ÿWPC7 äü©A¨>ÚÀ•Ák¨ú&³ŒÓÊ %Yþªiÿ4ÚL‰/}×BOÁ2óõk%CKÃ7ÆÇ«TC×`a#19’U¥NGŒÚZÈJ¾&²0´¦·yŒÁž¹rå`Ò°tÆz¾£‡P´.wÉ1#¹¯‹Ô~Wß*_í„~9{âß&£'¤?Žêö¬#Ójô^¡tãì…Ô·ZÎ Yhç…_iËzÚ–6xºÞøn jøšpzO8gà nc<ßAv;¹cùYþ Á¡787X[€ßè«°êKW¤ðË•íÑ9?‰†æ4<>©íõ^ó‹jx™N­óK˜ðGTôAÖú@%Å𤒯M;’YÀŸì‹6Iô,(k„¹_ƒ b²VKC5¿”‘°'à†À#o$ ƒVE3ã°iÑCl<úÓ'V³ww5×ôsº|HsV¾¦jo­`‚ƒCˆNÃ\þÌ(²4¤Ž;x'>ì°e¬Ó¢Ý—Øœy˜Y2f'kNØ™ËEÑr¥„ÖÒ$/Áý‰*Äm)Ç{eR,šFí>¼JNi:ë'Ï‘Š£Û®ÁèJèrD&ËJ‹ÔE£úLm”Å]ZMÜþZ?LJˆa¨bU3N\ %ª 0ˆ°^ 8wD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ 0D‘ ÆÕ Æ› Æa Æ'U NíN;Å=U>E@U@B‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚bŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ 0Y’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ ë Z 0ëo%Z!þ B 0¤< D3à D- 0K@@ AS‹ÆÞ 0¤¤ 0DH A«Œ(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó'Ÿš,s üPH,.bk2¤Ë¤3|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 ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular »Ý ƒRh$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôˆ¬ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€actual€weight€of€the€cocaine€delivered€in€this€case€was€1045.4€grams.€€Testimony€established€that€the€streetÐ ° Ðvalue€of€one€kilo€(2.2€pounds)€of€cocaine€in€the€Nashville€area€in€1993€was€between€$23,000€and€$28,500€and€ð ðas€highÐ tÄ Ðas€$30,000,ðð€depending€upon€availability.ô\  `‹&Times New Roman(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman  - ù-6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  ÔÿÿSearchTermÿÿSDU_7 PÝ ƒRh$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôˆ¬ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€principal€issue€before€the€supreme€court€was€that€of€Blackmonððs€right€to€a€constitutionally€qualified€judgeÐ ° Ðat€his€jury€trial.€€The€supreme€court€found€that€the€record€did€not€support€a€valid€waiver€of€this€right.€€The€judge€whoÐ tÄ Ðpresided€at€Blackmonððs€jury€trial€had,€previous€to€her€election€to€the€trial€bench,€conducted€Blackmonððs€preliminaryÐ 8ˆ Ðhearing€as€judge€of€the€general€sessions€court.(|G2h$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€;¬»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô•ôò»»Ô Ý ƒRh$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôˆ¬ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTrial€counsel€was€originally€appointed€to€represent€the€Appellant€in€1993.€€As€such,€counsel€participated€inÐ ° Ðboth€the€1995€trial,€its€successful€appeal€to€the€supreme€court,€and€the€1999€trial.€€Trial€counsel€was€permitted€toÐ tÄ Ðwithdraw€after€the€juryððs€verdict€of€guilty€was€returned€in€1999,€and€substituted€counsel€was€entered€for€purpose€ofÐ 8ˆ Ðappeal. uÝ ƒRh$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôˆ¬ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Appellantððs€brief€fails€to€make€reference€to€that€portion€of€the€transcript€demonstrating€the€discrepancyÐ ° Ðin€the€chain€of€custody€of€the€evidence.€€As€such,€we€find€this€issue€waived.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(g).€€ Ý ƒRh$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôˆ¬ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWith€our€enactment€of€the€ð ðsubjectiveðð€test€approach,€this€state€implicitly€rejected€the€ð ðobjectiveðð€test€forÐ ° Ðentrapment. d(|3Gr$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€;¬»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Gr$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€;¬»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€'D»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼'D»»»ÔÑ8€lxXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î*'DÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼'D»îî* #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àSeptember€18,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XlxX»¼'DÔÌò òÔ#†¼'D»XXlx#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€BOBBY€VINCENT€Ô_ÔBLACKMONÔ_ÔòòóóÔ‡XlxX»¼'DÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Sumner€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€7994€€€€€€Jane€Ô_ÔWheatcraftÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„03149„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€November€16,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡XlxXXXlxÔ€In€May€of€1993,€the€Appellant,€Bobby€Vincent€Ô_ÔBlackmonÔ_Ô,€was€indicted€by€a€Sumner€County€grandÐ xÈ  Ðjury€for€one€count€of€class€A€felony€possession€of€cocaine€over€300€grams€stemming€from€hisÐ d´ Ðinvolvement€in€a€ð ðreverse€stingðð€drug€operation.€€He€was€subsequently€convicted€in€February€ofÐ P  Ð1995.€€In€1998,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€granted€Ô_ÔBlackmonÔ_Ô€a€new€trial.€€òòSee€óóòòState€v.€BobbyÐ <Œ ÐVincent€Ô_ÔBlackmonÔ_Ôóó,€984€S.W.2d€589€(Tenn.€1998).׃P×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð (x ÐÌIn€November€of€1999,€Ô_ÔBlackmonÔ_Ô€was€re„tried€and€again€convicted€of€the€offense€of€possession€withÐ P Ðthe€intent€to€sell€over€300€grams€of€cocaine.€€After€a€sentencing€hearing€on€May€17,€2000,€the€trialÐ ì< Ðcourt€sentenced€Ô_ÔBlackmonÔ_Ô€to€thirty„eight€years€as€a€Range€II€offender€and€ordered€his€sentence€beÐ Ø( Ðserved€consecutive€to€a€prior€first„degree€murder€conviction.€€Ð Ä ÐÌOn€appeal,€the€following€issues€are€presented€for€our€review:€€(1)€whether€Ô_ÔBlackmonÔ_Ô€was€deniedÐ œì Ðeffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial;€(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€allowÐ ˆØ ÐÔ_ÔBlackmonÔ_Ô€to€assert€an€ð ðoutrageous€government€conductðð€defense,€an€entrapment€defense€and/or€anÐ tÄ Ðimpossibility€defense;€(3)€whether€the€indictment€in€this€case€was€fatally€defective;€and€(4)€whetherÐ `° Ðthe€sentence€was€excessive.€€After€review,€we€find€no€reversible€error.€€Accordingly,€the€judgmentÐ L œ Ðof€conviction€and€sentence€is€affirmed.Ô#†XlxXXXlx#ÔÔ#†¼'D»XXlx¶#ÔÔ‡XlxX»¼'DÔÐ 8!ˆ  ÐÓúÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ #`" ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼'D»àXlxí #ÔÔ‡XlxX.¼'DÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ôóó€and€òòJerry€L.Ð è$8 $ ÐSmithóó,€J.,€joined.Ð Ô%$!% ÐÌRandy€P.€Lucas,€Ô_ÔGallatinÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Bobby€Vincent€Ô_ÔBlackmonÔ_Ô.Ð ¬'ü"' ÐÐ ˜(è#(ýG ÐPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Elizabeth€T.Ð ° ÐRyan,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Lawrence€Ray€Whitley,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Dee€DavidÐ œì ÐGay,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ˆØ ÐÔ#†¼'D»XXlx¿ #ÔÔ‡XlxX»¼'DÔÌÓ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼'D»XXlxÖ#ÔÔ‡XlxX»¼'DÔÐ L œ ÐÌò òFactual€Backgroundó óÐ $ t ÐòòóóÔ#†¼'D»XXlxI#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XlxX»¼'DÔÌÔ‡XlxXXXlxÔà  àIn€1993,€Al€Watson€was€employed€with€the€Ô_ÔGoodlettsvilleÔ_Ô€Police€Department€as€anÐ ü L  Ðinvestigator€in€the€vice€unit€of€the€department.€€Although€his€principal€assignment€was€narcotics,€inÐ è 8  ÐMarch€of€1993,€he€was€assigned€to€assist€in€the€investigation€of€an€auto€theft€ring€in€an€undercoverÐ Ô$  Ðcapacity.€€In€this€role,€Detective€Watson€met€Marty€Jones€who,€over€a€period€of€time,€sold€WatsonÐ À  Ðeighteen€stolen€vehicles.€€At€a€meeting€between€Jones€and€Detective€Watson€on€March€3,€1993,Ð ¬ü  Ðregarding€stolen€vehicles,€Jones€asked€Detective€Watson€if€he€was€involved€in€any€other€ð ðkinds€ofÐ ˜è  Ðbusiness.ðð€€Detective€Watson€told€him€ð ðthat€he€had€other€interestsðð€such€as€selling€drugs,€including€Ð „Ô  Ðmarijuana,€cocaine,€and€Ô_ÔDilaudidÔ_Ô,€but€only€in€large€quantities.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àSeveral€days€later,€on€March€11,€1993,€Jones€contacted€Detective€Watson€and€advised€himÐ H˜ Ðthat€he€knew€some€individuals€from€Atlanta€who€wanted€to€purchase€ð ðouncesðð€of€cocaine.€€DetectiveÐ 4„ ÐWatson€explained€that€he€did€not€deal€in€ounces€and€informed€Jones€that€his€price€for€one€kilo€ofÐ  p Ðcocaine€was€$23,500.€€On€Friday,€March€19,€1993,€Detective€Watson€met€Jones€and€the€AppellantÐ  \ Ðat€the€Hee€Haw€Motel€parking€lot€in€Ô_ÔGoodletsvilleÔ_Ô.€€This€was€Watsonððs€first€encounter€with€theÐ øH ÐAppellant.€€At€this€meeting,€Jones€introduced€the€Appellant€to€Detective€Watson€as,€ð ðthe€middlemanÐ ä4 Ðfrom€Atlanta.ðð€€Following€further€discussions€of€the€proposed€drug€sale,€Watson€delivered€to€theÐ Ð  ÐAppellant€an€approximate€one„half€gram€sample€of€cocaine€obtained€from€the€evidence€vault€at€theÐ ¼  Ðpolice€station.€€The€Appellant€asked€Watson€when€they€could€do€business.€€Detective€Watson€toldÐ ¨ø Ðthe€Appellant€that€he€had€just€sold€his€last€kilo€of€cocaine€and€that€he€had€to€travel€to€Florida€overÐ ”ä Ðthe€weekend€to€secure€another€kilo.€€The€three€men€agreed€to€meet€at€the€Hee€Haw€Motel€parkingÐ €Ð Ðlot€on€Monday,€March€22,€1993,€at€8:00€a.m.€for€delivery€of€the€one€kilo€of€cocaine.€On€Sunday,Ð l¼ ÐMarch€21,€1993,€Watson€received€a€phone€call€from€Jones€who€stated€that€the€group€didnððt€have€allÐ X ¨ Ðthe€cash;€ð ð[Ô_Ôw]eððveÔ_Ô€got€$19,000€and€the€title€to€a€truck.ðð€€Watson€agreed€that€he€would€accept€the€cashÐ D!” Ðand€title€in€exchange€for€the€one€kilo€of€cocaine.€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àOn€March€22,€1993,€the€SWAT€team€set€up€various€surveillance€points€around€the€designatedÐ $X" Ðmeeting€area.€€Watson€removed€a€kilo€of€cocaine€from€the€evidence€vault€at€the€police€station,€placedÐ ô$D # Ðit€in€a€briefcase,€and€proceeded€to€the€Hee€Haw€Motel€parking€lot.€€Watson€had€previously€obtainedÐ à%0!$ Ðpermission€from€the€District€Attorney€to€utilize€the€drugs€for€purposes€of€the€ð ðreverse€stingÐ Ì&"% Ðoperation.ðð€€After€entering€the€Hee€Haw€Motel€parking€lot,€Detective€Watson€met€Jones€and€theÐ ¸'#& ÐAppellant,€who€arrived€in€the€Appellantððs€Cadillac.€€Also€present€were€the€Appellantððs€associates,€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÔ_ÔJ.R.Ô_Ô€Russell,€Ô_ÔSankyÔ_Ô€Morton€and€Tim€Ô_ÔYaquintoÔ_Ô.€€Russell€and€Morton€arrived€in€one€vehicle€whileÐ )à$( ÐÔ_ÔYaquintoÔ_Ô€arrived€in€a€separate€vehicle.€€Upon€arrival,€the€Appellant€and€Jones€walked€over€toÐ |*Ì%) ÐDetective€Watsonððs€truck,€at€which€time€Watson€opened€the€briefcase€and€showed€them€the€kilo€ofÐ h+¸&* Ðcocaine.€€Watson€advised€the€Appellant€that€he€needed€the€purchase€money€for€the€cocaine.€€TheÐ ° ÐAppellant€then€walked€to€Ô_ÔYaquintoÔ_Ôððs€vehicle€and€obtained€a€white€envelope€which€he€delivered€toÐ œì ÐDetective€Watson.€€The€envelope€contained€$17,500€in€cash€and€a€title€to€an€automobile.€€Jones,€who€Ð ˆØ Ðremained€with€Watson€during€this€time,€then€took€the€briefcase€to€Ô_ÔYaquintoÔ_Ôððs€car.€€After€countingÐ tÄ Ðthe€money,€Watson€then€gave€the€ð ðtake„downðð€signal€by€stating,€ð ð[Ô_Ôi]tÔ_Ô€was€nice€doing€business€withÐ `° Ðyou.ðð€The€SWAT€team€immediately€moved€in€and€arrested€those€at€the€scene.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àShortly€after€his€arrest,€Ô_ÔYaquintoÔ_Ô€admitted€that€he€kept€$1,500€of€the€transaction€money.Ð $ t ÐÔ_ÔYaquintoÔ_Ô€agreed€to€assist€police€in€apprehending€Randall€Leonard,€a€principal€member€of€the€groupÐ  ` Ðfrom€Atlanta€who€was€to€receive€delivery€of€the€cocaine€after€the€completion€of€the€initial€purchase.€Ð ü L  ÐSeveral€hours€after€his€arrest,€Ô_ÔYaquintoÔ_Ô€called€Leonard,€told€him€that€he€had€the€kilo,€and€askedÐ è 8  ÐLeonard€to€meet€him€at€the€Hee€Haw€Motel.€€Leonard€agreed€and,€upon€delivery€of€the€cocaine€fromÐ Ô$  ÐÔ_ÔYaquintoÔ_Ô,€Leonard€was€arrested.€€Following€the€two€cocaine€deliveries€on€May€22,€1993,€theÐ À  ÐAppellant,€Joseph€Martin€Jones,€Randall€Leon€Leonard,€Ô_ÔSankyÔ_Ô€Morton,€James€Randall€Russell€andÐ ¬ü  ÐTimothy€Ô_ÔYaquintoÔ_Ô€were€indicted€for€class€A€felony€possession€of€cocaine.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àDuring€each€of€Watsonððs€meetings€with€the€Appellant€and€Jones,€Watson€was€equipped€withÐ pÀ Ða€ð ðbody€wireðð€which€permitted€an€audio€recording€of€the€conversations.€€Additionally,€on€MarchÐ \¬ Ð22nd,€the€police€were€positioned€in€locations€which€permitted€the€videotaping€of€the€AppellantððsÐ H˜ Ðactivities€and€involvement€in€the€one€kilo€drug€transaction.€€Both€audio€and€video€tapes€wereÐ 4„ Ðintroduced€at€trial.€€Based€upon€this€proof,€the€jury€found€the€Appellant€guilty€of€the€indicted€offense.€Ð  p ÐÌò òÓ  ÓANALYSISÐ øH ÐÌI.€€INEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELÐ Ð  ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  à€The€Appellant€argues€that€he€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial.€€TheÐ ¨ø Ðallegations€of€deficient€representation€of€trial€counsel€were€raised€by€way€of€argument€at€theÐ ”ä ÐAppellantððs€hearing€on€motion€for€a€new€trial.׃SÜ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€No€proof€was€presented€to€support€the€allegations.€Ð €Ð ÐIn€this€regard,€we€note€that€the€practice€of€raising€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claims€on€directÐ l¼ Ðappeal€is€ð ðfraught€with€perilðð€since€it€ð ðis€virtually€impossible€to€demonstrate€prejudice€as€requiredððÐ X ¨ Ðwithout€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€òòSeeóó€òòKirby€George€Wallace€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9308„CC„00275Ð D!” Ð(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€at€Nashville,€Sept.€15,€1994).€€Instead,€ð ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claimsÐ 0"€  Ðâ âshould€normally€be€raised€by€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.ðð€€òòóóòòState€v.€Ô_ÔDerenzyÔ_Ô€Turner€andÐ #l! ÐVernon€Westóó,€No.€02C01„9512„CR„00390€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€at€Jackson,€July€11,€1997),€òòperm.€toÐ ° Ðappeal€denied,óó€(Tenn.€€Feb.€23,€1998).€Ð œì Ðâ âÌÒ°Òà  àNonetheless,€to€succeed€on€a€claim€of€ineffectiveness,€the€Appellant€must€show,€by€clear€andÐ tÄ Ðconvincing€evidence,ò ò€ó óthat€the€services€rendered€by€trial€counsel€were€deficient€and€that,€but€for€theÐ `° Ðdeficient€performance,€the€results€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€òòÔ_ÔStricklandÔ_Ô€v.Ð P   ÐWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984);€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€òòóóðð€40„30„210(f).€Ð < Œ ÐÔ#†XlxXXXlx#ÔÔ‡XlxXXXlxÔÓÈÓThis€court€Ô% ‡L ÔÔ%†L>4Ôneed€not€review€both€elements€if€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€prove€one€element;€òòi.e.,óó€if€theÐ ( x Ðpetitioner€has€Ô% ‡M ÔÔ%†Mã4Ôfailed€to€prove€the€attorneyððs€performance€was€deficient,€this€court€need€not€decide€ifÐ ð @ Ðthere€was€prejudice.€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999).€€ÓÈÓÔ#†XlxXXXlx4#ÔÔ‡XlxXXXlxÔIn€determining€whether€theÐ ¸   ÐAppellant€received€effective€assistance€of€counsel,€this€court€must€remain€mindful€that€it€is€not€ourÐ ¤ ô  Ðfunction€to€second€guess€trial€counselððs€tactical€and€strategic€choices€on€matters€of€defense,€unlessÐ à  Ðthese€choices€are€made€without€knowledge€of€the€relevant€facts€or€the€law€applicable€to€the€issue.€Ð |Ì  ÐòòÔ_ÔHellardÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982);€òòState€v.€Swansonóó,€680€S.W.2d€487,€490€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.Ð h¸  ÐApp.€1984).€Ð T¤  ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€the€Appellant€identifies€the€following€areas€of€deficient€representation€by€trialÐ ,| Ðcounsel:Ð h ÐÌà  àà8 ` à1.€€failed€to€file€in€a€timely€manner€important€notices€of€the€AppellantððsÐ ð@ Ðpotential€defenses€in€this€case;ÐÜ,` `  ÐÌà  àà8 ` à2.€€counselððs€total€lack€of€preparation€and€consultation€with€theÐ ´ ÐAppellant;Рð` `  ÐÌà  àà8 ` à3.€€failed€to€file€a€timely€motion€to€suppress€the€key€evidence€despiteÐ xÈ Ðthe€discrepancies€in€[the]€chain€of€custody€and€in€the€laboratory€reportsÐ d´ Ðas€to€weight;׃T×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€[and]ÐP ` `  ÐÌà  àà8 ` à4.€€failed€to€develop€a€coherent€defense€strategy.Ð(x` `  ÐÌThe€trial€court€denied€the€Appellantððs€claims€of€ineffectiveness€and€found€as€follows:€€€€€€€€€€Ð !P Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌ€à8  à[Trial€counsel]€was€very€familiar€with€the€case.€€.€.€.€€€There€had€been€a€previous€trial.€Ð Ø"(! ÐThere€had€been€other€communications€with€[the€Appellant]€by€[trial€counsel].€€ThereÐ Ä#" Ðhad€been€a€civil€case.€€And€I€believe€[the€Appellant]€„€the€record€would€show€in€thisÐ °$ # Ðcourt€that€[the€Appellant]€had€actually€represented€himself,€but€there€had€beenÐ œ%ì $ Ðdiscussion€between€him€and€[trial€counsel].Ј&Ø!%f!f! Ðâ âà8  àÐt'Ä"&f!f! Ðà8  àBut€[trial€counsel]€did€file€on€November€the€9òòthóó,€1999,€a€defendantððs€motion€of€intentÐ ° Ðâ âto€present€entrapment€before€the€court.€€He€also€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€allegingÐ œì Ðdenial€of€[the€Appellantððs]€right€to€procedural€due€process€under€the€Fifth€andÐ ˆØ ÐFourteenth€Amendments.€€The€court€heard€those€motions.ÐtÄf!f! Ðà8  àÐ f!f! Ðà8  àFurther,€on€November€the€10òòthóó,€1999,€[the€Appellant]€did€file€a€motion€to€dismiss€[trialÐ L œ Ðcounsel]€as€his€attorney,€which€the€court€denied€because€[trial€counsel]€was€in€a€uniqueÐ 8 ˆ Ðposition€to€know€this€case€better€than€any€other€attorney€would€know.Ð$ tf!f! Ðà8  àÐ f!f! Ðà8  à[Trial€counsel]€did€bring€to€this€court€a€motion€to€dismiss€based€on€outrageous€conduct.€Ð ü L  ÐHe€brought€a€motion€to€suppress.€€The€court€ruled€on€these€motions.€€Ðè 8 f!f! Ðà8  àÐ f!f! Ðà8  àHe€raised€entrapment€as€an€affirmative€defense.€€He€filed€for€entrapment€as€anÐ À  Ðaffirmative€defense.Ьü f!f! Ðà8  àÐ f!f! Ðà8  à[Trial€counsel]€did€all€those€things€he€should€do.€€He€acknowledged€that€.€.€.€his€clientÐ „Ô  Ðon€occasion€had€asked€him€to€file€motions€that€[trial€counsel]€.€.€.€did€not€feel€theyÐ pÀ Ðshould€be€filed€and€argued,€and€he€acknowledged€he€didnððt€file€every€motion€that€Mr.Ð \¬ ÐÔ_ÔBlackmonÔ_Ô€asked€him€to€file.ÐH˜f!f! ÐÌà8  àBut€the€court€is€of€the€opinion€that€he€was€effective€counsel.€€He€presented€a€defense.€Ð  p ÐHe€knew€the€case€best.€€He€proceeded€on€what€he,€with€[the€Appellant],€knew€andÐ  \ Ðproceeded€to€trial.€€I€donððt€find€that€he€was€ineffective€counsel.ÐøHf!f! ÐÌThe€proof€does€not€preponderate€against€these€findings.€€With€regard€to€the€Appellantððs€claim€that€trialÐ Ð  Ðcounsel€failed€to€develop€a€ð ðcoherent€defense€strategy,ðð€we€are€provided€no€clue€as€to€what€effectiveÐ ¼  Ðstrategy€counsel€could€have€devised.€€The€jury€was€presented€with€both€video€and€audio€recordings€ofÐ ¨ø Ðthe€Appellantððs€participation€in€the€one€kilo€delivery€on€March€22òòndóó.€€We€believe€the€holding€inÐ ”ä ÐòòWilliams€v.€Ô_ÔBetoÔ_Ôóó,€354€F.2d€698,€706€(5òòthóó€Cir.€1965)€appropriate€to€the€facts€of€this€case;€ð ð[defenseÐ €Ð Ðcounsel]€must€decide€as€his€knowledge,€experience,€and€talents€best€permit€and€then€move€ahead.€Ð l¼ ÐWhen€he€does€this,€that€is€all€any€lawyer€can€do,€and€the€client€has€no€right€to€complain€of€the€absenceÐ X ¨ Ðof€a€miracle.ðð€€From€the€record€before€us,€we€find€that€the€Appellant€has€failed€to€satisfy€the€first€prongÐ D!” Ðof€òòÔ_ÔStricklandÔ_Ôóó,€òòi.e.óó,€that€counselððs€performance€was€deficient.€€Having€concluded€that€the€AppellantÐ 0"€  Ðfailed€to€meet€the€first€prong€of€this€test,€we€need€not€address€the€second€prong.€€Accordingly,€we€findÐ #l! Ðthis€issue€to€be€without€merit.òòÐ $X" ÐÌóóò òÓ  ÓII.€€Jury€Instructionsó óòòÐ à%0!$ ÐÌóóò òA.€€EntrapmentÐ ¸'#& Ðó óÓ  Óà  àThe€Appellant€next€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€charge€the€jury€on€the€defenseÐ ¤(ô#' Ðof€entrapment.€€Specifically,€he€asserts€that€ð ðthe€State€first€brought€a€drug€transaction€into€itsÐ )à$( Ðinvestigation€of€stolen€automobilesðð€and€ð ðrepeatedly€refused€to€sell€any€weight€of€cocaine€less€thanÐ |*Ì%) Ða€kilo.ðð€€Thus,€the€Appellant€maintains,€ð ðthis€course€of€conduct€by€the€State€establishes€a€prima€facieÐ h+¸&* Ðcase€for€entrapment€and€the€jury€should€have€been€charged€and€allowed€to€consider€this€evidence€toÐ ° Ðdetermine€the€Appellantððs€predisposition€to€commit€the€offense€charged.ðð€Ð œì ÐÌà  àBoth€the€history€and€current€status€of€entrapment€as€a€defense€in€Tennessee€are€set€forth€in€òòStateÐ tÄ Ðv.€Shuckóó,€953€S.W.2d€662,€666€(Tenn.€1997):Ð `° ÐÌà8  àFirst€recognized€by€the€Supreme€Court€in€òòÔ_ÔSorrellsÔ_Ô€v.€United€Statesóó,€287€U.S.€435,€53Ð 8 ˆ ÐS.€Ct.€210,€77€L.€Ed.€413€(1932),€the€defense€of€entrapment€has€been€described€asÐ $ t Ðð ðvirtually€unique€to€the€criminal€jurisprudence€of€the€United€States.ðð€€òòUnited€States€v.Ð  ` ÐWebsteróó,€649€F.2d€346,€348€(5òòthóó€Cir.€1981)òòóó.€.€.€.€€[Ô_ÔT]heÔ_Ô€General€Assembly,€as€part€of€theÐ ü L  ÐCriminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€codified€all€the€available€defenses€toÐ è 8  Ðprosecution€in€Tennessee.€€Entrapment€was€included€as€a€general€defense€toÐ Ô$  Ðprosecution€for€all€offenses.€€.€.€.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔLathamÔ_Ôóó,€910€S.W.2d€892,€895„96€(Tenn.Ð À  ÐÔ_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1995).€Ð¬ü f!f! ÐÌIn€òòUnited€States€v.€Russellóó,€411€U.S.€423,€93€S.€Ct.€1637,€1647€(1973)€(Stewart,€J.,€dissenting),€theÐ „Ô  ÐUnited€States€Supreme€Court€reaffirmed€òòÔ_ÔSorrellsÔ_Ôóó:Ð pÀ ÐÌà8  àIn€òòÔ_ÔSorrellsÔ_Ôóó€òòóóòòóóand€òòSherman€v.€United€Statesóó,€356€U.S.€369,€381,€78€S.€Ct.€819,€825€(1958),Ð H˜ Ðthe€Court€took€what€might€be€called€a€ððsubjectiveðð€approach€to€the€defense€ofÐ 4„ Ðentrapment.€€In€that€view,€the€defense€is€predicated€on€an€unexpressed€intent€ofÐ  p ÐCongress€to€exclude€from€its€criminal€statutes€the€prosecution€and€conviction€ofÐ  \ Ðpersons,€ððotherwise€innocent,ðð€who€have€been€lured€to€the€commission€of€the€prohibitedÐ øH Ðact€through€the€Governmentððs€instigation.€€òòÔ_ÔSorrellsÔ_Ôóóòòóó,€287€U.S.€at€448,€53€S.€Ct.€at€215.€Ð ä4 ÐThe€key€phrase€in€this€formulation€is€ððotherwise€innocent,ðð€for€the€entrapment€defenseÐ Ð  Ðis€available€under€this€approach€only€to€those€who€would€not€have€committed€the€crimeÐ ¼  Ðbut€for€the€Governmentððs€inducements.€€Thus,€the€subjective€approach€focuses€on€theÐ ¨ø Ðconduct€and€propensities€of€the€particular€defendant€in€each€individual€case:€if€he€isÐ ”ä Ðððotherwise€innocent,ðð€he€may€avail€himself€of€the€defense;€but€if€he€had€theÐ €Ð Ðððpredispositionðð€to€commit€the€crime,€or€if€the€ððcriminal€design€originated€with€him,Ð l¼ Ðthen„regardless€of€the€nature€and€extent€of€the€Governmentððs€participation„there€hasÐ X ¨ Ðbeen€no€entrapment.€€òòId.óó€at€451,€53€S.€Ct.€at€216.ÐD!”f!f! ÐÌòòóóLikewise,€inòòóó€òòHampton€v.€United€Statesóó,€425€U.S.€484,€96€S.€Ct.€1646€(1976),€the€Supreme€Court€againÐ #l! Ðreaffirmed€their€adoption€of€the€ð ðsubjectiveðð€approach€to€the€defense€of€entrapment.€€To€determineÐ $X" Ðwhether€entrapment€has€been€established,€a€line€must€be€drawn€between€the€trap€for€the€unwaryÐ ô$D # Ðinnocent€and€the€trap€for€the€unwary€criminal.€€òòRussellóó,€411€U.S.€at€429€(citing€òòShermanóó,€356€U.S.€atÐ à%0!$ Ð372).Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àThere€are€two€recognized€tests€for€determining€entrapment,€the€objective€and€subjective€test.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐòòShuckóó,€953€S.W.2d€at€666.€€The€objective€test€is€the€minority€rule€under€which€the€fact€finder€focusesÐ )à$( Ðon€the€nature€of€the€police€activity€involved,€without€reference€to€the€predisposition€of€the€defendant.Ð |*Ì%) ÐòòId.óó€The€subjective€test€is€applied€by€a€majority€of€jurisdictions€and€requires€the€fact€finder€to€focus€onÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€subjective€intent€of€the€defendant€to€determine€whether€the€defendant€was€predisposed€to€commitÐ ° Ðthe€criminal€act,€with€law€enforcement€officials€furnishing€only€the€opportunity,€or€whether€theÐ œì Ðdefendant€was€an€innocent€person€induced€by€police€into€committing€a€criminal€offense.€€òòId.óó;€òòóó€òòÔ_ÔLathamÔ_Ôóó,Ð ˆØ Ð910€S.W.2d€at€896òòóó.€€As€noted€by€the€statutory€language€of€the€defense€of€entrapment,€TennesseeÐ tÄ Ðadopted€the€subjective€test.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„505;€òòsee€alsoóó€òò€Ô_ÔLathamÔ_Ôóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€896.Ð `° ÐÌà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„11„505€defines€entrapment€as€follows:€it€is€a€defense€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðprosecution€that€law€enforcement€officials,€acting€either€directly€or€through€an€agent,€induced€orÐ $ t Ðpersuaded€an€otherwise€unwilling€person€to€commit€an€unlawful€act€when€the€person€was€notÐ  ` Ðpredisposed€to€do€so.€€Accordingly,€we€apply€those€principles€established€in€òòÔ_ÔSorrellsÔ_Ôóó€and€its€progenyÐ ü L  Ðin€determining€whether€the€defense€of€entrapment€was€available€to€the€Appellant.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„11„203€provides€that€the€existence€of€a€defense€is€notÐ À  Ðsubmitted€to€the€jury€unless€it€is€fairly€raised€by€the€proof.€€Moreover,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ððÐ ¬ü  Ð39„11„201(d)€provides€that€evidence€produced€at€trial,€whether€presented€on€direct€or€cross„Ð ˜è  Ðexamination€of€state€or€defense€witness,€may€be€utilized€by€either€party.€€In€this€case,€the€AppellantÐ „Ô  Ðrelies€solely€upon€the€Stateððs€proof€and€the€actions€of€the€Stateððs€agent,€Detective€Al€Watson,€toÐ pÀ Ðsupport€his€assertion€that€he€was€the€victim€of€entrapment.€€The€Appellant€did€not€testify€at€trial.€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àInitially,€we€note€our€rejection€of€€an€entrapment€defense€as€a€matter€of€law€or€right€based€solelyÐ 4„ Ðupon€the€fact€that€a€state€agent€furnishes,€by€means€of€sale€or€delivery,€contraband€to€a€defendant.€€TheÐ  p Ðfact€that€the€State€furnished€the€contraband€is€a€point€of€evidentiary€value€only.€€òòSee€generallyóó€òòMooreÐ  \ Ðv.€Stateóó,€534€So.2d€557,€559€(Miss.€1988).€€The€threshold€question€of€whether€the€defense€ofÐ øH Ðentrapment€has€been€ð ðfairly€raisedðð€is€for€determination€by€the€judge€and€not€the€jury.€Nonetheless,Ð ä4 Ðwhere€the€proof€fairly€raises€the€issue€of€entrapment,€and€the€proof€is€supported€by€credible€evidence,Ð Ð  Ðthe€trial€court€is€required€to€give€the€instruction€of€entrapment€whether€requested€or€not.€€To€determineÐ ¼  Ðwhen€this€statutory€defense€is€fairly€raised€by€the€proof€so€as€to€require€its€submission€to€the€jury,€aÐ ¨ø Ðcourt€must,€in€effect,€consider€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€defendant,€including€allÐ ”ä Ðreasonable€inferences€flowing€from€that€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔBultÔ_Ôóó,€989€S.W.2d€730,€733€(Tenn.Ð €Ð ÐÔ_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1998),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1999)€(citing€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔShropshireÔ_Ôóó,€874€S.W.2d€634,Ð l¼ Ð639€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1993)).€€Thus,€if€entrapment€is,€in€fact,€ð ðfairly€raised€by€the€proof,ðð€the€issueÐ X ¨ Ðof€predisposition€becomes€a€question€of€fact€for€the€jury.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòSherman€v.€United€Statesóó,€356€U.S.Ð D!” Ðat€377.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€properly€denied€the€Appellantððs€request€for€a€juryÐ $X" Ðinstruction€on€the€defense€of€entrapment.€€It€is€clear€from€the€undisputed€facts€of€this€case€that€theÐ ô$D # ÐAppellant€was€predisposed€to€commit€the€crime€for€which€he€is€charged.€€It€was€the€Appellant,€theÐ à%0!$ Ðmiddleman€from€Atlanta,€who€approached€Detective€Watson€in€an€attempt€to€purchase€cocaine.€Ð Ì&"% ÐDuring€their€first€encounter,€the€Appellant€indicated€his€desire€to€complete€the€one€kilo€drug€purchaseÐ ¸'#& Ðon€a€certain€date€and€was€rejected€by€Detective€Watson.€€Upon€learning€that€the€cocaine€wasÐ ¤(ô#' Ðunavailable,€it€was€the€Appellant€who€requested€another€date€to€complete€the€transaction.€€It€was€theÐ )à$( ÐAppellant€who€obtained€a€sample€of€the€cocaine€for€assurance€of€its€quality.€€Again,€it€was€theÐ |*Ì%) ÐAppellant€who€established€the€ð ðbottom€dollar€priceðð€for€the€drugs.€€The€proof€established€that,€at€oneÐ h+¸&* Ðpoint€during€the€first€encounter,€Detective€Watson€told€the€Appellant,€ð ð[Ô_Ôi]fÔ_Ô€you€donððt€like€it,€you€canÐ ° Ðgo€on€your€way€and€Iððll€go€mine.ðð€€On€the€date€of€the€cocaine€purchase,€it€was€again€the€Appellant€whoÐ œì Ðapproached€Detective€Watson.€€Finally,€it€was€the€Appellant€who€delivered€the€drug€purchase€moneyÐ ˆØ Ðto€Detective€Watson,€permitting€transfer€of€the€one€kilo€of€cocaine.€€In€sum,€we€conclude,€as€did€theÐ tÄ Ðtrial€court,€that€the€Appellant€failed€to€establish€a€prima€facie€case€of€entrapment,€òòi.e.óó,€that€he€wasÐ `° Ðinduced€or€persuaded€by€law€enforcement€to€commit€the€crime€when€he€was€not€otherwise€predisposedÐ L œ Ðto€do€so.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court,€as€matter€of€law,€properly€declined€to€instruct€the€jury€onÐ 8 ˆ Ðentrapment.€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àAlternatively,€the€Appellant€asserts€that€the€actions€of€the€State€constituted€the€defense€ofÐ ü L  Ðð ðsentencing€entrapment.ðð€€As€conceded€in€the€Appellantððs€brief,€such€a€defense€is€not€recognized€inÐ è 8  ÐTennessee€or€found€within€the€provisions€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„11„505.€òòSee€alsoóó€òòUnitedÐ Ô$  ÐStates€v.€Jonesóó,€102€F.3d€804,€809€(6òòthóó€Cir.€1996)(this€court€has€never€recognized€sentencingÐ À  Ðentrapment€as€a€basis€for€departure€under€the€guidelines).€€As€such,€this€issue€is€also€without€merit.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌò òÓ  Óà @ àB.€€Outrageous€Government€Conductó óÐ „Ô  ÐÓyÓòòò òó óÔ#†XlxXXXlxù5#ÔÔ‡XlxXXXlxÔóóà  àThe€Appellant€next€asserts€that€the€State„sponsored€sale€of€cocaine€was€ð ðoutside€the€boundariesÐ pÀ Ðof€the€law€[and]€that€the€police€do€not€have€a€license€to€commit€crimes€themselves.ðð€€As€such,€theÐ \¬ ÐAppellant€contends€that€he€was€entitled€to€assert€an€ð ðoutrageous€governmental€conductðð€€defense€andÐ H˜ Ðthat€the€refusal€of€the€trial€judge€to€so€instruct€was€error.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àIn€support€of€his€position,€the€Appellant€argues€that€Detective€Watsonððs€conduct€violatedÐ  \ ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€53„11„451(d)(4),€because€he€failed€to€obtain€prior€court€approval€for€lawÐ øH Ðenforcement€use€of€the€cocaine.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€53„11„451(d)(4)€provides€a€methodÐ ä4 Ðwhereby€police€can€be€granted€judicial€authorization€to€use€property€which€they€have€seized.€€Initially,Ð Ð  Ðwe€note€that€it€is€not€entirely€clear€from€the€record€that€the€cocaine€in€this€case€is€governed€by€theÐ ¼  Ðprovisions€of€this€section.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€53„11„451(d)€applies€to€the€disposition€ofÐ ¨ø Ðgoods€which€were€previously€seized€incident€to€arrest,€upon€execution€of€a€search€warrant,€or€throughÐ ”ä Ðother€statutorily€authorized€means€resulting€in€a€criminal€conviction€or€civil€judgment€in€favor€of€theÐ €Ð ÐState.€€Through€these€civil€or€criminal€judgments,€the€circuit€or€criminal€court€obtains€jurisdiction€overÐ l¼ Ðthe€property.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€51„11„451(b)(1)„(4),€(d)(4).Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àThe€proof€in€this€case€established€that€the€cocaine,€approximately€one€kilo€in€weight,€originatedÐ 0"€  Ðin€Panama€following€the€arrest€of€Manuel€Noriega.€€At€the€time,€Detective€Watson€served€as€liaisonÐ #l! Ðto€the€military€and€the€federal€drug€enforcement€agency,€the€latter€being€involved€in€the€arrest€ofÐ $X" ÐNoriega.€€The€cocaine€was€released€to€Watson€by€authority€of€the€Department€of€Defense€and€theÐ ô$D # ÐMiami€DEA€for€use€by€the€Montgomery€County,€Tennessee,€Judicial€Drug€Task€Force,€who€loanedÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€cocaine€to€Sumner€County.€€From€these€facts,€we€find€that€the€cocaine€remained€under€theÐ Ì&"% Ðjurisdiction€of€the€federal€government€and,€therefore,€was€not€subject€to€the€provisions€of€TennesseeÐ ¸'#& ÐCode€Annotated€ðð€53„11„451(d),€as€argued€by€the€Appellant.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àAlso€included€as€grounds€for€outrageous€police€conduct€is€the€allegation€that€the€Stateððs€agent,Ð |*Ì%) ÐWatson,€ð ðcommitted€a€felony€by€providing€a€ððsampleðð€of€cocaineðð€to€the€Appellant.€€This€argument€Ð h+¸&* Їis€misplaced.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€53„11„410(c)€specially€grants€immunity€to€authorized€state,€county,Ð ° Ðor€municipal€officers€in€possession€of€controlled€substances€where€engaged€in€the€lawful€performanceÐ œì Ðof€such€officersðð€duties.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔStoddardÔ_Ôóó,€909€S.W.2d€454,€455€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1994);Ð ˆØ ÐòòState€v.€Franciscoóó,€790€S.W.2d€543€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1989).€€€It€is€without€dispute€that€on€all€datesÐ tÄ Ðpertinent€to€the€sale€or€delivery€of€any€controlled€substance,€Detective€Watson€was€engaged€in€theÐ `° Ðlawful€performance€of€his€duties€as€a€municipal€officer€with€the€Ô_ÔGoodlettsvilleÔ_Ô€Police€Department.€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€provide€him€an€ð ðoutrageous€governmentÐ $ t Ðconductðð€defense€which€he€also€refers€to€as€a€ð ðdue€process€entrapment€defenseðð€constituted€reversibleÐ  ` Ðerror.€€As€such,€he€argues€that€he€was€denied€the€opportunity€ð ðto€allow€the€jury€to€decide€whether€heÐ ü L  Ðwas€predisposed€to€commit€the€offense€charged€or€whether€he€was€inducedðð€by€the€Stateððs€illegalÐ è 8  Ðconduct.€€The€Appellantððs€argument€of€inducement€and€predisposition€based€upon€outrageousÐ Ô$  Ðgovernment€conduct€is€flawed.€Ð À  ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€erroneously€merges,€as€is€commonly€done,€the€concepts€of€three€separateÐ ˜è  Ðdefenses:€(1)€the€defense€of€entrapment€subjective€test;€(2)€the€defense€of€entrapment€objective€test;Ð „Ô  Ðand€(3)€the€ð ðdue€processðð€entrapment€defense.€€These€three€tests€are€distinct.€€Indeed,€an€outrageousÐ pÀ Ðgovernment€conduct€defense€may€be€successful€even€if€the€evidence€establishes€a€predisposition€toÐ \¬ Ðcommit€the€crime.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Ô_ÔSneedÔ_Ôóó,€34€F.3d€1570,€1576€(10òòthóó€Cir.€1994).€€The€entrapmentÐ H˜ Ðdefense€utilizing€the€subjective€test€previously€discussed,€requires€the€jury€to€focus€on€the€defendantððsÐ 4„ Ðpredisposition€to€commit€the€crime.€€The€entrapment€defense€utilizing€an€objective€test,€however,Ð  p Ðfocuses€on€the€nature€of€the€police€activity€involved,€without€reference€to€the€predisposition€of€theÐ  \ Ðdefendant.€€òòÔ_ÔLathamÔ_Ôóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€896.׃U×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€The€due€process€entrapment€defense€and€its€otherÐ øH Ðaccompanying€labels€of€ð ðoutrageous€government€conductðð€are€rooted€in€the€United€States€SupremeÐ ä4 ÐCourt€decision,€òòUnited€States€v.€Russellóó,€411€U.S.€at€431„32,€which€in€dicta,€held:Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àWhile€we€may€some€day€be€presented€with€a€situation€in€which€the€conduct€of€lawÐ ¨ø Ðenforcement€agents€is€so€outrageous€that€due€process€principles€would€absolutely€barÐ ”ä Ðthe€government€from€invoking€judicial€process€to€obtain€a€conviction,€€the€instant€caseÐ €Ð Ðis€not€of€that€breed.Ðl¼f!f! ÐÌ(citations€omitted);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Stephen€Neil€Kennedyóó,€No.€02C01„9706„CC„00203€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.Ð D!” ÐApp.€at€Jackson,€Apr.€8,€1998).€€While€the€defense€of€ð ðdue€process€entrapment,ðð€spawned€by€the€dictaÐ 0"€  Ðof€òòRussellóó,€remains€a€tenuous€defense€at€best,€no€ruling€of€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€everÐ #l! Ðrecognized€this€defense€based€solely€upon€an€objective€assessment€of€the€governmentððs€conduct€inÐ $X" Ðinducing€the€commission€of€crimes.€€òòState€v.€Stephen€Neil€Kennedyóó,€No.€02C01„9706„CC„00203Ð ô$D # Ð(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€at€Jackson,€Apr.€8,€1998).Ô#†XlxXXXlx¬y#ÔÔ‡XlxXXXlxÔ€In€this€regard,€we€note€that€the€defense€of€entrapment€inÐ à%0!$ ÐTennessee€is€codified€as€a€general€defense€and,€if€successful,€would€result€in€a€verdict€of€not€guilty.€Ð Ì&"% ÐWhereas,€an€outrageous€government€conduct€defense,€based€upon€due€process€concerns,€is€not€assertedÐ ¸'#& Ðas€a€ð ðgeneralðð€defense€and,€if€successful,€the€remedy€would€be€that€of€dismissal€of€the€indictment,€evenÐ ¤(ô#' Ðif€guilty€of€the€offense€charged.€.€.€.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„505.€€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòUnited€States€v.€Tuckeróó,Ð ° Ð28€F.3d€1420€(6òòthóó€Cir.€1994);€òòUnited€States€v.€Ô_ÔQaoudÔ_Ôóó,€777€F.2d€1105€(6òòthóó€Cir.€1985).Ð œì ÐÌà  àIn€òòUnited€States€v.€Tuckeróó,€28€F.3d€at1422òòóó,€the€Sixthòòóó€Circuit€Court€of€Appeals€expressly€heldÐ tÄ Ðthat€a€defendant€whose€defense€sounds€in€inducement€may€not€avail€himself€of€the€ð ðoutrageousÐ `° Ðgovernment€conductðð€defense.€€Again,€in€òòUnited€States€v.€Warwickóó,€167€F.3d€965,€974€(6òòthóó€Cir.€1999),Ð L œ Ðthe€Sixth€Circuit€held:Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àSince€òòTuckeróó,€we€have€consistently€rejected€defendantsðð€attempts€to€argue€that€theÐ  ` Ðgovernmentððs€conduct€in€inducing€them€to€commit€the€crimes€charged€was€soÐ ü L  Ðoutrageous€as€to€deprive€them€of€their€constitutional€rights.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòUnited€States€v.Ð è 8  ÐRogersóó,€118€F.3d€466,€473€(6òòthóó€Cir.€1997)€(noting€that€a€defense€that€sounds€inÐ Ô$  Ðinducement€is€limited€to€entrapment€and,€under€òòTuckeróó,€does€not€implicate€dueÐ À  Ðprocess);€òòUnited€States€v.€Ô_ÔBranhamÔ_Ôóó,€97€F.3d€835,€852€(6òòthóó€Cir.€1996)€(noting€thatÐ ¬ü  ÐòòTuckeróó€ð ðrejected€the€ððdue€processðð€defense€sounding€in€inducement,ðð€and€thereforeÐ ˜è  Ðrefusing€to€consider€the€defendantððs€claim€of€outrageous€government€conduct).Ð„Ô f!f! ÐÌBecause€we€find€the€Appellantððs€defense€ð ðsounds€in€inducement,ðð€he€may€not€avail€himself€of€anÐ \¬ Ðoutrageous€government€conduct€defense.€€Although€we€have€concluded€that€the€Appellant€was€not€asÐ H˜ Ða€matter€of€law€entitled€to€an€ð ðoutrageous€government€conductðð€defense,€we€are€constrained€to€noteÐ 4„ Ðthat€the€Stateððs€conduct€in€this€case€falls€far€short€of€the€definition€of€outrageous.€€In€òòUnited€States€v.Ð  p ÐRussellóó,€411€U.S.€at€432,€the€Supreme€Court€recognized€the€ongoing€and€pervasive€nature€of€illicitÐ  \ Ðdrug€activity€in€our€society:Ð øH ÐÌà8  à[Ô_ÔI]nÔ_Ô€drug„related€offenses€law€enforcement€personnel€have€turned€to€one€of€the€onlyÐ Ð  Ðpracticable€means€of€detection:€the€infiltration€of€drug€rings€and€a€limited€participationÐ ¼  Ðin€their€unlawful€present€practices.€€Such€infiltration€is€a€recognized€and€permissibleÐ ¨ø Ðmeans€of€investigation;€if€that€be€so,€then€the€supply€of€some€item€of€value€that€theÐ ”ä Ðdrug€ring€requires€must,€as€a€general€rule,€also€be€permissible.€€For€an€agent€will€notÐ €Ð Ðbe€taken€into€the€confidence€of€the€illegal€entrepreneurs€unless€he€has€something€ofÐ l¼ Ðvalue€to€offer€them.€€Law€enforcement€tactics€such€as€this€can€hardly€be€said€to€violateÐ X ¨ Ðð ðfundamental€fairnessðð€or€ð ðshocking€to€the€universal€sense€of€justice.ððÐD!”f!f! ÐÌÓÓ€€Accordingly,€we€find€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€this€defense€was€not€error.Ð #l! Ðò òÓ  ÓC.€Impossibilityó óÐ ô$D # ÐÔ#†XlxXXXlx=•#ÔÔ‡XlxXXXlxÔÓU¤ÓÓÓà  àThe€Appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€defenseÐ Ì&"% Ðof€impossibility.€€Specifically,€the€Appellant€argues€that€because€he€never€had€actual€nor€constructiveÐ ¸'#& Ðpossession€of€the€cocaine,€it€was€impossible€for€him€to€have€committed€the€offense€for€which€he€wasÐ ¤(ô#' Ðconvicted.€€The€defense€of€impossibility€is€applicable€only€to€inchoate€offenses.€€òòSee€generallyóóòòÔ#†XlxXXXlx¬¤#ÔÔ‡XlxXXXlxÔóó€òòBandyÐ )à$( Ðv.€Stateóó,€575€S.W.2d€278€(Tenn.€1979)Ô#†XlxXXXlxî¦#ÔÔ‡XlxXXXlxÔ.€€Because€the€Appellant€was€not€convicted€of€such€an€offense,Ð |*Ì%) Ðthis€argument€fails.€€Moreover,€with€the€adoption€of€the€1989€Criminal€Code€and€the€statutoryÐ h+¸&* Ðenactment€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„12„101(a)(1),€this€state€effectively€abolished€the€defenseÐ ° Ðof€impossibility€for€the€offense€of€criminal€attempt.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Elderóó,€982€S.W.2d€871,€875€(Tenn.Ð œì ÐÔ_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1998).€€Additionally,€we€would€observe€that€prior€to€the€enactment€of€the€1989€CriminalÐ ˆØ ÐCode,€our€supreme€court€had€rejected€the€legal€impossibility€defense€in€òòBandyóó,€575€S.W.2d€at€280.€Ð tÄ ÐÔ#†XlxXXXlxy§#ÔÔ‡XlxXXXlxÔAccordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.òòÐ `° ÐóóÔ#†XlxXXXlx—ª#ÔÔ‡XlxXXXlxÔÌò òÓ  ÓIII.€€WHETHER€THE€INDICTMENT€WAS€DEFECTIVEÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àThe€Appellant€argues€that€the€indictment€under€which€he€was€convictedò òòòó óóó€is€defective€becauseÐ  ` Ðit€failed€to€allege€that€he€committed€the€offense€ð ðknowingly.ðð€€€Specifically,€he€asserts€that€failure€toÐ ü L  Ðinclude€the€culpable€mental€state€of€the€offense€in€the€indictment€renders€the€indictment€invalid€and€Ð è 8  Ðdivests€the€court€of€jurisdiction€of€the€case.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€was€convicted€of€possession€with€intent€to€sell€over€300€grams,€an€offense€whichÐ ¬ü  Ðrequires€a€ð ðknowingðð€mens€Ô_ÔreaÔ_Ô€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„17„417.€€The€indictment,Ð ˜è  Ðhowever,€charged€the€following:Ð „Ô  ÐÌà8  à[Ô_ÔT]hatÔ_Ô€BOBBY€VINCENT€Ô_ÔBLACKMONÔ_Ô€heretofore€on€or€about€the€22òòndóó€day€of€March,Ð \¬ Ð1993,€in€the€County€and€State€aforesaid,€did€unlawfully€and€feloniously€possess€withÐ H˜ Ðintent€to€sell€a€controlled€substance,€to„wit:€a€quantity€of€cocaine,€a€Schedule€IIÐ 4„ Ðcontrolled€substance,€in€excess€of€three€hundred€grams€in€violation€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð  p Ððð€39„17„417.Ð \f!f! ÐÌà  àUnder€both€the€United€States€and€the€Tennessee€Constitutions,€a€charging€instrument,€such€asÐ ä4 Ðan€indictment,€must€inform€the€accused€of€ð ðthe€nature€and€cause€of€the€accusation.ðð€€U.S.€Const.Ð Ð  Ðamend.€VI;€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€9.€€Ô#†XlxXXXlx«#ÔÔ‡XlxXXXlxÔTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„13„202,€provides€that€anÐ ¼  Ðindictment€must:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  à[Ô_ÔS]tateÔ_Ô€the€facts€constituting€the€offense€in€ordinary€and€concise€language,€withoutÐ €Ð Ðprolixity€or€repetition,€in€such€a€manner€as€to€enable€a€person€of€commonÐ l¼ Ðunderstanding€to€know€what€is€intended,€and€with€that€degree€of€certainty€which€willÐ X ¨ Ðenable€the€court,€on€conviction,€to€pronounce€the€proper€judgment;€and€in€no€case€areÐ D!” Ðsuch€words€as€ð ðforce€or€armsðð€or€ð ðcontrary€to€the€form€of€the€statuteðð€necessary.Ð0"€ f!f! ÐÌAt€common€law,€pleading€requirements€for€indictments€were€strict€because€the€elements€of€criminalÐ $X" Ðoffenses€were€not€easily€ascertainable€by€reference€to€a€statute.€€In€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€954€S.W.2d€725,€727Ð ô$D # Ð(Tenn.€1997),€however,€our€Supreme€Court€relaxed€the€stringent€standards€and€held€that€an€indictmentÐ à%0!$ Ðis€valid€if€it:€(1)€meets€constitutional€guarantee€of€notice;€(2)€complies€with€the€statutory€form€andÐ Ì&"% Ðsufficiency€of€indictments;€and€(3)€contains€language€from€which€the€mental€state€may€be€logicallyÐ ¸'#& Ðinferred€from€the€conduct€alleged.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àThe€language€of€the€indictment€alleges€that€the€Appellant€ð ðdid€unlawfully€and€feloniouslyÐ |*Ì%) Ðpossess€with€intent€to€sell€.€.€.€€a€quantity€of€cocaine€.€.€.€in€excess€of€300€grams.€€.€.€.ðð€€A€virtuallyÐ h+¸&* Ðidentical€challenge€is€found€in€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€532,€538€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.Ð ° Ð1993)(overruled€on€other€grounds),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1993),€where€this€court€held€that,Ð œì ÐÔ#†XlxXXXlx²#ÔÔ‡XlxXXXlxÔð ðby€alleging€that€the€defendant€possessed€cocaine€which€he€intended€to€sell,€the€indictment€necessarilyÐ ˆØ Ðimplied€that€it€was€a€knowing€possession.ðð€€Applying€this€rationale€in€the€present€case,€we€find€thatÐ tÄ Ðthe€indictment€contains€language€that€can€be€logically€inferred€from€the€conduct€alleged.€€òòSeeóó€òòHillóó,€954Ð `° ÐS.W.2d€at€727.€€Accordingly,€we€find€the€indictment€valid.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð L œ ÐòòÌóóò òÓ  ÓIV.€€SENTENCINGÐ $ t ÐÌó óÓ  ÓòòÓ °X°œXÓà  àóóLastly,€the€Appellant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€beginning€at€the€mid„point€of€the€rangeÐ ü L  Ðin€computing€his€sentence.€The€offense€was€committed€in€1993.€€The€trial€court€applied€the€sentencingÐ è 8  Ðlaw€in€effect€at€the€time€of€sentencing€in€2000.€€In€1995,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„210(c),Ð Ô$  Ðwas€amended€to€provide€that€the€presumptive€starting€point€for€a€class€A€felony€would€be€at€theÐ À  Ðmidpoint€of€the€range.€òòÓÓÔ#†XlxXXXlxÁ¹#ÔÔ‡XlxXXXlxÔóóBecause€application€of€the€1995€law€would€affect€a€substantial€right€of€theÐ ¬ü  ÐAppellant,€thus€implicating€òòóóòòex€post€facto€óóconstitutional€provisions,€the€trial€court€was€required€to€applyÐ ˜è  Ðthe€law€in€effect€on€the€date€the€offense€was€committed.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€13€S.W.3d€374€(Tenn.Ð „Ô  ÐÔ_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1999).Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àÔ#†XlxXXXlxz¾#ÔÔ‡XlxXXXlxÔNonetheless,€the€Appellant€bears€the€burden€of€establishing€that€the€sentence€imposed€by€theÐ H˜ Ðtrial€court€was€erroneous.€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔAshbyÔ_Ôóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€168€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Boggsóó,€932Ð 4„ ÐS.W.2d€467,€473€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1996);€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€786€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.Ð  p Ð1991).Ô#†XlxXXXlxÀ#ÔÔ‡XlxXXXlxÔ€When€a€defendant€challenges€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court,€this€court€conducts€a€òòdeÐ  \ Ðnovoóó€review€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.Ð øH ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)(1997).€€€This€presumption€is€only€applicable€if€the€record€demonstrates€thatÐ ä4 Ðthe€trial€court€properly€considered€relevant€sentencing€principles.€€òòÔ_ÔAshbyÔ_Ôóó,€823€S.W.2d€at169.€€€In€viewÐ Ð  Ðof€the€sentencing€error€in€this€case,€no€presumption€of€correctness€is€afforded.€€Ô#†XlxXXXlx–Â#ÔÔ‡XlxXXXlxÔFurthermore,€inÐ ¼  Ðdetermining€whether€the€Appellant€has€carried€his€burden,€this€court€must€consider€the€evidenceÐ ¨ø Ðreceived€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€pre„sentence€report,€the€principles€of€sentencing,Ð ”ä Ðthe€arguments€of€counsel,€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€offenses,€existing€mitigating€andÐ €Ð Ðenhancing€factors,€statements€made€by€the€offender,€and€the€potential€for€rehabilitation.€€òòId.óó;€Tenn.Ð l¼ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210.Ô#†XlxXXXlx9Å#ÔÔ‡XlxXXXlxÔòòÐ X ¨ ÐÌà  àóóIn€the€present€case,€the€Appellant€was€convicted€of€possession€with€the€intent€to€sell€over€300Ð 0"€  Ðgrams€of€cocaine€,€a€class€A€felony.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„417(a)(4),(j)(5).€€Because€the€AppellantÐ #l! Ðis€a€Range€II€offender,€the€range€of€punishment€is€25€to€40€years.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(b)(1).€Ð $X" ÐÔ#†XlxXXXlxŸÇ#ÔÔ‡XlxXXXlxÔFurthermore,€the€presumptive€sentence€would€be€the€minimum€sentence€in€that€range€if€there€are€noÐ ô$D # Ðenhancing€or€mitigating€factors€present.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c).€€If€there€are€both€enhancingÐ à%0!$ Ðand€mitigating€factors€present,€the€trial€court€must€ð ðenhance€the€sentence€within€the€range€asÐ Ì&"% Ðappropriate€for€the€enhancement€factors,€then€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€forÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€mitigating€factors.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€The€Appellant's€sentence€is€not€determinedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðby€the€mathematical€process€of€adding€the€sum€total€of€enhancing€factors€present€then€subtracting€fromÐ )à$( Ðthis€figure€the€mitigating€factors€present€for€a€net€number€of€years.€€Rather,€the€weight€to€be€affordedÐ |*Ì%) Ðan€existing€factor€is€left€to€the€trial€court's€discretion€so€long€as€the€court€complies€with€the€purposesÐ h+¸&* Ðand€principles€of€the€1989€Sentencing€Act€and€its€findings€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record.€Ð ° ÐòòóóòòBoggsóó,€932€S.W.2d€at€475.€€The€weight€to€be€afforded€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors€derivesÐ œì Ðfrom€balancing€relative€degrees€of€culpability€within€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€of€the€caseÐ ˆØ Ðinvolved.€€òòBoggsóó,€òòóó932€S.W.2dòò€óóat€476;òò€see€alsoóó€òòMarshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€at€€541€(overruled€on€otherÐ tÄ Ðgrounds).Ô#†XlxXXXlxzÉ#ÔÔ‡XlxXXXlxÔòòÐ `° ÐÌà  àóóIn€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€applied€three€enhancement€factors:€(1)€the€defendant€has€aÐ 8 ˆ Ðprevious€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establishÐ $ t Ðthe€appropriate€range;€(2)€the€defendant€was€a€leader€in€the€commission€of€an€offense€involving€twoÐ  ` Ðor€more€criminal€actors;€and€(3)€the€offense€was€committed€while€the€defendant€was€on€parole.€€Tenn.Ð ü L  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(2),€(13).€€The€only€sentencing€mitigator€found€by€the€trial€court€was€thatÐ è 8  Ðthe€Appellant€did€not€resist€arrest.òòÐ Ô$  ÐÌà  àóóWith€respect€to€enhancement€factor€(1),€the€Appellantððs€past€criminal€history€includes€burglary,Ð ¬ü  Ðlarceny,€first„degree€murder,€robbery€with€a€deadly€weapon,€escape€from€the€Tennessee€DepartmentÐ ˜è  Ðof€Correction,€and€a€robbery€conviction€in€California.€€Ô#†XlxXXXlx¡Ï#ÔÔ‡XlxXXXlxÔWe€find€the€Appellantððs€past€criminal€historyÐ „Ô  Ðto€be€extensive€and€conclude€that€enhancement€factor€(1)€was€properly€applied.€€With€respect€toÐ pÀ Ðenhancement€factor€(2),€we€also€find€that€the€evidence€supports€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€thisÐ \¬ Ðfactor.€€Marty€Jones€informed€Detective€Watson€that€he€had€a€ð ðgroup€from€Atlantaðð€who€was€interestedÐ H˜ Ðin€purchasing€cocaine.€€Jones€connected€Detective€Watson€and€the€Appellant,€who€became€the€centralÐ 4„ Ðfigure€in€the€transaction€in€Sumner€County.€€€The€record€supports€the€finding€that€the€Appellant€wasÐ  p Ða€leader€in€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€Lastly,€with€respect€to€enhancement€factor€(13),€theÐ  \ ÐAppellant€was€on€parole€for€a€first„degree€murder€conviction€committed€in€Shelby€County€when€heÐ øH Ðcommitted€the€offense€in€the€present€case.€Ô#†XlxXXXlxÜÓ#ÔÔ‡XlxXXXlxÔThis€factor€was€also€properly€applied.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€does€not€contest€the€application€of€the€trial€courtððs€enhancement€or€mitigatingÐ ¼  Ðfactors.€€Rather,€he€only€complains€of€the€trial€courtððs€error€in€beginning€at€the€mid„point€of€the€range.€Ð ¨ø ÐAfter€a€òòde€novoóó€review€of€the€entire€sentencing€record,€we€find€that€the€three€aggravating€factorsÐ ”ä Ðsignificantly€outweigh€the€sole€non„enumerated€mitigator,€which€we€afford€little€weight.€€Accordingly,Ð €Ð Ðwe€conclude€that€a€sentence€of€38€years€is€justified€in€this€case.òòÐ l¼ ÐÌóóò òÓ  ÓCONCLUSIONÐ D!” ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àWe€find€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€beginning€at€the€mid„point€of€the€sentence€range.€€AfterÐ #l! Ðòòde€novo€óóreview€of€the€applicable€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors;€however,€we€conclude€that€aÐ $X" Ðsentence€of€38€years,€as€a€Range€II€offender,€for€possession€with€intent€to€sell€over€300€grams€ofÐ ô$D # Ðcocaine€is€an€appropriate€sentence€in€this€case.€€We€find€all€other€issues€raised€to€be€without€merit.€Ð à%0!$ ÐThe€judgment€of€the€Sumner€County€Criminal€Court€is€affirmed.òòóóÔ#†XlxXXXlx××#Ôà È àà  àà x àà Ð àà (# àÐ Ì&"% ÐÌÌà0  àà0` ¾#¾#àà0¸ ` ¾#` ¾#àà0¸ ¾#¸ ¾#àà0h¾#¾#àà0Àh¾#h¾#àà0À¾#À¾#àà p à¼___________________________________€Ð|*Ì%)¾#¾# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE