ÿWPC½ šð" !݈Œ˜›qJHMÍ㊉Ôdg„¯Þ#u «òhò8•tÑôéáèLF³¤_‡Ñäzj.áÍaAâ¤mN.Áö@ŒÆ¬DM‹¯žÜŒ-áÅÝ?âMÊæÆI6éþžw/·áik7ÕU5(d ¢ˆh܇lV½ë: Ñ^F=A±\)P`ëÁÇÿõR9á@¯¼ÝáÏçcH’LZ"Œ+“ äßBäo‹°¶œç³…c ¡Ê<¯·O$†ànD¾ rs5.NmpzP ¥ÞP£,7; ?m"P±¨ ¯oÊ?ð<*µd〨€C#ªrQDJ}:¼]âõݩ݌8ç®2RÄNú¦rÑ5GYòÆÛÒ›ÑÛÔ¶#™~¸V¶¸Á—j"wGùF6®3"O¨k‹#ŠE Öáå‘ŸÉ 8~_ÚªÝò£4ˆ—t#8Ò$»íRÜr”JÃh¾Ï—¡8e ­Q)‹•3ݱ¶¥ù’‚ƒæÄFT$«F¦odìk£þ£XÞöà=ï`¹÷ßCáë‹Ì¸ñ}(‰‡X Þf‰J2§fm¥â2"Hf5ûJ{dqð@• Ó5vxÙ÷áû{i·I±[%0-O¢ˆ–1zFËîÌp5°Ä08…ªbN\ %^ 0ˆdU)Nì z:Ò´^ † z’ Ò wÞ 4â ö  Æ ÆÍ Æ“ ÆY mN6U@8úxEr 0DtUN¸#ÁëÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇb²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²² 0뺺ºº B¥¥ 0¤Â D3f D-™ 0KÆÆ ASÆd 0¤* 0DÎ A«»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt£¨S)â  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptq\;'\Q£k2ì£3|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman  ðÝ ƒRó=$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôìò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Although€the€appellant€mentions€issue€(6)€in€his€brief,€he€does€not€pursue€the€argument.€€Therefore,€we€willÐ ° Ðnot€address€this€issue€in€this€opinion.€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a)(7);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔDickersonÔ_Ôóó,€885€S.W.2d€90,€93€(Tenn.Ð xÈ ÐÔ_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1993).(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0 áÝ ƒRó=$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôìò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€jurors€wanted€to€hear€the€appellant€say,€on€the€tape,€ð ðThatððs€wet;€I€just€made€that.ðð- ù-(|G2ó=$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ò»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôìò»»Ô d(|39$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ò»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|39$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ò»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ò»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼ò»»»ÔÑ8€ýcXXdð»»d8Ñà@ttìàԇòÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼ò»îî·· #ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àJune€28,€2000€SessionÐ X ÐÔ‡XýcX»¼òÔÌò òÔ#†¼ò»XXýc#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€NATHANIEL€ALLENÔ‡XýcX»¼òÔó óÐ  ` ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€as€of€Right€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Ô_ÔHamblenÔ_Ô€CountyÐ  h Ðà@@øøìàNo.€99„CR„088€€€€€€James€Edward€Ô_ÔBecknerÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ  X ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<×` AßÐ Ø(  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E1999„02209„CCA„R3„CDÐ ×'  ÐOctober€19,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ Ç  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<¶` AßÐ ·  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€appellant,€Nathaniel€Allen,€was€convicted€by€a€jury€in€the€Ô_ÔHamblenÔ_Ô€County€Circuit€Court€of€oneÐ ¶ Ðcount€of€delivery€of€more€than€.5€grams€of€cocaine,€a€class€B€felony.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€theÐ ¦ö Ðappellant€to€twelve€years€incarceration€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction,€as€a€Range€IÐ –æ Ðoffender,€with€thirty€percent€release€eligibility€and€assessed€a€fine€of€$€7,500.€€The€appellant€presentsÐ †Ö Ðthe€following€issues€for€our€review:€(1)€whether€the€evidence€in€this€case€is€sufficient€to€sustain€aÐ vÆ Ðverdict€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt;€(2)€whether€the€testimony,€under€oath,€of€Ô_ÔTonyaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔAcuffÔ_ÔÐ f¶ Ðwas€so€contradictory€as€to€have€been€subject€to€cancellation;€(3)€whether€the€courtððs€decision€to€sendÐ V¦ Ðitems€to€the€jury€room€in€this€case€was€improper€to€the€extent€that€it€included€typed€transcripts€ofÐ F– Ðtapes€not€offered€as€evidence;€(4)€whether€it€was€improper€for€the€court€to€align€one€of€the€tapesÐ 6† Ðintroduced€into€evidence€by€the€State€in€this€case€to€a€particular€phrase€so€that€the€jury€heard€thatÐ &v Ðphrase€immediately€upon€turning€on€the€tape€recorder;€(5)€whether€sentencing€in€this€case€wasÐ f Ðexcessive€and€whether€the€court€properly€applied€statutory€guidelines€in€delivering€a€sentence€in€thisÐ V Ðcase;€(6)€whether€if,€in€fact,€the€trial€court€had€no€alternative€but€to€give€a€twelve„year€sentence€inÐ öF Ðthis€case€according€to€the€Tennessee€sentencing€guidelines,€then€are€those€guidelines€constitutionalÐ æ6 Ðboth€in€terms€of€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€constitutions.€€Upon€review€of€the€record€and€theÐ Ö& Ðpartiesðð€briefs,€we€affirm€the€appellantððs€convictions,€but€modify€his€sentence€to€ten€years.Ð Æ  ÐÓÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€is€Affirmed€asÐ ¦"ö! ÐModified.ó óÐ –#æ" ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ò»àXýc„#ÔÔ‡XýcX.¼òÔNorma€McGee€Ogle,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayes,óó€and€òòJamesÐ v%Æ $ ÐCurwood€Witt,€Jr.óó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð f&¶!% ÐÌGreg€Eichelman,€Morristown,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Nathaniel€Allen.Ð F(–#' ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€Clinton€J.€Morgan,€Counsel€for€the€State,€ChrisÐ &*v%) ÐScruggs,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð +f&* ÐÓš ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ò»XXýcÉ #ÔÔ‡XýcX»¼òÔÐ ö,F(, ÐÐ æ-6)-ý ÐòòóóÔ#†¼ò»XXýc,#ÔÔ‡XýcX»¼òÔÓ  Óà@'' ìàòòò òI.€Factual€Backgroundó óóóˆÐ ° Ðà  àà ` àOn€December€9,€1998Ô#†¼ò»XXýc¢#ÔÔ€XýcX»¼òÔ,€Officer€Tim€Ward€and€a€confidential€informant,€Ô_ÔTonyaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔAcuffÔ_Ô,Ð  ð Ðarranged€to€meet€the€appellant€at€his€brotherððs€home€for€the€purpose€of€buying€drugs.€€Ô_ÔAcuffÔ_Ô€wasÐ à Ðwired€for€sound€and€two€separate€tapes€of€the€exchange€were€made;€one€tape€was€controlled€byÐ €Ð ÐOfficer€Todd€Davidson€at€a€remote€location,€and€the€second€tape€was€recorded€on€a€device€locatedÐ pÀ Ðon€Ô_ÔAcuffÔ_Ôððs€person.€When€the€appellant€arrived€at€the€residence,€he€and€Ô_ÔAcuffÔ_Ô€went€into€the€bathroomÐ ` ° Ðwhere€Ô_ÔAcuffÔ_Ô€gave€the€appellant€two€hundred€dollars€in€exchange€for€twelve€rocks€of€crack€cocaine.€Ð P   ÐThe€appellant€told€Ô_ÔAcuffÔ_Ô,€in€reference€to€the€cocaine€that€he€handed€her,€ð ðThatððs€wet;€I€just€madeÐ @  Ðthat.ðð€Ô_ÔAcuffÔ_Ô€then€exited€the€bathroom€and€left€the€premises€with€Officer€Ward.€€Ð 0 € ÐÌà  àà ` àA€jury€in€the€Ô_ÔHamblenÔ_Ô€County€Circuit€Court€convicted€the€appellant€of€one€count€ofÐ `  Ðdelivery€of€more€than€.5€grams€of€cocaine,€a€class€B€felony.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€appellantÐ P  Ðto€twelve€years€incarceration€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction,€as€a€Range€I€offender€andÐ ð@  Ðassessed€a€fine€of€$€7,500.€€The€appellant€presents€the€following€issues€for€our€review:€(1)€whetherÐ à0  Ðthe€evidence€in€this€case€is€sufficient€to€sustain€a€verdict€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt;€(2)Ð Ð  Ðwhether€the€testimony,€under€oath,€of€Ô_ÔTonyaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔAcuffÔ_Ô€was€so€contradictory€as€to€have€been€subject€toÐ À Ðcancellation;€(3)€whether€the€courtððs€decision€to€send€items€to€the€jury€room€in€this€case€wasÐ ° Ðimproper€to€the€extent€that€it€included€typed€transcripts€of€tapes€not€offered€as€evidence;€(4)€whetherÐ  ð Ðit€was€improper€for€the€court€to€align€one€of€the€tapes€introduced€into€evidence€by€the€State€in€thisÐ à Ðcase€to€a€particular€phrase€so€that€the€jury€heard€that€phrase€immediately€upon€turning€on€the€tapeÐ €Ð Ðrecorder;€(5)€whether€the€sentencing€in€this€case€was€excessive€and€whether€the€court€properlyÐ pÀ Ðapplied€statutory€guidelines€in€delivering€a€sentence€in€this€case;€(6)€whether€if,€in€fact,€a€trial€courtÐ `° Ðhad€no€alternative€but€to€give€a€twelve„year€sentence€in€this€case€according€to€the€TennesseeÐ P  Ðsentencing€guidelines,€then€are€those€guidelines€constitutional€both€in€terms€of€the€United€States€andÐ @ ÐTennessee€constitutions.Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ÔÐ 0€ ÐÌòòò òà@$ìàII.€Analysisó óóóˆÐ ` Ðà@yy#ìàA.€CancellationˆÐ P Ðà  àà ` àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€testimony,€under€oath,€of€Ô_ÔTonyaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔAcuffÔ_Ô€was€soÐ ð@ Ðcontradictory€as€to€have€been€subject€to€cancellation.€€In€Tennessee,€ð ðcontradictory€statements€byÐ à0 Ða€witness€in€connection€with€the€same€fact€cancel€each€other€out.ðð€òòState€v.€Matthews,óó€888€S.W.2dÐ Ð  Ð446,€449€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1993).€€However,€the€appellantððs€argument€on€this€point€is€less€thanÐ À! Ðclear€because€the€appellant€does€not€precisely€pinpoint€the€testimony€that€he€believes€isÐ °"  Ðcontradictory.€€Moreover,€although€the€appellant€acknowledges€that€this€court€cannot€assess€witnessÐ  #ð! Ðcredibility,€he€proceeds€to€argue€that€because€of€her€prior€drug€abuse,€Ô_ÔAcuffÔ_Ô,€as€a€witness,€was€notÐ $à" Ðcredible€and€should€not€be€believed.€€Assessing€witnesses€credibility€and€the€weight€to€be€given€toÐ €%Ð # Ðtheir€testimony€is€not€a€job€for€this€court.€òòÔ‡Xt- XXXýcÔState€v.€Pruettóó,788€S.W.2d€559,€561€(Tenn.€1990).Ô#†XýcX XXt-‹"#ÔÐ p&À!$ ÐÐ p'À"% Ðà  àà ` àThe€appellant€appears€to€argue€that€Ô_ÔAcuffÔ_Ô€admitted€at€trial€that€she€returned€to€theÐ ° Ðresidence€after€the€drug€bust€and€retrieved€from€a€hole€in€the€wall€of€the€residence€the€two€hundredÐ  ð Ðdollars€she€purportedly€paid€the€appellant€for€cocaine.€€The€exact€testimony€the€appellant€cites€is€asÐ à Ðfollows:Ð €Ð Ðà8  àQ:€And€is€this€that€when€you€went€back€to€that€little€hole€to€get€the€two€hundredÐ pÀ Ðdollars€out?Ð` °Ð Ð  Ðà8  àState:€Objection,€Your€Honor.€€She€said€she€didnððt€know€about€the€hole.ÐP  Ð Ð  Ðà8  àCourt:€Overruled.Ð@ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àQ:€Maððam?Ð0 €Ð Ð  Ðà8  àA:€Yes,€sir.Ð p Ð Ð  ÐThe€appellant€claims€that€this€testimony€is€inconsistent€because€Ô_ÔAcuffÔ_Ô€is€admitting€that€she€put€theÐ `  Ðtwo€hundred€dollars€in€a€hole€at€the€residence€for€her€later€retrieval€instead€of€giving€it€to€theÐ P  Ðappellant€for€drugs.€€However,€it€is€not€entirely€clear€from€the€transcript€that€Ô_ÔAcuffÔ_Ô€is€admittingÐ ð@  Ðanything.€€She€could€merely€be€acknowledging€that€the€appellantððs€counsel€was€proceeding€withÐ à0  Ðcross„examination.€Appellantððs€counsel€failed€to€clarify€which€question€Ô_ÔAcuffÔ_Ô€was€responding€to.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àMoreover,€even€if€this€statement€is€inconsistent,€the€ð ðrule€of€cancellation€applies€onlyÐ ° Ðwhen€inconsistency€in€a€witnessðð€testimony€is€unexplained€and€when€Ô_ÔneitherÔ_Ô€version€of€his€testimonyÐ  ð Ðis€corroborated€by€other€evidence.ðð€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€888€S.W.2d€446,€450€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð à Ð1993).€€The€line€of€questioning€that€the€appellant€relies€upon€occurred€after€Ô_ÔAcuffÔ_Ô€had€repeatedlyÐ €Ð Ðdenied€knowing€to€what€ð ðholeðð€appellantððs€counsel€was€referring.€€Additionally,€Ô_ÔAcuffÔ_Ô€repeatedlyÐ pÀ Ðtestified€that€she€gave€the€appellant€two€hundred€dollars€for€the€cocaine.€€Moreover,€on€the€tape,Ð `° ÐÔ_ÔAcuffÔ_Ô€can€be€heard€counting€out€two€hundred€dollars€before€handing€it€to€the€appellant€for€cocaine.€Ð P  ÐThis€is€sufficient€corroboration€to€withstand€cancellation.Ð @ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€appellant€further€argues€that€statements€Acuff€made€in€court€are€inconsistent€withÐ  p Ðstatements€she€made€on€the€tapes€and€are€therefore€subject€to€cancellation.€€Specifically,€theÐ ` Ðappellant€claims€that€Ô_ÔAcuffÔ_Ô€testified€that€the€appellant€told€her€that€the€cocaine€was€wet€because€itÐ P Ðwas€freshly€cooked.€€In€contrast,€the€appellant€points€to€statements€on€the€tapes€where€Ô_ÔAcuffÔ_Ô€claimsÐ ð@ Ðto€have€ð ðÔ_Ôgot[tenÔ_Ô]€that€wet,ðð€and€where€she€says€that€the€appellant€ð ðstuck€it€down€in€the€wet€[stuff].ðð€Ð à0 ÐHowever,€the€statements€Ô_ÔAcuffÔ_Ô€made€on€the€tape€are€not€sworn€testimony.€€òòState€v.€Edwardsóó,€No.Ð Ð  ÐW1999„00591„CCA„R3Ô_Ô„CD,Ô_Ô€2000€WL€674671,€at€*3,€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€at€Jackson,€May€16,€2000).€Ð À! ÐPrior€inconsistent€statements€by€a€witness€that€are€not€sworn€testimony€merely€raise€credibility€issuesÐ °"  Ðfor€the€trier€of€fact€to€resolve.€€òòId.óó€€Moreover,€additional€evidence€corroborated€Acuffððs€testimonyÐ  #ð! Ðthat€the€appellant€said€that€the€cocaine€was€wet€because€it€was€freshly€cooked.€€On€one€of€the€tapesÐ $à" Ðthe€State€introduced€into€evidence,€the€appellant€claimed,€in€reference€to€the€cocaine,€ð ðThatððs€wet;Ð €%Ð # ÐI€just€made€that.ðð€€Furthermore,€Officer€Davidson€testified€that,€in€his€Ô_Ôopinion,Ô_Ô€when€someone€refersÐ p&À!$ Ðto€drugs€as€being€ð ðwet,ðð€that€means€the€drugs€have€been€freshly€cooked.€€Therefore,€the€rule€ofÐ `'°"% Ðcancellation€does€not€apply.Ð P( #& ÐÌà@  ìàB.€Sufficiency€of€the€EvidenceˆÐ 0*€%( Ðà  àà ` àThe€appellant€also€contends€that€the€evidence€in€this€case€was€insufficient€to€sustainÐ  +p&) Ða€verdict€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€Ô‡Xt- XXXýcÔ€This€court€accords€considerable€weight€to€a€juryððsÐ ,`'* Ðverdict€of€guilt€in€a€criminal€trial.€€Essentially,€a€jury€conviction€removes€the€presumption€ofÐ ° Ðinnocence€the€appellant€had€at€trial€and€replaces€it€with€one€of€the€appellantððs€guilt€on€appeal.€€òòStateÐ œì Ðv.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).Ô#†XýcX XXt-Ó5#ÔÔ‡Xt- XXXýcÔ€€Accordingly,€the€appellant€carries€the€burden€ofÐ ˆØ Ðdemonstrating€to€this€court€why€the€evidence€will€not€support€the€juryððs€findings.€òòÔ#†XýcX XXt-‡7#ÔId.Ô‡Xt- XXXýcÔóó€€Furthermore,Ð tÄ Ðthe€appellant€must€establish€that€no€ð ðreasonable€trier€of€factðð€could€have€found€the€essential€elementsÐ tÄ Ðof€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,Ð ` ° Ð2789€(1979);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).Ð L œ ÐÌà  àMoreover,€on€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€andÐ $ t Ðall€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410Ð  `  Ð(Tenn.€1983).€€Put€another€way,€questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses€and€the€weight€andÐ ü L  Ðvalue€to€be€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence,€are€resolved€byÐ è8  Ðthe€trier€of€fact,€and€not€the€appellate€courts.€òòPruettóó,788€S.W.2d€at€561.Ô#†XýcX XXt-l8#ԀРÔ$  ÐÌà  àà ` àTo€sustain€the€appellantððs€conviction,€the€State€had€to€prove€that€the€appellantÐ Ä  Ðknowingly€delivered€over€.5€grams€of€cocaine€to€Acuff.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„Ð ´ Ð417(a)(2)&(b)(1997).€€The€State€introduced€testimony€by€Officer€Davidson,€Officer€Ward,€and€AcuffÐ ¤ô Ðthat€Acuff€was€thoroughly€searched€before€and€after€this€operation€to€prevent€fraud€and€that€no€drugsÐ ”ä Ðwere€found€on€Acuffððs€person,€in€her€car,€or€in€her€pocketbook€during€the€search.€They€asserted€thatÐ „Ô ÐAcuff€entered€the€residence€with€two€hundred€dollars€and€exited€with€twelve€rocks€of€crack€cocaine.€Ð tÄ ÐFurthermore,€Acuff€testified€that,€when€she€entered€the€bathroom€with€the€appellant,€she€gave€himÐ d´ Ðtwo€hundred€dollars€and€he€handed€her€approximately€twelve€rocks€of€crack€cocaine€that€he€had€justÐ T¤ Ðmade.€€Additionally,€Officer€Ward€testified€that€no€one€else€went€into€the€bathroom€with€theÐ D” Ðappellant€and€Acuff.€€Moreover,€both€tapes€that€were€introduced€into€evidence€support€Acuffððs€story.€Ð 4„ ÐFurthermore,€the€State€introduced€a€lab€report€stating€that€1.2€grams€of€cocaine€were€recovered€fromÐ $t ÐAcuff€after€the€drug€sale.€This€constitutes€sufficient€evidence€for€a€reasonable€trier€of€fact€toÐ d Ðconclude€that€the€appellant€was€guilty€of€delivery€of€cocaine€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ð T ÐÌà@#ìàC.€€TranscriptsˆÐ ä4 Ðà  àà ` àThe€appellant€alleges€that€the€courtððs€decision€to€Ô‡Xt- XXXýcÔsend€items€to€the€jury€room€Ô_ÔwasÔ_ÔÐ Ô$ Ðimproper€to€the€extent€that€it€included€typed€transcripts€of€tapes€not€offered€as€evidence.€€Ô#†XýcX XXt-éB#ÔÔ‡Xt- XXXýcÔInitially€weÐ Ô $ Ðnote€that,€although€the€appellant€claims€the€transcripts€were€never€introduced€as€exhibits,€bothÐ À! Ðtranscripts€were€in€fact€marked€as€exhibits.€òòóóÔ#†XýcX XXt-ÜC#ÔÔ‡Xt- XXXýcÔ€òòState€v.€Lawsonóó,€No.€01C01„9607„CR„00320,€1997€WLÐ ¬"ü  Ð661483,€at€*11,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€October€24,€1997).Ô#†XýcX XXt-çD#ÔÔ‡Xt- XXXýcÔ€€Moreover,€the€appellant€himselfÐ ˜#è! Ðintroduced€one€of€the€tapes€and€one€of€the€transcripts€into€evidence.Ô#†XýcX XXt-¸E#ÔÔ‡Xt- XXXýcÔ€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€30.1€statesÐ „$Ô" Ðthat€Ð p%À # Ðà8  àUpon€retiring€to€consider€its€verdict€the€jury€shall€take€to€the€jury€room€all€exhibitsÐ \&¬!$ Ðand€writings€which€have€been€received€in€evidence,€except€depositions,€for€theirÐ H'˜"% Ðexamination€during€deliberations,€unless€the€court,€for€good€cause,€determines€thatÐ 4(„#& Ðan€exhibit€should€not€be€taken€to€the€jury€room.Ð )p$'Ð Ð  ÐFurthermore,€the€Advisory€Commission€Comments€following€the€rule€state€that€this€rule€isÐ  *\%( Ðmandatory€unless€the€judge€determines€that€an€exhibit€should€not€be€submitted€to€the€jury€becauseÐ ø*H&) Ðð ðthe€exhibit€may€endanger€the€health€and€safety€of€the€jurors,€the€exhibit€may€be€subjected€toÐ ä+4'* Ðimproper€use€by€the€jury,€or€a€party€may€be€unduly€prejudiced€by€submission€of€the€exhibit€to€theÐ ° Ðjury.ðð€€òòÔ#†XýcX XXt-uF#ÔId.óóÔ‡Xt- XXXýcÔ;€òòsee€alsoóóÔ#†XýcX XXt-{J#ÔÔ‡Xt- XXXýcÔ€òòLawsonóó,€1997€WL€661483,€at€*Ô#†XýcX XXt-ÍJ#ÔÔ‡Xt- XXXýcÔ11.Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àFurthermore,€the€trial€court€admonished€the€jury€to€only€consider€the€transcripts€asÐ ˆØ Ðaids€in€listening€to€the€tapes,€and€any€discrepancies€between€what€the€jurors€heard€on€the€tapes€andÐ tÄ Ðwhat€was€written€in€the€transcripts€were€to€be€solved€in€favor€of€what€the€jurors€heard€on€the€tapes.€Ð ` ° ÐòòState€v.€Barnardóó,€899€S.W.2d€617,€623„624€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€€Additionally,€the€appellantÐ L œ Ðmade€no€objection€when€the€transcripts€were€first€introduced€at€trial.òòóóÔ#†XýcX XXt-2K#Ô€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔKillebrewÔ_Ôóó,€760Ð 8 ˆ ÐS.W.2d€228,€235€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988)(stating€defendantððs€failure€to€object€on€any€ground€to€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðadmission€of€evidence€resulted€in€the€waiver€of€issue€of€proper€admissibility).€€This€issue€is€withoutÐ ( x  Ðmerit.Ð h  ÐÌà@……"ìàD.€€Pre„set€tapeˆÐ øH  Ðà  àà ` àThe€appellant€further€argues€that€it€was€improper€for€the€court€to€align€one€of€theÐ è8  Ðtapes€introduced€into€evidence€by€the€State€in€this€case€to€a€particular€phrase€so€that€the€jury€heardÐ Ø(  Ðthat€phrase€immediately€upon€turning€on€the€tape€recorder.€€After€deliberating€for€two€hours,€the€juryÐ È Ðsent€a€request€to€the€trial€judge€for€assistance€in€finding€a€particular€phrase€on€one€of€the€tapes.€€TheÐ ¸ Ðjurors€could€see€the€phrase€on€one€of€the€transcripts€but€could€not€find€it€on€the€tape.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€WithoutÐ ¨ø Ðcommenting€on€the€evidence,€the€judge€found€the€phrase€and€sent€the€tape€back€to€the€jury€room.€Ð ˜è ÐThe€appellant€claims€that€this€was€undue€emphasis€by€the€trial€judge€of€the€Stateððs€evidence.€€WeÐ ˆØ Ðdisagree.Ð xÈ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€trial€court€made€no€comment€about€the€evidence€and€did€not€set€the€tape€to€aÐ X¨ Ðparticular€phrase€until€the€jury€requested.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Fairóó,€No.€02C01„9493„CR„00055,€1995€WLÐ H˜ Ð686105,€at€*6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€November€15,€1995).€€Furthermore,€the€jury€alreadyÐ 8ˆ Ðhad€the€tapes€in€the€jury€room€during€deliberation;€all€the€jury€requested€was€assistance€in€findingÐ (x Ða€phrase€on€the€tape.€€Accordingly,€Ð h Ðà8  àthe€court€[did]€not€emphasize€the€evidence€by€permitting€the€jury€to€rehear€what€theyÐ X Ðwish€to€hear€in€carrying€out€their€task€of€determining€the€facts€in€a€case.€€If€there€isÐ øH Ðany€emphasis€being€placed€on€the€evidence,€it€is€being€placed€there€by€the€jury.Ðè8Ð Ð  ÐòòState€v.€Jenkinsóó,€845€S.W.2d€787,€792€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Furthermore,€even€if€the€judge€didÐ Ø ( Ðcommit€error€by€pre„setting€the€tape€for€the€jury,€the€error€is€harmless€because€the€testimony€of€theÐ È! Ðofficers,€the€testimony€of€Acuff,€and€the€transcript€also€confirmed€that€the€appellant€stated€that€heÐ ¸"  Ðhad€just€made€the€crack€cocaine.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ¨#ø! ÐÌà@ÁÁ$ìàE.€SentencingˆÐ ˆ%Ø # Ðà  àà ` àÔ‡Xt- XXXýcÔThe€appellant€maintains€that€the€sentencing€in€this€case€was€excessive.€€AppellateÐ x&È!$ Ðreview€of€the€length€of€a€sentence€is€de€novo.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)(1997).€€Furthermore,Ð d'´"% Ðthe€appellant€bears€the€burden€of€demonstrating€€the€impropriety€of€his€sentence€to€this€court.€Tenn.Ð P( #& ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€Moreover,€if€the€record€reveals€thatÐ <)Œ$' Ðthe€trial€court€adequately€considered€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances,Ð ° Ðthis€court€will€accord€the€trial€courtððs€determinations€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòóóTenn.€Code€Ann.Ð œì Ððð€40„35„401(d)Ô#†XýcX XXt-ÁX#ÔÔ‡Xt- XXXýcÔòòóó;€òòAshbyóó,823€S.W.2d€at€169.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àThis€court€considers€the€following€factors€in€conducting€its€de€novo€review:€(1)€theÐ `° Ðevidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€the€pre„sentence€report;€(3)€theÐ L œ Ðprinciples€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€the€nature€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðcharacteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(5)€evidence€and€information€offered€by€the€partiesÐ $ t Ðon€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors;€(6)€any€statement€by€the€defendant€in€his€own€behalf;€andÐ  ` Ð(7)€the€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102,„103,„210€(1997).€òòSeeÐ ü L  Ðalsoóó€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€168€(Tenn.€1991).Ô#†XýcX XXt-â[#ԀРè 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àInitially,€we€note€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€stated€that,€because€the€appellant€hadÐ Ø(  Ðbeen€convicted€of€a€Class€B€felony,€the€appellantððs€presumptive€sentence€was€ten€years,€which€is€theÐ È  Ðmidpoint€of€the€eight€to€twelve€year€range€for€a€Class€B€felony.€€In€sentencingÔ‡Xt- XXXýcÔ,Ð ¸  Ðà8  à[t]he€presumptive€sentence€for€a€òòClass€Bóó,€C,€D€and€E€felony€shall€be€the€òòminimumóóÐ ¸ Ðsentence€in€the€range€if€there€are€no€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors.€€TheÐ ¤ô Ðpresumptive€sentence€for€a€òòClass€Aóó€felony€shall€be€the€òòmidpointóó€of€the€range€if€thereÐ à Ðare€no€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors.Ô#†XýcX XXt-á`#Ô€€Ð|ÌÐ Ð  ÐÔ‡Xt- XXXýcÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c)(1997)Ô#†XýcX XXt-Øb#Ô(emphasis€added).€€Therefore,€the€starting€point€in€the€trialÐ |Ì Ðcourtððs€analysis€should€have€been€eight€years,€the€minimum€sentence€for€a€Class€B€felony.€As€aÐ |Ì Ðresult,€we€will€review€the€appellantððs€sentence€without€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€trial€court€found€that€two€enhancement€factors€applied€to€the€appellant.€€First,€theÐ Lœ Ðtrial€court€found€that€the€appellant€had€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminalÐ <Œ Ðbehavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð ,| Ð114(1)(1997).€€The€appellant€had€a€history€of€one€driving€under€the€influence€conviction€and€oneÐ l Ðdriving€on€a€revoked€license€conviction.€€Additionally,€the€appellant€had€previous€juvenileÐ  \ ÐÔ_ÔconvictionsÔ_Ô€of€assault€and€shoplifting.€€The€trial€court€stated:Ð üL Ðà8  àThere€is€not€a€huge€history€of€criminal€convictions,€nor€a€history€of€felonies.€€ButÐ ì< Ðthere€is€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior.€€And€none€of€those€areÐ Ü , Ðnecessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range.ÐÌ!Ð Ð  ÐWe€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€this€enhancement€factor€applies€to€the€appellant.€Ð ¼"   ÐÌà  àà ` àMoreover,€the€trial€court€found€a€violation€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(8)Ð œ$ì" Ðbecause€the€appellant€had€previously€violated€the€terms€of€probation€by€driving€inappropriately€onÐ Œ%Ü # Ða€temporary€license.€€The€trial€court€noted,€ð ðThatððs€not€the€most€egregious€enhancement€factor€[(8)]Ð |&Ì!$ ÐIððve€seen,€but€it€is€a€consideration.ðð€€Once€again,€we€believe€the€trial€court€correctly€applied€thisÐ l'¼"% Ðenhancement€factor€to€the€appellantððs€sentences.€Ð \(¬#& ÐÌà  àà ` àHowever,€the€appellantððs€main€contention€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€findÐ <*Œ%( Ðthe€existence€of€any€mitigating€factors.€€Specifically,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€following€factorsÐ ,+|&) Ðare€applicable€in€the€instant€case:Ð ,l'* Ðà8  à(1)€the€appellantððs€criminal€conduct€neither€caused€nor€threatened€serious€bodilyÐ ° Ðinjury;РðÐ Ð  Ðà8  à(2)€the€appellant€acted€under€strong€provocation;€ÐàÐ Ð  Ðà8  à(3)€substantial€grounds€exist€tending€to€excuse€or€justify€the€appellantððs€criminalÐ €Ð Ðconduct,€though€failing€to€establish€a€defense;ÐpÀÐ Ð  Ðà8  à(4)€the€appellant€played€a€minor€role€in€the€commission€of€the€offense;€Ð` °Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(11)€the€appellant,€although€guilty€of€the€crime,€committed€the€offense€under€suchÐ P   Ðunusual€circumstances€that€it€is€unlikely€that€a€sustained€intent€to€violate€the€lawÐ @  Ðmotivated€the€criminal€conduct;€and,€Ð0 €Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(12)€the€appellant€acted€under€duress€or€under€the€domination€of€another€person,€evenÐ  p  Ðthough€the€duress€or€the€domination€of€another€person€is€not€sufficient€to€constituteÐ `  Ða€defense€to€the€crime.ÐP Ð Ð  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1)„(4)&(11)„(12)(1997).€€We€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€theÐ ð@  ÐÔ_ÔenÔ_ÔÔ_ÔnumeratedÔ_Ô€mitigating€factors€do€not€apply.Ð à0  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€appellant€argues€that€his€conduct€neither€caused€nor€threatened€serious€bodilyÐ À Ðinjury.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1).€€However,€the€appellant€further€notes,€correctly,€that€ð ðÔ‡Xt- XXXýcÔthisÐ ° Ðcourt€has€held€this€factor€should€not€be€applied€when€the€defendant€is€convicted€of€an€offenseÐ ° Ðinvolving€cocaineÔ#†XýcX XXt-§r#Ô.ðð€òòóó€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔVanderfordÔ_Ôóó,€980€S.W.2d€390,€407€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€The€trialÐ œì Ðcourt€correctly€refused€to€apply€this€factor.Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€appellant€claims€that€this€court€should€reconsider€our€refusal€to€apply€this€factorÐ |Ì Ðin€cases€involving€cocaine.€€He€maintains€that,€if€this€court€stands€by€its€position,€Ð l¼ Ðà8  àthere€is€no€way€to€differentiate€between€a€drug€sale€made€in€a€public€area,€aroundÐ \¬ Ðchildren€and€armed€with€loaded€weapons€from€a€drug€transaction€occurring€betweenÐ Lœ Ðconsenting€adults€in€the€privacy€of€a€bathroom.Ð<ŒÐ Ð  ÐThe€appellant€overlooks€the€fact€that€the€drug„free€school€zones€act€Ô_ÔenhancesÔ_Ô€a€felony€by€oneÐ ,| Ðclassification€if€it€occurred€withing€1000€feet€of€a€school€zone,€enhancement€factor€(9)€could€beÐ l Ðapplied€if€ð ðthe€defendant€possessed€or€employed€a€firearm,€explosive€device€or€other€deadly€weaponÐ  \ Ðduring€the€commission€of€the€offense,€and€a€private€drug€sale€is€no€more€legal€than€a€drug€saleÐ üL Ðcommitted€in€a€public€place.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„17„432(b)(1997),€40„35„114(9).€This€issue€isÐ ì < Ðwithout€merit.Ð Ü!, ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€appellant€repeatedly€argues€that,€without€the€contacts€of€Ô_ÔAcuffÔ_Ô,€this€drug€saleÐ ¼# ! Ðwould€never€have€occurred.€€He€claims€that,€therefore,€his€role€in€the€offense€was€minor€and€thatÐ ¬$ü" ÐÔ_ÔAcuffÔ_Ô€provoked€his€actions,€proving€he€had€no€sustained€intent€to€violate€the€law.€€However,€theÐ œ%ì # Ðappellantððs€role€in€this€offense€was€not€minor.€€He€made€1.2€grams€of€cocaine€and€sold€it€to€Ô_ÔAcuffÔ_ÔÐ Œ&Ü!$ Ðsoon€thereafter.€€The€argument€that€he€was€provoked€into€the€drug€sale€has€no€merit.€€Moreover,€theÐ |'Ì"% Ðfact€that€the€appellant€made€the€crack€cocaine€and€immediately€sold€it€indicates€that€he€had€aÐ l(¼#& Ðsustained€intent€to€violate€the€law.€€The€trial€court€correctly€ruled€that€factors€(2)„(4)€and€(11)„(12)Ð \)¬$' Ðdo€not€apply€to€the€appellant.€€Ð L*œ%( Ðâ âÐ <+Œ&) Ðà  àà ` àAlthough€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€determination€that€the€correct€starting€point€wasÐ ° Ðâ âthe€midpoint€of€the€range,€the€trial€court€nevertheless€correctly€applied€all€of€the€enhancement€andÐ  ð Ðmitigating€factors€to€the€appellant.€€Because€there€were€two€enhancement€factors€and€no€mitigatingÐ à Ðfactors,€the€appellantððs€sentence€should€be€above€the€eight€year€minimum.€Accordingly,€we€modifyÐ €Ð Ðthe€appellantððs€sentence€from€twelve€years€to€ten€years€incarceration€in€the€Tennessee€DepartmentÐ pÀ Ðof€Correction.Ð ` ° ÐÌà@MM"ìàòòò òIII.€€Conclusionó óóóˆÐ @  Ðà  àà ` àBased€upon€the€foregoing,€we€affirm€the€appellantððs€Ô_Ôconviction,Ô_Ô€but€modify€hisÐ 0 € Ðsentence€to€ten€years.Ð  p  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð à0  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNORMA€Ô_ÔMcGEEÔ_Ô€OGLE,€JUDGE