ÿWPCt$ …# VU>a %Ÿ 0 ¥UB® 4ð  n­ U:À ú w@ 0JB 0MŒ 0DÙ 0T 0^q 0hÏ 0r7 0|© 0†% 0« 1u; B° 0dÍU61U.gU *• D3¿B)òDC 0@^ AMž{ëÑfÛ7f:xf²fv~~vÓü AOÏ"Æ# 0Dä# D/($ BW$˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(á½V$¡¡Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÑ  ÑÑ7€…XXdð XXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiÔ¡¨ 3|x` «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular N O DP DQ R DS DT DU V W Ó€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(ý(39$¤¤Ý ƒ½V!ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑ  ÑÑ7€.XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ¸ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2" 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) dP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier< Œ 9p`(Arial'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ qÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌOctoberÏ17,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó ÇÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ôÔÑ7ÀäXXdðXXdð7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€Our€review€of€the€transcript€reveals€that€Officer€Teague€testified€that€he€reported€the€€drillððs€modelÏnumber€as€being€8400VDW.Ì ÑÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ôÔÑ7ÀäXXdðXXdð7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€A€picture€of€the€drill€set€recovered€from€the€defendant€that€was€introduced€at€trial€shows€a€9.6€voltÏdrill€with€a€model€number€of€8400VDW.€Ì \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ 0Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÔ€'ôÔÔ€)ÔÑ7À^BXXdÈXXdæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€The€presentence€report€actually€reflects€that€the€defendant€has€two€prior€convictions€forÏattempted€grand€larceny€but€proof€at€the€sentencing€hearing€established€that€the€defendant€has€only€one€convictionÏfor€attempted€grand€larceny.€€Ì \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ \Ñ\R AØ'\ÑPtPtHPð€ÿÜÿìô”(üHPð€P € €'Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€'ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ#€((Xd#ÑÑ#€((Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€)Ô›Ñ7€  … XXdæXXdÈ7ќـ€ÙßL€./,;+'h|` ´- `€€Lß›€à8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€AUGUST€1996€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,€à àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9511„CC„00381Ìà à€€€€€à àà à€€à à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àWilliamson€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)à à€Hon.€HenryÏDenmark€Bell,€Judge€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)ÌGARY€W.€WITHERSPOON,€€€à à)à à€(Burglary€and€Theft€OverÏ$500.00)Ìà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€Ìà àAppellant.à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌLarry€D.€Drolsumà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€ofÏTennesseeÌ407€C€Main€Streetà àà àà àà àà àandÌP.O.€Box€68à àà àà àà àà àClinton€J.€MorganÌFranklin,€TN€37068„0068à àà àà àCounsel€for€theÏStateà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450ÏJames€Robertson€Parkwayà àà àÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ì€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€D.€Baugh,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€AttorneyÏGeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àJeff€P.€BurksÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àWilliamson€County€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€937Ìà àà àà àà àà àFranklin,€TN€37065„0937ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÇÓÓà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌà àThe€defendant,€Gary€W.€Witherspoon,€appeals€as€of€right€from€his€convictions€byÏa€jury€in€the€Williamson€County€Circuit€Court€for€burglary,€a€Class€D€felony,€and€theft€over€fiveÏhundred€dollars,€a€Class€E€felony.€€As€a€Range€œII,›€multiple€offender,€he€received€consecutiveÏsentences€of€eight€and€four€years,€respectively,€and€was€fined€$500.00€for€each€offense.€€TheÏdefendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€€evidence€for€his€theft€conviction€and€the€consecutiveÏnature€of€his€sentences.ÌÌà àThis€case€relates€to€a€theft€of€the€Crosslin€Supply€store€in€Franklin,€Tennessee.€ÏAt€trial,€the€storeððs€vice€president€and€general€manager,€Henry€Davis,€testified€that€he€was€atÏhome€at€around€11:30€p.m.€on€November€26,€1994,€when€he€was€notified€that€the€storeððs€alarmÏhad€been€activated.€€He€rushed€to€the€store€and€found€that€œpolice›€were€already€on€the€sceneÏand€that€the€front€glass€window€of€the€store€had€been€broken.€€Items€in€the€store€were€inÏdisarray.€€Mr.€Davis€immediately€noticed€that€two€Makita€chain€saws€were€missing€from€a€displayÏand€that€he€was€also€missing€a€Makita€hammer€drill€that€he€had€ordered€specially.€€He€alsoÏnoticed€a€locking€portion€of€an€auto€theft€protection€device€called€ð ðThe€Clubðð€€lying€on€a€shelfÏand€said€that€the€store€did€not€sell€ð ðThe€œClub.ðð›ÌÌà àMr.€Davis€testified€that€one€of€the€missing€chain€saws,€a€DCS430€model€with€theÏserial€number€32026,€was€valued€at€œ$329.00,›€and€the€other,€a€DCS520€model€with€the€serialÍnumber€9233304,€was€valued€at€œ$369.›€€He€said€that€the€hammer€drill€had€a€sale€price€of€œ$184.›€ÏHe€recalled€that€he€arrived€at€the€store€at€11:35€p.m.€and€that€by€1:00€a.m.€€Deputy€Paul€Brady€ofÏthe€Williamson€County€Sheriffððs€Department€had€returned€all€three€items€to€him.€€He€testified€thatÏhe€knew€the€chain€saws€he€received€from€Brady€were€the€ones€taken€from€the€store€because€heÏverified€the€serial€numbers€and€the€chain€saws€still€had€the€storeððs€price€tags€on€them.€€HeÏrecognized€the€hammer€drill€as€the€one€taken€from€the€store€because€it€had€been€specialÏordered€but€admitted€that€any€Makita€dealer€could€have€ordered€the€same€model€drill.ÌÌà àKevin€Teague,€a€Franklin€police€officer,€testified€that€he€and€another€officerÏarrived€at€Crosslin€Supply€store€at€11:35€p.m.€on€November€26,€1994.€€He€recalled€that€a€holeÏabout€four€feet€by€four€feet€had€been€busted€out€of€the€storeððs€front€plate€glass€window.€€HeÏrecalled€searching€the€inside€of€the€building€and€identified€a€part€of€ð ðThe€Clubðð€that€heÏrecovered€from€a€shelf€in€the€store.€€He€said€that€Henry€Davis€gave€him€a€description€of€the€twoÏchain€saws€and€the€hammer€drill€that€had€been€taken€and€said€that€he€told€his€dispatcher€aboutÏthe€missing€œitems.›€€Specifically,€he€reported€that€a€Makita€DCS430€model€chain€saw€with€theÏserial€number€032036,€a€Makita€DCS520€model€chain€saw€with€the€serial€number€9233304,Ïand€a€cordless€Makita€hammer€drill€were€missing.€€Officer€Teague€testified€that€a€short€time€later,Ïhe€was€advised€that€a€county€officer€had€recovered€two€Makita€chain€saws€and€a€Makita€drill€setÏduring€a€traffic€stop.€€He€recalled€Deputy€Bradyððs€arrival€at€the€scene€with€the€missing€items€andÏsaid€that€Henry€Davis€verified€that€the€serial€numbers€matched€those€that€were€reported€stolen.€ÍOfficer€Teague€said€that€he€was€only€able€to€lift€partial€fingerprints€from€the€crime€scene€and€thatÏthe€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€determined€that€they€were€unidentifiable.ÌÌà àDeputy€Paul€Brady€testified€that€he€stopped€the€defendant€at€around€11:58€p.m.Ïon€November€26,€1994,€because€the€license€plate€on€the€Ford€Escort€the€defendant€was€drivingÏwas€expired€and€was€registered€to€a€Honda.€€He€testified€that€he€arrested€the€defendant€forÏdriving€on€a€revoked€license€and€that€he€recovered€two€Makita€chain€saws€and€a€cordless€drillÏfrom€the€defendantððs€car.€€He€said€that€he€also€noticed€that€the€car€contained€small€pieces€ofÏglass€and€a€part€of€ð ðThe€Clubðð.€€He€recalled€taking€the€defendant,€the€two€chain€saws,€and€theÏdrill€to€the€Crosslin€Supply€store€where€he€showed€the€items€to€Officer€Teague.€€Deputy€BradyÏadmitted€that€he€did€not€look€for€or€find€a€key€to€ð ðThe€Clubðð€and€that€he€did€not€gather€any€glassÏfrom€the€car.ÌÌà àThe€stateððs€final€witness€was€Bob€Capra,€a€police€dispatcher€for€the€City€ofÏFranklin.€€He€testified€that€he€received€a€burglar€alarm€call€from€the€Crosslin€Supply€store€atÏ11:35€p.m.€on€November€26,€1994,€and€that€he€dispatched€two€cars€to€the€scene.€€He€recalledÏthat€Henry€Davis€made€a€statement€to€him€about€the€missing€items€from€the€store,€that€he€relatedÏthe€statement€to€another€officer€and€that€he€heard€radio€traffic€concerning€the€missing€items€atÏ11:49€p.m.€€The€defendant€presented€no€œproof.›ÌÌà@ àò òIó óÌà àIn€his€first€issue,€the€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€his€theft€conviction.€ÏIn€support,€he€cites€alleged€discrepancies€between€Officer€Teagueððs€description€of€the€items€heÏreported€missing€and€the€items€actually€recovered€from€the€defendant.€€Specifically,€he€notesÏthat€Officer€Teague€testified€that€one€of€the€chain€saws€he€reported€missing€had€the€serialÏnumber€032036€and€that€he€reported€that€the€missing€hammer€drill€œwas€a›€model€8400DVM× ƒ0 ××  ×.€ÏThe€defendant€admits€that€one€of€the€chain€saws€recovered€from€him€matched€the€description€ofÏone€that€was€stolen€but€argues€that€because€the€other€chain€saw€recovered€from€him€had€aÏserial€number€of€032026€and€the€drill€was€a€Model€8400€9.6€Volt€VBW× ƒ1 ××  ×€there€is€insufficientÏevidence€to€convict€him€of€theft€over€$500.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àOur€standard€of€review€when€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€questioned€onÏappeal€is€"whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€òòanyóóÏrational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt."€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979).€€This€means€thatÏwe€may€not€reweigh€the€evidence,€but€must€presume€that€the€jury€has€resolved€all€conflicts€inÏthe€testimony€and€drawn€all€reasonable€inferences€from€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòSeeóóÍòòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835Ï(Tenn.€1978).€ÌÌà àIn€the€light€most€€favorable€to€the€state,€the€proof€at€trial€showed€that€less€thanÏthirty€minutes€after€someone€left€part€of€ð ðThe€Clubðð€at€the€Crosslin€Supply€store€after€using€it€toÏbreak€into€the€store€to€take€two€chain€saws€and€a€hammer€drill,€the€defendant€was€stopped€withÏtwo€chain€saws,€a€hammer€drill,€broken€glass€and€the€other€part€of€ð ðThe€Clubðð€in€the€car€he€wasÏdriving.€€Mr.€Davis€testified€that€the€chain€saws€and€the€hammer€drill€recovered€from€theÏdefendant€were€the€same€chain€saws€taken€from€Crosslin€Supply€store,€and€he€testified€thatÏtheir€total€value€was€$882.€€There€was€ample€evidence€from€which€a€rational€jury€couldÏconclude€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€was€guilty€of€theft€over€$500.€ÌÌà@ àò òIIó óÌà àIn€his€final€issue,€the€defendant€challenges€the€consecutive€nature€of€hisÏsentences.€€The€trial€court€imposed€consecutive€sentences€because€it€found€that€the€defendantÏis€a€professional€criminal€with€an€extensive€record€of€criminal€activity€who€committed€theÏburglary€and€theft€while€he€was€on€probation.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðððð€40„35„115(b)(1),€„115(b)(2),€and€„115(b)(6).€€The€defendant€concedes€that€he€was€on€probation€when€he€committed€the€presentÏoffenses€but€argues€that€consecutive€sentences€are€unwarranted€because€they€do€notÏreasonably€relate€to€the€crimes€he€committed€and€are€not€necessary€to€protect€society€from€him.€ÏWe€œdisagree.ÌÌ›à àAppellate€review€of€sentencing€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€on€the€record€with€a€presumption€thatÏthe€trial€court's€determinations€are€correct.€€T.C.A.€ðððð€40„35„401(d)€and€„402(d).€€As€theÏSentencing€Commission€Comments€to€these€sections€note,€the€burden€is€now€on€the€appealingÏparty€to€show€that€the€sentencing€is€improper.€€This€means€that€if€the€trial€court€followed€theÏstatutory€sentencing€procedure,€made€findings€of€fact€that€are€adequately€supported€in€theÏrecord,€and€gave€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€the€factors€and€principles€that€areÏrelevant€to€sentencing€under€the€1989€Sentencing€Act,€we€may€not€disturb€the€sentence€even€ifÏa€different€result€were€preferred.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1991).ÌÌà àUnder€the€relevant€parts€of€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„115(b),€the€trial€court€was€authorizedÏto€impose€consecutive€sentences€once€it€œfound€that:›ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 à(1)€[t]he€defendant€is€a€professional€criminal€who€has€knowinglyÏdevoted€himself€to€criminal€acts€as€a€major€source€of€livelihood;ÌÌà8 à(2)€[t]he€defendant€is€an€offender€whose€record€of€criminal€activityÏis€extensive;€[or]Ìà àÌà à.€.€.€ÌÌà8 à(6)€[t]he€defendant€is€sentenced€for€an€offense€committed€while€onÏprobation[.]ÌÓÓÌÓ  ÓHowever,€these€factors€ð ðcannot€be€read€in€isolation€from€other€provisions€of€[the€SentencingÏReform€Act€of€1989.]€€The€proof€must€also€establish€that€the€terms€imposed€are€reasonablyÍrelated€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committed€and€are€necessary€in€order€to€protect€the€publicÏfrom€further€criminal€acts€by€the€offender.ðð€€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€938€(Tenn.Ï1995).€Ì€Ñ€2ÑÇà àThe€record€reflects€that€the€defendant€has€a€prior€conviction€for€attempted€grandÏlarceny,× ƒ3 ××  ×€€two€prior€convictions€for€grand€larceny,€two€prior€convictions€forÑ€4ÑÇaggravated€assault,€two€prior€convictions€for€misdemeanor€theft,€five€prior€convictions€forÏshoplifting,€and€various€other€misdemeanor€convictions.€€Given€the€defendantððsÑ€5ÑÇcriminal€history,€we€conclude€that€the€consecutive€sentences€the€trial€court€imposed€areÏwarranted.€€In€addition€to€the€defendantððs€sentence€being€imposed€while€he€was€on€probationÏfor€another€offense,€the€consecutive€sentences€in€this€case€are€proper€because€they€reasonablyÏreflect€the€severity€of€the€defendantððs€repeated€commission€of€theft„related€offenses€and€areÏnecessary€to€protect€the€public€from€him.ÌÌà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€defendantððs€convictions€and€sentences€for€theftÏand€burglary€are€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÏà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€ÌÌ€ÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóJohn€H.€Peay,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóDavid€H.€Welles,€Judge€