ÿWPC4 …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0lH 0D´ ø 0J 0TJ 0^ž 0hü 0rd 0|Ö 0†R 0Ø 1uh U,Ý 0d U,mU>™U*×B)DC* AMm D3º Bí,  0@6Èvv~>vÓ¼ AOÆÞ 0D¤ D/è B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- fDghDiEjkDlmDnoÓ€ypÑ 3|xz((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ++++'ÿÿdxd d "Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òJune€27,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ¾Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ôÔAggravated€burglary,€as€defined€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„14„403,€is€theÏunlawful€à àentry€of€a€habitation,€without€the€effective€consent€of€the€property€owner,€with€the€intentÏto€commit€a€à àfelony€or€theft.€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€%ŠÔÔ€&ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€F?XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßL€),(;+'h|` Å `€€Lß›IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÌAT€œKNOXVILLE›ÌÌœAPRIL›€SESSION,€œ1996›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,›à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.Ïœ03C01„9508„CC„00253›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àœAppellee,›à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœUNICOI›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œARDEN€L.€HILLó ó›Ìò òœROY€VANCE,ó ó›à àà àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àœAppellant.›à àà àà àò ò)à àœó ó(Aggravated€Burglary)ò ò›Ìó óÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌœCRIMINAL›€COURT€OF€œUNICOI€COUNTY›ó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€œAPPELLANTóó:›à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€œAPPELLEEóó:›ÌÌœR.O.€SMITHà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌP.O.€BOX€366à àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌERWIN,€TN€37650›à àà àà àÌœà àà àà àà àà àà àEUGENE€J.€HONEAÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€CROCKETTÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àKENT€GARLANDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àà àErwin,€TN€37650›ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœAFFIRMED›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€&°Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€&ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€Defendant,€Roy€Vance,€brings€this€appeal€as€of€right€pursuant€toÏRule€3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€He€was€convicted€byÏjury€verdict€of€aggravated€burglaryœ× ƒ. ××  ×›€and€sentenced€as€a€Range€II€multipleÏoffender€to€serve€ten€years€in€confinement.€€The€Defendant€appeals€hisÏconviction€and€sentence.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€was€arrested€on€July€29,€1992€and€charged€with€theÏaggravated€burglary€of€his€œfriendððs€home.›€€On€February€13,€1993,€the€districtÏattorney€general€filed€a€notice€of€intent€to€seek€enhanced€punishment,€based€onÏthe€Defendantððs€four€prior€convictions.€€He€was€tried€by€a€jury€and€convicted€ofÏaggravated€burglary€on€March€30,€1993.€€On€direct€appeal,€that€conviction€wasÏreversed€by€this€court,€and€the€case€was€remanded€for€a€new€trial€based€onÏthe€trial€courtððs€failure€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€lesser„included€offense€of€criminalÏtrespass.€€òòState€v.€Vanceóó,€888€S.W.2d€776€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€œ1994).Ì›€€Ìà àOn€November€30,€1994,€the€Defendant€was€again€tried€and€convicted€byÏjury€verdict€of€aggravated€burglary.€€The€State€did€not€file€a€notice€of€intent€toÏseek€enhanced€punishment€before€this€second€trial.€€After€a€sentencing€hearing,Ïthe€trial€court€found€four€applicable€enhancement€factors€and€no€applicableÏmitigating€factors.€€The€Defendant€did€not€file€any€mitigating€factors€with€the€trialÏcourt€prior€to€the€sentencing€hearing,€nor€did€he€argue€the€applicability€of€anyÏmitigating€factors€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€theÏDefendant€to€ten€years€in€confinement€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offender.€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€filed€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€on€December€28,€1994.€ÏAlthough€the€record€contains€no€order€indicating€a€ruling€on€the€motion€for€a€newÏtrial,€the€Defendant€states€that€the€motion€was€denied.€€The€Defendant€nowÏproperly€brings€this€appeal.ÌÌà àLate€on€the€evening€of€July€28,€1992,€the€Defendant€visited€the€home€ofÏthe€victim,€Jay€Hicks.€€Hicks€and€the€Defendant€had€known€each€other€sinceÏelementary€school€and€had,€at€one€time,€been€roommates.€€Hicks€testified€thatÏthe€Defendant€told€him€that€he€had€just€gotten€out€of€jail,€that€he€had€lost€his€job,Ïand€that€he€did€not€have€any€money.€€At€that€time,€Hicks€was€attending€a€truckÏdriving€school€in€North€Carolina.€€He€commuted€to€œschool›€five€days€a€week,Ïleaving€at€about€5:30€a.m.€and€returning€home€around€6:00€p.m.€€Hicks€testifiedÍthat€the€Defendant€asked€him€specific€questions€concerning€when€Mr.€Hicks€Ïnormally€left€for€school€and€when€he€would€return.€€The€Defendant€also€askedÏMr.€Hicks€for€his€unlisted€telephone€number.€ÌÌà àHicks€testified€that€œthe›€next€morning€he€decided€not€to€go€to€school,€but€toÏsleep€late.€€That€morning,€Hicksðð€telephone€rang€repeatedly,€but€he€did€notÏanswer€it.€€Instead,€he€unplugged€the€phone€and€went€back€to€sleep.€€A€shortÏtime€later,€Hicks€testified€that€he€heard€someone€knock€at€the€door,€but€again€heÏdid€not€answer€it.€€When€the€knocking€stopped,€he€heard€a€car€start.€€He€lookedÏout€the€window€and€saw€the€Defendantððs€car€going€down€the€driveway.€€ÌÌà àHicks€testified€that€a€short€time€later,€he€heard€knocking€at€his€front€doorÏagain.€€He€then€heard€the€doorknob€ð ðshake,€ðð€followed€by€the€sound€of€breakingÏglass.€€When€he€heard€the€glass€break,€he€picked€up€his€pistol€and€went€intoÏthe€œbathroom,›€called€the€sheriffððs€œoffice,›€and€reported€that€someone€wasÏbreaking€into€his€house.€€Minutes€later,€he€heard€the€sound€of€more€breakingÏglass,€then€footsteps€walking€through€the€glass.€€He€came€out€of€the€bathroomÏand€found€the€Defendant€walking€toward€his€kitchen€cabinets.€€Hicks€told€theÏDefendant€to€freeze€and€kept€the€gun€pointed€at€him€until€the€sheriff€arrived.ÌÌà àHicks€testified€that€the€Defendant€said,€ð ðDonððt€do€this,ðð€then,€ð ðIððll€go€back€toÏthe€pen.ðð€€Hicks€also€said€that€the€Defendant€told€him€that€he€was€in€the€houseÏto€borrow€a€gun€because€someone€shot€at€him€œthe›€night€before.€€ÌÌà àOfficer€Ron€Arnold€and€Lieutenant€William€Rogers€responded€to€HicksððÏcall€and€arrived€on€the€scene€a€few€minutes€later.€€Officer€Arnold€testified€that€theÏDefendantððs€car€was€parked€off€the€driveway€near€two€sheds.€€He€testified€thatÏthe€car€was€not€visible€from€the€road€and€could€not€be€seen€until€one€was€veryÏclose€to€it.€€In€examining€the€scene,€he€found€that€a€small€basement€windowÏhad€been€knocked€out.€€The€basement€led€up€to€an€enclosed€back€porch€andÏthe€door€to€the€kitchen€window.€€The€glass€pane€in€the€door€had€been€broken.€ÏHe€also€found€a€broom€with€small€pieces€of€glass€on€the€handle,€suggestingÏthat€it€had€been€used€to€break€the€window.€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€testified€that€he€called€Hicks€that€morning,€but€received€noÏanswer.€€He€then€became€worried€that€something€had€happened€to€Hicks,€soÏhe€drove€out€to€check€on€him.€€When€no€one€answered€his€knock€on€the€door,Ïhe€became€alarmed€and€broke€into€the€house€to€see€if€Hicks€was€hurt.€€TheÏDefendant€denied€ever€making€the€statement€that€he€came€to€borrow€a€gun.€ÏHe€also€denied€that€he€broke€into€the€house€for€any€reason€except€to€œcheck›€onÏhis€friend.€€€€€€ÌÌÓ  Óò òI.€€Sufficiency€of€the€Evidenceó ó€ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Defendant€first€asserts€that€the€evidence€ð ðpreponderates€against€theÏverdict€and€in€favor€of€the€defendant.ðð€€Specifically,€he€argues€that€the€proof€onlyÏshows€that€the€Defendant€was€found€inside€the€house,€and€the€only€intentÏshown€was€not€to€steal,€but€to€check€on€his€friend.€€ÌÌà àÔ€%ÔÔ€%XÔà àÔ€&ÔÔ€&ŠÔWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convictingÏevidence,€œthe›€standard€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theÏessential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.ÏVirginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979).€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€theÏwitnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factualÏissues€raised€by€the€evidence,€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€ÏòòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€Nor€may€thisÏcourt€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,Ï835€(Tenn.€1978).€€ÌÌà àA€jury€verdict€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€Stateððs€witnessesÏand€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,Í476€(Tenn.€1973).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€the€evidence€and€all€inferences€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571ÏS.W.2d€at€835.€€Because€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€ofÏinnocence€and€replaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused€has€theÏburden€in€this€court€of€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€theÏverdict€returned€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€at€476;€òòState€v.ÏTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).ÌÌà àA€burglary€is€committed€when€one,€œwithout›€the€effective€consent€of€theÏowner,€enters€a€building€other€than€a€habitation€not€open€to€the€public,€withÏintent€to€commit€a€felony€or€theft.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„402(a)(1).€ÏAggravated€burglary€œis›€the€burglary€of€a€habitation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„403(a).€€ÌÌà àThe€evidence€undisputably€shows€that€the€Defendant€broke€into€theÏhome€of€Mr.€Hicks.€€The€Defendant€contends€that€the€State€failed€to€establishÏthat€he€broke€and€entered€the€victimððs€home€with€the€intent€to€commit€a€felony€orÏtheft.€€The€State€correctly€asserts€that€the€intent€for€burglary€may€be€inferred€byÏcircumstantial€evidence.€€òòBollin€v.€Stateóó,€486€S.W.2d€293,€296€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.€1972).€€Also,€the€State€correctly€contends€thatÏwhen€a€defendant€has€entered,€without€authorization,€an€occupied€habitationÍthat€contains€valuable€property,€a€jury€would€be€warranted€in€inferring€that€entryÏwas€made€with€the€intent€to€commit€a€theft€or€felony.€€òòBennett€v.€Stateóó,€530ÏS.W.2d€788,€791€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.€1975).€ÌÌà àThe€testimony€at€trial€reflects€that€the€Defendant€broke€the€basementÏwindow,€crawled€through€the€basement€to€the€back€porch,€broke€the€windowÏon€the€door,€and€entered€the€victimððs€house€without€his€consent.€€The€victimÏtestified€that€the€Defendant€said€on€the€previous€evening€that€he€was€without€aÏjob€or€money€and€then€asked€the€victim€specific€questions€as€to€when€he€wouldÏbe€away€from€his€home.€€ÌÌà àThe€jury€obviously€accredited€the€testimony€of€the€Stateððs€witnesses€overÏthat€of€the€Defendant.€€In€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏState,€we€œcannot›€agree€with€the€Defendantððs€assertion€that€the€evidenceÏœð ðpreponderates›€against€the€juryððs€œverdict.ð𛀀œWe›€œconclude€that€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€could€have€been€found€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€and›Ïthat€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€uphold€a€conviction€for€aggravated€burglary.€€€€€œÌà àò òà àà àII.›€€Notice€of€Enhanced€Punishmentó ớ̜à àThe€Defendant€next€asserts€that€because€this€court€reversed€his€firstÏconviction€and€remanded€the€case€for€a€new€trial,€the€district€attorney€generalÍwas€required€to€file€a€new€notice€of€intent€to€seek€enhanced€punishment€underÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„202(a).€€However,€although€theÏDefendant€argues€that€the€district€attorney€erred€in€failing€to€file€such€notice,€heÏdoes€not€allege€that€he€was€misled,€surprised,€or€that€he€was€prejudiced€in€anyÏway.€€ÌÌà àSection€40„35„202(a)€requires€the€district€attorney€general€to€file€a€notice€ofÏintent€to€seek€enhanced€punishment€not€less€than€ten€days€before€trial€if€heÏbelieves€that€a€defendant€should€be€sentenced€as€a€multiple,€persistent€orÏcareer€offender.€€The€purpose€of€such€notice€is€to€aid€in€trial€strategy,€to€informÏdecisions€concerning€œpleadings,›€and€to€aid€the€parties€in€the€advisability€of€pleaÏbargaining.€€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€788€S.W.2d€557,€559€(Tenn.€1990).€€Notice€wasÏfiled€before€the€Defendantððs€first€trial,€but€the€district€attorney€did€not€again€fileÏsuch€a€notice€before€the€second€trial.€€ÌÌà àIn€support€of€his€argument,€the€Defendant€cites€òòState€v.€Penderóó,€687ÏS.W.2d€714€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984),€òòperm€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.€1985).€ÏIn€òòPenderóó,€this€court€found€that,€because€the€State€failed€to€file€a€notice€of€intentÏto€seek€enhanced€punishment€either€before€or€after€trial,€the€trial€court€wasÏwithout€authority€to€impose€Range€II€sentences€upon€the€defendant€andÏremanded€the€case€for€resentencing.€òòId.óó€at€720.Ì€€Ìà àThe€Defendant€also€cites€òòState€v.€Chaseóó,€873€S.W.2d€7€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1993),€in€which€a€defendant€had€been€indicted€for€theft.€€The€first€indictmentÏwas€nolled,€but€the€defendant€had€been€reindicted€on€the€same€œoffense.›€€TheÏState€had€filed€the€requisite€notice€on€the€first€indictment,€but€not€on€the€second.€ÏThe€defendant€challenged€his€sentence,€arguing€that€the€notice€filed€in€the€firstÏindictment€was€not€sufficient€notice€for€the€second€œindictment.€€òòId.óó›€ÌÌà àThe€Chase€court€disagreed,€holding€that€both€indictments€applied€to€theÏsame€crime,€the€same€defendant,€€the€same€victim,€the€same€vehicle,€and€theÏsame€date€and€time.€€òòIdóó.€at€9.€The€court€found€that€the€notice€filed€in€the€firstÏindictment€gave€the€defendant€fair€warning€that€the€State€intended€to€seekÏenhanced€punishment,€and€because€the€defendant€was€well€aware€of€theÏexistence€of€both€indictments€and€because€both€charged€the€same€crime,€ð ðthereÏwas€no€reason€to€believe€enhanced€sentencing€would€not€apply€to€a€convictionÏunder€either€indictment.ðð€€òòId.óó€€€€ÌÌà àThe€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€is€analogous€to€the€situation€in€òòChaseóó.€€ThisÏDefendant€was€retried€under€the€same€indictment€and€for€the€same€crime€œforÏwhich›€he€had€originally€been€tried.€€Notice€of€the€Stateððs€intent€to€seek€enhancedÏpunishment€was€filed€in€the€first€proceeding.€€As€in€òòChaseóó,€there€was€no€reasonÍto€believe€enhanced€sentencing€would€not€apply€to€a€conviction€under€eitherÏœindictment€or€in€both€trials.›€€The€purposes€of€the€notice€as€set€out€in€òòAdamsóó,Ïwere€clearly€met€with€the€filing€of€the€first€notice.€€Moreover,€this€court€has€heldÏthat€in€the€absence€of€written€notice,€substantial€compliance€with€the€statuteÏwould€be€found€if€the€defendant€had€actual€or€constructive€notice€of€the€StateððsÏintent€to€seek€enhanced€punishment.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€795€S.W.2d€689,Ï697,€699€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€Defendant€was€not€prejudiced,€misled,€or€surprisedÏby€the€Stateððs€failure€to€file€notice€of€intent€to€seek€enhanced€punishment€in€theÏsecond€trial.€€The€notice€was€properly€filed€in€the€first€proceeding,€and€theÏDefendant€had€actual€or€constructive€notice€of€the€Stateððs€intent€to€seekÏœenhanced›€punishment€in€the€second€proceeding.€€Thus,€œany€error€is›€harmless€inÏthis€instance,€and€this€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌÓ  Óò òIII.€€Access€to€Trial€Transcriptó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Defendant€next€argues€that€an€indigent€defendant€should€have€theÏright€to€a€œstate„provided›€transcript€prior€to€the€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€The€StateÏdisagrees€and€contends€that€this€issue€is€waived€under€Rule€36(a)€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€because€the€Defendant€failed€to€takeÍwhatever€action€reasonably€available€to€prevent€or€nullify€the€harmful€effect€ofÏthe€error.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€contends€that€he€was€indigent€at€the€time€of€trial€andÏbecause€of€this€did€not€receive€a€transcript€until€eight€months€after€the€œsentencingÏhearing.›€€He€apparently€argues€that€he€was€put€at€a€disadvantage€by€notÏreceiving€a€copy€of€the€transcript€in€a€timely€manner.€€In€support€of€thisÏcontention,€he€cites€òòState€v.€Draperóó,€800€S.W.2d€489,€497€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1990),€which€says:€€ð ðAs€a€general€rule,€the€defendant€is€entitled€to€a€transcript€ofÏthe€proceedings€relevant€to€the€issues€raised€in€his€motion€for€a€new€trial€ifÏcounsel€asserts€that€the€issues€will€be€raised€in€the€appellate€court.ðð€€€€€€ÌÌà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€sections€40„14„312€and€40„14„309Ïcollectively€state€that€upon€the€direction€of€the€court€in€the€case€of€an€indigentÏdefendant,€a€reporter€designated€by€the€court€shall€transcribe€from€the€originalÏrecords€such€parts€of€the€proceeding€as€are€requested,€with€the€fee€being€paidÏby€the€State€of€Tennessee.ÌÌà àIn€òòDraperóó,€this€œcourt€outlined€the€procedures€for€an€indigent€defendant€toÏobtain€a€transcript€of€the€trial€proceedings.€›€œWhen›€the€defendant€is€declaredÏindigent€for€purposes€of€appeal,€an€order€should€be€entered€reflecting€this€findingÍand€directing€the€official€court€reporter€to€transcribe€the€proceedings€relevant€toÏthe€issues€that€will€be€presented€œfor›€review€in€the€appellate€court.€€òòDraperóó,€800ÏS.W.2d€at€495.€€In€this€case,€the€only€order€of€indigency€was€œentered›€by€the€trialÏcourt€prior€to€trial.€€Once€the€judge€has€found€the€defendant€to€be€indigent,Ïentered€an€order€to€that€effect,€and€directed€the€court€reporter€to€furnish€aÏcomplete€transcript€of€the€proceedings,€the€òòdefendantóó€is€required€to€file€a€writtenÏdocument€with€the€clerk€of€the€trial€court€designating€the€portions€of€theÏproceedings€that€the€defendant€deems€necessary€òòwithin€fifteen€(15)€days€afterÏthe€date€on€which€he€filed€his€notice€of€appealóó.€€T.R.A.P.€24(b)€(emphasisÏadded).€€The€order€should€also€state€whether€the€State€of€Tennessee€is€payingÏfor€the€transcript.€€òòId.óó€€ÌÓ  Óà àÌÓ  Óà àThe€transcript,€certified€by€the€appellant,€his€counsel,€or€the€reporter€as€anÏaccurate€account€of€the€proceedings,€shall€be€filed€with€the€clerk€of€the€trial€courtÏwithin€ninety€(90)€days€after€filing€the€notice€of€appeal.€€òòId.óóÌÌà àThe€Defendant€apparently€contends€that€he€was€put€at€a€disadvantageÏby€not€receiving€the€transcript€until€eight€months€after€the€sentencing€hearing.€ÏHowever,€he€does€not€set€forth€any€reasons€as€to€how€he€was€prejudiced€byÏthis€delay.€€Although€òòDraperóó€mandates€that€a€transcript€be€provided€inÍconnection€with€an€appeal,€the€Defendant€presents€no€authority€that€theÏentitlement€should€be€extended€in€connection€with€a€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€€€ÌÌà àClearly,€if€the€procedure€set€forth€in€the€statute€and€the€Rules€of€AppellateÏœProcedure›€(and€explicitly€outlined€in€òòDraperóó)€œwas›€followed,€the€Defendant€shouldÏhave€received€a€transcript€and€filed€it€with€œthe€appellate›€court€within€ninety€(90)Ïdays€from€the€date€on€which€he€filed€œhis€notice€of›€appeal.€Nothing€in€this€recordÏindicates€that€the€Defendant€sought€a€transcript€at€an€œearlier›€date€or€that€heÏsought€a€copy€at€any€time€after€œhis€notice€of›€appeal€was€filed.€€Nothing€in€theÏrecord€indicates€that€the€Defendant€requested€a€transcript€of€the€proceedings€atÏthe€conclusion€of€trial,€before€he€filed€his€motion€for€a€new€trial,€at€the€conclusionÏof€the€hearing€on€the€motion,€or€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Nor€does€the€recordÏcontain€any€written€motions€or€requests€pertinent€to€this€matter.ÌÌà àMoreover,€this€court€has€previously€found€no€error€when€trial€transcriptsÏwere€not€provided€to€œdefendants›€prior€to€their€motions€for€a€new€trial.€€òòState€v.ÏHillóó,€598€S.W.2d€815€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.Ï1980);€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€556€S.W.2d€88€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€òòid.óóÏ(Tenn.€1977).€€We€conclude€that€the€Defendant€was€not€prejudiced€by€notÏgetting€the€trial€transcript€before€the€hearing€on€his€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  Óò òIV.€Sentencingó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àAs€his€last€assignment€of€error,€the€Defendant€argues€that€œmitigating›€factorÏthree,€that€substantial€grounds€exist€tending€to€excuse€or€justify€the€defendantððsÏcriminal€conduct,€though€failing€to€establish€a€œdefense,€should€have€beenÏapplied€to€mitigate€his€sentence.›€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„113(3).€€Apparently,Ïthe€Defendant€does€not€contest€any€other€aspect€of€the€imposition€of€hisÏsentence.€›€Ìà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€the€manner€of€serviceÏof€a€sentence,€this€court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€theÏsentence€with€a€presumption€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€areÏcorrect.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€%ÔððÔ€&Ô€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditionedÏupon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€theÏsentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àIn€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€court€must€consider:Ï(a)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€theÏpresentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€œto›Ïsentencing€alternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conductÍinvolved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statementÏthat€the€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€ofÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€&XÔððððÔ€&ŠÔ€40„35„102,€„103,Ïand€„210;€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€did€not€find€any€mitigating€factors€applicable€and€theÏdefense€did€not€argue€the€applicability€of€this€œparticular€factor›€at€the€sentencingÏœhearing.€€The€Defendant€does€not€present€any€supporting€argument€or€authorityÏas€to€why€this€factor€should€be€applied.›€€In€reviewing€the€evidence,€œwe›Ïconclude€that€the€Defendantððs€testimony€denying€the€offense€and€hisÏexplanation€of€why€he€broke€into€the€house€do€not€amount€to€substantialÏgrounds€to€excuse€or€justify€his€conduct.€€Moreover,€the€jury€obviously€did€not€inÏany€way€accredit€the€Defendantððs€testimony.€€In€applying€the€presumption€ofÏcorrectness,€we€conclude€that€the€Defendantððs€contention€is€not€supported€byÏthe€record€and€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€not€applying€this€factor.€€ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is,€therefore,€affirmed.Ìà àÌÓÓœ›à àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGE›ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGE›