏthem€will€engage€in€conduct€whichÏconstitutes€such€offense.€Ð <x<x ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„417;Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤ ‰#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ô€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„103(a).€€Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤ä•#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ô€€Ð P-ð#( ÐÌÌÌÓÓà Œ àà ä àAn€agreement€is€not€an€essential€element€of€the€offense€of€selling€orÏdelivering€drugs.€€Similarly,€the€actual€sale€or€delivery€of€drugs€is€not€an€element€ofÏthe€conspiracy€offense.€€By€applying€the€òòBlockburgeróó€testÔ#†Xz¤XXXz¤K–#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ô,€Tennessee€courts€haveÐ €4 +0 Ðconsistently€held€that€a€defendant€may€be€convicted€of€both€conspiracy€and€theÏoffense€which€is€the€object€of€the€conspiracy€without€violating€double€jeopardyÐ 8¸.4 Ðprinciples.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó,€òòTurner€v.€Stateóó,€698€S.W.2d€90€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).Ð `  ÐÌà Œ àà ä àApplication€of€the€"same€evidence€test"€also€favors€the€state€in€thisÏcase.€€In€order€to€commit€the€offense€of€conspiracy,€the€state€must€prove€that€(1)Ïeach€conspirator€had€the€culpable€mental€state€to€commit€the€offense;€(2)€eachÏconspirator€must€act€for€the€purpose€of€promoting€or€facilitating€the€offense;€and€(3)Ïat€least€one€of€the€conspirators€must€commit€an€overt€act€in€furtherance€of€theÏagreement.€€òòPerkinsonóó,€867€S.W.2d€at€4.€€In€order€to€convict€a€defendant€underÐ ô”  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„417(a),€the€state€must€prove€that€the€defendant€eitherÏknowingly€sold€or€delivered€a€controlled€substance.€€Unlike€conspiracy,€there€is€noÏrequirement€that€the€State€prove€the€existence€of€a€prior€agreement€to€commit€theÏoffense€defined€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„417(a)Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤®—#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ô.€€The€evidence€presented€byÐ $Ä Ðthe€state€to€convict€the€defendant€of€these€crimes€was€not€the€same.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àFinally,€the€statutes€involved€do€not€have€similar€legislative€purposes.€ÏThe€purpose€of€the€conspiracy€statute€is€to€deter€agreements€of€any€kind€that€wouldÏviolate€the€laws€of€Tennessee.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„103(a).€€"The€offense€ofÏconspiracy,€aimed€at€group€criminality,€is€based€on€the€principle€that€offenseÏcommitted€by€a€group€poses€a€greater€public€threat€than€offense€committed€by€aÏsingle€individual."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„103,Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤œ#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ô€Sentencing€CommissionÐ „+$"& ÐComments.€€The€statute€prohibiting€the€sale€or€delivery€of€illegal€drugs€has€aÏdifferent€legislative€purpose.€€It€falls€within€the€"Tennessee€Drug€Control€Act€ofÏ1989,"€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„401.€€This€act€defines€drug€related€charges,Ïdefines€and€schedules€controlled€substances,€and€sets€penalties.€€The€act€does€notÏaddress€group€criminality,€as€does€the€conspiracy€statute.€€Thus,€these€statutes€doÏnot€share€a€similar€legislative€purpose.€€Ìà Œ àà ä àÐ 8¸.4 Ðà Œ àà ä àBecause€different€elements€are€required€under€each€statute,€the€sameÏevidence€was€not€used€to€prove€both€offenses,€and€the€statutes€have€differentÏlegislative€purposes,€the€convictions€for€both€the€sale€of€cocaine€and€the€conspiracyÏto€sell€cocaine€do€not€violate€double€jeopardy.Ìà Œ àà ä àÌà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€his€convictions€violate€due€process.€ÏHe€cites€òòState€v.€Anthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€299€(Tenn.€1991)€in€support€of€his€position.€Ð (È  ÐIn€òòAnthonyóó,€our€supreme€court€addressed€the€issue€of€whether€dual€convictions€forÐ ô”  Ðarmed€robbery€and€aggravated€kidnaping€violated€the€due€process€guarantees€ofÏArticle€I,€ðð€8€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€The€court€concluded€that€when€aÏconfinement,€movement,€or€detention€is€"essentially€incidental"€to€an€accompanying€Ïfelony,€such€as€robbery€or€rape,€it€is€not€sufficient€to€support€a€separate€convictionÏfor€kidnaping.€€òòId.óó€at€306.€€The€court€warned€that€the€kidnaping€statute€should€beÐ ð Ðnarrowly€construed€"so€as€to€make€its€reach€fundamentally€fair€and€to€protect€theÏdue€process€rights€of€every€citizen€.€.€.€."€€òòId.óóÐ ˆ"( ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThere€are€significant€distinctions€between€this€case€and€òòAnthonyóó.€€InÐ  &À  ÐòòAnthonyóó,€our€supreme€court€was€concerned€about€the€fact€that€proving€one€felony,Ð ì'Œ" Ðthe€armed€robbery,€inherently€and€necessarily€proved€the€elements€of€the€secondÏfelony,€kidnaping.€€In€this€case,€the€proof€of€the€elements€of€sale€of€cocaine€does€notÏinherently€or€necessarily€prove€the€elements€of€conspiracy.€Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤Ÿ#Ô€Our€task€under€òòAnthonyóóÐ P-ð#( Ðis€to€apply€statutes€narrowly€so€as€to€make€their€reach€"fundamentally€fair€and€toÏprotect€the€due€process€rights€of€every€citizen."€€Here,€the€defendant€does€not€argueÏthat€a€due€process€violation€occurs€in€all€instances€in€which€an€individual€isÏconvicted€of€selling€cocaine€plus€conspiracy€to€sell€cocaine.€€Rather,€the€defendant'sÏargument€is€based€purely€on€the€particular€method€in€which€he,€as€a€blind€individual,Ïmust€commit€the€offenses.€€He€argues€that€his€son's€assistance€was€"essentiallyÐ 8¸.4 Ðincidental"€to€the€sale.€€We€disagree.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€evidence€indicated€that€the€defendant,€acting€alone,€arranged€theÏillegal€sales.€€Both€calls€were€placed€to€his€home.€€He€made€arrangements€with€theÏpurchasers€relating€to€times€and€places€of€the€meetings.€€He€set€the€prices€for€theÏtransactions.€€While€he€may€have€constructively€delivered€the€cocaine€by€enlistingÏthe€aid€of€his€son,€he€actively€participated€in€the€sale€of€the€cocaine€to€his€buyers.€€ÏHis€son's€assistance€was€not€"essentially€incidental"€to€the€offense€of€selling€drugs.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThere€will€always€be€a€nexus€between€the€conspiracy€and€theÏsubstantive€offense€when€the€latter€offense€is€completed.€€A€conspiracy,€however,Ïwould€rarely€be€"essentially€incidental"€to€the€underlying€offense,€as€that€term€isÏused€in€òòAnthonyóó.€€In€òòAnthonyóó,€it€was€"essentially€incidental"€to€the€robbery€that€theÐ ð Ðdefendant€contain€his€victims.€€Here,€the€defendant€argues€that€his€son'sÏparticipation€in€the€sale€was€"essentially€incidental"€to€the€consummation€of€the€sale,Ïthereby€creating€an€overlap€between€the€proof€presented€to€establish€the€drugÏoffense€and€the€offense€of€conspiracy.Ô‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ô€Yet,€there€are€numerous€ways€that€a€blindÐ  &À  Ðindividual€might€sell€illegal€drugs€without€securing€assistance€from€another,€such€asÏconducting€illegal€transactions€from€his€own€home.€€In€our€view,€the€participation€ofÏthe€defendant's€son,€while€creating€a€conspiracy€to€sell€cocaine,€was€not€"essentiallyÏincidental"€to€the€underlying€offense.€€Ìà Œ àà ä àÌà Œ àà ä àMoreover,€the€statute€prohibiting€conspiracies€is€designed€to€combat€aÏdanger€posed€to€the€public€that€is€different€from€the€danger€sought€to€be€preventedÏby€the€drug€statutes.€€The€plan€and€design€of€two€or€more€individuals€to€sell€cocaineÏcreates€an€offense€that€is€worthy€of€its€own€punishment:òòóóÐ L6ì,2 ÐÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à[C]ollective€criminal€agreementð!ðpartnership€inÏcrimeð!ðpresents€a€greater€potential€threat€to€the€publicÐ þ8ž/5 Ðthan€individual€delicts.€€Concerted€action€both€increasesÏthe€likelihood€that€the€criminal€object€will€be€successfullyÏattained€and€decreases€the€probability€that€theÏindividuals€will€depart€from€their€path€of€criminality.€ÏGroup€association€for€criminal€purposes€often,€if€notÏnormally,€makes€possible€the€attainment€of€ends€moreÏcomplex€than€those€which€one€criminal€could€accomplish.€ÏNor€is€the€danger€of€a€conspiratorial€group€limited€to€theÏparticular€end€toward€which€it€has€embarked.€ÏCombination€in€crime€makes€more€likely€the€commissionÏof€crimes€unrelated€to€the€original€purpose€for€which€theÏgroup€was€formed.€€In€sum,€the€danger€which€aÏconspiracy€generates€is€not€confined€to€the€substantiveÏoffense€which€is€the€immediate€aim€of€the€enterprise.€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓ ²ÓòòCallanan€v.€United€Statesóó,€364€U.S.€587,€593„94,€81€S.€Ct.€321,€325€(1961).€€InÐ Úz  Ðsummary,€it€is€our€conclusion€that€the€defendant's€convictions€do€not€offend€doubleÏjeopardy€or€due€process€principles.€€€ÌÌÓ  ÓVIIÌÓ  Óà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€he€is€entitled€to€a€new€trial€based€onÏthe€trial€judge's€statement€that€the€defendant€could€be€found€guilty€if€he€actedÏ"recklessly."€€€The€transcript€of€the€jury€charge€shows€that€the€trial€court€provided€theÏstatutory€definition€of€the€term€"recklessly":ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à"Recklessly"€means€that€a€person€acts€recklessly€withÏrespect€to€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€conduct€orÏthe€results€of€the€conduct€when€the€person€is€aware€ofÏbut€consciously€disregards€a€substantial€and€unjustifiableÏrisk€that€the€circumstances€exist€or€the€result€will€occur.€ÏThe€risk€must€be€of€such€a€nature€and€degree€that€it'sÏdisregard€constitutes€a€gross€deviation€from€the€standardÏof€care€that€an€ordinary€person€would€exercise€under€allÏthe€circumstances€as€viewed€from€the€accused€person'sÏstandpoint.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌThe€trial€court€then€made€the€following€observation:ÌÌÓ¸ÓÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àNow€if€you€wonder€why€I€give€you€these€lengthyÏdefinitions€of€words€like€intentionally,€knowingly,€andÏrecklessly,€it's€because€those€words€are€used€in€theÏlanguage€that€defines€the€elements€of€these€crimes.€€ForÏexample,€going€back€to€simple€possession€or€casualÏexchange€I€have€told€you€that€one€of€the€elements€thatÏmust€be€proven€by€the€state€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÏis€that€the€defendant€either€intentionally,€knowingly€orÐ þ8ž/5 Ðrecklessly€possessed€for€casual€exchange€a€controlledÏsubstance.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÌÌÓ½ºÓà Œ àà ä àThe€state€concedes€that€the€trial€judge€erred€by€stating€thatÏrecklessness€was€a€sufficient€mens€rea€to€sustain€a€conviction€for€casual€exchange,Ïa€misdemeanor,€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„418(a).€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„¼418(a)Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤ ¯#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ô€requires€a€mens€rea€of€"knowingly."€€The€state€argues€that€the€error€wasÐ Bâ  Ðharmless€because€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€greater€offensesð!ðsale€of€cocaineÏand€conspiracyð!ðwhich€the€trial€court€properly€defined,€and€not€the€lesser€includedÏoffense€of€possession€or€casual€exchange.€€We€agree.€€While€it€was€erroneous€forÏthe€trial€court€to€instruct€the€jury€as€to€recklessness,€the€error€was€clearly€harmless€inÏlight€of€the€defendantððs€convictions€for€the€greater€offenses.€€Under€theseÏcircumstances,€the€erroneous€instruction€was€never€a€consideration.€€Had€theÏdefendant€been€convicted€of€casual€exchange,€a€new€trial€would€have€beenÏwarranted.ÌÌÓ  ÓVIIIÌÓ  Óà Œ àà ä àNext,€the€defendant€raises€an€issue€relating€to€the€accuracy€of€the€juryÏcharge€as€to€the€possible€range€of€sentence.€€The€trial€judge€instructed€the€jury€thatÏthe€defendant,€if€convicted,€would€qualify€for€Range€I€sentences:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àThe€punishment€for€the€sale€of€cocaine,€a€felony,€may€beÏa€term€of€years€òònot€less€than€eight€years€nor€more€thanÐ P-ð#( Ðtwelve€yearsóó€in€the€state€penitentiary€and€a€fine€up€to€twoÐ 6.Ö$) Ðhundred€thousand€dollars.€€The€punishment€for€deliveryÏof€cocaine,€a€felony,€may€be€a€term€of€years€òònot€less€thanÐ 0¢&+ Ðeight€nor€more€than€twelve€yearsóó€in€the€state€penitentiaryÐ è0ˆ', Ðand€a€fine€up€to€two€hundred€thousand€dollars.€€TheÏpunishment€for€conspiracy€to€sell€and€deliver€cocaine,€aÏfelony,€may€be€a€term€of€years€òònot€less€than€eight€norÐ š3:*/ Ðmore€than€twelve€yearsóó€in€the€state€penitentiary.Ѐ4 +0ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌ(emphasis€added).ÌÌÓ$ÂÓÐ 8¸.4 Ðà Œ àà ä àThe€state€concedes€that€the€charge€was€erroneous€because€theÏdefendant€was€actually€a€Range€II€offender.€€The€possible€range€for€each€count€was,Ïtherefore,€twelve€to€twenty€years.€€At€sentencing,€the€trial€court€sentenced€theÏdefendant€as€a€Range€II€offender€to€twenty€years€for€each€count.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àUnder€similar€circumstances,€our€supreme€court€has€held€thatÏsentencing€a€defendant€to€a€higher€range€than€the€jury€has€been€informed€isÏprejudicial€to€the€judicial€process.€€òòState€v.€Cookóó,€816€S.W.2d€322€(Tenn.€1991).€€InÐ ô”  ÐòòCookóó,€our€supreme€court€ruled€that€a€defendantððs€right€to€have€the€jury€know€theÐ À` Ðrange€of€punishment€applicable€to€the€charges€before€deciding€guilt€or€innocenceÏ"would€be€lost€if€the€defendant€were€to€be€sentenced€to€punishments€greater€thanÏwhat€the€jury€finding€guilt€was€instructed€would€be€imposed."€€òòCookóó,€816€S.W.2d€atÐ $Ä Ð327.€€Tòòóóhe€court€reversed€the€convictions€and€remanded€for€a€new€trial.€€òòId.óó€Ð ð ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThis€court€acknowledges€that€the€state€has€proposed€that€theÏdefendant€be€re„sentenced€as€a€Range€I€offender,€as€opposed€to€a€remand€for€aÏnew€trial.€€The€defendant€has€attempted€to€accept€the€proposal.€€However,€pleaÏagreements€are€typically€the€function€of€the€district€attorney€general€and€theÏdefendant€at€the€pre„trial€stage,€and€are€subject€to€the€approval€of€the€trial€court.€ÏTenn.€R.€Crim.€P€11(e).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòFarmer€v.€Stateóó,€570€S.W.2d€359€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð „+$"& ÐApp.€1978)€(holding€that€the€trial€court€is€afforded€discretion€in€the€acceptance€of€aÏplea).òòóó€€In€our€view,€any€such€proposals€are€best€left€for€review€by€the€trial€judge,€andÐ /¼%* Ðshould€generally€address€all€possible€issues€in€a€case.€€Thus,€a€reversal€of€theÏconvictions€and€a€remand€for€trial€is€the€appropriate€remedy.€ÌÌÔ#†Xz¤XXXz¤I¾#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤ÔÓ  ÓIXÐ L6ì,2 ÐÓ=ÍÓà Œ àà ä àFinally,€the€defendant€challenges€the€imposition€of€consecutiveÐ 8¸.4 Ðsentences.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€to€the€maximum€Range€IIÏsentence€for€each€of€the€four€convictions.€€Three€of€those€sentences€were€orderedÏto€be€served€consecutively.€€Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤Í#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤ÔThe€defendant's€challenge€to€his€sentence€is€twofold.€Ð ø ˜ ÐFirst,€he€argues€that€the€effective€sentence€of€sixty€years€was€disproportionate€to€theÏseriousness€of€the€offenses.€€Second,€he€argues€that€the€imposition€of€consecutiveÏsentences€was€inappropriate€because€he€was€subjected€to€"sentence€entrapment,"Ïin€that€the€length€of€his€sentences€was€based€upon€the€number€of€controlled€buysÏarranged€by€law€enforcement€officials.€€Although€the€convictions€have€beenÏreversed,€there€may€be€further€review.€€This€court€will,€therefore,€consider€the€issue.€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€theÏservice€of€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€with€aÐ $Ä Ðpresumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmativeÏshowing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€allÏrelevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.Ð T$ô Ð1991);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€SentencingÐ  &À  ÐCommission€Comments€provide€that€the€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€show€theÏimpropriety€of€the€sentence.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àOur€review€requires€an€analysis€of€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€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;€(6)Ïany€statements€made€by€the€defendant€on€his€own€behalf;€and€(7)€the€defendant'sÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103,€and€€Ï„210;€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€Ð 8¸.4 Їà Œ àà ä àPrior€to€the€enactment€of€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,Ïthe€limited€classifications€for€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences€were€set€out€inÏòòGray€v.€Stateóó,€538€S.W.2d€391,€393€(Tenn.€1976).€€In€that€case,€our€supreme€courtÐ ø ˜ Ðruled€that€aggravating€circumstances€must€be€present€before€placement€in€any€oneÏof€the€classifications.€€Later,€in€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€739€S.W.2d€227€(Tenn.€1987),€theÐ 0 Ðcourt€established€an€additional€category€for€those€defendants€convicted€of€two€orÏmore€statutory€offenses€involving€sexual€abuse€of€minors.€€There€were,€however,Ïadditional€words€of€caution:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à[C]onsecutive€sentences€should€not€routinely€be€imposedÏ.€.€.€and€.€.€.€the€aggregate€maximum€of€consecutiveÏterms€must€be€reasonable€related€to€the€severity€of€theÏoffenses€involved.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓ)ÙÓòòState€v.€Tayloróó,€739€S.W.2d€at€230.€€The€Sentencing€Commission€CommentsÐ >Þ Ðadopted€the€cautionary€language.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115.€€The€1989€act€is,Ïin€essence,€the€codification€of€the€holdings€in€òòGrayóó€and€òòTayloróó;€consecutiveÐ Öv Ðsentences€may€be€imposed€in€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€only€upon€aÏdetermination€that€one€or€more€of€the€following€criteria׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€exist:Ð n# ÐÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(1)€The€defendant€is€a€professional€criminal€who€hasÏknowingly€devoted€himself€to€criminal€acts€as€a€majorÏsource€of€livelihood;Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(2)€The€defendant€is€an€offender€whose€record€ofÏcriminal€activity€is€extensive;Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#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€defendantððs€criminal€conduct€hasÏbeen€characterized€by€a€pattern€of€repetitive€orÏcompulsive€behavior€with€heedless€indifference€toÏconsequences;Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(4)€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€whoseÏbehavior€indicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life,€andÏno€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€riskÏto€human€life€is€high;Ðf5,1ä Ð ä Ð  Їà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#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€defendantððs€undetectedÏsexual€activity,€the€nature€and€scope€of€the€sexual€actsÏand€the€extent€of€the€residual,€physical,€and€mentalÏdamage€to€the€victim€or€victims;Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(6)€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€an€offense€committedÏwhile€on€probation;€orÐ ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(7)€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€criminal€contempt.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓTÜÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b).Ìòò€óóÐ À` Ðà Œ àà ä àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€imposed€consecutive€sentences€based€onÏtwo€criteria:€that€the€defendant€is€a€"professional€criminal,"€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„¼35„115(b)Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤ºÎ#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ô(1),òò€óóand€that€the€defendant€is€an€offender€with€an€extensive€criminalÐ (È Ðrecord,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤ä#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ô(2).€òò€óóÐ ø˜ ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€record€indicates€that€the€defendant€was€arrested€after€a€secondÏcontrolled€buy.€€In€the€first€sale,€the€undercover€agents€purchased€27.4€grams€ofÏcocaine€from€the€defendant.€€In€the€second,€the€purchase€was€for€53.4€grams,€for€aÏtotal€of€approximately€three€ounces.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThis€court€addressed€the€"sentence€entrapment"€issue€in€òòState€v.€JohnÐ +0"& ÐDerrick€Martinóó,€No.€01C01„9502„CR„00043,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€Dec.Ð \-ü#( Ð19,€1995),€òòaffððd€and€remanded€on€other€groundsóó,€940€S.W.2d€567€(Tenn.€1997).€Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤ää#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ô€€Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤ ç#ÔòòóóÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤ÔòòóóInÐ (/È%* ÐòòMartinóó,€the€defendant€was€arrested€after€four€sales€of€cocaine€to€undercover€agentsÐ ô0”', Ðin€an€aggregate€amount€of€13€ounces.€€He€was€convicted€at€trial€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àCounts€One,€Two,€and€Threeð!ðsale€of€cocaine€(ten€yearÏsentences€on€each€count);€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓàèÓÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àCount€Fourð!ðpossession€of€cocaine€with€the€intent€to€sellÏ(ten€year€sentence);Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÐ  9ª/5 Ðà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àCount€Fiveð!ðpossession€of€drug€paraphernalia€(six€monthÏsentence);Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àCount€Sixð!ðdriving€on€a€suspended€license€(three€monthÏsentence).€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ЀÌÓ’éÓThe€trial€court€imposed€consecutive€sentences€for€each€conviction€after€finding€thatÏthe€defendant€was€a€professional€criminal€and€that€he€committed€the€offenses€whileÏon€probation.€The€panel€concluded€that€while€the€defendant€did€qualify€as€aÏprofessional€criminal€and€did€in€fact€commit€the€offenses€while€on€probation,€theÏimposition€of€consecutive€sentences€was€inappropriate€because€the€"severity€of€theÏcrimes€could€vary€significantly€depending€upon€the€specific€number€of€buys€theÏofficers€chose€to€conduct€and€the€amounts€purchased€in€each€buy."€€€Furthermore,Ïthe€panel€ruled€"that€forty€years€for€the€drug€offenses€is€[not]€reasonably€related€toÏthe€severity€of€these€four€crimes."€€òòIdóó.€at€9.Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤êç#ÔÔ‡Xz¤XXXz¤Ô€€The€defendant's€sentence€was€modifiedÐ $Ä Ðso€that€"the€two€ten„year€sentences€on€similar€counts€one€and€two€will€runÏconcurrently€with€each€other€and€concurrently€with€all€of€the€other€counts€includingÏthe€two€misdemeanor€offenses."€€The€remaining€sentences€were€ordered€to€beÏserved€consecutively.€€The€defendant's€original€sentence€of€forty€years€and€nineÏmonths€was€thereby€reduced€to€twenty€years€and€nine€months.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àBecause€the€convictions€have€been€set€aside,€it€is€unnecessary€for€thisÏcourt€to€rule€on€the€propriety€of€the€consecutive€sentences.€€Nevertheless,€it€may€beÏappropriate,€should€the€defendant€be€re„convicted€for€multiple€offenses,€for€the€trialÏcourt€to€consider€the€ruling€in€òòMartinóó€in€the€context€of€consecutive€sentences.€€€€€òòóó€€Ô#†Xz¤XXXz¤6î#ÔÐ /¼%* ÐÌà Œ àà ä àAccordingly,€the€judgments€of€conviction€are€reversed€and€the€cause€isÏremanded€for€a€new€trial.€€ÌÌÓÓà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D à__________________________________Ìà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àGary€R.€Wade,€Presiding€JudgeÐ þ8ž/5 ЇCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌDavid€H.€Welles,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌJoe€G.€Riley,€Judgeà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àà ô àà L à