ÿWPC  Çd-¥¹ySGÑ,ú÷I*SG]ëþÖÙDKÝ >!ŽØK±Æ]s=€Îp"“ã{ãÎ Ëä͸ô¡s‰ÍØ6¦ t ÅE]سò²Ú”óJ À°°çë–'Èúå'‚8¯ÊïÂ-µ—{”¬´óðVé;}œS7Ìf€1µ}JÈ׬ŒJ7cCí ÑÎ)¤æœ+ ßçšEÔ¯ýÁæ„AöÙ¡qì áfjïà•]§[¹gõ6ûÕn"<ž«•!D{mï÷¶#éï¹ÔóX(ëƒïÔdÏábr6r)Ò3 ­1SOûY„‡åE ¤X U_¨Þã0ж˜ï,P{›‰y~¡oºcþr)»³ö“X¼eg¹,Šòp„`ùTØÓâlÒ†ý`RYÊu3Á¬šÉ–löZY$ô£ÕÀ†¿X€úøòzÂ9`ò¹¾½p–O­Ý.ÖÍp³Yø Ô$Nü—"˜Å’ÀuõŽËŸ¾¥*´„v>(-OuIü»–Å@ö2ʾúËl+äøä=P6xä)!Â4P¼ë0'Ü#á¤îf‚_&¡É\á~Ç~ö1|Òpqô³òUD]à)ÝÄ[¤ñ«çNΨõÖLµœ¢‚ƒÜЉ FøÊbUN\ %ª 0ˆ°^ 8wD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ UN‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1÷NÿÿÿEb»   0DÆÆÆÆÆ 0ë     Bõõ 0¤ D3¶ D-é 0K ASaÆ´ 0¤z 0D A«b(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó†«;-s üPH,¢Ø+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 - ù- ±Ý ƒRàn$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô4ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔPruitt,€an€admitted€drug€addict,€advised€sheriffððs€deputies€that€she€was€having€domestic€problems€with€theÐ ° ÐAppellant,€who€supplied€her€with€approximately€80€percent€of€the€drugs€she€used.€€She€described€the€Appellant€asÐ tÄ Ðphysically€and€psychologically€abusive.€€€€€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(|G2àn$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€<ü»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô4ò»»Ô d(|3‡|$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€<ü»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡|$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€<ü»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€<ü»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼<ü»»»ÔÑ8€o XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î1<üÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼<ü»îî1 #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€August€14,€2002€Ð üL ÐÔ‡Xo X»¼<üÔÌò òÔ#†¼<ü»XXo !#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€J.€C.€BRUCEòòóóÔ‡Xo X»¼<üÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Humphreys€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€9779€€€€€€Robert€E.€Burch,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„02679„CCA„R3„CD€„€September€26,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÒe°ÒÓ  ÓÔ‡ Xo XXXo ÔThe€Appellant,€J.C.€Bruce,€was€convicted€after€a€trial€by€jury€of€robbery€and,€as€a€multiple€offender,Ð xÈ  Ðreceived€a€sentence€of€ten€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€ò òó óOn€appeal,€Bruce€raises€theÐ d´ Ðfollowing€issues€for€our€review:€€(1)€€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€verdict€andÐ P  Ð(2)€whether€his€sentence€was€proper.€€After€a€review€of€the€record,€the€judgment€of€the€HumphreysÐ <Œ ÐCounty€Circuit€Court€is€affirmed.€Ô#†Xo XX Xo É#ÔÔ#†¼<ü»XXo ”#ÔÔ‡Xo X»¼<üÔÐ (x ÐÓ½ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ P ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼<ü»àXo 4#ÔÔ‡Xo X.¼<üÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoe€G.€Rileyóó€and€òòNorma€McGeeÐ Ø( ÐOgleóó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌDidi€Christie,€Brownsville,€Tennessee,€on€appeal,€for€the€Appellant,€J.€C.€Bruce.Ð œì ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Peter€M.Ð tÄ ÐCoughlan,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€and€Dan€Alsobrooks,€District€Attorney€General,€for€theÐ `° ÐAppellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð L œ ÐÔ#†¼<ü»XXo #ÔÔ‡Xo X»¼<üÔÓÓÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼<ü»XXo f #ÔÔ‡Xo X»¼<üÔÐ $"t! ÐÌò òFactual€Backgroundó óÐ ü#L# ÐòòóóÔ#†¼<ü»XXo Ø #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Xo X»¼<üÔÌÔ‡ Xo XXXo Ôà ½ àOn€January€16,€2000,€Deputy€Richard€Galamore€of€the€Benton€County€Sheriffððs€DepartmentÐ Ô%$!% Ðreceived€a€phone€call€that€the€victim€of€a€domestic€disturbance,€Sherry€Pruitt,€needed€to€be€relocated€Ð À&"& Ðto€ð ða€safe€place.ðð׃K×Ý ƒM#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Deputy€Galamore€and€Deputy€Chris€Rogers€went€to€the€residence,€helped€theÐ ¬'ü"' Ðvictim€gather€her€personal€belongings,€and€escorted€her€to€the€sheriffððs€department.€€The€sheriff€toldÐ ˜(è#( ÐDeputies€Galamore€and€Rogers€to€transport€the€victim€€to€Waverly,€Tennessee,€in€Humphreys€County,Ð „)Ô$)ý Ðand€ð ðput€her€up€in€a€motel€room€for€the€night.ðð€€The€deputies€rented€a€room€at€the€Imperial€Motel€inÐ ° ÐWaverly€and€purchased€food€for€the€victim.€€They€then€left€and€returned€to€Benton€County.€€TheÐ œì Ðvictim,€suffering€from€drug€withdrawals,€phoned€her€sister€and€asked€her€to€bring€some€drugs€to€theÐ ˆØ Ðmotel.€€Thereafter,€the€Appellant€arrived€at€the€sisterððs€home€and€threatened€the€sister€that€ð ðit€wouldÐ tÄ Ðbe€[her]ðð€if€she€did€not€reveal€the€victimððs€location.€€The€sister€disclosed€the€information.Ð `° Ѐ€Ð L œ Ðà ½ àLate€that€night€or€early€in€the€morning€of€January€17òòthóó,€Pruitt€heard€a€knock€at€the€motel€roomÐ 8 ˆ Ðdoor.€€She€asked€who€it€was,€and€the€person€responded,€ð ðpolice.ðð€€She€then€unlocked€the€door.€€TheÐ $ t ÐAppellant€ð ðrushed€inðð€the€room€and€held€her€down€by€putting€his€knee€in€her€side.€€He€held€PruittððsÐ  ` Ðwrists€over€her€head€and€proceeded€to€remove€her€rings€and€necklace.€€He€also€hit€her€in€the€face,€tookÐ ü L  Ðher€eyeglasses,€and€told€her€that€she€ð ðwould€be€sorry€for€ruining€his€life.ðð€€After€the€Appellant€left,Ð è 8  Ðthe€victimððs€sister€arrived,€and€the€police€were€contacted.€€The€victim€went€to€the€Waverly€PoliceÐ Ô$  ÐDepartment€to€file€a€report€and,€as€soon€as€the€report€was€finished,€she€went€to€the€emergency€room.€Ð À  ÐAs€a€result€of€the€robbery,€the€victim€sustained€ð ða€black€eye,€a€contusion€to€her€right€cheek€bone.€€SheÐ ¬ü  Ðhad€abrasions€to€her€left€hand€and€ð!ð€the€right€side.€.€.€.€€And€the€right€side€of€her€neck€was€very€sore,Ð ˜è  Ðthe€muscles€inside€the€neck.ðð€€Later€on€the€17òòthóó,€€the€Appellant€was€arrested€after€he€returned€to€theÐ „Ô  Ðvictimððs€motel€room.€€Contact€between€the€Appellant€and€the€victim€continued€after€his€arrest€andÐ pÀ Ðsubsequent€release€on€bond.Ð \¬ Ѐ€Ð H˜ Ðà ½ àOn€April€3,€2000,€the€Appellant€was€indicted€for€aggravated€burglary,€robbery,€theft,€assault,Ð 4„ Ðand€filing€a€false€report.€€After€a€trial€by€jury,€the€Appellant€was€found€guilty€of€robbery.€€The€juryÐ  p Ðcould€not€reach€a€decision€on€the€burglary€charge€and€the€theft,€assault,€and€filing€a€false€reportÐ  \ Ðcharges€were€nolled€upon€motion€of€the€State.€€On€April€29,€2001,€the€Appellant,€a€multiple€offender,Ð øH Ðreceived€a€ten„year€sentence€for€the€robbery€conviction.€€His€motion€for€new€trial€was€denied,€and€thisÐ ä4 Ðtimely€appeal€followed.Ð Ð  Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ¼  Ðò òÓ  ÓANALYSIS€ó óÐ ¨ø ÐÌÓ[Óò òÓ  ÓI.€€Sufficiency€of€the€Evidenceà0@h(#(#àÐ €Ð ÐÌó óÓœÓà ½ àThe€Appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€his€conviction€forÐ X ¨ Ðrobbery,€a€class€C€felony.€€Specifically,€he€argues€that€the€victimððs€ò òó óð ðcredibility€is€so€suspect,€thatÐ D!” Ðviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€no€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€foundÐ 0"€  Ðthe€Appellant€guilty€of€robbery€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€The€Appellant€asserts€that€the€victimððsÐ #l! Ðcredibility€is€suspect€based€upon€the€following€rationale:Ð $X" ÐÌà8 ½ àThe€Appellant€was€convicted€of€robbery€based€on€the€testimony€of€Sherry€Pruitt,€whoÐ à%0!$ Ðadmittedly€was€a€heavy€drug€user€at€the€time€of€the€alleged€offense.€€Further,€there€wasÐ Ì&"% Ðunrebutted€testimony€by€a€former€police€officer€that,€within€two€weeks€of€the€allegedÐ ¸'#& Ðoffense,€Ms.€Pruitt€was€back€in€the€Appellantððs€home,€so€disoriented€that€she€did€notÐ ¤(ô#' Ðrecognize€the€officer,€with€whom€she€had€attended€school€for€several€years.€€There€isÐ )à$( Ðevidence€that,€when€Ms.€Pruitt€was€supposed€to€have€been€ð ðhidingðð€from€theÐ |*Ì%) ÐAppellant,€she€had€telephone€contact€with€him.€€Ðh+¸&*½Ð ½Ð  Їà ½ àA€€jury€conviction€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€with€which€a€defendant€is€cloakedÐ ° Ðand€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt,€so€that€on€appeal,€a€convicted€defendant€has€the€burden€ofÐ œì Ðdemonstrating€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€Ð ˆØ ÐIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€does€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€Ð tÄ ÐòòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Likewise,€it€is€not€the€duty€of€this€court€toÐ `° Ðrevisit€questions€of€witness€credibility€on€appeal,€that€function€being€within€the€province€of€the€trierÐ L œ Ðof€fact.€€òòState€v.€Holderóó,€15€S.W.3d€905,€911€(Tenn.€1999);€€òòState€v.€Burlisonóó,€868€S.W.2d€713,€719Ð 8 ˆ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Instead,€the€Appellant€must€establish€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trialÐ $ t Ðwas€so€deficient€that€no€reasonable€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€offenseÐ  ` Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòóóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);òò€Jackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.Ð ü L  Ð2781,€2789€(1979);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994)òòóó.€€Moreover,€the€State€is€entitledÐ è 8  Ðto€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawnÐ Ô$  Ðtherefrom.òò€€State€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992).€€In€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,Ð À  Ð779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990),€this€court€held€these€rules€applicable€to€findings€of€guilt€predicatedÐ ¬ü  Ðupon€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€both€direct€and€circumstantialÐ ˜è  Ðevidence.€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà ½ àTo€convict€a€defendant€of€robbery,€the€State€must€prove€that€the€defendant,€by€violence€orÐ \¬ Ðputting€the€person€in€fear,€intentionally€or€knowingly€obtained€or€exercised€control€over€the€propertyÐ H˜ Ðof€another€without€the€effective€ownerððs€consent€and€with€the€intent€to€deprive€the€owner€of€theÐ 4„ Ðproperty.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€ÓÓ39„13„401(a),€„14„103€(1997).€€In€this€case,€the€AppellantððsÐ  p Ðsufficiency€argument€is€based€upon€the€credibility€of€the€victim,€whose€testimony€was€the€onlyÐ  \ Ðevidence€presented€by€the€State€which€established€the€necessary€elements€of€the€offense.€€TheÐ øH Ðdetermination€of€the€weight€and€credibility€of€the€testimony€of€witnesses€and€reconciliation€ofÐ ä4 Ðconflicts€in€that€testimony€are€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€trier€of€fact,€and€not€this€court.€Ð Ð  ÐòòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984).€€The€credibility€of€eyewitness€testimonyÐ ¼  Ðidentifying€the€accused€as€the€perpetrator€of€the€criminal€offense€for€which€he€stands€trial€is€a€questionÐ ¨ø Ðof€fact€for€the€determination€of€the€jury€upon€consideration€of€all€competent€proof.€€òòState€v.Ð ”ä ÐStricklandóó,€885€S.W.2d€85,€87€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€The€credible€testimony€of€one€identificationÐ €Ð Ðwitness€is€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction€if€the€witness€viewed€the€accused€under€suchÐ l¼ Ðcircumstances€as€would€permit€a€positive€identification€to€be€made.€€òòId.€óóat€87„88.€€The€jury€chose€toÐ X ¨ Ðaccredit€the€testimony€of€the€State's€witness€and€reject€the€claims€of€the€Appellant.€€The€Appellant€hasÐ D!” Ðhad€his€day€in€court.€€This€court€may€not€reevaluate€the€evidence€or€substitute€its€inferences€for€thoseÐ 0"€  Ðdrawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€the€evidence.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.Ð #l! Ѐ€Ð $X" Ðà ½ àThe€positive€identification€testimony€of€the€victim€sufficiently€supports€the€AppellantððsÐ ô$D # Ðconviction;€her€testimony€is€not€so€improbable€or€unsatisfactory€as€to€create€a€reasonable€doubt€of€theÐ à%0!$ ÐAppellantððs€guilt.€€Accordingly,€we€find€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€finding€that€theÐ Ì&"% ÐAppellant€was€guilty€of€robbery.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌÐ  )à$( ÐòòóóòòóóÓ  Óò òII.€€Sentencingó óÐ ° ÐÌÓ  Óà ½ àThe€Appellant€argues€that€the€ten„year€sentence€as€imposed€by€the€trial€court€was€excessive.€Ð ˆØ ÐHe€contends€that€the€trial€court€misapplied€enhancement€factors€and€failed€to€apply€or€properly€weighÐ tÄ Ðmitigating€factors.€€When€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€the€manner€of€service€of€aÐ `° Ðsentence,€this€court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòde€novoóó€review€of€the€sentence€with€a€presumption€thatÐ L œ Ðthe€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€òòóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1997);€òòStateÐ 8 ˆ Ðv.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmativeÐ $ t Ðshowing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€factsÐ  ` Ðand€circumstances."€€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€When€conducting€a€òòde€novoóó€review€of€a€sentence,Ð ü L  Ðòòóóthis€court€must€consider:€(a)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(b)Ð è 8  Ðthe€pre„sentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;Ð Ô$  Ð(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€orÐ À  Ðenhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statement€that€the€Appellant€made€on€his€own€behalf;€and€(g)€theÐ ¬ü  Ðpotential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102,€„103,€„210Ð ˜è  Ð(1997);€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€168.€€òòóóFurthermore,€we€emphasize€that€facts€relevant€to€sentencing€mustÐ „Ô  Ðbe€established€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€and€not€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€òòState€v.Ð pÀ ÐWinfieldóó,€23€S.W.3d€279,€283€(Tenn.€2000)€(citing€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€96€(Tenn.€1997)).€òòóóÐ \¬ ÐÌà ½ àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€imposedÐ 4„ Ða€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€the€factors€and€principlesÐ  p Ðset€out€under€the€sentencing€law,€and€made€findings€of€fact€that€are€adequately€supported€by€theÐ  \ Ðrecord,€then€we€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€different€result.€€òòStateÐ øH Ðv.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€However,€where€the€trial€court€fails€toÐ ä4 Ðcomply€with€the€statutory€provisions€of€sentencing,€appellate€review€isÓÓ€òòde€novoóó€without€a€presumptionÐ Ð  Ðof€correctness.€€òòóóIn€the€case€before€us,€the€record€does€not€demonstrate€that€the€trial€court€properlyÐ ¼  Ðconsidered€relevant€sentencing€principles.€€Accordingly,€we€do€not€apply€the€presumption.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà ½ àIn€determining€the€Appellantððs€sentence,€the€trial€court€considered€two€enhancement€factors:Ð €Ð Ð(1)€The€Appellant€had€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€toÐ l¼ Ðthose€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range,€and€(8)€The€Appellant€had€a€previous€history€ofÐ X ¨ Ðunwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€in€the€community.€€Tenn.Ð D!” ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40-35-114(1),€(8)€(Supp.€2001).€€The€Appellant€seemingly€concedes€that€the€trial€courtÐ 0"€  Ðproperly€applied€enhancement€factor€(1)€because€he€does€not€argue€in€his€brief€that€this€factor€wasÐ #l! Ðmisapplied.€€The€Appellant's€criminal€history,€in€addition€to€that€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriateÐ $X" Ðrange,€reflects€two€convictions€for€being€a€felon€in€possession€of€a€firearm€and€one€conviction€forÐ ô$D # Ðmisdemeanor€escape.€€Such€behavior€adequately€supports€enhancement€factor€(1).€€The€trial€court€alsoÐ à%0!$ Ðapplied€enhancement€factor€(8),€finding€that€the€Appellant€had€a€previous€history€of€unwillingnessÐ Ì&"% Ðto€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€in€the€community.€€The€trial€court€foundÐ ¸'#& Ðthat€this€factor€applied€based€upon€one€of€the€Appellantððs€prior€convictions€for€felon€in€possessionÐ ¤(ô#' Ðof€a€firearm.€€The€State€concedes€error€in€the€application€of€this€enhancer.€€We€agree.€€The€record€doesÐ )à$( Ðnot€establish€that€the€Appellant€was€on€any€form€of€release€at€the€time€he€committed€the€offense€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðpossessing€a€firearm.€€Therefore,€the€trial€court's€application€of€enhancement€factor€(8)€was€improper.Ð h+¸&* Їà ½ àThe€Appellant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€considering€mitigating€factors:€€(1)Ð ° ÐThe€Appellant's€criminal€conduct€neither€caused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injury,€and€(5)€BeforeÐ œì Ðdetection,€the€Appellant€compensated€or€made€a€good€faith€attempt€to€compensate€the€victim€ofÐ ˆØ Ðcriminal€conduct€for€the€damage€or€injury€the€victim€sustained.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1),€(5)Ð tÄ Ð(1997).€€We€disagree.€€Although€the€Appellantððs€conduct€did€not€cause€serious€bodily€harm,€the€natureÐ `° Ðof€the€acts€did€threaten€serious€bodily€harm.€€Additionally,€after€a€review€of€the€record,€we€find€thatÐ L œ Ðthe€Appellantððs€return€of€the€jewelry€and€eyeglasses€was€not€an€attempt€to€compensate€the€victim€butÐ 8 ˆ Ðwas€rather€a€product€of€the€abusive€and€controlling€relationship€by€the€Appellant€towards€the€victim.€Ð $ t ÐFurthermore,€the€Appellant€did€not€return€the€items€before€he€was€detected.€€We€conclude€that€the€trialÐ  ` Ðcourt€did€not€err€by€declining€to€apply€mitigating€factors€(1)€and€(5)€to€the€Appellant's€sentence.Ð ü L  ÐÌà ½ àAlthough€the€trial€court€erroneously€applied€enhancement€factor€(8),€enhancement€factor€(1)Ð Ô$  Ðis€sufficient€to€justify€the€imposition€of€a€ten„year€sentence.€€No€mitigating€factors€were€found€by€theÐ À  Ðcourt€and€a€review€of€the€record€does€not€reveal€any€that€should€have€been€applied.€€When€there€areÐ ¬ü  Ðenhancement€factors€and€no€mitigating€factors,€there€is€no€presumptive€sentence€and€the€court€mayÐ ˜è  Ðsentence€above€the€minimum€in€the€range.€€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€40-35-210(d)€(Supp.€2001).€€OfÐ „Ô  Ðparticular€weight€in€this€case€is€the€Appellant's€prior€convictions.€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€trialÐ pÀ Ðcourt€was€justified€in€imposing€a€sentence€of€ten€years€for€robbery.Ð \¬ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓCONCLUSIONÐ 4„ ÐÌÓ¯KÓà ½ àó óBased€upon€the€foregoing,€we€find€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€was€sufficient€to€supportÐ  \ Ðthe€Appellantððs€conviction€for€robbery€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Furthermore,€the€ten„year€sentenceÐ øH Ðimposed€by€the€trial€court€was€not€excessive€as€to€length.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€theÐ ä4 ÐHumphreys€County€Circuit€Court€is€affirmed.Ô#†Xo XX Xo #ÔÐ Ð  ÐÌÌÌÌà ½ àà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í à___________________________________€Ð l¼ Ðà ½ àà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE