WPC` 51J=Na!dU?O-Tq7yPEԒߦ`lQLxDRG}+9x ?N~MB b3smD={]i$HۓɽȰd(e 0"w \GLٚ8x-=C.e+44Ps1m^!Z_w/(z7V W%^[31g<_H[o t) {?SHaU81:!OX58'Ҥk{ԷXth tbDzTu 1I8 }D552K+(ΚwsGE|욺b/:zw˲a!jt\ M4qn*b'3pH~V>3wiqEϺmyWԢIv%ڴ4&`?UAy{ڕM$k& +PfJ6|o TmROƂ# % N 0 UGNmUN 0U  z^ z$N 0g- 0N z4N 0 0 z 0EN 0 00 zQN# 0% 0 z N 0 0! 0]" z ##NV$bX$ 0`$ 0% z%"&N& 0& 0' z&((Nr) 0t) 0* z*=+N, 0, 0, z- .N. 0. 0/ z+00Nw1 0y1 02 z2)3N3 03 04 z55Ne6 0g6 0R7 08 z8 B<9Y9 0+: D5: D-; 0K1;N|; AS~;; 0< 0D;= A= 0*> 0>> z&??Nr@ 0t@ 0lA zNBBNC 0C 0~D z`EENF 0F 0G zrHHNI 0I 0zJ zLKKNL 02L 0L zMBNNO 0:O 0YPO zO#PNP 0_P 0 VQ z`RR^ SwS4SSS mS 0S 0zU B*W D/W 0W D/Y 0Z 06Z 0[ 0:\ 0^T\ 0<\ 1e\U6S]U3>]U*]]]]] 1u] 72f^p^HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6V,,,,V0(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular*+ (_2623  .. 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*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   ӁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  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*5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  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*/+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   !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*&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  &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*GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` ,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- -*22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  2C:\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*,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   7C:\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(&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  <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(GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  AC:\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(55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  FC:\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(// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h KC:\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()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   PC:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(|G2s$ !.8dd8         0  0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  WC:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPT dC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(|3$ !.8dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586DefinitioneC:\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(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  jC:\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(]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  oC:\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(]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  tC:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5yC:\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,*CITE,dl*CODEK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS~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.wpt42Emphasis64Hyperlink    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<:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS 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.wptH1 h_B0Y>:i+003|x U<:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/K<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d d)1dxd<:zTop of For7(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  )2dxd0KS.SampleK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  $()*/045 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i) BlakelyTiptonWedemeyerMerrilynFeirmanHargroveDearingYarbroughMcCownRandlesAtttorneysSeventeethreweighT.C.A. Poag Crim i]tApprendi !.8dd8     _   8XXdd8@hhvINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @gg$ATNASHVILLE#v #Ԉ #   AssignedonBriefs @  @` July20,2004 F XX #XX#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.CHARLESBENSONXX  ? @@O O  AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforBedfordCounty  9 @@}}No.15101CharlesLee,Judge  # @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@No.M200302127CCAR3CDFiledOctober8,_2004_   AV) ` dE<]` A ^     XkGXXXABedfordCountyCriminalCourtjuryconvictedthedefendant,CharlesBenson,ofpossessionof V  ascheduleIIcontrolledsubstancewithintenttosellandofpossessionofascheduleIIcontrolled ? substancewithintenttodeliver,bothClassBfelonies.Thetrialcourtmergedthetwoconvictions (x andsentencedthedefendantonthepossessionwithintenttosellcountasaRangeII,multiple a offendertotwentyyearsintheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrection.Thedefendantappeals, J claimingthat(1)theevidenceisinsufficienttosupporthisconviction;(2)thetrialcourterredby 3 denyinghismotiontosuppressevidence;and(3)hissentenceisexcessive.Weconcludethatthe  evidenceissufficientandthatthetrialcourtproperlydeniedthedefendantsmotiontosuppress.  Althoughwe#XXXXkG#holdthatthetrialcourtimproperlyreliedoncertainenhancementfactorsinlightof  Blakelyv.Washington,542U.S.___,124S.Ct.2531(2004),weconcludethattherecordsupports  asentenceoftwentyyears.XkGXXX#6XXkG#XkGX6ԀWeaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. p #XXXXkG ##XX #XX Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt Affirmed  B   #X #XX.JosephM.Tipton,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichNormaMcGeeOgleand g RobertW.Wedemeyer,JJ.,joined.  P MerrilynFeirman,Nashville,Tennessee(onappeal),DonnaLeighHargrove,DistrictPublic !"! Defender,andAndrewJacksonDearing,III,AssistantPublicDefender(attrial),fortheappellant, " " CharlesBenson. ## PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;HelenaWaltonYarbrough,AssistantAttorney v% % General;WilliamMichaelMcCown,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andMichaelDavidRandlesand _&!& AnnL.Filer,AssistantDistrictAtttorneysGeneral,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. H'"' = @@66' OPINION #XXl #XX )j$) #XX#  XXXkGXXX  Thiscaserelatestothedefendantspossessionof3.3gramsofcrackcocaineonJanuary25, *=&+ 2001.BedfordCountySheriffsDeputyScottJonestestifiedthatabout3:45a.m.onJanuary25, +&', hewastravelingnorthboundonHighway41AinBedfordCounty.Hestatedthatasthedefendants ,(- carapproachedhim,itcrossedthedoubleyellowlineandwasalmostcompletelyinhislaneof -(. _travel.ThisforcedDeputyJonestoveerhiscruiserintotheemergencylaneinordertoavoida  headoncollision.DeputyJonestestifiedthatheimmediatelyturnedhiscruiseraroundandstopped  thedefendantscarinordertodeterminewhathadcausedthedefendanttocrosssofaroverthe  centerline.DeputyJonessaidthatuponapproachingthedefendantscar,hewasabletodetecta k strongodorofalcoholabouthim.DeputyJonesstatedthatheaskedthedefendanttoproducehis T driverslicenseandperformtwoseparatefieldsobrietytests,whichthedefendantpassed.About =  thattime,BedfordCountySheriffsDeputyBobFilerarrivedonthescene.DeputyFilertestified & v thatheheardDeputyJonesaskthedefendantifhehadanyillegalcontrabandoralcoholinhiscar.  _ HesaidthatthedefendantansweredhedidnothaveanythingillegalinthecarandthatDeputyJones  H askedthedefendantforpermissiontosearchit.DeputyFilerfurthertestifiedthathetoldthe  1  defendantthathedidnothavetoconsenttothesearchandthatthedefendantgavehisconsent.    Uponathoroughsearchofthecarspassengercompartment,DeputiesJonesandFilerfounda   plasticbagunderthedriversseatcontainingwhatthedeputiessuspectedwascrackcocaine.   DeputyJonesarrestedthedefendant.     PhillipW.Freeze,oftheTennesseeBureauofInvestigation,testifiedthatthesubstance W  foundinthedefendantscarwas3.3gramsofcrackcocaine.TimLane,DirectoroftheSeventeeth @ JudicialDistrictDrugTaskForce,testifiedthatthe streetvalueofcrackcocainewas )y approximatelytwohundreddollarspergram.DirectorLanefurtherstatedthatthepossessionof3.3 b gramsofcrackcocaineinBedfordCountywouldbeconsidered asubstantialamountofcrack K cocaine.DirectorLaneexplainedthatusuallycrackcocaineaddictsinBedfordCountydidnot 4 possessmorethanoneortwogramsofthesubstanceatanyonetimebecause theyneverhaveany  money.ThejuryconvictedthedefendantofpossessionofascheduleIIsubstancewiththeintent  tosellanddeliver,andthetrialcourtmergedthetwocounts.    I.SUFFICIENCYOFTHEEVIDENCE q     Thedefendantclaimsthattheevidenceisinsufficienttosupporthisconvictionbecausethe E statefailedtoprovethatheintendedtosellordeliverthecrackcocaine.Specifically,hearguesthat .~ nootherrelevantfactssurroundinghisarrestexistedfromwhichajurycouldinferthatthecrack g cocainewaspossessedwiththerequisiteintenttosellordeliverit.Thedefendantnotesthatthe  P policefoundnoweapon,cellphone,pager,orscaleinhiscar;thatthecrackcocainewasinonebag  9 insteadofbeingpackagedinmultiplebags;thathedidnothavealargeamountofcashonhis !"  person;andthathewasnotengagedinanyactivitiesrelatedtothesaleofdrugsatthetimeofhis " ! arrest. #"   Ourstandardofreviewwhenthedefendantquestionsthesufficiencyoftheevidenceon v% $ appealis whether,afterviewingtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletotheprosecution,any _&!% rationaltrieroffactcouldhavefoundtheessentialelementsofthecrimebeyondareasonable H'"& doubt.Jacksonv.Virginia,443U.S.307,319,99S.Ct.2781,2789(1979).Wedonotreweigh 1(#' theevidence;rather,wepresumethatthejuryhasresolvedallconflictsinthetestimonyanddrawn )j$( allreasonableinferencesfromtheevidenceinfavorofthestate.SeeStatev.Sheffield,676S.W.2d *S%)  542,547(Tenn.1984);Statev.Cabbage,571S.W.2d832,835(Tenn.1978).InTennessee, *<&* questionsaboutwitnesscredibilityareresolvedbythejury.SeeStatev.Bland,958S.W.2d651,  659(Tenn.1997).#XXXXkGk#     Aconvictionforpossessionofcrackcocaineforresaleordeliveryrequiresproofthatthe k defendantknowinglypossessedthesubstancewiththeintenttosellordeliverit.SeeT.C.A.39 T 17417(2003).Theoneelementpresentinalmostallcriminaloffenseswhichismostoftenproven =  bycircumstantialevidenceisthatrelatingtotheculpablementalstate.SeeStatev.Hall,490 & v S.W.2d495,496(Tenn.1973).Otherthananaccusedstatinghisorherpurpose,intent,orthinking  _ attherelevanttimes,thetrieroffactislefttodeterminethementalstatebymakinginferencesdrawn  H fromthesurroundingcircumstancesfoundbyittoexist.See,e.g.,Poagv.State,567S.W.2d775  1  (Tenn.Crim.App.1978).PursuanttoT.C.A.39-17-419 [i]tmaybeinferredfromtheamountof    acontrolledsubstanceorsubstancespossessedbyanoffender,alongwithotherrelevantfacts   surroundingthearrest,thatthecontrolledsubstanceorsubstanceswerepossessedwiththepurpose   ofsellingorotherwisedispensing.Withrespecttothisinference,ourreviewisonlytoconsider   whether underthefactsofthecase,thereisnorationalwaythetrier[offact]couldmakethe n  connectionpermittedbytheinferencebeyondareasonabledoubt.CountyCourtofUlsterCounty W  v.Allen,442U.S.140,157,99S.Ct.2213,2225(1979).Inotherwords,eventhough @ circumstantialevidenceisneededforoneelement,thestandardforevidencesufficiencyremainsthe )y same. b   IninterpretingT.C.A.3917419,thiscourthasdeterminedthatmanyfactsand 4 circumstancesexistfromwhichajurymayproperlydrawaninferencethatanaccusedintendedto  sellordelivercontrolledsubstances.SeeStatev.Brown,XkGXXX915S.W.2d3,8(Tenn.Crim.App.1995)  (mannerofpackagingofdrugsandabsenceofdrugparaphernaliamaysupport#XXXXkGc,#XkGXXXinferenceof  #XXXXkG--#XkGXXXpossessionwithintentto#XXXXkG-#XkGXXXsell,ratherthan#XXXXkG-#XkGXXXpossessionforpersonaluse);Statev.Matthews,805  S.W.2d776,782(Tenn.Crim.App.1990)(findingitproperforajurytoconsider theamountand q valueofacontrolledsubstance...toinferanintentiontodistribute);seealso#XXXXkG@.#Statev.Harold Z WayneShaw,No.01C019312CR00439,DavidsonCounty(Tenn.Crim.App.Oct.24,1996) C (absenceofdrugparaphernaliaandnoproofattrialofpersonalusesupportedinferenceand ,| conviction).Thiscourthasalsoheldthatitisnotimproperforanofficertotestifyastothedifferent e traitsofdrugusersanddealers.SeeStatev.WilliamAubreyTrotter,XkGXXXNo.01C019701CR00019, N DavidsonCounty#XXXXkG1#Ԁ(Tenn.Crim.App.Feb.24,1998).  7   Wedonotnecessarilyrejectoutofhandthedefendantscontentionthat,standingalone,the " ! defendantspossessionof3.3gramsofcocaineisinsufficienttosupportaninferenceofanintent #" tosellordeliver.See,e.g.,Turnerv.UnitedStates,396U.S.398,423,90S.Ct.642,656(1970)XkGXXX $# (statingthatmerepossessionof14.68gramsofmixturecontainingcocaineandsugaris consistent t% $ with...possessingthecocainenotforsalebutexclusivelyforhispersonaluse).#XXXXkG3#ԀHowever,inthe ]&!% lightmostfavorabletothestate,theevidenceshowsthatthedefendanthadnodrugparaphernalia F'"& ofthetypeusedforconsumptionofcrackcocaineinhiscar;thatthetotalvalueofcrackcocainein /(#' thiscasewasoversixhundreddollars;thatDirectorLanetestifiedthatthe3.3gramsofcocaine )h$( seizedfromthedefendantwasmoreconsistentwiththeamountpossessedbyadrugsellerthanby *Q%)  adrugaddict;andthatXkGXXXnoproofattrialindicatedthatthedefendantonlyintendedtoconsumethe *:&* cocaine.#XXXXkG6#ԀWeconcludethattheevidencewassufficientforthejurytofindbeyondareasonable  doubtthatthedefendantpossessedthecocainewiththeintenttosellanddeliverit.     II.MOTIONTOSUPPRESS k     Thedefendantclaimsthatthetrialcourtshouldhavegrantedhismotiontosuppressthe ?  cocainepursuanttotheFourthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitutionandarticleI,section ( x 7oftheTennesseeConstitution.Heclaimsthetrialcourtshouldhavegrantedthismotionbecause  a (1)DeputyJoneshadnojustificationtostophiscar;(2)theinvestigationintohissuspected  J intoxicationhadended,andanydetentionthereafterforthepurposeofsearchinghiscarwas  3  unreasonable;and(3)theconsenthegavetheBedfordCountyDeputiestosearchhiscarwasnot    freelygiven.   XkGXXX  Atthesuppressionhearing,DeputyJonestestifiedthathestoppedthedefendantbecause   thedefendantscarnearlyhithimasitswervedalmostcompletelyintotheoncominglaneoftraffic. p  DeputyJonesalsotestifiedthatalthoughthedefendantpassedthefieldsobrietytests,hewasnot Y  onehundredpercentcertainthedefendantwascapableofdrivingandthatwaswhyheaskedthe B defendantforpermissiontosearchthecar.Hesaidthathetoldthedefendanthewantedtosearch +{ thecarforillegalcontraband.DeputyJonestestifiedthatduringthesearch,heplacedthedefendant d intherear,passengersideseatofhiscruiser,withthedooropen.DeputyJonessaidthatheplaced M thedefendantinthecruiserbecauseitwascoldoutside,notbecausehewantedtodetainhim.#XXXXkG;#XkGXXXԀ 6 DeputyFilertestifiedthathetoldthedefendantthathehadtherighttorefuseconsent.DeputyFiler  statedthathetwiceinformedthedefendantofthisrightandthatthedefendantindicatedhe  understood.ThetrialcourtdeniedthemotionandheldthatDeputyJonesdidnotviolatethe  defendantsFourthAmendmentrightsbystoppingthecar,thatDeputyJoneswasstillinvestigating  whenheaskedtosearchthecar,andthatthedefendantconsentedtothesearch. s #XXXXkG?#XkGXXX0  AtrialcourtsfactualfindingsonamotiontosuppressareconclusiveonappealunlesstheE(#(# evidencepreponderatesagainstthem.#XXXXkG?B#XkGXXXStatev.Odom,#XXXXkG1C#XkGXXXԀ928S.W.2d18,23(Tenn.1996);#XXXXkGC#XkGXXXStatev. .~ Jones,#XXXXkGC#XkGXXXԀ802S.W.2d221,223(Tenn.Crim.App.1990).#XXXXkGUD#XkGXXXQuestionsofthe credibilityofthewitnesses, g theweightandvalueoftheevidence,andresolutionofconflictsintheevidencearematters  P entrustedtothetrialjudgeasthetrieroffact.#XXXXkGD#XkGXXXOdom,#XXXXkGE#XkGXXXԀ928S.W.2dat23.#XXXXkGEF#XkGXXXTheapplicationofthelaw  9 tothefacts#XXXXkGF#XkGXXXasdeterminedbythetrialcourtisaquestionoflawwhichisreviewed#XXXXkGG#XkGXXXdenovo#XXXXkGG#XkGXXXԀonappeal. !"  #XXXXkGG#XkGXXXStatev.Yeargan,#XXXXkG[H#XkGXXXԀ958S.W.2d626,629(Tenn.1997). " ! #XXXXkGH#XkGXXX0  ThedefendantfirstclaimsthatthestopofhiscarwasaviolationofhisFourthAmendment$#(#(# rights.TheFourthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitutionprotectsagainstunreasonable v% $ searchesandseizures,and article1,section7[ofthe#XXXXkG-I#XkGXXXTennesseeConstitution]isidenticalinintent _&!% andpurposewiththeFourthAmendment.#XXXXkGJ#XkGXXXStatev.Downey,#XXXXkG]K#XkGXXXԀ945S.W.2d102,106(Tenn.1997) H'"& (quoting#XXXXkGK#XkGXXXSneedv.State,#XXXXkG6L#XkGXXXԀ221Tenn.6,13,423S.W.2d857,860(1968)).Anautomobilestop 1(#' constitutesaseizurewithinthemeaningofboththeFourthAmendmentoftheUnitedStates )j$( ConstitutionandarticleI,section7oftheTennesseeConstitution.#XXXXkGL#XkGXXXSeeMichiganDeptofState *S%) Policev.Sitz,#XXXXkGM#XkGXXXԀ496U.S.444,450,110S.Ct.2481,2485(1990);#XXXXkGpN#XkGXXXStatev.Pully,#XXXXkGN#XkGXXXԀ863S.W.2d29,30 *<&* (Tenn.1993);#XXXXkG;O#XkGXXXStatev.Binion,#XXXXkGO#XkGXXXԀ900S.W.2d702,705(Tenn.Crim.App.1994).Thepolicemaystop +%'+ avehicleiftheyhavereasonablesuspicionbaseduponspecificandarticulablefactsthatanoccupant  isviolatingorisabouttoviolatethelaw.#XXXXkG P#XkGXXXSeeUnitedStatesv.BrignoniPonce,#XXXXkGLQ#XkGXXXԀ422U.S.873,881,  95S.Ct.2574,2580(1975);#XXXXkGQ#XkGXXXStatev.Watkins,#XXXXkGER#Ԁ827S.W.2d293,294(Tenn.1992);XkGXXXHughesv.State,#XXXXkGR#XkGXXX  588S.W.2d296,305(Tenn.1979).Indeterminingwhetheranofficersreasonablesuspicionis k supportedbyspecificandarticulablefacts, acourtmustconsiderthetotalityofthe T circumstances!theentirepicture.#XXXXkGS#XkGXXXԀStatev.Moore,#XXXXkG~T#XkGXXXԀ775S.W.2d372,377(Tenn.Crim.App.1989). =    Atthesuppressionhearing,DeputyJonestestifiedthatthedefendantscarnearlycollided  _ withhiscruiserwhenitalmostcompletelycrossedthedoubleyellowlineandveeredintothe  H oncomingtrafficlane.DeputyJonescouldstopthedefendantforillegallycrossingthedouble  1  yellowlineandenteringtheoncominglaneoftraffic.SeeT.C.A.558121.Therefore,the    defendantscontentionthatthestopofhiscarwasaviolationoftheFourthAmendmentandarticle   I,section7oftheTennesseeConstitutioniswithoutmerit.     ThedefendantalsocontendsthatDeputyJonestestimonyatthesuppressionhearingwas n  inconsistentwithhiswrittenreport.HepointstoDeputyJoneswrittenreportwhichindicatedthat W  thedefendant,afterpassingthefieldsobrietytests,wascapableofdrivinghiscar.However,Deputy @ Jonestestifiedatthehearingthathewasnotonehundredpercentcertainastothedefendants )y intoxicationorlackthereof. b   ThedefendantarguesthattheinconsistencybetweenDeputyJoneswrittenreportandhis 4 testimonyatthehearingrequiresthiscourttoholdthatthecontinuedinvestigation,whenthe  defendantshouldhavebeenallowedtoleave,wasanunreasonabledetentionnotwithstandinghis  subsequentconsenttosearch.Thisargumentignoresthefactthatthetrialcourtresolvedthe  inconsistencybydeterminingthatDeputyJonestestimonyatthesuppressionhearingwascredible.  Wemustgivedeferencetothetrialcourtsassessmentofwitnesscredibilityandresolutionof q conflictingtestimony. Z   Finally,thedefendantarguesthathisconsenttosearchwasnotfreelygiven.Hearguesthat ,| hewasunderduressor,inthealternative,coercedintogivingconsentbasedupon(1)thefactthat e itwas4:00a.m.,(2)thefactthatthereweretwoarmeddeputiespresent,and(3)thefactthathewas N notfreetoleave.  7   Theanalysisofanywarrantlesssearchmustbeginwiththepropositionthatsuchsearches " ! areperseunreasonableundertheFourthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitutionandarticle #" I,section7oftheTennesseeConstitution.Thisprincipleagainstwarrantlesssearchesissubject $# onlytoafewspecificallyestablishedandwell-delineatedexceptions.SeeKatzv.UnitedStates, t% $ 389U.S.347,357,88S.Ct.507,514(1967);Statev.Tyler,598S.W.2d798,801(Tenn.Crim. ]&!% App.1980).Beforethefruitsofawarrantlesssearchareadmissibleasevidence,thestatemust F'"& establishbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethatthesearchfallsintooneofthenarrowlydrawn /(#' exceptionstothewarrantrequirement.SeeStatev.Shaw,603S.W.2d741,742(Tenn.Crim.App. )h$( 1980).Awarrantisnotneededwhenthereisaconsentthatis unequivocal,specific,intelligently *Q%)  given,anduncontaminatedbyduressorcoercion.Statev.Brown,836S.W.2d530,547(Tenn. *:&* 1992).Thus,thequestionbecomeswhethertheconsenttothesearchwasgivenvoluntarily.See  Statev.Jackson,889S.W.2d219,221(Tenn.Crim.App.1993).     DeputyJonestestifiedthatthedefendantwasnotunderarrestatthetimeofthesearchand k thatheplacedthedefendantonthepassengersideseatofthecruiser,withthedooropen.Deputy T Jonesalsotestifiedthathetoldthedefendantthathewantedtosearchthecarforillegalcontraband. =  DeputyFilertestifiedthathetwiceinformedthedefendantthathedidnothavetoconsenttothe & v search.Evenafterbeingtoldthathedidnothavetoconsenttothesearch,thedefendantgave  _ consent.Underthesecircumstances,thedefendantsconsentwasfreelygiven.Thetrialcourt  H properlydeniedthemotiontosuppress.  1  Ѐ    #XXXXkGT#  Ӏ III.EXCESSIVESENTENCE   g   Finally,thedefendantclaimsthathissentenceisexcessive.Specifically,hecontendsthat   thetrialcourterredbygivingtoomuchweighttotheenhancementfactorrelatingtohisprevious r  felonyconvictionusedforenhancementwithinRangeIIandthatthetrialcourtviolatedtherule [  announcedinBlakelyv.Washington,542U.S.__,124S.Ct.2531(2004).Healsocontendsthat D thetrialcourterredinnotapplyingmitigatingfactors(1)and(13).Weconcludethatalthoughthe -} trialcourtimproperlyappliedenhancementfactors(9)and(14)andshouldhaveappliedmitigating f factor(1),therecordjustifiesasentenceoftwentyyears. O   Nowitnessestestifiedatthesentencinghearing.Thecourtrelieduponthepresentence ! reportandtheargumentsofcounselinmakingitsdecision.Accordingtothepresentencereport,   thedefendanthasthreepriorfelonyconvictions,andhewasalsoconvictedofvarious  misdemeanors,includingpossessionofmarijuana,possessionofdrugparaphernalia,criminal  trespass,disorderlyconduct,andassault.Twoofthefelonyconvictionssupportedthedefendants u beingaRangeII,multipleoffender.Thereportalsoshowsthatthedefendantwasemployedatthe ^ timeofhisarrest.Thestatearguedthatthethirdfelonyconvictionshouldbegivengreatweightas G anenhancementfactor.Thestatealsourgedthecourttoapplyasanenhancementfactorthatthe 0 crimewascommittedwhilethedefendantwasonparole.Thedefendantacknowledgedthathewas i aRangeII,multipleoffenderanddidnotobjecttothefactthatthecourtcouldapplyoneofhis  R felonyconvictionsasanenhancementfactor.However,thedefendantarguedthathisworkhistory  ; andthefactthathisconductdidnotcauseorthreatenseriousbodilyinjuryweremitigatingfactors. !$    Thetrialcourtappliedenhancementfactors(2),thatthedefendant hasaprevioushistory #" ofcriminalconvictionsorcriminalbehaviorinadditiontothosenecessarytoestablishthe $# appropriaterange,(9),thatthedefendant hasaprevioushistoryofunwillingnesstocomplywith x% $ theconditionsofasentenceinvolvingreleaseinthecommunity,and(14),thatthedefendant a&!% committedthecrimewhileonparolefromapriorfelony.SeeT.C.A.4035114(2),(9),(14).The J'"& courtrefusedtoapplymitigatingfactor(1),thatthecriminalconduct neithercausednorthreatened 3(#' seriousbodilyinjury,becausethecourtheldthatthesaleofcrackcocainedidthreatenserious )l$( bodilyinjury.Thecourtalsorefusedtoconsiderthedefendantsworkhistoryunderfactor(13)!the *U%)  catchallmitigatingfactor.Cf.T.C.A.4035113(1),(13).Afterplacinggreatweightonthe *>&* defendantscriminalhistory,thecourtsentencedhimtotwentyyears,themaximumsentencewithin  therange.     Ourreviewofsentencingisdenovoontherecordwithapresumptionofcorrectnessbelow. k T.C.A.4035401(d).Afterimpositionofthesentence,thedefendantcarriestheburdentoshow T thatthesentenceisimproper.Therefore,aslongasthetrialcourtfollowedthestatutorysentencing =  scheme,madefindingsoffactintherecord,andgavedueconsiderationinweighingthefactorsand & v principlesrelevanttosentencingunderthe1989SentencingAct,wemaynotdisturbthesentence  _ evenifadifferentresultwerepreferred.Statev.Fletcher,805S.W.2d785,789(Tenn.Crim.App.  H 1991).  1    Inorderforthepresumptionofcorrectnessbelowtoattach,theremustbean affirmative   showingintherecordthatthetrialcourtconsideredthesentencingprinciplesandallrelevantfacts   andcircumstances.Statev.Ashby,823S.W.2d166,169(Tenn.1991).Inthisrespect,for   purposesofmeaningfulappellatereview, n  8  thetrialcourtmustplaceontherecorditsreasonsforarrivingatthefinalsentencing @ decision,identifythemitigatingandenhancementfactorsfound,statethespecific )y factssupportingeachenhancementfactorfound,andarticulatehowthemitigating b andenhancementfactorshavebeenevaluatedandbalancedindeterminingthe K sentence.4   Statev.Jones,883S.W.2d597,599(Tenn.1994)(citationomitted).    Whenconductingadenovoreview,wemustconsider(1)theevidence,ifany,receivedat  thetrialandsentencinghearing,(2)thepresentencereport,(3)theprinciplesofsentencingand q argumentsastosentencingalternatives,(4)thenatureandcharacteristicsofthecriminalconduct, Z (5)anymitigatingorstatutoryenhancementfactors,(6)anystatementthatthedefendantmadeon C hisownbehalf,and(7)thepotentialforrehabilitationortreatment.T.C.A.4035102,103, ,| 210;seealsoAshby,823S.W.2dat168;Statev.Moss,727S.W.2d229,23637(Tenn.1986). e   InTennessee,therangeofpunishmentforaRangeIIdefendantconvictedofaClassB  7 felonyistwelvetotwentyyears.T.C.A.4035112(b)(2).TheappropriatesentenceforaClass !   Bfelonyispresumptivelytheminimumsentenceunlessthereareenhancementfactorspresent. " ! T.C.A.4035210(c).Procedurally,thetrialcourtistoincreasethesentencewithintherange #" basedupontheexistenceofenhancementfactorsand,then,reducethesentenceasappropriatefor $# anymitigatingfactors.T.C.A.4035210(d)(e).Theweighttobeaffordedanexistingfactoris t% $ lefttothetrialcourtsdiscretionsolongasitcomplieswiththepurposesandprinciplesofthe1989 ]&!% SentencingActanditsfindingsareadequatelysupportedbytherecord.T.C.A.4035210, F'"& SentencingCommissionComments;Ashby,823S.W.2dat169;Moss,727S.W.2dat237. /(#'   Thedefendantclaimsthatthetrialcourtviolatedhisrighttotrialbyjury,guaranteedtohim *Q%) bytheDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenthAmendment,whenitenhancedhissentence,atleast *:&* inpart,byfindingfactsnotsubmittedtothejuryandprovenbeyondareasonabledoubt.See +#'+ Blakely,542U.S.at___,124S.Ct.at2537.Thestateclaimsthatthedefendanthaswaivedany  issueregardingBlakelyandthatanyerrorbythetrialcourtwasharmlessbeyondareasonable  doubt.    A.Waiver T     ThestatecontendsthatthedefendanthaswaivedanyBlakelyissuebecausehefailedtoraise & v itinthetrialcourt.TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasstatedthat [w]henadecisionofthis  _ Courtresultsinanewrule,thatruleappliestoallcriminalcasesstillpendingondirectreview.  H Schrirov.Summerlin,___U.S.___,___,124S.Ct.2519,2522(2004).Thestatearguesthat  1  BlakelydoesnotestablishanewrulebutmerelyclarifiestheruleannouncedinApprendiv.New    Jersey,530U.S.466,120,S.Ct.2348(2000).Insupportofitsargument,thestatenotesthatthe   SupremeCourtstatedinBlakelythat [t]hiscaserequiresustoapplytheruleweexpressedin   Apprendi.Blakely,542U.S.at___,124S.Ct.at2536.     Acase announcesanewrulewhenitbreaksnewgroundorimposesanewobligationon W  theStatesortheFederalgovernment.VanTranv.State,66S.W.3d790,81011(Tenn.2001) @ (quotingTeaguev.Lane,489U.S.288,301,109S.Ct.1060,1070(1989)). Toputitdifferently, )y acaseannouncesanewruleiftheresultwasnotdictatedbyprecedentexistingatthetimethe b defendantsconvictionbecamefinal.Teague,489U.S.at301,109S.Ct.at1070. K   InApprendi,thedefendantwasconvictedofmanyoffenses,includingseconddegree  possessionofafirearmforanunlawfulpurpose,forshootingintoanAfricanAmericanfamilys  home.Althoughstatelawprescribedasentenceoffivetotenyearsforaseconddegreeoffense,a  NewJerseyhatecrimestatuteprovidedthatajudgecouldenhancethedefendantssentenceabove  themaximumintherangeifthecrimewasraciallymotivated.Pursuanttothestatute,thetrialcourt q sentencedthedefendanttotwelveyearsinconfinement.TheSupremeCourtreversed,holdingthat, Z otherthanthefactofapriorconviction,theConstitutionrequiresthejurytofindbeyonda C reasonabledoubtanyfactthatincreasesthepenaltyforacrimebeyondthe prescribedstatutory ,| maximum.530U.S.at490,120S.Ct.at236263. e   ThestatecontendsthatBlakelymerelyextendstheruleannouncedinApprendi.However,  7 inGrahamv.State,90S.W.3d687,692(Tenn.2002),oursupremecourtheldthatthenoncapital !   sentencingprocedureinthisstatecompliedwithApprendi,saying, " ! 8  8`    InApprendi,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtrevieweda $# NewJerseyprovisionthatallowedajudgetoimposeasentence t% $ exceedingthestatutorymaximumforanoffenseifthejudgefinds,by ]&!% apreponderanceoftheevidence,thattheoffenseconstitutedahate F'"& crime.The[Tennessee]SupremeCourtstrucktheprovisiondown, /(#' holdingthatdueprocessrequiresthat anyfact,otherthanaprevious )h$( conviction,usedtoenhanceasentenceabovethestatutorymaximum *Q%) mustbe:(1)chargedintheindictment,(2)submittedtothejury,and *:&* (3)provenbeyondareasonabledoubt.Statev.Dellinger,79 +#'+ S.W.3d458,466(Tenn.2002)(quotingApprendi,530U.S.at476,  120S.Ct.2348).However,theCourtemphasizedthatthejudgestill  retainshisdiscretiontoconsiderallenhancingandmitigatingfactors   withintherangeprescribedbythestatute.Apprendi,530U.S.at k 481,120S.Ct.2348(emphasisadded).T` x` x 8  8`    Thepetitionerinthiscasereceivedasentencewithinthe & v statutorymaximumforeachcrime.Accordingly,thetrialcourtwas  _ wellwithinitsconstitutionalandstatutoryauthoritytoconsider  H enhancingfactorsforthepurposeofsentencingwithoutthe  1  assistanceofthejury.Thus,Apprendiprovidesthepetitionerwith    norelief. ` x` x   WeacknowledgethatBlakelyextendedApprendisholdingthat,undertheSixth   Amendment,ajurymustfindallfactsusedtoincreaseadefendantssentencebeyondthestatutory n  maximum.However,nothinginApprendisuggestedthatthephrase statutorymaximumequated W  toanythingotherthanthemaximumintherange.Tothecontrary,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourt @ statedtheissueinApprendias whetherthe12-yearsentenceimposed...waspermissible,given )y thatitwasabovethe10-yearmaximumfortheoffensechargedinthatcount.530U.S.at474,120 b S.Ct.at2354.WealsonotethattheSupremeCourthasconsideredtheretroactiveeffectofthe K holdinginRingv.Arizona,536U.S.584,59293,122S.Ct.2428,2435n.1(2002),asanewrule 4 forcapitalcaseseventhoughitwasbasedonApprendi.SeeSchriro,___U.S.at___,124S.Ct.at  252627.PerhapsthisresultedfromthefactthatRingoverruledacasethathadheldtheopposite.  SeeWaltonv.Arizona,497U.S.639,110S.Ct.3047(1990).Inthisregard,withourownsupreme  courtexpresslyapprovingoursentencingprocedureunderApprendi,wehaveadifficulttime  faultingadefendantinTennesseefornotraisingtheissuebeforeBlakely.WeconcludethatBlakely q altersTennesseecourtsinterpretationofthephrase statutorymaximumandestablishesanewrule Z inthisstate.Thedefendantsraisingtheissuewhilehisdirectappealwasstillpendingisproper. C   Inanyevent,evenifBlakelydidnotestablishanewrule,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourt e inApprendistatedthatthedefendantsrighttohaveajuryfindfactsthatincreasehissentenceabove N theprescribedstatutorymaximumisrootedinhisFourteenthAmendmentrighttodueprocessand  7 hisSixthAmendmentrighttoajurytrial.530U.S.at476,120S.Ct.at2355.InStatev.Ellis,953 !   S.W.2d216,220(Tenn.Crim.App.1997),thiscourtheldthatalthoughtherewasnocommonlaw " ! righttowaiveajurytrial,Rule23,Tenn.R.Crim.P.,allowedadefendantto waiveajurytrialif #" thewaiverisinwritingandisknowinglyexecuted.Absentawrittenwaiver, itmustappearfrom $# therecordthatthedefendantpersonallygaveexpressconsent[towaiveajurytrial]inopencourt. t% $ Ellis,953S.W.2dat221.Blakely,asanextensionofApprendi,alsorequiresproofintherecordthat ]&!% thedefendantpersonallywaivedthatright.Thedefendantdidnotwaivethatrightinthiscase,and F'"& thedenialofthisrightcannotbeharmlesserror.Seeid.at222. /(#'   B.ApplicationofBlakely *Q%)   *:&*   Thetrialcourtappliedenhancementfactor(2)baseduponthefactthatthedefendanthad   manypriorconvictions.Blakelyspecifiesthatatrialcourtmayenhanceasentencebaseduponprior  convictions.Thus,thetrialcourtsapplicationoffactor(2)forthedefendantspriorconvictionswas  proper.However,thetrialcourtalsoappliedfactors(9)and(13).Webelievethatthetrialcourts k applicationofthesefactorsviolatesBlakely. T   Apprendiprovidesthat otherthanthefactofapriorconviction,anyfactthatincreasesthe & v penaltyforacrimebeyondtheprescribedstatutorymaximummustbesubmittedtoajury,and  _ provedbeyondareasonabledoubt.530U.S.at490,120S.Ct.at236263.Blakelyextendedthis  H ruleandheld,  1  8  8`   the statutorymaximumforApprendipurposesisthemaximum   sentenceajudgemayimposesolelyonthebasisofthefactsreflected   inthejuryverdictoradmittedbythedefendant....Inotherwords,   therelevant statutorymaximumisnotthemaximumsentencea n  judgemayimposeafterfindingadditionalfacts,butthemaximumhe W  mayimposewithoutanyadditionalfindings.@` x` x 542U.S.at__,124S.Ct.at2537(emphasisinoriginal). b   Inthiscase,thetrialcourtenhancedthedefendantssentenceafterapplyingenhancement 4 factors(2),(9)and(14).Whenthetrialcourtfoundthatthedefendanthadpreviouslyfailedto  complywithconditionsofrelease,factor(9),andthatthedefendantcommittedtheinstantoffense  whileonparole,factor(14),itviolatedthedefendantsFourteenthAmendmentDueProcessrights  asarticulatedinBlakely.Becausethetrialcourterredinsentencingthedefendant,wewillreview  thedefendantssentencedenovowithnopresumptionofcorrectness. q   Therecordindicatesthatthedefendanthasbeenconvictedofthreefelonies,twoofwhich C wereusedtocategorizehimasaRangeII,multipleoffender.Therecordalsoindicatesthatthe ,| defendanthasbeenconvictedofvariousmisdemeanoroffensesincludingpossessionofmarijuana, e possessionofdrugparaphernalia,criminaltrespass,disorderlyconduct,andassault.Therefore,for N purposesofenhancingthedefendantssentencewithinRangeII,wemayconsiderthethirdfelony  7 convictionandallofthemisdemeanorconvictionsandsentencethedefendanttoanytermof !   confinementfromtwelvetotwentyyearswithoutoffendingBlakely. " !   Tennesseelawprovidesforcertainfactorstobeconsideredwhensentencingadefendant. $# Specifically,theGeneralAssemblyhasprovidedthatsentencesinvolvingtermsofconfinement t% $ shouldbebaseduponthesefactors: ]&!% 8  8`    (A)Confinementisnecessarytoprotectsocietyby /(#' restrainingthedefendantwhohasalonghistoryofcriminalconduct;)h$(` x` x 8  8`    (B)Confinementisnecessarytoavoiddepreciatingthe *Q%)  seriousnessoftheoffenseorconfinementisparticularlysuitedto *:&* provideaneffectivedeterrencetootherslikelytocommitsimilar  offenses;or` x` x  8  8`    (C)Measureslessrestrictivethanconfinementhave  frequentlyorrecentlybeenappliedunsuccessfullytothedefendant.k` x` x T.C.A.4035103(1).Anotherfactortoconsiderindeterminingthelengthofasentenceisthe =  defendantspotentialforrehabilitation.Id.at4035103(5). & v   Wenotefromtherecordthatthedefendantsthirdfelonyconvictionwasforviolatingthe  H sameprovisionofTennesseesDrugControlActasinthiscase.Wealsonotethatthedefendant  1  hashadanunendingstringofmisdemeanorandfelonyconvictionsfromhiseighteenthbirthday    untilthepresentoffense.WebelievethatanupwardadjustmentwithintheRangeisjustifiedbased   upontheforegoingsentencingconsiderationsandtherecordasawhole.     Regardingmitigation,thedefendantclaimsthatthetrialcourterredbyrefusingtoapply n  mitigatingfactor(1),thatthedefendantsconductdidnotthreatenbodilyinjury.Inrefusingto W  applyfactor(1),thetrialcourtstated, @ 8  8`   theCourtisoftheopinionthatthemitigatingfactorthatthe b defendantsconductdidnotinvolveathreatofbodilyinjuryisnot K correctbecausetherewasthethreatinthiscase,therealthreatthat 4 theseweretobesoldtosomeone,andthatcocaine,by[its]very  nature,involvesthreatofbodilyinjury.` x` x   Thiscourtwasrecentlysplitonthequestionofwhethertheverynatureofcocaineis  sufficienttoestablishaperserulethatmitigatingfactor(1)doesnotapply.SeeStatev.Ross,49 q S.W.3d833,848(Tenn.2002)(recognizingthatthiscourthad splitontheissueofwhetheraper Z seexclusionof...mitigatingfactor[(1)]iswarrantedincocainepossessioncases).However,in C Ross,oursupremecourtstatedthat ,| 8  8`   mitigatingfactor[(1)]focusesnotonthecircumstancesofthecrime N committedbyadefendantasdomanyoftheothermitigatingand  7 enhancingfactors.Rather,thisfactorfocusesuponthedefendants !   conductincommittingthecrime.Althoughcocaineitselfmaywell " ! be,inthewordsofthetrialcourt,an inherentlyaddictiveand #" dangeroussubstance,thisfactalonesaysnothingaboutthe $# appellantscriminalconduct....t% $` x` x Thecourtthennotedthatitsaw F'"& 8  8`   noevidenceintherecordthattheappellantactuallysoldorattempted )h$( tosellthedrugatthetimeoftheoffense.Hadeitherofthese *Q%) circumstancesbeenpresent,thenthedangerousnatureofthedrug, *:&* combinedwiththedangerousnatureofmanydrugtransactions,may +#'+ haveindeedsupportedthetrialcourtsrejectionofthisfactoras  constitutingathreatofseriousbodilyinjury.` x` x Thecourtconcludeditsanalysisoftheproprietyofabrightlineruleforbiddingconsiderationof k mitigatingfactor(1)incocainecasesstating, T 8  8`   when,ashere,(1)theconvictionforpossessionisbasedonlyupon & v constructivepossession,and(2)thethreatofseriousbodilyinjuryis  _ moreconceptualthanreal,littlejustificationexistsinhavingaperse  H rulethatexcludesconsiderationofthismitigatingfactor.Indeed,a  1  perseexclusionofaparticularmitigatingfactortoanentireclassof    offensesnotalwaysornotinherentlyinvolvingseriousbodilyinjury   underminesthenotionofindividualizedsentencingthatunderliesthe   1989CriminalSentencingReformAct. ` x` x Id.at84849. W    Afterdiscussingtheperseruleconcerningmitigatingfactor(1),thecourtfocusedon )y whetherthetrialcourtsrefusaltoapplythefactorandreducethedefendantssentenceconstituted b error.Inaffirmingthesentencegivenbythetrialcourt,thecourtheld, Inrejectingaperse K exclusionofthismitigatingfactorincocainepossessioncases,wedonotrequirethatthisfactorbe 4 accordedanyespecialsignificanceinagivencase.Id.at849.    Upondenovoreview,webelievethatmitigatingfactor(1)mayapplyinthepresentcase  becausethedefendantwasonlyinconstructivepossessionofthecocainewhenhewasarrestedand  therecordcontainslittleevidencethathewasattemptingtosellordeliverthecocaine.Wedonote, q however,thatthedefendantwasdrivingsomewhereintheearlymorninghoursbeforehisarrestand, Z givenhispriorhistoryofdrugoffenses,itiscertainlyplausiblethathewasonhiswaytosellor C deliverthecocaine.Inanyevent,wewouldaffordtheapplicationofthisfactorlittleweight.When ,| consideringthedefendantsworkhistory,wearenotpreparedtoreducethedefendantssentence e underthe catchallmitigatingfactor(13)simplybecausehehadajobwhenhecommittedthis N crime.  7   Inconclusion,weholdthatthedefendantspriorconvictionssubstantiallyoutweighthe " ! mitigatingfactor,andweaffirmthetwentyyearsentencegiventhedefendantbythetrialcourt.We #" &  affirmthejudgmentsofthetrialcourt. $# Ѐ   `     h     ___________________________________ /(#'    `     h     JOSEPHM.TIPTON,JUDGE )h$(   XX '$.# ##XX#