ÿWPC w•ª&ÒÞîMñ°ì)Z3?ñÚéÅþty¥-Ïx“ÂAö艑FÏ@^FY¦òç )¿)9\²&Å0Éi¹&CRm°Û|ý>©[ÐÈŽÔ½ fJØ»dAYdçLÉØÐ6ç›w#?‰ Ô<[î6B]sJ}²S_–Úókô°«gÑÅÿا®Š§¾ì 8Œ@£š(ç„8Ù æïgÙ8(Vlú›‰û¼ƒ€¨%Zó`‹—7Lý”®ëL lúÉ!–fQ¾†éÑUI´›†ð˜)ñ–Ð[8Ë7ŒÅ5Õ Ÿ;¯*ËùŒG 4×B÷o¶‘ÄEb#Á\ % N# 0ˆ% U N­ U ,û 0D' zk Òå z· Ò1 ^  w Æ ÆÙ ÆŸÆe4+N?APER mTU ,kk†—U@U:]——¯>··· õõõõõõõõõõõbûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûû 0ë Bîî 0¤  D5¯ D-ä 0K AS\Ư 0¤u 0D A«]˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular, ± AZArial (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ˜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 ˜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.˜Y)â Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5•jW)dƒ¡k1$Ø¢3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ,c½¬AZ‹Arial  Ð   ' ib014r90ib014r9 .   (ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman , øð AZ"Arial Regular Ý ƒR¸à$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÐ\ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ€ôÏòòôÐ\ÔÔ€ôERòòôÏÔThe€state€filed€a€notice€of€appeal€to€challenge€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€the€jury€verdict€of€guiltyÐ ° Ðon€these€charges.€€However,€in€its€brief€submitted€to€the€court€on€appeal,€the€state€advises€that€it€does€not€choose€toÐ |Ì Ðpursue€appellate€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€decision.  4Ý ƒR¸à$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÐ\ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àAlthough€we€have€determined€that€enhancement€factor€(3)€and€(15)€do€not€apply,€we€note€that€the€trialÐ ° Ðcourt€accorded€these€factors€very€little€weight.H- ù-(|G2¸à$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¾¤»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÐ\ò»»Ô d(|3A$$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¾¤»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3A$$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¾¤»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¾¤»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼¾¤»»»ÔÔ‡X½3X»¼¾¤ÔÔ‡X*XXX½3ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ8€½3XXdð»»d8Ñà@Y Y ìàò òÔ#†X½3XXX*É#ÔÔ€X³æXXX½3ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@åå$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ œì ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àJune€2000€Sessionó óÐ ˆØ ÐÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€LISA€ANN€Ô_ÔBARGOÔ_Ôòòóóó óÐ `° ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Sullivan€CountyÐ 8 ˆ ÐNo.€S42,257€€€€€€Phyllis€H.€Miller,€JudgeÐ $ t ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<ç ` AßÐ è 8  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E1999„00156„CCA„R3„CDÐ ã3  ÐOctober€25,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ Ï  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<º` AßÐ »  Ðó óÓ‹ÓÌÓ¤ÓÓ  ÓDefendant€Lisa€Ann€Ô_ÔBargoÔ_Ô€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€one€count€of€forgery,€one€count€of€attempt€toÐ ¢ò  Ðcommit€theft€over€$10,000,€and€one€count€of€criminal€impersonation.€€The€trial€court€subsequentlyÐ ŽÞ Ðset€aside€the€jury€verdicts€on€the€attempt€to€commit€theft€and€the€criminal€impersonation€charges€andÐ zÊ Ðsentenced€the€defendant€on€her€forgery€conviction€to€ten€years€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offender€to€beÐ f¶ Ðserved€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€In€this€appeal,€the€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€ofÐ R¢ Ðthe€convicting€evidence€and€the€length€of€the€sentence.€€We€affirm€the€defendantððs€conviction€andÐ >Ž Ðsentence.Ð *z ÐÓÑÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Affirmedó ó€ò òó óÓÎÓÐ R ÐÓEÓòòÓ  ÓJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayesóó€andòòÐ â2 ÐNorma€McGee€OgleÔ‡X*XàX³æÔÔ#†¼§ »àX*ª#ÔÔ‡X*X .¼§Ôóó,€Ô#†X³æXXX*b #ÔJJ.,€joined.Ð Î ÐÌRichard€A.€Tate,€Assistant€Public€Defender,€Ô_ÔBlountvilleÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Lisa€AnnÐ ®þ ÐÔ_ÔBargoÔ_Ô.òòóóÐ šê ÐÌÓ‰ÓÓ  ÓPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€R.€Stephen€Ô_ÔJobeÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€H.Ð r!Â! ÐGreeley€Wells,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General,€Teresa€Murray€Smith,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ ^"®" ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð J#š# ÐÓó ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÐ "%r % ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àà ` àA€Sullivan€County€Criminal€Court€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€one€count€ofÐ ú&J"' Ðforgery€with€intent€to€defraud€in€an€amount€between€$10,000€and€$60,000Ô‡X*XXX³æÔÔ#†¼§ »XX*¤ #ÔÔ‡X*X »¼§Ô,Ô#†X³æXXX*i #Ô€a€Class€C€felony,€oneÐ æ'6#( Ðcount€of€attempted€theft€in€an€amount€between€$10,000€and€$60,000Ô#†¼ìz»XX³æ« #ÔÔ‡X³æX»¼ìzÔÔ‡X*XXX³æÔ,€Ô#†X³æXXX*œ#Ôa€Class€D€felony,€and€oneÐ Ú(*$) Ðcount€of€criminal€impersonation,€a€Class€B€misdemeanor.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€€39„14„105€(4)Ð Î)%* Ð(1997)€(grading€theft),€39„14„114€(1997)€(forgery);€ðððð€39„12„107(a)€(1997)€(grading€attempt),€39„14„Ð º* &+ Ðâ â103€(1997)€(theft);€ðð€39„16„301(a)(1)€(1997)€(criminal€impersonation).€€The€trial€court€thereafter€setÐ ¦+ö&,ý ÐÔ_Ôaside€the€jury€verdicts€on€the€attempt€to€commit€theft€and€the€criminal€impersonation€charges׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€andÐ ° Ðâ âsentenced€the€defendant€on€her€forgery€conviction€to€ten€years€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offender€to€beÐ œì Ðserved€in€the€Department€of€Correction.Ô‡X*XXX³æÔÔ#†¼§ »XX*}#ÔÔ‡X*X »¼§Ô€€Ô#†X³æXXX*#ÔThe€defendant€raises€two€issues€on€appeal:Ð ˆØ ÐÌÓ XÓà8  à1.à0` xxàThe€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€defendantððs€conviction€forÐ h¸ Ðforgery.ÐT ¤` x` x Ðà8  à2.à0` xxàThe€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€the€defendant€to€ten€years€as€aÐ @  ÐRange€II€multiple€offender.Ð, |` x` x ÐÓ XáÓÌFollowing€a€review€of€the€record,€the€briefs€of€the€parties,€and€the€applicable€law,€we€affirm€theÐ  T  Ðdefendantððs€conviction€and€sentence.€€Ð ð @  ÐÓœ Óò òÓ  Óó óÌÓ%ÓÓ °ÓÓ  ÓOn€May€21,€1998,€Lisa€Ann€Bargo€went€to€the€Don€Hill€Pontiac€car€dealership€inÐ È  ÐKingsport,€Sullivan€County,€Tennessee,€ostensibly€for€the€purpose€of€purchasing€a€1998€JeepÐ ´  ÐWrangler€Sport€vehicle.€€A€sales€consultant€with€Don€Hill€Pontiac,€Lanny€Robertson,€noticed€theÐ  ð  Ðdefendant€looking€at€one€of€the€new€Jeep€Wrangler€vehicles€in€the€dealership€parking€lot.€€Mr.Ð ŒÜ  ÐRobertson€approached€the€defendant€and€learned€that€she€was€interested€in€purchasing€the€JeepÐ xÈ ÐWrangler.€€The€list€price€of€the€vehicle€was€approximately€€$22,000.€€After€some€discussion,€Mr.Ð d´ ÐRobertson€and€the€defendant€agreed€upon€a€sales€price.€€The€defendant€did€not€test€drive€the€vehicle.Ð P  ÐÓ °ÓÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€and€Mr.€Robertson€then€proceeded€into€the€showroom€to€fill€out€theÐ (x Ðnecessary€paperwork.€€First,€Mr.€Robertson€prepared€a€trade€agreement€reciting€$22,060€as€theÐ d Ðagreed€upon€price€of€the€1998€Jeep.€€The€defendant€represented€that€she€was€going€to€pay€$6,400Ð P Ðdown€and€that€she€wanted€to€finance€the€balance€of€the€price.€€€The€defendant€indicated€to€Mr.Ð ì< ÐRobertson€that€she€was€receiving€some€type€of€settlement,€and€she€wanted€the€dealership€to€hold€theÐ Ø( Ðdown€payment€check.€€The€defendant€did€not,€however,€tender€a€check€that€day.Ð Ä ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€did€not€use€her€real€name€in€dealing€with€Mr.€Robertson.€€SheÐ œì Ðintroduced€herself€as€Linda€Smotherman.€€Mr.€Robertson€prepared€the€trade€agreement€€listing€LindaÐ ˆØ ÐSmotherman€of€Abingdon,€Virginia€as€the€purchaser,€and€the€defendant€signed€the€trade€agreementÐ tÄ Ðusing€the€name€Linda€Smotherman.€€Because€the€defendant€a/k/a€Linda€Smotherman€was€going€toÐ ` ° Ðfinance€almost€$16,000€of€the€purchase€price,€Mr.€Robertson€provided€her€with€a€General€MotorsÐ L!œ ÐAcceptance€Corporation€[ð ðGMACðð]€credit€application.€€Mr.€Robertson€explained€to€her€how€toÐ 8"ˆ  Ðcomplete€the€document,€and€the€defendant€sat€in€his€office€and€filled€out€the€application.€€TheÐ $#t! Ðdefendant€again€misrepresented€her€name€to€be€Linda€Smotherman,€and€she€provided€other€falseÐ $`" Ðinformation€on€the€application,€including€date€of€birth,€social€security€number,€address,€andÐ ü$L # Ðemployer.€€The€defendant€signed€the€credit€application€as€Linda€Smotherman€in€Mr.€RobertsonððsÐ è%8!$ Ðpresence.€€Mr.€Robertson€explained€that€he€did€not€ask€to€see€the€defendantððs€driverððs€license€or€anyÐ Ô&$"% Ðother€identification€because€she€had€not€asked€to€test€drive€the€vehicle.Ð À'#& ÐÓSÓÓ  ÓÌà  àà ` àWhen€the€credit€application€was€completed,€Mr.€Robertson€took€it€to€the€financeÐ œì Ðoffice€so€a€credit€check€could€be€performed.€€He€also€introduced€the€defendant€to€the€backup€creditÐ ˆØ Ðmanager€working€that€day,€Jim€Haynes.€€Mr.€Haynes€identified€at€trial€the€defendant€as€the€customerÐ tÄ Ðwho€claimed€to€be€Linda€Smotherman.€€Mr.€Haynes€discussed€the€down€payment€with€the€defendant.€Ð `° ÐThe€defendant€wanted€to€get€the€Jeep€Wrangler€the€following€day,€but€she€was€not€going€to€makeÐ L œ Ðthe€down€payment€right€away.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€the€defendant€left€the€dealership,€Mr.€Haynes€sent€the€credit€application€toÐ  ` ÐGMAC€for€approval,€and€he€performed€a€computer€credit€check€based€on€the€information€that€theÐ ü L  Ðdefendant€supplied.€€Because€it€was€a€slow€day€for€Mr.€Haynes,€he€had€more€time€than€was€usual€toÐ è 8  Ðreview€the€credit€report.€€Among€other€things,€Mr.€Haynes€noticed€that€the€address€on€the€GMACÐ Ô$  Ðcredit€application€did€not€match€that€shown€on€the€credit€report.€€Moreover,€the€credit€report€showedÐ À  Ða€year€of€birth€for€Linda€Smotherman€as€1936,€and€it€was€obvious€to€Mr.€Haynes€that€the€defendantÐ ¬ü  Ðwas€younger.€€As€a€result,€Mr.€Haynes€advised€the€general€manager€of€the€car€dealership€not€to€allowÐ ˜è  Ðthe€defendant€to€have€the€vehicle.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€following€day,€Michael€Stacy,€who€was€the€finance€manager€at€Don€Hill€Pontiac,Ð \¬ Ðreviewed€the€inconsistencies€that€Mr.€Haynes€had€discovered,€and€Mr.€Stacy€further€investigated€theÐ H˜ Ðmatter.€€Mr.€Stacy€notified€local€law€enforcement€authorities€of€the€situation,€and€Kingsport€OfficerÐ 4„ ÐSteve€Summie€was€sent€to€the€dealership.€€After€Officer€Summie€arrived,€a€plan€was€implementedÐ  p Ðto€get€the€defendant€to€come€back€to€the€dealership€by€telling€her€that€her€loan€had€been€approved.€Ð  \ ÐThe€plan€worked.€€When€the€defendant€showed€up€at€the€dealership,€Officer€Summie€was€waitingÐ øH Ðfor€her.€€He€asked€for€identification,€and€the€defendant€produced€a€Virginia€driversðð€license€in€theÐ ä4 Ðname€of€Lisa€€Bargo.€€When€shown€the€GMAC€credit€application,€the€defendant€denied€filling€outÐ Ð  Ðthat€document,€whereupon€Officer€Summie€placed€her€under€arrest.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€real€Linda€Smotherman,€whose€name€and€social€security€number€the€defendantÐ ”ä Ðused,€lives€in€Rittman,€Ohio.€€Ms.€Smotherman€had€never€been€to€Sullivan€County,€Tennessee€priorÐ €Ð Ðto€testifying€in€this€case.€€Likewise,€Ms.€Smotherman€had€never€resided€in€Abingdon,€Virginia.€€SheÐ l¼ Ðdenying€signing€either€the€trade€agreement€or€the€GMAC€credit€application,€and€she€certainly€did€notÐ X ¨ Ðauthorize€anyone€to€fill€out€the€car€dealership€documents€or€authorize€anyone€to€purchase€a€JeepÐ D!” ÐWrangler€on€her€behalf€in€Kingsport.€€Indeed,€Ms.€Smotherman€did€not€know€and€had€never€met€theÐ 0"€  Ðdefendant.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€did€not€testify€in€her€own€behalf€at€trial,€and€she€rested€her€caseÐ ô$D # Ðwithout€offering€any€evidence.Ð à%0!$ ÐÔ#†¼ìz»XX³æ]#ÔÔ‡X³æX»¼ìzÔÔ‡X*XXX³æÔÌÓ¯ Óò òÓ  ÓÔ#†X³æXXX*¬.#ÔI.ó óÐ ¼' #& ÐÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àIn€her€first€issue,€the€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€Ð ”)ä$( ÐWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€an€appellate€court's€standard€of€reviewÐ €*Ð%) Ðis€whether,€after€considering€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rationalÐ l+¼&* Ðtrier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJacksonÐ ° Ðv.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€324,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2791-92€(1979);€òòState€v.€Duncanóó,€698€S.W.2d€63,€67Ð œì Ð(Tenn.€1985);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€This€rule€applies€to€findings€of€guilt€based€upon€directÐ ˆØ Ðevidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€vóó.Ð tÄ ÐòòDykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€253€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€should€not€reweigh€orÐ 8 ˆ Ðreevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€Ð $ t ÐQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€as€wellÐ  ` Ðas€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571Ð ü L  ÐS.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Nor€may€this€court€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€theÐ è 8  Ðtrier€of€fact€from€the€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859€(1956);Ð Ô$  ÐòòFarmer€v.€Stateóó,€574€S.W.2d€49,€51€€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€On€the€contrary,€this€court€mustÐ À  Ðafford€the€State€of€Tennessee€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€recordÐ ¬ü  Ðas€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€€òòCabbageóó,Ð ˜è  Ð571€S.W.2d€at€835.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€beÐ \¬ Ðgiven€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€ofÐ H˜ Ðfact,€not€this€court.€€òòId.óó€at€835.€€In€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973),€our€supremeÐ 4„ Ðcourt€said,€"A€guilty€verdict€by€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€theÐ  p Ðwitnesses€for€the€State€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€theory€of€the€state."Ð  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àBecause€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€it€withÐ ä4 Ða€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused,€as€the€appellant,€has€the€burden€in€this€court€of€illustrating€whyÐ Ð  Ðthe€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdicts€returned€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639Ð ¼  ÐS.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€This€court€will€not€disturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€due€to€the€sufficiencyÐ ¨ø Ðof€the€evidence€unless€the€facts€contained€in€the€record€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€aÐ ”ä Ðrational€trier€of€fact€to€find€that€the€accused€is€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòId.óó€at€914.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€quote€in€full€the€claim€that€the€defendant€advances€in€her€brief€why€her€forgeryÐ X ¨ Ðconviction€cannot€stand:Ð D!” ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °ÓIn€the€instant€case€Mr.€Robertson,€Mr.€Haynes€and€Mr.€Stacy€allÐ #l! Ðtestified€that€the€credit€application€was€to€GMAC€and€that€Don€HillÐ $X" ÐPontiac€would€have€gotten€their€money€from€them.Ð ô$D # ÐÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÌÔ‡XRlXXX³æÔà  àà ` àÔ#†X³æXXXRl“>#ÔIt€is€not€the€courtððs€responsibility€ð ðto€do€counsel's€work,€create€the€ossature€for€theÐ Ì&"% Ðargument,€and€put€flesh€on€its€bonesÔ‡XRlXXX³æÔÔ#†¼< »XXRl.#ÔÔ‡XRlX»¼< Ô.ðð€€òòÔ#†X³æXXXRlƒ?#ÔUnited€States€v.€Zanninoóó,€895€F.2d€1,€17€(1òòstóó€Cir.),€òòóó(1990).€Ð ¸'#& ÐWe€have€deemed€waived,€and€will€continue€to€do€so,€issues€put€forth€on€appeal€in€perfunctoryÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfashion,€without€substance,€support,€or€explanation.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€10(b)€(issues€not€supportedÐ )à$( Ðby€argument,€citation€to€authorities,€or€appropriate€references€to€the€record€will€be€treated€as€waived).€Ð |*Ì%) ÐThis€issue,€accordingly,€is€waived.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àà ` àÔ#†¼ìz»XX³æÅ?#ÔÔ‡X³æX»¼ìzÔIn€any€event,€ð ðA€person€commits€an€offense€who€forges€a€writing€with€intent€toÐ ° Ðdefraud€or€harm€another.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„114(a)€(1997).€€The€offense€of€forgery€ð ðisÐ œì Ðcomplete€by€the€forgery€with€fraudulent€intent,€whether€any€third€person€be€actually€injured€or€not.ðð€Ð ˆØ ÐòòState€v.€Jamesóó,€688€S.W.2d€463,€466€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€ð ðIt€is€sufficient€[if]€the€instrumentÐ tÄ Ðforged,€with€the€fraudulent€intent,€might€have€been€prejudicial€to€the€rights€of€another.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àThere€is€ample€evidence€in€this€record€demonstrating€that€the€defendant€knowinglyÐ 8 ˆ Ðrepresented€herself€to€be€Linda€Smotherman€and€that€she€did€so€to€deceive€and€defraud€others,Ð $ t Ðincluding€Don€Hill€Pontiac.€€The€dealership€did€not€have€to€sustain€any€actual€harm€before€theÐ  ` Ðdefendant€could€be€found€guilty€of€forgery.€€Furthermore,€in€light€of€the€stateððs€overwhelming€proofÐ ü L  Ðof€what€the€defendant€did,€the€jury€was€entitled€to€conclude€that€she€had€the€requisite€intent€toÐ è 8  Ðdefraud.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Loweryóó,€667€S.W.2d€52,€57€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Robertsóó,€943€S.W.2dÐ Ô$  Ð403,€410€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)€(ð ðIt€has€long€been€established€that€a€jury€may€infer€a€criminalÐ À  Ðdefendantððs€intent€from€the€surrounding€facts€and€circumstances.ðð).€€Absolutely€no€evidence€wasÐ ¬ü  Ðoffered€or€theory€of€defense€advanced€that€the€defendant,€for€instance,€acted€mistakenly€orÐ ˜è  Ðaccidently.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àFor€this€additional€reason,€we€affirm€the€defendantððs€judgment€of€conviction.Ð \¬ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓII.Ð 4„ Ðó óÓ  ÓÌÔ#†¼ìz»XX³æNB#ÔÔ‡X³æX»¼ìzÔÔ‡XRlXXX³æÔà  àà ` àÔ#†X³æXXXRl*J#ÔWith€respect€to€sentencing,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€should€haveÐ  \ Ðafforded€greater€weight€to€the€mitigating€factor€that€her€ð ðcriminal€conduct€neither€caused€norÐ øH Ðthreatened€serious€bodily€injury.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1)€(1997).€€So€far€as€we€canÐ ä4 Ðglean,€the€defendant€does€not€challenge€the€trial€courtððs€findings€that€enhancement€factors€(1),€(3),Ð Ð  Ð(8),€(13),€and€(15)€apply.€€òòSee€generallyóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðððð€40„35„114(1),€(3),€(8),€(13),€(15)Ð ¼  Ð(1997).Ð ¨ø ÐÓ °„>ÓÓ °v>ÓÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÌà  àà ` àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€itÐ €Ð Ðis€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòde€novoóó€review€of€the€record€with€a€presumption€that€theÐ l¼ Ðdeterminations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-401(d)€(1997).€€€ThisÐ X ¨ Ðpresumption€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÐ D!” Ðconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823Ð 0"€  ÐS.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€"The€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€theÐ #l! Ðappellant."€€òòId.óó€€In€the€event€the€record€fails€to€demonstrate€the€required€consideration€by€the€trialÐ $X" Ðcourt,€review€of€the€sentence€is€purely€òòde€novoóó.€€òòId.óó€€If€appellate€review€reflects€that€the€trial€courtÐ ô$D # Ðproperly€considered€all€relevant€factors€and€that€its€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€theÐ à%0!$ Ðrecord,€this€court€must€affirm€the€sentence,€even€if€our€independent€judgment€on€the€question€mightÐ Ì&"% Ðdiffer.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€making€its€sentencing€determination,€the€trial€court,€at€the€conclusion€of€theÐ )à$( Ðsentencing€hearing,€determines€the€range€of€sentence€and€then€determines€the€specific€sentence€andÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€propriety€of€sentencing€alternatives€by€considering€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trialÐ h+¸&* Ðand€the€sentencing€hearing,€(2)€the€presentence€report,€(3)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€argumentsÐ ° Ðas€to€sentencing€alternatives,€(4)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved,€(5)Ð œì Ðevidence€and€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€the€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors,€(6)€anyÐ ˆØ Ðstatements€the€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€the€defendant's€behalf€about€sentencing,€and€(7)€theÐ tÄ Ðpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-210(a),€(b)€(1997);€€Tenn.€CodeÐ `° ÐAnn.€ðð€40-35-103(5)€(1997);€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,€860€S.W.2d€53,€60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Ð L œ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€trial€court€erroneously€applied€two€enhancement€factors.€€Even€though€they€were€Ð $ t Ðaccorded€little€weight,€we€review€the€sentencing€determination€òòde€novoóó€unaccompanied€by€theÐ  ` Ðpresumption€of€correctness.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àFrom€our€review,€the€record€in€this€case€adequately€supports€the€application€ofÐ Ô$  Ðenhancement€factor€(1),€that€the€ð ðdefendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminalÐ À  Ðbehavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range;ðð€enhancement€factor€(8),Ð ¬ü  Ðthat€the€ð ðdefendant€has€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€aÐ ˜è  Ðsentence€involving€release€in€the€community,ðð€and€enhancement€factor€(13)(C),€that€the€instantÐ „Ô  Ðfelony€ð ðwas€committed€while€[the€defendant€was]€on€probation.ðð€€More€particularly,€when€theÐ pÀ Ðdefendant€committed€the€offense€of€forgery,€she€was€on€probation€serving€a€three„year€sentenceÐ \¬ Ðarising€out€of€a€Sullivan€County€theft€conviction.€€The€defendant€had€prior€federal€convictions€inÐ H˜ Ð1995€for€bank€fraud€and€credit€card€fraud;€her€supervised€release€on€these€convictions€was€revokedÐ 4„ Ðin€1997€based€on€her€admitted€violation€of€the€terms€of€supervision.€€In€addition,€prior€forms€ofÐ  p Ðprobation€and€intensive€probation€relating€to€other€state€offenses€had€been€tried€without€success.€€TheÐ  \ Ðdefendant€has€a€previous€history€of€multiple€criminal€convictions€and€criminal€behaviorÔ‡XRlXXX³æÔÔ#†¼< »XXRl J#ÔÔ‡XRlX»¼< Ô.€€Ô#†X³æXXXRlp]#ÔShe€hasÐ øH Ðsufficient€prior€convictions€to€qualify€her€for€sentencing€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offender,€and€she€hasÐ ä4 Ðother€independent€convictions€and€has€engaged€in€other€criminal€behavior€sufficient€for€theÐ Ð  Ðapplication€of€enhancement€factor€(1).€€Hence,€factors€(1),€(8),€and€(13)(c)€apply€and€are€entitled€toÐ ¼  Ðgreat€weight,€as€the€trial€court€found.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àà ` àThere€is,€however,€no€evidence€in€the€record€supporting€application€of€enhancementÐ €Ð Ðfactor€(3),€that€more€than€one€victim€was€involved€for€each€offense.€€The€trial€courtððs€pertinentÐ l¼ Ðfindings€in€this€regard€are€as€follows:€€ð ðI€find€that€number€three€(3)€applies.€€It€involved€more€thanÐ X ¨ Ðone€victim.€€That€woman€whose€name€she€forged€was€a€victim.€€This€has€caused€her€a€lot€of€troubleÐ D!” Ðbecause€it€really€was€her€social€security€number.€€It€was€her€name.€€It€was€her€social€securityÐ 0"€  Ðnumber.ðð€€However,€the€term€victim,€ð ðas€used€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(3),€is€limited€inÐ #l! Ðscope€to€a€person€or€entity€that€is€injured,€killed,€or€had€property€destroyed€by€the€perpetrator€of€theÐ $X" Ðcrime.ðð€€òòState€v.€Rainesóó,€882€S.W.2d€376,€384€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€Even€though€an€injury€thatÐ ô$D # Ðqualifies€one€as€a€victim€may€be€emotional€or€psychological€as€opposed€to€physical,€òòseeóó€òòState€v.Ð à%0!$ ÐMichael€Wilsonóó,€No.€01C01„9602„CC„00073,€slip€op.€at€20„21€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Jul.Ð Ì&"% Ð31,€1997),€òòpermóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1998),€there€is€no€proof€in€the€record€that€Ms.€Smotherman€wasÐ ¸'#& Ðð ðinjured.ðð€€There€is€no€factual€foundation€to€apply€enhancement€factor€(3),€and€the€trial€courtÐ ¤(ô#' Ðimproperly€relied€on€this€factor.Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àà ` àApplication€of€enhancement€factor€(15)€is€equally€troublesome.€€That€factor€permitsÐ ° Ðâ âthe€trial€court€to€enhance€a€sentence€if€the€ð ðdefendant€abused€a€position€of€public€€or€private€trust,Ð œì Ðor€used€a€special€skill€in€a€manner€that€significantly€facilitated€the€commission€or€the€fulfillment€ofÐ ˆØ Ðthe€offense.ðð€€At€sentencing,€the€state€introduced€an€affidavit€of€complaint€that€had€been€filed€in€theÐ tÄ ÐMunicipal€Court€of€Johnson€City€charging€the€defendant€with€misdemeanor€theft€and€misdemeanorÐ `° Ðdestruction€of€valuable€papers€from€her€former€employer,€Publisherððs€Direct€Service.€€The€affidavitÐ L œ Ðof€complaint€recites€that€the€company€discovered€that€the€defendant€had€taken€several€documentsÐ 8 ˆ Ðfrom€the€company€which€had€bank€account€numbers€of€clients.€€Linda€Smotherman,€whose€name€theÐ $ t Ðdefendant€forged,€was€mentioned€nowhere€in€the€affidavit.€€Nonetheless,€the€trial€court€concludedÐ  ` Ðthat€it€had€been€proven€circumstantially€that€the€defendant€obtained€access€to€information€about€Ms.Ð ü L  ÐSmotherman€in€the€course€of€her€employment€with€Publisherððs€Direct€Service.€€According€to€the€trialÐ è 8  Ðcourt,€there€was€ð ðno€other€explanation€for€.€.€.€where€she€got€that€name€and€that€social€securityÐ Ô$  Ðnumber,€so€Iððm€going€to€find€that€that€one€applies.ððÐ À  ÐÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ìz»XX³æ²]#ÔÔ‡¼< »»¼ìzÔÔ‡XRlX»¼< ÔÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àÔ#†X³æXXXRll#ÔGuesswork,€however€educated,€cannot€replace€the€requirement€that€an€enhancementÐ ’â  Ðfactor€be€proven€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€The€evidence€in€this€case€is€lacking,€and€theÐ ~Î  Ðtrial€court€incorrectly€applied€enhancement€factor€(15)€in€this€case.Ô% €# ÔÐ jº ÐÌà  àà ` àBased€on€our€òòde€novoóó€review,€we€conclude€that€the€only€appropriate€sentenceÐ B’ Ðenhancement€factors€in€this€case€are€(1),€(8),€and€(13)(C).€€Regarding€mitigation,€the€trial€courtÐ .~ Ðcorrectly€found€that€mitigating€factor€(1),€that€the€defendantððs€conduct€neither€caused€nor€threatenedÐ j Ðserious€bodily€injury,€applied.Ð V ÐÌà  àà ` àWhen,€as€here,€both€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€apply,€the€trial€court€mustÐ Þ. Ðstart€at€the€minimum€sentence€within€the€range,€then€enhance€the€sentence€in€accordance€with€theÐ Ê Ðenhancing€factors,€then€reduce€the€sentence€in€accordance€with€the€mitigating€factors.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð ¶ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40-35-210(e)€(Supp.€1999);€òòState€v.€Boggsóó,€932€S.W.2d€467,€475€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ¢ò Ðòòóó1996).€€In€the€present€case,€we€accord€enhancement€factors€(1),€(8),€and€13(C)€great€weight,€as€didÐ ŽÞ Ðthe€trial€court.€€We€have€also€considered€and€apply€mitigating€factor€(1)€and€afford€it€little€weight,Ð zÊ Ðas€did€the€trial€court.€€The€mere€number€of€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€is€not€relevant.€Ð f¶ ÐInstead,€ð ðthe€important€consideration€[is]€the€weight€to€be€given€each€factor€in€light€of€its€relevanceÐ R ¢ Ðto€the€defendantððs€personal€circumstances€and€background€and€the€circumstances€surrounding€hisÐ >!Ž Ðcriminal€conduct.ðð€€òòState€v.€Hayesóó,€899€S.W.2d€175,€186€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Upon€balancingÐ *"z  Ðthese€factors,€we€believe€that€the€lesser€weight€of€the€mitigating€factor€is€significantly€exceeded€byÐ #f! Ðthe€enhancement€factor.€€Accordingly,€we€believe€that,€a€ten„year€sentence€as€a€Range€II€offender€isÐ $R" Ðappropriate.€€Thus,€we€affirm€the€defendantððs€sentence€of€ten€years.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð î$> # ÐÌà  àà ` àÔ#†¼ìz»XX³æ/l#ÔÔ‡X³æX»¼ìzÔIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€affirm€the€defendantððsÐ Æ&"% Ðconviction€and€sentence.€€Ô#†¼ìz»XX³æ,v#ÔÔ‡X³æX»¼ìzÔÔ‡XRlXXX³æÔÐ ²'#& ÐÔ#†X³æXXXRlw#ÔÔ‡X*XXX³æÔÐ ž(î#' Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÔ#†X³æXXX*lw#Ô________________________________Ð ° Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEÐ œì ÐÌÔ#†¼ìz»XX³æöv#ÔÔ‡X³æX»¼ìzÔÔ‡XRlXXX³æÔÌÌÔ#†X³æXXXRlæx#ÔÔ#†¼ìz»XX³æÇx#ÔÓOlÓÓ °zÓ